LAFCO
Wastewater Services (County-wide) MSR – Final
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
Final
Wastewater Agencies
in Contra Costa County
Combined Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Study
(3rd Round)
Prepared For:
Contra Costa Local
Agency Formation
Commission
May 22, 2024
[This page intentionally left blank]
Final
Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Update
WASTEWATER SERVICES
Prepared by: Prepared for:
Contra Costa LAFCO
https://www.contracostalafco.org/
Accepted by LAFCO on June 12, 2024
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
PREPARED FOR:
CONTRA COSTA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
_____________________________________________________________________________________
COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Name Representing
Gabriel Quinto City Member
Scott Perkins City Member
Edi Birsan, City Member (Alternate)
Federal Glover County Member
Candace Andersen County Member
Diane Burgis County Member (Alternate)
Charles R. Lewis, IV Public Member
Rob Schroder Public Member (Alternate)
Patricia Bristow Special District Member
Michael R. McGill, Vice Chair Special District Member
Scott R. Pastor Special District Member (Alternate)
STAFF
Name Title
Lou Ann Texeira Executive Officer
Anna Seithel Clerk Analyst
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .i
Chapter 1: Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Chapter 2: Introduction . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Chapter 3: City of Antioch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Chapter 4: City of Brentwood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Chapter 5: City of Concord.. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Chapter 6: City of Hercules. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .6-1
Chapter 7: City of Pinole. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 7-1
Chapter 8: City of Pittsburg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .8-1
Chapter 9: City of Richmond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .9-1
Chapter 10: County Sanitation District No. 6. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 10-1
Chapter 11: Byron Sanitary District. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 11-1
Chapter 12: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 12-1
Chapter 13: Crockett Community Services District. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 13-1
Chapter 14: Delta Diablo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .14-1
Chapter 15: Dublin San Ramon Services District. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 15-1
Chapter 16: East Bay Municipal Utility District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 16-1
Chapter 17: Ironhouse Sanitary District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 17-1
Chapter 18: Mt. View Sanitary District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . .18-1
Chapter 19: Rodeo Sanitary District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . 19-1
Chapter 20: Stege Sanitary District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 20-1
Chapter 21: Town of Discovery Bay CSD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-1
Chapter 22: West County Wastewater District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 22-1
Chapter 23: Public Comments Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 23-1
Chapter 24: SOI Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24-1
Chapter 25: Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-1
Chapter 26: Acknowledgements . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26-1
Appendices
A. Demographic Data, Contra Costa County
B. Map Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Determination, American Community Survey 5-
year Estimates
C. Economic Data - County Costa County U.S. Census
D. California’s New Housing Laws
E. Housing and Land Use Resources and Databases
F. Description of Watersheds
G. Wastewater Regulations
H. Methane Emissions
I. Recycled Water
J. American Society of Engineers
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
A CRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACS American Community Survey
ADD Average Day Demand
ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow
AF Acre Feet
AF/Yr Acre Feet Per Year
AMP Asset Management Plan
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
BMP Best Management Practices
CA California
BSD Byron Sanitary District
CAFR Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CCCWP Contra Costa Clean Water Program
CCRCD Contra Costa Resource Conservation District
CCSD Crockett Community Services District
CCWF Contra Costa Watershed Forum
CDF California Department of Forestry
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
CKH Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CSD Community Services District
CTR California Toxics Rule
CWA Clean Water Act
CWP County Watershed Program
DAC Disadvantaged Community
DOC California Department of Conservation
DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District
DUC Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
FY Fiscal Year
GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
GASB Government Accounting Standards Board
GC Government Code
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information System
GPM Gallons per Minute
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
HUC Hydrological Unit Code
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
I/I Infiltration and Inflow
IMS Irrigation Management System
ISD Ironhouse Sanitary District
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
MDD Maximum Daily Demand
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MHI Median Household Income
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MTP/SCS Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
MSR Municipal Services Review
MVSD Mt. View Sanitary District
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NNE Nutrient Numeric Endpoint
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NTR National Toxics Rule
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OES Office of Emergency Services
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OWTS On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems
POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants
PPCPs Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products
PRC California Public Resources Code
PUD Public Utility District
RSD Rodeo Sanitary District
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition; a software application
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
SCO State Controller’s Office
SFEI San Francisco Estuary Institute
SFEP San Francisco Estuary Partnership
SFR Single Family Residence
SOI Sphere of Influence
SSD Stege Sanitary District
SSMP Sewer System Management Plan
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TODBCSD Town of Discovery Bay CSD
TMDLs Total Maximum Daily Loads
USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
WCWD West County Wastewater District
WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements
WRF Water Recycling Facility
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1: Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2: Location and Demographics .............................................................................................. 1-2
1.3: Summary of MSR/SOI Update ............................................................................................ 1-2
1.4: Determinations & Performance Measures .......................................................................... 1-4
Sanitary Sewer Overflows ............................................................................................................... 1-5
Local Hazards And Infrastructure Vulnerability ................................................................................ 1-5
1.4: Key Themes ...................................................................................................................... 1-7
Waste Management (Including Nutrient Management And Carbon [Methane] Capture)........... 1-7
Energy Efficiency in Wastewater Services .............................................................................. 1-8
Resilience to Local and Global Hazards................................................................................. 1-8
Water Recycling ................................................................................................................... 1-9
1.5: Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 1-9
1.6: References ......................................................................................................................1 -11
1.1: Overview
This Municipal Service Review (MSR) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) Update examines how municipal
wastewater services are delivered to Contra Costa County by 20 wastewater service providers.
Chapter 2, Introduction, contains a list of the 20 wastewater service providers. This MSR/SOI Update
discusses service delivery and efficiency, including an analysis of each of the following analytical
factors:
• Growth and population projections for the 20 service providers;
• Disadvantaged unincorporated communities;
• Present and planned capacity of public facilities;
• Financial ability of each agency to provide services;
• Opportunities for shared facilities;
• Accountability for government service needs; and
• Any other matter related to service delivery as required by Commission Policy.
Contra Costa LAFCO has previously reviewed the 20 wastewater service providers in the following
MSR/SOI Updates:
• Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Approved May 14, 2014. Final
Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies, Combined Municipal Service Review
and Sphere of Influence Study, (2nd Round). 309-pages.
• MSR/SOI Update for the Municipal Service Providers (i.e., cities) on June 12, 2019, with the
assistance of Lamphier-Gregory Consulting. This previous MSR/SOI Update and any other
Executive Summary 1-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Sphere of Influence (SOI) studies are available at LAFCO’s website:
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
This MSR/SOI Update constitutes a review of a wastewater provider’s ability to meet the service
demands of the customers within its respective boundaries. Only municipal wastewater services are
considered in this MSR/SOI Update. 20 wastewater service providers provide municipal wastewater
service to Contra Costa County residents, businesses, and visitors.
1.2: LOCATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
Contra Costa County is located on the east side of the San Francisco Bay, within the San Francisco–
Oakland–Berkeley, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area, as shown in Figure 1-1 (next page). The county
includes several cities, some of which directly provide wastewater service. Contra Costa County is
unique in that it has an adopted Urban Limit Line, which directs growth towards cities and aims to
protect open space areas. A map of the Urban Limit Line is provided in Figure 1-2. Demographic
information for Contra Costa County is provided in Appendix A. Population data directly related to
each of the 20 wastewater service providers is provided in Chapters 3 to 22.
1.3: SUMMARY OF MSR/SOI UPDATE
This Municipal Service Review (MSR) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) Update evaluates the provision
of wastewater services in Contra Costa County. This report was prepared for the Contra Costa Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), consistent with the requirements of the Cortese Knox
Hertzberg (CKH) Act. This MSR/SOI Update provides an in-depth analysis of the current operations,
infrastructure, financial status, and future needs of the wastewater service providers within the
county.
The MSR/SOI Update describes 20 agencies that provide wastewater services. A map depicting the
spatial distribution of the 20 wastewater service providers is provided in Figure 1-3. One chapter has
been written for each service provider, describing an overview of wastewater operations,
infrastructure assessments, and financial analyses. The MSR/SOI Update highlights significant
infrastructure needs and planned projects, such as the rehabilitation of sewer lines and
maintenance holes to reduce overflows and improve system reliability.
Financially, the MSR examines the revenue and expenditure trends of the wastewater enterprise
funds for each agency. Most of the service providers maintain a stable financial position, with
revenues generally exceeding expenses, thus ensuring the sustainability of their wastewater
services. For example, the City of Concord has an SSMP, which also functions as a five-year Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) to address its wastewater infrastructure needs and enhance service
delivery.
Executive Summary 1-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 1-1: Contra Costa County Location Map
Executive Summary 1-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 1-2: Urban Limit Line
Executive Summary 1-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 1-3: Map of 20 Wastewater Service Providers
Executive Summary 1-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
The report also addresses population growth projections and their implications for future
wastewater service demands. Additionally, the MSR identifies disadvantaged communities within
the service areas and assesses how well they are served by current wastewater infrastructure. This
MSR/SOI Update explores various government structure alternatives to enhance service delivery.
For example, it discusses the potential for consolidating services with neighboring districts or
annexing unincorporated islands within city boundaries to streamline operations and improve
efficiency. Recommendations for each service provider are provided to guide future actions and
planning.
In summary, the MSR comprehensively evaluates wastewater services in Contra Costa County,
offering valuable insights and recommendations to ensure the continued provision of safe, reliable,
and efficient wastewater services for all communities. This review supports LAFCO’s aim to promote
sustainable growth, efficient service delivery, and the responsible use of resources. By describing
current challenges and ongoing planning efforts, the MSR serves as a crucial tool for local
governments and service providers to enhance their wastewater infrastructure and operations,
ultimately benefiting the residents of Contra Costa County.
1.4: DETERMINATIONS & PERFORMANCE
MEASURES
This section highlights the MSR determination topic and performance measures. A brief snapshot
of the topics described in the MSR determinations and associated performance measures are
listed herein, with additional details provided in Chapters 3 to 22. This MSR/SOI Update presents a
written statement of conclusions, known as determinations, for the affected service provider. The
key facts that support each determination are discussed in Chapters 3 through 22. The MSR
determination topics include the following:
• Growth and population for the affected area.
Is the existing population estimated?
o
Is the projected future growth estimated?
o
• Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or
contiguous to the sphere of influence.
Brief description of disadvantaged areas is provided.
o
• Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, including needs or deficiencies related to sewers,
municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged,
unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence.
Does the agency have a CIP?
o
Are SSOs identified?
o
Are local hazards identified?
o
• Financial ability of agencies to provide services.
Executive Summary 1-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Has the agency prepared a rate study?
o
Do revenues exceed expenditures?
o
Is the ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures 10% or less?
o
• Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities.
Brief description of an agency’s experience cooperating with neighboring agencies.
o
• Accountability for community service needs, including government structure and
operational facilities.
Does the agency have a website?
o
Does the agency post a public outreach tool (such as a calendar or newsletter) on
o
its website?
What is the recommendation for mergers, consolidations, or other changes to the
o
governance structure?
• Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission
policy.
This MSR utilizes key performance measures1 derived from the analytical factors in OPR’s 2003
Guidelines to support LAFCO’s determinations related to governance, social, environmental, and
financial considerations prescribed by the CKH Act. The specific performance measures are
described in Chapter 2, Introduction, and examples of the key performance measures include:
• Sanitary Sewer Overflows
• Local hazards and infrastructure vulnerability
Sanitary Sewer Overflows
A sanitary sewer overflow is when untreated sewage is released from a sanitary sewer into the
environment before reaching sewage treatment facilities. This often occurs accidentally during
rainfall. The map in Figure 1-4 shows spills of 50 gallons or more from sanitary sewer systems or
private systems/lateral spills reported by enrollees in the California Integrated Water Quality System
(CIWQS) Sanitary Sewer System Database.
Local Hazards And Infrastructure Vulnerability
Figure 1-5 shows the spatial distribution of infrastructure vulnerability in Contra Costa County.
1
The terms performance measures, metrics, indicators, and analytical factors ar e considered synonyms and
their use in MSRs is described in the State of California’s Local Agency Formation Commission MSR
Guidelines, published by the Office of Planning and Research in August 2003.
Executive Summary 1-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 1-4: Sanitary Sewer Overflows in Contra Costa County
Data Source for Figure 1-4: CA Environmental Protection Agency. State Water Resources Control
Board. California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database.
Retrieved January 2023 from
<https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet?reportAction=criteria
&reportId=sso_main >.
Figure 1-5: Infrastructure Vulnerability in Contra Costa County
The data for Figure 1-5 was obtained from Texas A&M University, Environmental Defense Fund, and
Darkhorse Analytics. This data is part of the 2023 U.S. Climate Vulnerability Index, available online
Executive Summary 1-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
at: <https://climatevulnerabilityindex.org >. In Figure 1-5, darker colors represent higher vulnerability
to local climate and associated hazards. Two dark purple areas on the above map represent areas
of concern. Specifically, the Bay Point neighborhood (Census Tract 06013314200) scored in the 82nd
percentile, indicating that infrastructure is highly vulnerable to disruption. Similarly, a neighborhood
in Pittsburg (Census Tract 06013312000) also has infrastructure that is highly vulnerable to
disruption, as indicated by its score in the 80th percentile. The infrastructure score for both Bay Point
and the Pittsburg neighborhood are indexed based on several factors, including:
• Lack of access to a public library
• High number of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing units
• Housing units funded by grants from HUD
• Lower level of real estate taxes paid
• High percentage of Households with smartphone, but no other device
• High percentage of Households without internet access
• Lack of housing affordability
• High percentage of unbanked households
• High number of payday loan shops per 10,000 people
• High share of energy developed from fossil fuels
• Residential Energy Cost Burden
1.4: KEY THEMES
This paragraph synthesizes the information provided in Chapters 2 to 22 to highlight the key themes
that arrived from the MSR analysis. There are four overarching issues facing wastewater service
providers in Contra Costa County and the SF Bay Area at large, including:
• Waste Management (including nutrient management and carbon (methane) capture)
• Energy Efficiency
• Resilience to local and global hazards
• Water Recycling
Waste Management (Including Nutrient Management And Carbon [Methane]
Capture)
The MSR/SOI Update highlights several key issues and initiatives related to waste management,
nutrient management, and carbon (methane) capture in Contra Costa County. Waste management
involves handling wastewater treatment byproducts like biosolids and sludge through
environmentally safe practices. Nutrient management is critical due to potential water quality
impacts, with stricter regulations expected from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Future challenges include adapting to new regulations, updating infrastructure, and advancing
treatment technologies. Wastewater treatment plants can be retrofitted to capture methane, and
generate electricity and heat, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Delta Diablo is noted for its
effective biogas utilization and cooperative programs to enhance waste management.
Executive Summary 1-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Energy Efficiency in Wastewater Services
Energy efficiency is a critical focus for wastewater service providers in Contra Costa County and the
San Francisco Bay Area due to its significant impact on operational costs and environmental
sustainability. The MSR outlines various initiatives and technologies adopted by different service
providers to improve energy efficiency in their wastewater treatment processes.
For instance, the Hercules–Pinole JPA Sanitary Water Pollution Control Plant has implemented a
cogeneration system that utilizes methane from its anaerobic digesters to produce electricity and
heat, significantly reducing the energy required from external sources. Similarly, the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District (Central San) operates a state-of-the-art cogeneration facility that reduces
greenhouse gas emissions and supplies more than 90% of the plant’s daily power needs. The East
Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has integrated green energy programs that transform sewage
and organic waste into renewable energy, enhancing energy efficiency and sustainability.
Energy efficiency is vital for wastewater service providers because it helps reduce the overall
operational costs, making the services more affordable for residents. Additionally, it contributes to
reducing the carbon footprint of wastewater treatment operations, aligning with broader
environmental goals and regulatory requirements. By adopting energy-efficient technologies and
practices, these agencies enhance their operational efficiency and support the transition to more
sustainable and resilient wastewater management systems.
Resilience to Local and Global Hazards
Resilience to local and global hazards is crucial for wastewater service providers in Contra Costa
County due to the region’s susceptibility to natural disasters such as sea level rise, flooding, and
earthquakes. The MSR/SOI Update relies upon data presented in the Contra Costa County Hazard
Mitigation Plan Volume 2 (HMP), dated January 2018, which maps critical infrastructure, such as
wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards. This MSR/SOI Update highlights several
initiatives aimed at enhancing resilience to these hazards. For instance, the City of Antioch’s
wastewater infrastructure is located in areas with moderate to high liquefaction susceptibility and
potential earthquake risks. To address these risks, it is recommended that the city’s next update to
its Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) include strategies for mitigating these hazards. In
another example, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)’s Integrated Master Plan describes
investment in infrastructure renewal, including seismic retrofit, which will help ensure continuous
service during seismic events. Additionally, EBMUD has conducted vulnerability assessments and
developed mitigation plans to address the impacts of sea level rise on its coastal facilities.
Flooding is another significant concern, with several agencies taking proactive measures to protect
their wastewater facilities. For example, the City of Richmond has upgraded its pump stations and
Executive Summary 1-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
drainage systems to handle increased stormwater flow, thereby reducing the risk of flood-related
service disruptions.
Natural hazards pose significant risks to wastewater infrastructure, which can lead to service
disruptions, environmental contamination, and public health crises. Enhancing resilience to these
hazards is vital for ensuring the reliability and safety of wastewater services. By implementing robust
mitigation strategies and emergency response plans, wastewater service providers can minimize the
impact of natural disasters, protect critical infrastructure, and maintain essential services during
emergencies.
Water Recycling
Water recycling is important for wastewater service providers because it enhances water security,
promotes sustainability, and supports the efficient use of resources. By reusing treated wastewater,
these agencies can reduce the strain on freshwater supplies, lower operational costs, and
contribute to the overall resilience of their communities against climate change and population
growth. The MSR highlights several water recycling projects and initiatives across different districts.
For instance, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) operates a successful recycled
water program, providing recycled water for plant operations, industrial uses, and landscape
irrigations. Another example is the City of Brentwood, which has invested in water recycling
infrastructure to supply recycled water for use inside the city for landscaping in street medians and
parks. The Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District has allocated funds within its budget
to create a Recycle Water Master Plan. The West County Wastewater District has worked in
partnership with EBMUD to establish a successful water recycling program that produces high-
quality recycled water for industrial and landscape irrigation purposes.
Water recycling projects help to mitigate the effects of droughts and water shortages, which are
becoming increasingly common in California. Those wastewater service providers practicing water
recycling help conserve water resources and reduce the demand for freshwater supplies. This
approach supports the overall resilience and sustainability of the community’s water management
system.
1.5: APPENDICES
The appendices for the MSR/SOI Update for Wastewater Services in Contra Costa County provide
detailed supplementary information on various aspects crucial to understanding and evaluating
wastewater services in the region. These appendices collectively support the comprehensive
analysis presented in the MSR, offering essential data and context for making informed decisions
about the future of wastewater services in Contra Costa County. Each appendix is briefly described
in the following paragraphs.
Executive Summary 1-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Appendix A: Demographic Data
This appendix presents comprehensive demographic statistics for Contra Costa County, including
population estimates, age distribution, racial composition, housing characteristics, and
socioeconomic indicators. The data helps contextualize the demand and infrastructure needs for
wastewater services.
Appendix B: Map of Disadvantaged Communities
This appendix includes a map identifying disadvantaged communities within Contra Costa County,
determined using American Community Survey 5-year estimates. This map highlights areas where
median household incomes are below 80% of the statewide median, which is crucial for targeting
service improvements and ensuring equitable access to wastewater services.
Appendix C: Economic Data
Economic data for the county, sourced from the U.S. Census, covers employment statistics,
business demographics, and income levels. This information supports understanding the economic
environment in which wastewater services operate and the potential impacts of economic changes
on service demand.
Appendix D: California’s New Housing Laws
Appendix D provides a summary of new housing legislation in California. These new laws aim to
address the housing shortage, promote affordable housing, and streamline housing development
processes. The implications of these laws on wastewater infrastructure and capacity are
considered, emphasizing the need for coordination between housing and utility planning.
Appendix E: Housing and Land Use Resources
This Appendix lists various databases and resources related to housing density, rent burden,
walkability, climate vulnerability, air pollution, and building permits. These resources provide
additional context for analyzing the interactions between land use, housing development, and
wastewater service needs.
Appendix F: Description of Watersheds
Appendix F provides detailed descriptions of the watersheds within Contra Costa County, including
their geographic boundaries, hydrological characteristics, and ecological significance. This section
emphasizes the importance of watershed management for maintaining water quality and supporting
sustainable wastewater practices.
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations
An overview of the regulatory framework governing wastewater services, including key federal, state,
and local regulations, is provided in Appendix G. This appendix provides a foundation for
understanding the compliance requirements that wastewater service providers must meet.
Executive Summary 1-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Appendix H: Methane Emissions
This appendix discusses methane emissions from wastewater treatment processes and the
importance of methane capture and utilization technologies. It highlights the environmental and
operational benefits of reducing methane emissions.
Appendix I: Recycled Water
This appendix provides information on water recycling practices within the county, detailing existing
recycled water projects, their benefits, and the potential for expanding water recycling efforts to
enhance water sustainability and resilience.
Appendix J: American Society of Engineers
Appendix J provides a brief overview of standards and guidelines provided by the American Society
of Engineers relevant to wastewater infrastructure planning, design, and operation.
1.6: References
Badger, Emily. March 30, 2012. The Simple Math That Can Save Cities From Bankruptcy. Published
by Citylab. Retrieved on July 12, 2021 from: <https://www.citylab.com/life/2012/03/simple-
math-can-save-cities-bankruptcy/1629/>.
CA Environmental Protection Agency. State Water Resources Control Board. California Integrated
Water Quality System (CIWQS) Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database. Retrieved January 2023
from
<https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet?reportActio
n=criteria&reportId=sso_main >.
Contra Costa County and Contra Costa LAFCO GIS Data. 2023.
Texas A&M University, Environmental Defense Fund, and Darkhorse Analytics. 2023. The U.S.
Climate Vulnerability Index. Retrieved on November 20, 2023 from
https://climatevulnerabilityindex.org .
Executive Summary 1-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION
Aerial Image of Wastewater Treatment Plant located in Antioch.
Image courtesy of Google Earth
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.1: ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF LAFCO .................................................................................................. 2
2.2: PURPOSE OF THE MSR/SOI Update ....................................................................................................... 2
2.3: ABOUT CONTRA COSTA LAFCO .............................................................................................................. 5
2.4: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................................... 8
2.5 METHODOLOGY FOR THIS MSR/SOI Update .......................................................................................... 8
2.6: BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Introduction 2-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) are independent agencies established by state
2.1: ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF LAFCO
legislation in 1963 in each county in California to oversee changes in local government agency
boundaries and organizational structures. LAFCOs are authorized by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg
Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act), which is available on-line to review at:
<https://calafco.org/Cortese_Knox_Hertzberg_Act >. As noted in Government Code (GC) §56301
(State of California, 2017), LAFCOs are charged with:
• Encouraging the orderly formation of cities and special districts;
• Preserving agricultural and open space lands;
• Curbing urban sprawl; and
• Encouraging efficient delivery of services.
Specifically, LAFCOs have the responsibility to:
• oversee the logical, efficient, and most appropriate formation of local cities and special
districts (GC §§56100 to §57325);
• provide for the logical progression of agency boundaries and efficient expansion of
municipal services (GC §56001);
• assure the efficient provision of municipal services (GC§56001; and
• discourage the premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands. (GC §
56100, 56301, 56425, 56430, 56378).
For general information about LAFCOs, visit the CALAFCO website: www.calafco.org.
Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) are intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of services
2.2: PURPOSE OF THE MSR/SOI UPDATE
provided by cities, special districts, as well as other service providers identified within an MSR that
fall under the legislative authority of LAFCO. This MSR/SOI Update was written under the auspices
of Contra Costa LAFCO, so it can be utilized it to make informed decisions based on the best
available data for each service provider. As required by law, written determinations are presented
following the MSR analysis in Chapters 3 to 22. An MSR is an information tool that can be used to
facilitate cooperation among agency managers and LAFCO to achieve efficient delivery of services.
Describing existing efficiencies in service deliveries and suggesting new opportunities to improve
efficiencies is a key objective of this MSR/SOI Update, consistent with Contra Costa LAFCO's
purpose. LAFCO is ultimately the decision maker to approve or disapprove any determinations,
policies, boundaries, and discretionary items. Since this MSR/SOI Update is published on the LAFCO
website, it also contributes to Contra Costa LAFCO's principle relating to public accessibility and
accountability. Contra Costa LAFCO will conduct a public hearing on this MSR/SOI Update on June
12, 2024.
Introduction 2-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
The form and content of this MSR/SOI Update are guided by requirements in three documents:
• CKH Act;
• State of California’s Local Agency Formation Commission MSR Guidelines, published by the Office
of Planning and Research (OPR) in August 2003; and
• Contra Costa LAFCO Policies (listed in Table 2-2).
As part of the MSR, LAFCO analyzes and prepares a written statement of seven determinations
contained in the CKH Act, specific to GC §56430 for each of the following evaluation categories:
• Growth and population projections for the affected area.
• The location and characteristics of disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or
contiguous to the SOI.
• Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, infrastructure
needs or deficiencies, including needs or deficiencies related to treated and industrial water,
and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or
contiguous to the SOI.
• Financial ability of agencies to provide services.
• Status of and opportunities for shared facilities.
• Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and
operational efficiencies.
• Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission
policy.
MSRs are required prior to and/or in conjunction with a Sphere of Influence (SOI) amendment or
update.
Sphere of Influence
The CKH Act requires that LAFCO adopt and periodically update a Sphere of Influence (SOI or
Sphere) for each city and special district within the county. The SOI is "a plan for the probable
physical boundaries and service areas of a local agency" (GC §§56076 and § 56425). The CKH Act
indicates that LAFCO should review and update a sphere of influence every five years, as necessary,
consistent with GC § 56425(g) and § 561061.
1
The CKH Act (GC § 56106) states that all timeframes are directives. Any provision governing the time in
which Commission is to act, is deemed directory rather than mandatory.
Introduction 2-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
In determining the SOI for an agency, LAFCO must consider and prepare written determinations with
respect to five factors [ GC §56425(e)] based on the following information:
The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands;
The present and probable need for public services and facilities in the area;
The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency
provides or is authorized to provide;
The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if LAFCO
determines that they are relevant to the service provider; and
The nature, location, and extent of any functions or classes or services provided by existing
districts
Generally, the intent of an SOI is to identify the most appropriate areas for an agency’s service area
in the probable future. Typically, LAFCO discourages the inclusion of land in an agency’s Sphere if a
need for services provided by that agency cannot be demonstrated. Accordingly, territory included
in an agency’s Sphere is an indication that the probable need for services has been established and
that LAFCO has determined the subject agency to be the most logical service provider for the area.
LAFCO has a number of ways to consider Spheres of Influence and the variety of approaches are
listed in Table 2-1 below.
Table 2-1: Standard SOI Approaches
Type of Approach Description of Standard Approach
Coterminous SOI For a City or District that does not plan to provide public services
beyond its present boundary, a Sphere boundary that is the same
as the agency boundary is called a Coterminous SOI.
Minus SOI A Minus SOI (or Reduced SOI) excludes territory currently within
an agency’s Sphere.
Zero SOI A Zero SOI for a City or District signals that the City or District does
not have the wherewithal, governance capability, financial means,
and/or operational capability to provide the municipal services for
which it was formed and should be dissolved or its function(s)
reallocated to another agency.
Service Specific Zone within To accommodate situations where territory within an agency’s
a Sphere jurisdiction may require some, but not all, of the services that the
agency is authorized to provide, LAFCO may designate an area
within an SOI to which it may attach specific policies, including
limiting the types of services authorized in that area. The intent of
a service specific zone is to limit the types of services provided in
a defined area and is not intended in any way to circumvent
annexation.
Growth Sphere Contains territory beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the
local agency and is an indication that the need for public services
Introduction 2-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
in the area has been established and the agency has the ability to
effectively and efficiently extend necessary services provided by
the agency.
Special Cases Sphere areas for which public services are not intended to be
provided; that is, areas within a Sphere which will remain
undeveloped (such as open space or ‘protected lands’). Such an
area is a special case and requires the agency to demonstrate why
an area should be included within a Sphere for which no or limited
public services will be provided.
Boundary Changes
LAFCO has the authority under GC §56375(a) to initiate specific types of boundary changes
consistent with MSR and SOI studies. These boundary changes include:
• Dissolution (termination of a district and its corporate powers).
• Consolidation of districts (joining two or more districts into a single successor district).
• Merger (termination of a district by merging that district with a city or adjacent district).
• Establishment of a subsidiary district (where a city council becomes the board of directors
of the district).
• A reorganization that includes any of the above.
A local agency may submit an application to LAFCO for a boundary change2. Property owners or
registered voters located within the proposed service area may also petition LAFCO for a boundary
change. The following types of boundary changes may be proposed to LAFCO:
• Annexation to or detachment from a city or district.
• Formation of a new district or city.
• A reorganization that includes any of the above.
LAFCO can utilize the information presented in an MSR to review future proposals for extension of
service beyond an agency’s jurisdictional boundaries or for amendment to a city’s urban service area
boundaries.
Each LAFCO in California works to implement the CKH Act, and there is flexibility in how these state
2.3: ABOUT CONTRA COSTA LAFCO
regulations are implemented to adapt to local needs. As a result, Contra Costa LAFCO has adopted
policies and guidelines that guide its operations, and which consist of three parts as listed in Table
2-2 below. LAFCO's Policies and Guidelines can be found on Contra Costa LAFCO's website
(https://www.contracostalafco.org/).
2 This applies to cities and special districts that contain or will contain (or whose SOI contains) any
territory to be reviewed by LAFCO and the County.
Introduction 2-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 2-2: Contra Costa LAFCO Policies and Guidelines
Name of Policy Date
Agricultural and Open Space Preservation Adopted December 14, 2016
Campaign Disclosure Requirements Adopted December 19, 2007
Commissioner Handbook various
The Commissioner’s Handbook contains a wide range of sub-policies that guide the operations
and procedures of Contra Costa LAFCO, as listed in Table 2-3 below.
Table 2-3: List of Sub-Policies in Commissioner’s Handbook
GENERAL POLICIES & PROCEDURES PROJECT PROCESSING PROCEDURES
General Policy Statement Procedures for Processing Boundary Changes
Preferred Service Provider Procedures for Processing an Incorporation
Indemnification Policy Procedure for Processing Multi-County Boundary
Changes: Alameda-Contra Costa LAFCOs
Policies on Spheres of Influence and City Annexations and Detachments
Annexations
Island Annexation Policies District Annexations and Detachments
Policy for Evaluating Applications Requesting District Mergers and Establishment of Subsidiary
the Provision of Water Service for Urbanizing Districts
Areas
School Capacity LAFCO-Initiated Proposals
Service Plans New or Different Services
Municipal Service Review Guidelines District Dissolution
Policies for Out-of-Agency Service District Formation
Agreements
Reconsideration of LAFCO Decisions District Consolidation
City Incorporations City Consolidation
Revenue Neutrality City Disincorporation
District Latent Powers Reorganization
Agricultural & Open Space Preservation Provision of Services by Contract (Out of Agency
Policy Service)
Commissioners
Contra Costa LAFCO is composed of seven regular Commissioners: two members from the Board
of Supervisors; two members who represent cities; two members who represent special districts;
and one public member who represents the public as a whole. In addition, there are four alternate
Commissioners, one from each of the above membership categories. County representatives
(regular and alternate) to LAFCO are selected by the Board of Supervisors. Since Contra Costa
County has 19 cities (Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules,
Introduction 2-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo,
San Ramon, and Walnut Creek), the City Selection committee, made up of the mayor of each
incorporated city within Contra Costa County, appoints two city council members and one alternate.
Special district representatives (regular and alternate) to LAFCO are elected by special district
selection committee. The LAFCO Commissioners select one public member and one public member
alternate. The public members cannot be an elected or appointed official of any public agency in the
County of Contra Costa. Commissioners are listed in Table 2-4 below.
Table 2-4: Members of Contra Costa LAFCO
Commissioner Name Representing Date Term Expires
Gabriel Quinto City Member Term Expires: 5/1/28
Scott Perkins City Member Term Expires: 5/3/27
Edi Birsan, City Member (Alternate) Term Expires: 5/3/27
Federal Glover County Member Term Expires: 5/4/26
Candace Andersen County Member Term Expires: 5/4/26
Diane Burgis County Member (Alternate) Term Expires: 5/1/28
Charles R. Lewis, IV Public Member Term Expires 5/1/28
Rob Schroder Public Member (Alternate) Term Expires 5/1/28
Patricia Bristow Special District Member Term Expires: 5/4/26
Michael R. McGill, Vice Chair Special District Member Term Expires: 5/1/28
Scott R. Pastor Special District Member (Alternate) Term Expires: 5/4/26
Staff/Administrative
LAFCO has two full-time staff members, as noted in Table 2-5 below. LAFCO staff can be
contacted at their office located at 40 Muir Road, 1st Floor in Martinez, and via telephone at (925)
313-7133.
Table 2-5: LAFCO Staff
Name Title Email
Lou Ann Texeira Executive Officer LouAnn.Texeira@lafco.cccounty.us
Anna Seithel Clerk Analyst Anna.Seithel@lafco.cccounty.us
LAFCO also utilizes various County services, including Assessor, Auditor, County Counsel, GIS,
Human Resources, Public Works, and Treasurer Tax Collector. LAFCO’s Executive Officer has many
functional roles, including attending quarterly meetings of the Contra Costa Special District
Association3, various City Council and Special District meetings, and meeting with applicants.
3
The Contra Costa Special District Association facilitates informal meetings and information sharing among
rd
lohctatlp ss:p/e/ccioanl tdriasctoriscttass. dMae.septeicnigasl dairsetr hicetl.odr ogn/a ab roeugtu-slpaerc biaals-idsi sotnri cthtse 3 Monday of odd months (i.e., every other
month). Meeting agendas are published in advance on the following website:
< >. These meetings provided an opportunity
Introduction 2-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
LAFCO held a public hearing on the MSR/SOI Update on June 12, 2024. Comments from the public
2.4: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
were solicited and no public comments were received as described in Chapter 23. The Commission
formally accepted this MSR/SOI Update for wastewater services in Contra Costa County. This
MSR/SOI Update is posted on the Contra Costa LAFCO website at
https://www.contracostalafco.org/.
This MSR/SOI Update makes determinations in each of the seven mandated areas of evaluation for
2.5 METHODOLOGY FOR THIS MSR/SOI UPDATE
MSRs. The analysis in Chapters 3 to 22 provides the basis for Contra Costa LAFCO to consider future
potential changes to the boundaries or SOI of each agency. This 2024 MSR/SOI Update evaluates the
structure and operation of 20 wastewater service providers and determines the capacity of each
provider to serve existing customers and accommodate additional service demands. The
determinations support Contra Costa LAFCO's future evaluation of the existing boundary and sphere
of influence for each of the 20 wastewater service providers. The 20 local government agencies
providing wastewater services in Contra Costa County are listed in Table 2-6 below.
Table 2-6: List of Wastewater Service Providers Included in this MSR/SOI Update
Cities (7) Districts (13)
Antioch Byron Sanitary District
Brentwood Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Concord County Sanitation District No. 6
Hercules Crockett Community Services District
Pinole Delta Diablo
Pittsburg Dublin San Ramon Services District
Richmond East Bay Municipal Utility District
Ironhouse Sanitary District
Mt. View Sanitary District
Rodeo Sanitary District
Stege Sanitary District
Town of Discovery Bay CSD
West County Wastewater District
for information sharing, collaboration, and new perspectives for all wastewater service providers. It is
recommended that a staff person from each wastewater service provider attend at least one meeting per year
of the Contra Costa Special District Association.
Introduction 2-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
There are four main types of public service providers operating in Contra Costa County, including:
An independent special district is independent of other government bodies. It is important to
note that independent special districts are not part of state or county governments. They are
only directly accountable to the people residing within the district's boundaries. They are
governed by an elected board that oversees the district's functions and finances.
A dependent special district is governed by other governmental entities. For example,
members of City Councils or County Boards of Supervisors would serve as the board of a
dependent special district. Another way to view a dependent district is that they are
components of other government bodies.
The third type of special district is a joint powers authority, commonly referred to as a JPA.
JPAs are permitted under California GC §6502. The code allows two or more public authorities,
such as utility or transport districts, to jointly exercise any power common to all of them, even
though they reside in different counties. While each public authority involved has its own
governing board, the JPA also has a Board of Directors made up of representatives of member
agencies of the JPA.
The fourth type of service provider is a municipality (i.e., a City or a County). A municipality is
usually a single administrative division that has corporate status and powers of self-
government or jurisdiction as granted by national and state laws to which it is subordinate.
California GC (commencing with § 34100) dictates that cities may be organized under either
the general laws of the State or under a charter adopted by the local voters. Cities that are
organized under the general laws of the State (§ 34102) have less autonomy compared to
those that adopt their own charter (§ 34101). General law cities follow the rules described in
the CA GC commencing with § 34000.
Data Collection
This MSR has been compiled using a multi-step data-gathering process, which included the
following:
• a comprehensive review of pre-existing MSRs, sanitary sewer management plans, and other
plans, reports, and data;
• query of on-line databases;
• two group kick-off video calls conducted over Zoom;
• a Request for Information (RFI) distributed to each service provider;
• interviews between the consultants and service provider regarding technical information;
and
• periodic discussions with agency staff, LAFCO staff, and the consulting team.
Key references and information sources for this study were gathered and include: published reports;
review of agency files and databases (agendas, minutes, budgets, contracts, audits, etc.); master
plans; capital improvement plans; engineering reports; environmental impact reports; finance
studies; general plans; and state and regional agency information (permits, reviews,
communications, regulatory requirements, etc.). MSRs were previously adopted by LAFCO for each
of the 20 municipal agencies under consideration herein, as listed in Table 2-7 below. Reviewing
Introduction 2-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
previous MSRs was a key feature of the data collection process.
Table 2-7: Contra Costa LAFCO's Previous MSRs for 20 Service Providers
Name of Previous MSR Link to Previous MSR Date of MSR
“City Services” MSR & SOI Study https://www.contracostalafco.org/age Adopted June 12,
(2nd Round) ncies/municipal-service-reviews/ 2019
Countywide Water/Wastewater https://www.contracostalafco.org/age Adopted May 14,
MSR (2nd Round) ncies/municipal-service-reviews/ 2014
Countywide Water/Wastewater https://www.contracostalafco.org/age 2008
MSR (1st Round) ncies/municipal-service-reviews/
An RFI was sent to each of the 20 public agency service providers, and many of the service providers
returned information to LAFCO and the consultants. The one-on-one interviews were conducted
starting in November 2023 and continuing to April 2024. All data were reviewed and analyzed by a
team of municipal management and water resource professionals to provide a fair and honest
analysis of key performance measures and the development of realistic determinations.
This MSR/SOI Update was designed to support LAFCO and also provides the following benefits to the
subject agencies:
Provide a broad overview of agency operations, including the type and extent of services
provided;
Serve as a prerequisite for a SOI Update or amendment;
Evaluate governance options and financial information;
Demonstrate accountability and transparency to LAFCO and the public; and
Allow agencies to compare their operations and services with other similar agencies.
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is contained in Public Resources Code § 21000, et
seq. Under this law, public agencies must evaluate the potential environmental effects of their
actions. Typically, MSRs are exempt from CEQA under a Class 6 Categorical Exemption. CEQA
Guidelines §15306 states that "Class 6 consists of basic data collection, research, experimental
management, and resource evaluation activities that do not result in a serious or major disturbance
to an environmental resource." Changes to a SOI may sometimes trigger the need for a CEQA
document, such as an Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). However, this MSR/SOI
Update does not recommend any changes to the SOI of the subject agencies in the near term. If
changes to an agency’s SOI are proposed, an evaluation of the CEQA compliance requirements can
be made at that time.
Introduction 2-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Other Service Providers
Residents of Contra Costa County receive public services from an array of service providers such as
the County of Contra Costa, several school districts, park districts, water districts, fire districts, and
many other local, regional, and state agencies. Contra Costa LAFCO provides a concise summary of
these public service providers in a “Local Agency Directory” document, which is updated every year
as shown on its website at: <https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/local-agency-directory/ >.
The LAFCO Local Agency Directory includes all 19 cities and 73 special districts (under LAFCO
jurisdiction), listed by agency type. Each one-page profile is followed by a map of the agency’s
territory, including the currently approved sphere of influence (SOI). Understanding and
documenting the space within the network of public service providers for wastewater is one of the
objectives of this MSR/SOI Update. In addition to the types of public service providers described
herein, private companies such as the Pacific Gas and Electric Company can also provide
municipal/utility services.
Performance Measures
Performance measures and the implementation of continuous improvement concepts in
management efficiency are promoted in the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2003
Guidelines for MSRs. This MSR utilizes key performance measures4 derived from the analytical
factors in OPR’s 2003 Guidelines to support LAFCO's determinations related to governance, social,
environmental, and financial considerations prescribed by the CKH Act. The continual improvement
of a service, product, or process is often depicted as a Deming Wheel, or Deming Cycle, as shown in
Figure 2-1 below. The integrated learning-improvement model was described by Dr. Deming and
Walter Shewhart from Bell Laboratories in New York (Deming, n.d.).
Learn Plan
Monitor Do
Figure 2-1: Continuous Learning Cycle
4
The terms performance measures, metrics, indicators, and analytical factors ar e considered synonyms and
their use in MSRs is described in the State of California’s Local Agency Formation Commission MSR
Guidelines, published by the Office of Planning and Research in August 2003.
Introduction 2-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
California water scientists and the CA Department of Water Resources use a similar continuous
learning cycle called adaptive management. LAFCO's role in the above continuous learning cycle is
the "monitor" phase through the use of MSRs, which monitor an agency's adherence to specific laws
and other LAFCO criteria. For example, wastewater service providers prepare a sanitary sewer
management plan (SSMP) and this is the “Plan” phase of the Continuous Learning Cycle in Figure 2-
1. The service provider then takes specific actions to implement the SSMP, like replacing aging pipes,
and this is the “Do” phase of the Continuous Learning Cycle in Figure 2-1. Subsequently, an MSR can
utilize data, such as the Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) data, to study whether SSOs are being
reduced, and this is the “Monitor” phase. If SSOs are not being reduced, the service provider can
deduce how to make corrections, and this is the “Learn” phase. This new “Learning” is then
incorporated into the next plan update, and the cycle begins again as a continuous learning
mechanism. The use of key performance measures can result in cost savings by leveraging and
building upon existing infrastructure and service plans and data, such as SSMPs, which aim to
reduce sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs).
Although LAFCO’s 2014 MSR utilized performance measures, they were assumed and were not
transparently articulated. However, the use of transparent key performance measures can aid in
focusing the discussion in an MSR. At the request of LAFCO’s Executive Officer, this MSR simply re-
uses the performance measures utilized in the 2014 MSR. A few new key performance measures
were added, such as counting the number of SSOs for each agency. As a result, this MSR
standardizes performance measures to enable cross-comparison among the 20 study
agencies/organizations. The performance measures utilized in this MSR are clearly presented in
Chapters 3 to 22, in the table listing the determinations at the end of each chapter.
It is recommended that LAFCO’s next update to this MSR continue the use of performance
measures, which should be carefully selected in advance to encourage local agencies toward
addressing items consistent with LAFCO's values of transparency and efficiency and also address
emerging issues. Additionally, LAFCO could consider adding a scorecard to the determinations,
similar to that published for the El Dorado Irrigation District MSR. Suggestions for general types of
performance measures can be found in this document: State of California’s Local Agency Formation
Commission MSR Guidelines, published by the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) August 2003.
Additionally, based on issues described in this MSR, specific performance measures for each of
LAFCO's determination criteria are suggested for use in the next Update, as listed in Table 2-8 below.
Introduction 2-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 2-8: Performance Measures Which Should Be Considered For Use in Future MSRs
Determination Topic MSR Performance Measures
Local Accountability and Number of Governing Board closed sessions during the
Governance past 20 months.
Agency website complies with the 2016 updates to the
Brown Act described in GC §54954.2 and enacted by
Assembly Bill 2257.
Compliance with the Special District Transparency Act
(SB 929 or California GC, §6270.6 and 53087.8), which
requires special districts to have a functional website
that lists contact information and contains financial
statements, compensation reports, and other relevant
public information.
Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for
District Board members, and committee appointments
are on-line.
Do elected Board members submit required forms and
receive required training as prescribed by the three
state laws regarding accountability and ethics,
including: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill
1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and
3) GC §53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual
harassment prevention training?
Current litigation, grand jury inquiry, and/or censure
from a state agency.
Growth and Population Existing boundary
• Overlapping services
Existing SOI
Extra-territorial services
Present and projected service population over 20-year
time frame
Land use and significant growth areas
Disadvantaged and Location and Characteristics
Unincorporated Communities Public services provided to DUC
Environmental Justice issues
Present and Planned Capacity Description of services (wastewater)
Age and condition of facilities
Preventative maintenance measures
Plans for expansion and/or upgrades (i.e., plans to
replace aging infrastructure)
Capacity Analysis
Sufficiency for present and projected need (i.e.,
o
reserve capacity)
State databases [wastewater = sanitary sewer
o
overflow; water = CA Drinking Water Watch,
California Integrated Water Quality System Project
Introduction 2-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
(CIWQS), and Environmental Working Group's Tap
Water Database]
Financial Ability, Constraints, and Finance policies clearly articulated
Opportunities Compensation reports and financial transaction
reports (including audits) that are required to be
submitted to the State Controller's Office are
posted on the district website.
Revenues exceed expenditures in 50% of studied
fiscal years
Pension Payments (contributions in relation to
actuarially covered payroll)
Rates
Current Rate Structure Basis
o
Connection fees
o
Tax Revenues/Service Ratio
o
Rates/Service Ratio
o
Shared Facilities Currently Shared Resources, Facilities, Personnel, and
Systems
Opportunities for Expanded Sharing
o
Government Structure Options
o
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
Other practices and opportunities that may
o
help to reduce or eliminate unnecessary costs
Grand Jury Reports
Grand Jury reports are a recognized analytical factor (i.e., performance measure) in MSRs per the
State of California’s Local Agency Formation Commission MSR Guidelines, published by the Office
of Planning and Research in August 2003. The Superior Court of Contra Costa County has issued two
Grand Jury reports that are relevant to wastewater service, as listed below.
• West County Wastewater – 2021
• Reclaiming Our Water (2016)
In addition to the two Grand Jury reports listed above, the Grand Jury has also issued reports on
EBMUD’s water service over the past years. However, since this MSR focuses solely on wastewater
(not water service), no further discussion of Grand Jury reports in relation to EBMUD is necessary.
Additionally, many of the cities described in this MSR have also been the subject of Grand Jury
reports; in particular, the 2018-19 Grand Jury issued a report called “Report 1907, Stormwater Trash
Reduction, Are We Doing All That We Can?”. However, since this MSR focuses solely on wastewater
(not stormwater), no further discussion of this Grand Jury report is needed at this time.
Introduction 2-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
West County Wastewater – 2021
The West County Wastewater Grand Jury Report is thoroughly described in Chapter 22 of this MSR.
Since this Grand Jury Report only describes one agency, no further discussion is needed in this
Introduction.
Reclaiming Our Water (2016)
The 2016 Grand Jury Report titled “Reclaiming Our Water” focuses on the use of recycled and
reclaimed water in the County and consists of three “parts” as listed below in chronological order.
1) Superior Court of California in Contra Costa County, Civil Grand Jury. May 24, 2016. A
Report By The 2015-2016 Contra Costa County Grand Jury, Reclaiming our Water, More
Complicated than it Might Appear, Report 1606. Martinez, California 94553. 22-pages.
Retrieved on January 28, 2024 from <https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/grand-jury-
reports.aspx>.
2) Responses from local agencies, including
Response from City of Walnut Creek
o
Response from Contra Costa Water District
o
Response from Dublin San Ramon Services District
o
Response from East Bay Municipal Utility District
o
Response from Board of Supervisors
o
Response from Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
o
Response from City of Concord
o
Response from City of San Ramon
o
3) Superior Court of California in Contra Costa County, Civil Grand Jury. 2017. A Report By The
2016-2017 Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury, Compliance And Continuity Report, Report 1701.
61-pages. Martinez, California. Retrieved on January 28, 2024 from <https://www.cc-
courts.org/civil/grand-jury-reports.aspx>.
This Grand Jury report notes that a drought raised public awareness about the idea of using more
recycled wastewater for irrigation and industrial purposes. The Grand Jury launched an inquiry into
what obstacles were preventing water recycling from occurring on a broader scale. The Grand Jury
concluded that recycled and recovered water are key factors in achieving sustainable solutions to
the water problems within Contra Costa County. In order to maximize the use of recycled and
reclaimed water in the County, infrastructure improvements must be made, and any increase in
water supply must be carefully balanced with customer demand. The report explains that in Contra
Costa County, seven wastewater treatment plants produce recyclable water (Title 22 quality)
suitable for use outside their plants for industrial and irrigation purposes. The majority of this water
is supplied to two power plants in Pittsburg and an oil refinery in Richmond. The Grand Jury report
also described stormwater and desalinization issues, which are not directly relevant to this MSR.
The Grand Jury report characterizes LAFCO’s role as follows: “Contra Costa LAFCO, an independent
agency with countywide jurisdiction, also interacts with these districts. Both receive periodic reports
from the districts on their plans and activities. LAFCO has the additional responsibility of managing
boundary issues and periodically assessing the financial stability of each district. The County and
Introduction 2-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
LAFCO have not assigned personnel to act as a watchdog or play a facilitator role in the areas of
recycled or reused water” (Grand Jury, 2016).
The Grand Jury’s recommendations related to wastewater/water recycling are listed below:
• R1. The Board of Supervisors should consider facilitating (possibly through a Task Force)
the formation of a JPA to promote water recycling, stormwater capture, and desalination
projects.
• R2. CCCSD and CCWD should explore the feasibility of cooperatively developing an IPR
Injection Well Project.
• R3. CCCSD, CCWD, and DSRSD should consider the formation of a JPA to expand CCCSD's
tertiary treatment capacity in order to free up fresh water for domestic and commercial
customers.
• RS. The Board of Supervisors should consider adopting ordinances that promulgate
recycling and recovery of water on a Countywide basis.
• R6. The city should consider adopting requirements relating to the use of reclaimed water
for planned communities and large commercial buildings to maximize its use.
• R7. The district(s) should consider facilitating the use of satellite wastewater treatment
plants, where appropriate.
• RB. The Board of Supervisors should consider adopting a County goal to exceed the State
average for recycled water use and establish a target date.
• R9. The County and Districts should consider meeting to discuss each District's need for
land for demonstration of scaled-up recycling and desalination projects using green
technologies, which may qualify for State grant money, and the County's ability to lease
such land.
• R10. To promote public awareness and citizen involvement, the Board of Supervisors
should consider establishing a citizen's "Water Reuse Advisory Council," which includes
citizen stakeholders and technology experts to advise them on all water reuse issues
affecting the County.
• R11. The Board of Supervisors should consider designating a single point of contact within
County government for water recycling/reuse issues or establishing a permanent water
sustainability subcommittee under their Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure
Committee to advise the committee on water reuse issues.
The Grand Jury assigned many recommendations to Contra Costa County staff and the Board of
Supervisors. However, in their response letter to the Grand Jury dated August 16, 2016, the County
correctly noted that water recycling and reuse is handled by a variety of different agencies, and the
County is not the lead agency. However, the 2016 Grand Jury presented several good concepts that
might deserve a fresh look. Given all the information presented in this new MSR/SOI Update, some
sort of centralized point of contact and information-sharing resource on water recycling issues
would be helpful. Yet, the 2016 Grand Jury report correctly noted that the County and LAFCO have
not assigned personnel to act as a watchdog or play a facilitator role in the areas of recycled or
Introduction 2-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
reused water. Although the issues affect agencies countywide, Contra Costa County might not be
the best choice for leading the effort, as the County noted in its response letter. However, the County
could still play a role in such an effort. To fill the coordination gap, a local leadership team could
coordinate and be a point of contact for water recycling/reuse and sustainability issues. LAFCO’s
Executive Officer has suggested that the Contra Costa Special District Association could be a good
organization to facilitate discussions of the issues raised in the Grand Jury Report.
Planning Documents
CKH Act requires that when LAFCO evaluates a proposal, it should consider:
• A regional transportation plan adopted pursuant to § 65080 [see GC § 56668 (g)]; and
• The proposal's consistency with city or county general and specific plans. [GC § 56668 (h)].
This indicates that the local transportation policies contained in a city or county General Plan should
also be considered by LAFCO when evaluating proposals, especially those proposals that relate to
the extension of infrastructure, such as wastewater pipelines and associated facilities.
County General Plan:
Contra Costa County and each of the cities within the County have adopted General Plans. The
Contra Costa County General Plan was approved January 18, 2005, and intended to cover the period
2005 – 2020. The County General Plan guides land use in the unincorporated portion of the County.
Contra Costa County is a moderately sized county, covering 804 square miles, and it contains a
diverse array of land uses.
Contra Costa is currently updating their County General Plan through a process called “Envision
Contra Costa 2040,” as described on the project website at: <https://envisioncontracosta2040.org>.
The Updated 2045 General Plan will serve as the County’s primary policy tool to guide physical
changes in the unincorporated areas of the county over the next 20 years. It will serve as the basis
for planning (and infrastructure-related decisions) made by County staff and decision-makers. The
Updated 2045 General Plan is built around the themes of environmental justice, community health,
economic development, and sustainability; and is and organized into topic-specific “elements” or
chapters.
City General Plans:
Every city within Contra Costa County has the authority to make land-use decisions within its
boundary and has the responsibility to prepare a General Plan to guide future growth of the
community. A Housing Element is an important part of each General Plan and assesses the local
community’s housing needs. City General Plans also typically include an Environmental Justice
Element consistent with state law.
AB 2838 (Hertzberg, 2000) requires that LAFCO’s approval of an annexation or reorganization to a
city be consistent with planned and probable land use based upon review of the General Plan and
pre-zoning designations. It also authorizes LAFCO to review a proposal's consistency within a city’s
Introduction 2-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
General Plan when a proposed action would require the extension of critical services. Therefore,
consideration of a City’s General Plan is an important element in LAFCO approvals.
Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Community Strategy:
California Senate Bill (SB) 215 (Wiggins in 2009) requires LAFCO to consider regional transportation
plans before making boundary decisions. Regional transportation plans are adopted pursuant to §
65080 of the California GC. Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) must adopt "sustainable
communities’ strategies" or "alternative planning strategies" as part of their regional transportation
plans. These strategies align regional planning for transportation and housing. In preparing a
sustainable community strategy, MPOs must consider city and special district Spheres of Influence
as adopted by the local LAFCO. Contra Costa LAFCO may consider a proposal's consistency with
the regional transportation and other regional plans affecting the Bay Area.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS) aims to direct growth by integrating housing with regional transit, employment
services, and amenities. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted the SCS in July 2013. In October 2021, ABAG and MTC
adopted Plan Bay Area 2050, the Bay Area's official long-range plan for housing, economic
development, transportation, and environmental resilience for the next [30?] years. While prior
iterations of Plan Bay Area focused on transportation and housing, the 2050 plan expands the scope,
introducing strategies for long-term economic development and environmental resilience while
meeting federal and State requirements. ABAG‘s “Plan Bay Area 2050” contains the projected
population growth of the San Francisco Bay Area, its nine counties, 101 cities, and smaller
geographic areas. The updated data in the Plan 2050 reflect changing regional growth expectations.
The Bay Area Regional Collaborative includes the MTC, ABAG, San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. This collaborative
multi-agency regional committee allows cross-jurisdictional work on projects such as Resilient Bay
Area and Carbon Free Future.
2022 San Francisco Estuary Blueprint:
The 2022 San Francisco Estuary Blueprint provides a comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan for the San Francisco Estuary. The Blueprint was developed by the San Francisco Estuary
Partnership (SFEP) in collaboration with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and other
stakeholders (SFEP, 2022).
The Estuary Blueprint highlights an important issue: an excess level of nutrients, such as nitrogen
and phosphorus. Excess nutrients can cause problems like algae blooms and oxygen levels that are
too low to support diverse native fish communities. The Estuary Blueprint notes that historically, the
San Francisco Bay has not experienced the adverse effects of nutrient loading even though it is
nutrient-enriched compared to other estuaries. However, Suisun and San Pablo Bays have been
affected. This indicates a need for a holistic understanding of nutrient dynamics throughout the
Introduction 2-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
entire Estuary, including robust long-term monitoring. The Estuary Blueprint indicates that in 2027,
permits will likely be revised to incentivize nutrient reduction strategies before nutrients reach
wastewater treatment plants (SFEP, 2022).
It is important to note that wastewater treatment plants are not 100% to blame for excess nutrients.
Rather, there is a range of contributors. Specifically, scientists believe warming oceans are causing
a cascade of changes with a nexus to nutrients. These changes include increased upwelling of
nutrient-rich waters, phytoplankton production, ocean acidification, harmful algae blooms, and
hypoxia. Therefore, the Estuary Blueprint recommends that future priorities include increasing the
funding pool across a wider range of sources, ensuring diverse community engagement as nutrient
reduction strategies emerge, and continuing to study nutrient dynamics across the entire Estuary to
identify the most appropriate management needs. Nevertheless, wastewater treatment plants
contribute an important portion of the excess nutrients that are causing harmful algae blooms.
Attribution studies will be conducted by state and federal agencies to determine the specific
proportions of contributions (SFEP, 2022). In the meantime, the Estuary Blueprint contains several
recommendations for wastewater districts in the Bay Area, including those in Contra Costa County,
as listed in Table 2-9 below.
Table 2-9: Summary of Estuary Blueprint Tasks Related to Wastewater Treatment Plants
Name/Number of Goal/Task Milestone Detail
Action/Task
Task 17-5 Convene Bay Area water and wastewater Milestone: One workshop held
agencies to discuss regional water with Estuary stakeholders,
conservation targets, opportunities, and resulting in a synthesis report.
limitations, resulting in a synthesis
report.
Action 18: Expand the Work with water agencies,
use of recycled water municipalities, and stakeholders to
reduce barriers to the broader use of
recycled water. Support the use of the
right water at the right time and in the
right place.
Task 18-1 Share recycled water informational Milestone: Platform for sharing
materials, resources, and program resources.
models among municipalities,
wastewater agencies, and drinking water
agencies.
Task 18-2 Collaborate with the Bay Area Clean Milestone: Bay Area Clean
Water Agencies' Recycled Water Water Agencies Recycled
Committee stakeholders and others to Water Study finalized.
identify opportunities to expand
incorporation of recycled water in local
and regional water resources planning
processes.
Action 20: Advance Support water quality investigations,
Nutrient Management in consistent monitoring and modeling,
the Estuary and analysis of management
Introduction 2-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
alternatives for nutrients, along with
disseminating public-facing outreach
materials on resulting data and
management decisions.
Task 20-1 Ensure the continuation of a long-term Milestone: Funding for long-
monitoring and modeling program of term monitoring and modeling
nutrient-related indicators in San program renewed at
Francisco Bay through the San Francisco sustainable levels, and
Bay Regional Water Quality Control additional funding sources
Board's Nutrient Management Strategy investigated.
and program partnerships, and in the
Delta through the U.S. Geological Survey
and Interagency Ecological Program.
Task 20-2 Implement and iterate the Science Plan Milestone: Completed round
and Nutrient Assessment Framework of of modeling and synthesis
the San Francisco Bay Nutrient studies and final version of the
Management Strategy to establish the Assessment Framework
status and trends of nutrient indicators developed by 2024 to inform
and quantitatively inform San Francisco future permits and other
Bay's response to nutrient loading. management actions.
Task 20-3 Undertake studies in the Estuary related Milestone: Evaluation of
to developing and evaluating alternatives opportunities completed to
for nutrient management actions, manage nutrient loading via
including initial considerations of costs nature-based solutions and
and environmental effects. recycled water.
Task 20-4 Disseminate information to decision- Milestone: Outreach materials
makers and the public regarding the related to the status and trends
status and trends of nutrient-related of crucial nutrient indicators
indicators and research findings, as well shared via an annually updated
as the opportunities, constraints, and web-based portal and public-
costs associated with various nutrient facing syntheses of research
load management strategies. findings shared annually.
Task 20-5 Develop a framework for monitoring, Milestone: HABs framework for
modeling, and disseminating the Delta.
information on the extent, severity, and
impacts of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)
in the Delta.
Data source for Table 2-9: San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP). 2022 San Francisco Estuary
Blueprint (Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the San Francisco Estuary). San
Francisco, CA.
The 2022 Estuary Blueprint contains a variety of general, longer-term actions along with detailed
tasks and milestones. Contra Costa County’s wastewater service providers are estuary
stakeholders and have an important role in helping implement the 2022 Estuary Blueprint. For
example, many of the wastewater service providers are leaders in the recycled wastewater sector
and the use of nature-based solutions to manage nutrient loading. Implementing the 2022 Estuary
Blueprint will contribute to restoring the Estuary's chemical, physical, biological, and social-
ecological health and will facilitate thriving habitats and wildlife. Therefore, it is recommended that
Introduction 2-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
all the wastewater service providers request an invitation from ABAG and SFEP to participate in the
workshop to be held with Estuary stakeholders, resulting in a synthesis report (date tbd) (Task 17-5).
Additionally, the wastewater service providers should coordinate with ABAG, SFEP, and other
stakeholders to reduce barriers to the broader use of recycled water (Action 18).
The actions and tasks listed in the 2022 Estuary Blueprint raise a question about how to implement
State and regional policies at the local, on-the-ground-level. The State and regional policies relate to
high-level strategy and objectives. However, how do government agencies work together to scale
sustainability? How do we translate State and regional policies down to the actual actions that a
wastewater service provider’s staff or board need to take? These questions also relate to the 2016
Grand Jury recommendations. Again, it has been suggested that the Contra Costa Special District
Association could be a good organization to facilitate discussions of these issues.
Local Hazard Mitigation
The CKH Act requires that when LAFCO evaluates a proposal, it should consider:
• Information contained in a local hazard mitigation plan;
• information contained in a safety element of a general plan; and
• Any maps that identify land as a very high fire hazard zone pursuant to § 51178 or maps that
identify land determined to be in a state responsibility area pursuant to § 4102 of the Public
Resources Code, if it is determined that such information is relevant to the area that is the
subject of the proposal. [see GC § 56668 (q)]
The Contra Costa County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) was utilized as an analytical tool and
foundational document within this MSR to help LAFCO comply with the above CKH Act
requirements. For each of the 20 wastewater service providers, this MSR assessed participation in
the LHMP, hazards described by the LHMP, and next steps suggested by the LHMP. To develop the
LHMP, Contra Costa County collaborated with incorporated communities and special districts to
develop the Plan to reduce risks from hazards and serve as a tool to help decision-makers direct
mitigation activities and resources. Protecting community assets such as public water and
wastewater infrastructure, schools, transportation infrastructure (railroad tracks and roads), and
hospitals is another important aim of an LHMP. The LHMP allows the participating agencies to
continue to be eligible for federal disaster assistance, such as the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, and Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. Contra Costa
County continues to be vulnerable to numerous hazards, including floods, earthquakes, drought,
levee failures, landslides, wildfires, heat waves, smoky air, and other severe weather events.
New Housing Laws
LAFCO’s mission involves balancing the competing needs for affordable housing, efficient services,
economic opportunity, and preservation and protection of our valuable agricultural and natural
resources. However, affordable housing in California has become a challenge due to housing
Introduction 2-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
shortages and skyrocketing prices. To address these problems, the Legislature indicates that
California needs to build more housing. California’s legislators have been actively passing bills, and
from 2017 to 2023, and passed approximately 150 new housing laws, which are summarized in
Appendix D. These new laws have substantially altered the landscape of housing policy by:
• streamlining approvals;
• reforming single-family zoning; and
• providing financing mechanisms.
Contra Costa County and each of the local cities have recently or are currently updating their
General Plan’s Housing Element, 6th Cycle, and submitting the Element to the California Department
of Housing and Community Development for approval. The Department’s website at
<https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements> provides
additional information. In addition, other agencies and organizations provide on-line housing
databases, which are briefly described in Appendix E.
The number of housing units in Contra Costa County has steadily increased over the past 13 years,
as shown in Figure 2-2 below. In 2010, the County had 400,263 housing units. In 2023, the County
had 430,712 units, an increase of 30,449 housing units (CA DOF, 2023). This represents an average
of 2,175 new housing units each year during the study period. These new housing units are a result
of City, County, and State policies in conjunction with the private construction sector working
together to create new homes for families.
435,000
430,000
425,000
420,000
415,000
410,000
405,000
400,000
395,000
390,000
385,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Data Source for Figure 2-2: CA DOF, 2023
Regardless of the new housing laws, the practicalities of getting new housing built requires
that local utilities and municipalities have sufficient existing capacity in their water,
electrical, and wastewater systems. This MSR/SOI Update addresses wastewater systems
Introduction 2-22
stinU
gnisuoH
fo
#
Figure 2-2: Housing Units in Contra Costa County
Year
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
by asking: “Does the local wastewater service provider have sufficient capacity to
accommodate future growth?” To some extent, this MSR/SOI Update addresses this
question based on past growth levels and feedback from the service provider. However, the
new housing laws passed by the State Legislature introduce some uncertainty about the
future growth projections listed in Chapters 3 to 22 of this MSR because it is not yet known
how local communities will implement these new laws. Will future growth in California
continue to be relatively slow (as in the past), or will growth significantly increase? Growth
and development are important issues in relation to the provision of wastewater
infrastructure and, therefore need to be re-assessed in every MSR/SOI Update.
Environmental Justice
This MSR/SOI Update addresses the environmental justice topic primarily by discussing
disadvantaged communities located within the boundary or SOI of each wastewater service provider
in Chapters 3 to 22 of this report. The CKH Act requires that when LAFCO evaluates a proposal, it
should consider:
• The extent to which the proposal will promote environmental justice. As used in this
subdivision, "environmental justice" means the fair treatment and meaningful involvement
of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins with respect to the location of
public facilities and the provision of public services, to ensure a healthy environment for all
people such that the effects of pollution are not disproportionately borne by any particular
populations or communities. [GC § 56668 (p)].
The Act’s definition of environmental justice is fairly broad, and several components of the definition
relate directly to the overall context for wastewater service provision in Contra Costa County, as
summarized in Table 2-10 below. Although this MSR/SOI Update is not a proposal, the information
presented herein is relied upon by LAFCO when it evaluates future proposals. Therefore, a
discussion of the environmental justice issue related specifically to wastewater service is
warranted.
Table 2-10: Environmental Justice Discussion in relation to Wastewater Service
CKH Act Definition of Discussion
Environmental Justice
The extent to which the proposal will This sets a high bar for LAFCO. Proposals should not
promote environmental justice. simply “address” environmental justice but rather
“promote” environmental justice. Wastewater
providers that submit proposals to LAFCO should be
prepared to assist LAFCO in promoting
environmental justice.
"environmental justice" means the fair LAFCO might consider conducting public outreach to
treatment and meaningful involvement of solicit input from a range of local people. If
people of all races, cultures, incomes, wastewater service providers submit a proposal to
Introduction 2-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
and national origins, LAFCO, they should be prepared to assist with public
outreach activities related to their application.
…..with respect to the location of public The location of wastewater treatment plants is
facilities and the provision of public typically a result of historical land-use factors, along
services, with the physical constraints of the infrastructure
(i.e., gravity flow and the need to consider
topography). However, it is possible that an
unintended result is that wastewater treatment
plants could be located in proximity to low-income
communities. However, it is difficult to determine the
spatial relationships because a map comparing the
location of wastewater treatment facilities to
disadvantaged communities on a Countywide basis
is not readily available.
The provision of public wastewater services is
described in Chapters 3 to 22 of this MSR, including
relationships with disadvantaged communities.
…. to ensure a healthy environment for all A “healthy environment” likely includes both
people such that the effects of pollution upstream and downstream areas, such as the San
are not disproportionately borne by any Francisco Bay and the San Joaquin/Sacramento
particular populations or communities. Delta. In general, wastewater treatment plants do
contribute pollution to the environment in the form of
nitrogen, phosphorous, and other nutrients that are
discharged downstream. Additionally, carbon and
methane emissions from wastewater treatment
plants do occur but are not well quantified on a plant-
by-plant basis. One specific example of the
interconnections between infrastructure and the
local community is people who go fishing in the San
Francisco Bay and San Joaquin/Sacramento Delta.
Fishing can be a recreational activity to a supplement
to daily food supply for local families. However,
pollution from local wastewater treatment plants can
sometimes contribute to the accumulation of
pollutants in fish tissue, which could affect food
quality. A related example is the harmful algal bloom
(HAB), a red tide, that the San Francisco Bay
experienced from July to October 2022. The HAB
extended throughout the open-bay regions of the
South Bay, the Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay.
Fish deaths linked to the red tide were reported to
include sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays,
smelt, and anchovy. Several of these fish species are
edible and may serve as a food supply for
environmental justice community members.
Introduction 2-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
To address the environmental justice issues that the CKH Act [GC § 56668 (p)] suggests is under
LAFCO’s purview and associated with the provision of wastewater services in Contra Costa County,
several recommendations are listed herein for future consideration.
• Wastewater service providers that submit proposals to LAFCO should be prepared to
demonstrate that their proposal promotes environmental justice as defined by the CKH Act.
• When evaluating proposals, LAFCO may need to conduct public outreach to solicit input
from a range of local people, including people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national
origins. If wastewater service providers submit a specific proposal to LAFCO, they should be
prepared to assist with public outreach activities related to their application.
• As part of the next Update to this MSR, LAFCO should consider preparing a map that shows
the location of all wastewater treatment plants in Contra Costa County, including both
public facilities and private facilities (such as those operated by local refineries or industries)
in relation to disadvantaged communities and environmental justice communities. The next
Update to this MSR should utilize this map to consider whether the spatial distribution of
wastewater treatment plants negatively impacts disadvantaged communities and whether
consolidation or merger of such facilities could reduce environmental justice impacts.
• The next Update to this MSR should assess whether (or how) wastewater service providers
can contribute towards ensuring that a healthy environment is available for all people such
that any particular populations or communities do not disproportionately bear the effects of
pollution. This analysis should include the two parts listed below.
1) LAFCO may wish to consult with the RWQCB, local non-profit organizations, and other
stakeholders to collect and consider studies regarding wastewater treatment plants’
contribution of pollution to the environment in the form of nitrogen, phosphorous, and
other nutrients that are discharged downstream. The effect this pollution has on people
who go fishing in the San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin/Sacramento Delta should be
considered. Additionally, studies that describe the contributions that this pollution made
to harmful algal blooms (HAB), known as a red tide, such as the San Francisco Bay HAB
experienced from July to October 2022, should also be considered.
2) Carbon (including methane and other carbon species) emissions from wastewater
treatment plants do occur but are not well quantified on a plant-by-plant basis. Methane
emissions from wastewater treatment plants are described in Appendix H. The next
Update to this MSR should solicit carbon emission data from each wastewater service
provider and provide an analysis that compares and contrasts these data. This analysis
should recognize that disadvantaged communities can be negatively impacted by
climate change caused by excessive carbon emissions. Recommendations to promote
carbon efficiency should be suggested as needed.
Introduction 2-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Watershed Context
Watershed management plans are noted as an important part of the regional context for an MSR in
the 2003 OPR LAFCO Municipal Service Review Guidelines. Drainage basins5 are mentioned in the
CKH Act [GC §56668 (a)]. An alternative name for “drainage basin” is a “watershed”. A watershed is
the area of land that drains into a body of water, such as a river, lake, stream, or bay. In Contra Costa
County, all water eventually drains into the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento Delta Estuary. Several
sub-watersheds are within the bay/estuary watershed. The Watershed Atlas of Contra Costa
identifies 16 specific sub-watersheds comprising roughly 513,280 acres. Appendix F describes the
organizations that collaborate to manage the watersheds in Contra Costa County.
The natural hydrologic cycle, which is part of Earth’s ancient operating system, is described in
Appendix F. The hydrologic cycle involves Earth’s land, oceans, and atmosphere. The cycling of
water involves processes known as precipitation, evaporation, evapotranspiration, and
condensation.
In the San Francsico Bay area and the Delta, rising sea levels are a part of watershed dynamics. The
California state planning and regulatory agency, which has regional authority over San Francisco
Bay, the Bay’s shoreline band, and the Suisun Marsh, is called the San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC). Its mission is to protect and enhance San Francisco Bay and
to encourage the Bay’s responsible and productive use for this and future generations, as described
on its website at: <https://bcdc.ca.gov/>. As part of its responsibilities, BCDC developed a map of
sea level rise scenarios that could potentially occur in the future if carbon emissions continue
unabated. Figure 2-3 below is a map depicting portions of Contra Costa County that could be
affected by a 36-inch rise in sea level.
It is possible that groundwater levels may rise in conjunction with the rise of the sea level in the
future. Sewer pipes and other infrastructure that is buried underground could be affected by rising
groundwater. This MSR relies on the County’s LHMP process to assess infrastructure vulnerability to
sea level rise and groundwater rise. Readers interested in this topic should also review FEMA’s
National Risk Index, a dataset and on-line tool that illustrates communities in the USA at risk for
natural hazards. This tool is available at <https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/>, and it indicates that Contra
Costa County faces a high risk of future coastal flooding.
5
Factors to be considered in the review of a proposal shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(a) Population and population density; land area and land use; assessed valuation; topography, natural
boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; and the likelihood of significant growth
in the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years (CKH Act, GC
§56668 (a).
Introduction 2-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 2-3: BCDC’s Scenario of a Potential Future 36-inch Rise in Sea Level
It is recommended that LAFCO’s next wastewater MSR map the location of local wastewater
treatment plants (public and private) in relation to the sea level rise scenarios presented by BCDC.
2.6: BIBLIOGRAPHY
California, Department of Finance, E-8 Historical Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, 2010-2020. Sacramento, California, November 2023.
California, State of. Municipal Service Review Law, Government Code Section 56430. Available at:
<https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=GOV&tocTitl
e=+Government+Code+-+GOV >.
California, State of. Sphere of Influence Law, Government Code Section 56425. Available at: <
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=GOV&tocTitle
=+Government+Code+-+GOV >.
California, State of. Office of Planning and Research (OPR). August 2003. Local Agency Formation
Commission MSR Guidelines. Sacramento, CA <www.opr.ca.gov >.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS et al.) National Water and Climate Center. May
2006. Technical Contributions from Jim Marron. Climate Narrative for Contra Costa County,
California. Portland, Oregon. 11-pages. Retrieved on August 23, 2021 from
Introduction 2-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
<https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/legacy/ftp/support/climate/soil-nar/ca/Contra
Costa.doc>.
The Edward Deming Institute. (n.d.). Homepage: Explore PDSA. Innovative Authentic Deming.
Ketchum, Idaho. Retrieved on October 1, 2022 from <https://deming.org/explore/pdsa/>.
San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP). 2022 San Francisco Estuary Blueprint (Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan for the San Francisco Estuary). San Francisco, CA.
Superior Court of California in Contra Costa County, Civil Grand Jury. November 22, 2021. A Report
By The 2020-2021 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury, Report 2103, on the West County
Wastewater District, Recommendations for the WCWD Board. Martinez, California 94553.
22-pages. Retrieved February 17, 2024 from <https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/grand-jury-
reports.aspx >.
Superior Court of California in Contra Costa County, 2022 – 2023 Civil Grand Jury. April 21, 2023.
Compliance and Continuity Report, Report #2301. Martinez, California 94553. 33-pages.
Retrieved February 17, 2024 from <https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/grand-jury-
reports.aspx>.
Superior Court of California in Contra Costa County, Civil Grand Jury. May 24, 2016. A Report By The
2015-2016 Contra Costa County Grand Jury, Reclaiming our Water, More Complicated than
it Might Appear, Report 1606. Martinez, California 94553. 22-pages. Retrieved on January 28,
2024 from <https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/grand-jury-reports.aspx>.
Superior Court of California in Contra Costa County, Civil Grand Jury. 2017. A Report By The 2016-
2017 Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury, Compliance And Continuity Report, Report 1701. 61-
pages. Martinez, California. Retrieved on January 28, 2024 from <https://www.cc-
courts.org/civil/grand-jury-reports.aspx>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (June 1996). Watershed Approach Framework. Office
of Water (4501F), EPA 840-S-96-001. Carol M. Browner, Administrator. 15-pages. Retrieved
on July 29, 2021 from <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
06/documents/watershed-approach-framework.pdf>.
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. (Mar 25, 2021). Enhanced
Visualization and Analysis (EVA) Tool based on the National Land Cover Database (NLCD).
Retrieved on August 1, 2021 from < https://www.mrlc.gov/data>.
West County Wastewater. February 17, 2022. Response to the 2020-2021 Contra Costa County
Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2103 Titled: "West County Wastewater District". 44-pages.
Retrieved February 17, 2024 from <https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/grand-jury-
reports.aspx>.
Introduction 2-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 3: CITY OF ANTIOCH – WASTEWATER
SERVICES
Table of Contents
3.1: OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2: BOUNDARY/SOI/LAND-USE ............................................................................................... 3-4
3.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS .............................................................................................. 3-6
3.4: INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ................................................................................................3 -12
3.5: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................3 -14
3.6: POPULATION ...................................................................................................................3 -19
3.7: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES .....................................................................................3 -20
3.8: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................3 -22
3.9: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS .................................... 3-24
3.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................3 -26
3.1: OVERVIEW
The City of Antioch was incorporated in 1872 and serves a population of approximately 115,291
(2020) in an area of 29.9 square miles. Located in eastern Contra Costa County, the City is bounded
to the north by the San Joaquin River, to the west by the City of Pittsburg and unincorporated Contra
Costa County, to the south by unincorporated Contra Costa County, and to the east by the cities of
Oakley and Brentwood. The City of Antioch lies within the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento Delta
Estuary. Additional information about this watershed is provided in Appendix F. The City of Antioch
provides wastewater collection services to the entire City population and certain unincorporated
areas within the City's SOI, including the County Fairgrounds. The City only provides wastewater
collection services. DD (DD) receives the wastewater and transmits it to its Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP) for treatment, disposal,
and recycled water production. The
City's Agency Profile is included in Table
3-1 below, and the City boundary/SOI is
shown in Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-1: Antioch City Hall (Google
Maps Street View)
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 3-1: Agency Profile – City of Antioch
General Information
Agency Type Municipal
Principal Act General laws of the State of California
Date Formed 1872
Services Wastewater collection and conveyance
Service Area
Location City of Antioch
Sq. Miles/Acres 29.9 square miles/19,163 acres
Land Uses Residential, commercial, industrial, open space
Dwelling Units 34,028
Population Served 115,291 (per LAFCO, 2020)
Last SOI Update 06/12/2019 (California LAFCO, 2019)
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities 309.97 miles of sewer main, 2 pump stations, 31,937 connections
(Antioch, 2022).
Connections 31,937 (Antioch, 2022a)
Treatment Plant Capacity DD WWTP
(MGD) Design Flow: 19.5 MGD (DD avg. dry weather flow)
Primary Disposal Method Conveyance to DD Sanitation District WWTP
Financial Information- FY 202 0-2021 (S ewer F und)
Revenues Expenditures Net
Sewer Fund $7,309,411 $7,202,204 $7,309,411
Capital Expenditures $1,201,583 Sewer Fund Capital Expenditure Actual in FY
2021-22
$3,792,400 Sewer Fund Capital Projects Budgeted for FY
2022-23
$450,000 Sewer Fund Capital Projects Proposed for FY
2024-25
Total Assets $ 81,277,013 June 30, 2022, per Annual Financial Statement
Total Net Position $ 4,541,008 Sewer Fund #621 Estimated for July 1, 2023,
per City Budget
$4,427,953 Sewer Fund #622 Estimated for July 1, 2023,
per City Budget
Governance
Governing Body City Council (5 members)
Agency Contact Scott Buenting, Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer. Phone 925-
779-7050.
Notes
SOI reduced on March 10, 2010, removing portions of the San Joaquin River and Roddy Ranch.
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 3-2: Boundary/SOI Map – City of Antioch
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
3.2: BOUNDARY/SOI/LAND-USE
Antioch's boundary encompasses 29.9 square miles in total land area. The predominant land use
throughout the City is single-family residential uses. The City's historic downtown is located in the
northwestern part of the city along the San Joaquin River. The eastern portion of the City's riverfront
is primarily dedicated to heavy commercial and industrial uses. Antioch retains designated areas for
preserved open space, including agricultural areas, recreational lands, and open water.
New development and growth are dynamically proceeding in Antioch, and current planning projects
are listed on-line at: <https://www.antiochca.gov/community-development-department/planning-
division/current-projects/>. For example, several potential future development projects within the
boundary were conceptualized, including:
• Sand Creek Focus Area—2783 acres, 4,000 residential units proposed.
• East Lone Tree Area—approximately 800 acres, 241.3 acres residential, 98.3 employment,
113.2 acres retail, 11.3 acres school, 10.7 public facilities, and remaining acreage parks,
open space, and roads.
• Hillcrest Station Area—Transit Oriented Development, Mixed Use -- Maximum 2,500
residential units.
Two annexations occurred in 2014 including 1) Holy Cross Cemetery and 2) 108-acre Residential
Island as described below:
1) Holy Cross Cemetery: The Holy Cross Cemetery was part of an area annexed to the City and
DD (Northeast Antioch Reorganization – Area 2B on January 8, 2014. The Holy Cross
Cemetery utilizes a septic tank for wastewater treatment/disposal. The cemetery is not
connected to the City's wastewater collection system (personal communication, S.
Buenting, 11/13/2023).
2) 108-acre Residential Island: In 2014, there was a 108-acre island (between 18th Street and
Wilbur Avenue) served by wells and septic tanks. The City (and DD) annexed this area prior in
2014 as part of the (Northeast Antioch Reorganization – Area 2B). The City currently provides
wastewater collection services to several parcels in this area. The City extended the main
sewer and water lines to this annexation area. Although the City provided the facilities for the
sewer connection, parcels had/have a choice as to whether or not to hook up to the system.
Property owners are responsible for the cost of connection fees to the public sewer line.
Therefore, some parcels are currently receiving sewer service from the City (i.e., those
parcels which have chosen to pay the fee have connected to the City sewer service).
Sphere of Influence
Section 3.8, Government Structure Alternatives, describes various issues and options associated
with changing the structure of this local government agency. LAFCO often accomplishes its
government structure issues through changes to boundaries and/or SOIs. On March 10, 2010, the
City's sphere of influence (SOI) was reduced, removing the open space water area of the San Joaquin
River and other areas outside of the Urban Limit Line and the City's corporate limits, including a
portion of the East Bay Regional Park District's Deer Valley Regional Preserve. The SOI was most
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
recently considered in LAFCO's 2019 City Services MSR, and the SOI was retained in its current
configuration. A map of the City's current boundary and SOI is shown in Figure 3-2 (next page).
Small Islands
Antioch has three (3) small unincorporated islands located within the City SOI, including the
Fairgrounds and a former landfill site.
1. Fairgrounds: The Fairgrounds area is a 73+ acre unincorporated island within the City's
boundary. This island is located at the intersection of 10th and L Streets. This island qualifies
under the streamlined provisions of CKH (56373.3). The Fairgrounds continue to receive
wastewater collection services from Antioch (personal communication, S. Buenting,
11/13/2023). Since the Fairgrounds receive a City service (wastewater), the 2014 MSR
recommended annexing them. However, the Fairground's parcel is part of the State
Agricultural District, owned and operated by the State of California. The Fairground has a
local Agricultural Board that is appointed. The parcel's land use remains under County
jurisdiction. The MSR authors hypothesize that there might be a contract between the State
and the City for wastewater collection services. However, a copy of a contract for services
could not be located. If a contract exists, then the provision of wastewater service to the
Fairgrounds would not be classified as an out-of-agency service. The potential future
annexation of the Fairgrounds is not a topic of discussion within the City (personal
communication, S. Buenting, 11/13/2023). Additionally, future annexation of this site is
unlikely because it is owned by the State of California. However, the City Engineer (Mr. S.
Buenting) clarified that the fairgrounds will continue to receive wastewater collection service
from Antioch.
2. Former Landfill Site: There is a 78+ acre unincorporated island within the City's
boundary/SOI, and this is a former landfill located north of James Donlon Blvd and east of
Somersville Road. This island also qualifies under the streamlining provision for annexations
of small islands. The landfill was closed several years ago and the site is under remediation.
Active monitoring is required for environmental purposes. The site does not receive
wastewater services from the City. There are no plans to annex the former landfill site into
the City (personal communication, S. Buenting, 11/13/2023). The MSR authors hypothesize
that annexation of the former landfill site could be problematic because of its limited
development potential and ongoing monitoring and mitigation requirements.
3. Marina Area: This area is 116+ and within the City’s SOI. The area is bounded by Antioch to
the west and south, Oakley to the east, and the San Joaquin River to the north. This island is
located immediately west of State Route 160. The area is largely built out and includes some
underdeveloped properties. Exiting uses are predominantly marina, commercial, storage,
incidental uses, and several residential dwelling units. In 2016, LAFCO approved annexation
of this area to the City of Antioch; however, the voters rejected the annexation.
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta
Portions of the City boundary and SOI are located within the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Estuary
watershed (Delta), specifically within the “Secondary Zone”. The Delta is a large inland river delta
geographically connected to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and home to several rare and
endangered fish species. The Delta is also designated a National Heritage Area. The Secondary Zone
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
is within the “Legal Delta” and is described by various state laws and planning documents (DPC,
2010 and DSC, 2013). For local government planners and administrators, there are three key Delta
planning documents listed below:
• The Delta Plan, by the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updated through 2024.
• Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta by the Delta
Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010.
• Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by Visser, M.A.;
Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. in 2018.
DPC’s Land Use and Resource Management Plan recognizes that urbanization and other
development projects within the secondary zone have the potential to impact the Primary Zone of
the Delta (DPC, 2010). These planning documents are important because the City’s discharge of
treated wastewater to the San Joaquin River has the potential to influence water quality and
endangered species within the Delta.
3.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
The City's wastewater service includes collection and conveyance to the DD WWTP for treatment
and disposal. The City provides wastewater collection and conveyance services to approximately
31,937 sewer connections (Antioch, 2022a), as shown in Table 3-1. One City sewer connection may
serve many individual customers. Significant annual variability in the number of new connections
added for 2022 is shown in Figure 3-3, with 2,325 new connections added.
2,325
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
353
500 259 180 123 67 43 41 67 215
0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-6
snoitcennoC
weN
#
Figure 3-3: Number of New Sewer Connections
by Year
Data Source: Antioch, CAFR, 2022d
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Collection Services
The City provides wastewater collection and conveyance services through 309.97 miles of sewer
mains; one small lift station; one small force main of 321 linear feet; and 6,153 maintenance holes
and access points in the collection system. The City is also responsible for the lower sewer laterals
connecting parcels to the mainline sewers and maintains approximately 163 miles of lower laterals
(Antioch, 2018). In 2018, the City updated its Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). The SSMP
addresses the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) mandate to meet the Statewide
General Waste Discharge Requirements (GWDR). The SSMP is a compendium of the policies,
procedures, and activities that are included in the planning, management, operation, and
maintenance of the City's sanitary sewer system. Antioch coordinates with DD for all Fats, Oils &
Greases (FOG)-related activities (Antioch, 2018).
During the past year, City staff completed several projects to improve wastewater collection
services, including:
• Implemented a rural maintenance hole inspection program and replaced all rural
maintenance holes with watertight locking composite maintenance holes.
• Completed State-mandated Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) audit.
• Treated approximately 33,000 lineal feet of sewer main line for root infiltration to maximize
flow and minimize clogs.
• Rehabilitated 15 maintenance holes to prevent infiltration and exfiltration and restore
structural integrity.
• Purchased a new Vactor combination truck to assist with cleaning larger diameter pipes.
• And several other projects.
Treatment and Disposal
Wastewater from the City is collected through the City's sewer system and is discharged into the
district’s conveyance system. With a permitted design flow of 19.5 MGD, the DDSD WWTP treats the
City of Antioch's effluent. There are three main connection points between the City system and the
DD system:
• Bridgehead Pump Station, in the northwest section of the City: Wastewater from the
southern part of the City, including Roddy Ranch and Ginocchio future development focus
areas, is transported through the Lone Tree Interceptor to the Bridgehead Pump Station.
• Fulton Shipyard (Antioch) Pump Station, in the north section of the City: Sewage from the
central and northern parts of the City is collected at the Fulton Shipyard Pump Station.
Sewage from the Bridgehead Pump Station is conveyed to the Fulton Shipyard Pump Station
through a DD-owned and operated force main and gravity conveyance system. Sewage from
the Fulton Shipyard Pump Station is pumped into the Antioch Interceptor and conveyed to
the DD WWTP.
• Pittsburg-Antioch Interceptor, in the northeast section of the City: In addition to sewage from
Pittsburg, sewage from the eastern part of Antioch is conveyed to the DD WWTP through the
Pittsburg-Antioch Interceptor (Antioch, 2021).
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
As described in Chapter 14, DD was originally formed in 1955 as County Sanitation District 7A to
protect the health of the public and the environment by collecting and effectively treating
wastewater in the Antioch, Bay Point, and Pittsburg communities. DDs name was changed to Delta
Diablo in 1989, then to Delta Diablo Sanitation District, and again to Delta Diablo (DD) in 2014.
Treated effluent is discharged into New York Slough, a section of the San Joaquin River.
Commercial And Industrial Customers
Antioch provides collection services to several commercial and industrial customers; however,
specific data was not readily available (Antioch, 2022a). It appears there are no EPA categorical
users who are required to pre-treat wastewater as a form of pollutant control for non-domestic
sources discharging to a public sewer system. This national program is run by the EPA per the Clean
Water Act and implemented through California's Water Board. This issue should be researched in
more detail in the next MSR for Antioch.
Ability to Serve
Factors influencing the City's ability to collect wastewater and provide public service to customers
were considered. City staff indicated that the significant factors that influence the City's services
include the growth of the City (capacity), government regulations, the minimization of Sanitary Sewer
Overflows (SSOs), and the ability to properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary
sewer system (Antioch, 2022a). The City has 24 full-time employees (FTE) who work on the
wastewater collection system (Antioch, CAFR, 2022d).
Local Hazards
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Volume 2, dated January 2018, maps critical
infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards (Contra Costa County,
2018). The HMP shows that Antioch has a wastewater facility located within or in proximity to areas
with moderate to high Liquefaction Susceptibility; moderate earthquake risk with Site Class / Soil
Profile "D" with stiff soil; and potential flood hazard areas (Contra Costa County, 2018). Information
about these hazards should be incorporated into the City's next SSMP update as recommended by
the HMP (Contra Costa County, 2018).
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a SSO database from public/permitted systems and private lateral
sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California Integrated Water Quality
System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General Waste Discharge
Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. WQ 2022-0103-DWQ (SSS
WDRs), on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer system
comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a publicly owned
treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. The MSR authors
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
queried a 3.5-year term from January 1, 2019, to August 9, 2022, and this CIWQS-SSO database query
resulted in 76 SSOs in the City of Antioch. 76 SSOs is quite a high number and too numerous to list
in this MSR. Therefore, the query time period was reduced and re-run. Table 3-2 (next page) lists the
query results from 2021 through 2022. A total of 26 SSOs occurred during the years 2021 and 2022.
During 2021 and 2022, the largest overflow, 36,691 gallons, took place on July 26, 2022, and its
failure point was located at the maintenance hole. This spill occurred due to an operator error that
involved the debris catcher getting stuck and the mainline surcharging. In most cases, the SSOs
originated from the lower lateral points. As seen in Table 3-2, many of the spills from 2021 through
2022 had a volume of less than 100 gallons. One SSO that was quite significant in volume occurred
on March 5, 2022, and it had a volume of 2,780 gallons. This spill occurred due to grease deposition.
Table 3-2 lists Categories 1, 2 and 3 types of SSO events, which are defined in Table 3-3 below.
Table 3-3: Definitions of SSO Categories
Category 1 A Category 1 spill is a spill of any volume of sewage from or caused by a sanitary
sewer system regulated under this General Order that results in a discharge to:
A surface water, including a surface water body that contains no flow or volume of
water, or
A drainage conveyance system that discharges to surface waters when the sewage
is not fully captured and returned to the sanitary sewer system or disposed of
properly.
Any spill volume not recovered from a drainage conveyance system is considered
a discharge to surface water, unless the drainage conveyance system discharges
to a dedicated stormwater infiltration basin or facility.
A spill from an enrollee-owned and/or operated lateral that discharges to surface
water is a Category 1 spill.
Category 2 A Category 2 spill is a spill of 1,000 gallons or greater, from or caused by a sanitary
sewer system regulated under this General Order that does not discharge to
surface water.
A spill of 1,000 gallons or greater that spills out of a lateral and is caused by a
failure or blockage in the sanitary sewer system is a Category 2 spill.
Category 3 A Category 3 spill is a spill equal to or greater than 50 gallons and less than 1,000
gallons, from or caused by a sanitary sewer system regulated under this General
Order that does not discharge to a surface water.
A spill equal to or greater than 50 gallons and less than 1,000 gallons that spills out
of a lateral and is caused by a failure or blockage in the sanitary sewer system is a
Category 3 spill.
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 3-2: City of Antioch Sanitary Sewer Overflows from 2021 through 2022
SSO Region Collection SSO Start Date SSO Vol of Vol of SSO SSO Failure WDID
Event System Category Vol SSO Reached Point
ID Recovered Surface
Water
871813 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 1/25/2021 5 5 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
872334 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 2/10/2021 5 5 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
872634 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 2/25/2021 79 79 0 Gravity Mainline 5SSO10890
873506 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 4/12/2021 156 156 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
873722 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 4/26/2021 3 3 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
874087 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 5/14/2021 55 55 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
874486 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 6/4/2021 2 2 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
874531 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 6/9/2021 2 2 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
874691 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 6/11/2021 13 13 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
876337 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 9/9/2021 23 23 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
876474 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 9/20/2021 3 3 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
876709 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 9/26/2021 47 1 0 Gravity Mainline 5SSO10890
877114 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 10/19/2021 54 54 0 Gravity Mainline 5SSO10890
877406 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 11/2/2021 31 31 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
878291 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 12/19/2021 7 7 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
SSO Region Collection SSO Start Date SSO Vol of Vol of SSO SSO Failure WDID
Event System Category Vol SSO Reached Point
ID Recovered Surface
Water
878698 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 1/3/2022 20 20 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
878701 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 1/3/2022 24 24 0 Gravity Mainline 5SSO10890
879530 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 2/15/2022 32 32 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
879835 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 3/2/2022 98 98 0 Gravity Mainline 5SSO10890
879863 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 3/6/2022 15 15 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
879869 5S City Of Antioch Category 2 3/5/2022 2,780 2,780 0 Gravity Mainline 5SSO10890
879917 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 3/7/2022 21 21 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
881202 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 5/6/2022 12 12 0 Gravity Mainline 5SSO10890
882224 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 7/7/2022 5 5 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
882491 5S City Of Antioch Category 1 7/26/2022 36,691 36,691 35,191 Maintenance 5SSO10890
hole
882561 5S City Of Antioch Category 3 7/21/2022 3 3 0 Lower Lateral 5SSO10890
(Public)
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Over the past five years, the City improved its lateral maintenance program to inspect, evaluate, and
repair issues with the City of Antioch's laterals (Antioch, 2022a). The maintenance program aims to
reduce SSOs from the City laterals. Additionally, the City has lined most of the older sanitary
mainlines to repair defects and reduce inflow & infiltration (I&I) (Antioch, 2022a).
From July to October 2022, San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known as a
red tide, as described in Appendix F. The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma akashiwo,
can cause water to turn reddish-brown. The HAB extended throughout the open-bay regions of the
South Bay, the Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths, linked to the red tide, were reported
to include sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, and anchovy. The San Francisco Bay Water
Board (SFBWB) is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay through the Nutrient Management
Strategy, which includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other agencies to study
the potential impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. The City of Antioch has an opportunity to
assist with this effort by continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by discussing the
nutrient problem with other wastewater districts and the SFBWB.
3.4: INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
The City maintains various equipment, vehicles1, infrastructure, and associated assets, including
305.91 miles of sanitary sewer pipelines (Antioch, CAFR, 2022d). City staff was queried about
improvements that could be made in the future regarding the efficiency and affordability of
infrastructure and service delivery, and sharing of resources and facilities. City staff indicates that
several ideas are being considered for future long-term improvements to the system, including:
• Update the Sewer System Management Plan
• Continue to televise the system
• Continue to Identify issues with the system
• Plan to correct systemic issues
Current infrastructure needs are addressed through the City's 5-Year Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) for 2023-2028. Antioch's CIP is a 5-year program updated annually with a 2-year budget. The
CIP includes a list of completed and ongoing projects, as well as new additions. The CIP covers the
City's Water System, Wastewater System, Storm Drainage System, Roadway Maintenance, Parks
and Recreation, and Facilities. The CIP is funded through various sources, including grants,
development impact fees, and park-in-lieu fees. The CIP outlines the process for selecting and
1
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the district, it is likely that sometime in the future, the
district may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting vehicles reliant upon an alternative energy source
such as electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore,
alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
prioritizing projects and the timeline for implementation (Antioch, 2023). Specifically, the CIP
includes several wastewater projects to improve the City's wastewater system. For example, the
proposed Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation project will involve repairing and replacing
aging sewer lines and maintenance holes throughout the City. The project aims to reduce the
number of sewer overflows and improve the overall reliability of the wastewater system. Overall, the
proposed wastewater projects included in the City of Antioch's CIP aim to improve the city's
wastewater system and ensure that it can meet the community's needs now and in the future
(Antioch, 2023).
Future Challenges:
The City's March 2021 report titled "Evaluation of Sewer Enterprise Funds Cash Flow and Rates"
identifies potential challenges and risks that the City should be aware of, such as the impact of
COVID-19 on the economy and the potential for changes in state and federal regulations (Antioch,
2021). The Public Works Department identified several goals for 2024 to 2025 for the wastewater
system, including:
• Televise 25% of the Sewer System every year.
• Increase sewer lateral inspection and cleaned by 10% without compromising quality.
• Decrease SSOs by 10%
Portions of Antioch's collection system are comprised of older vitrified clay pipes. Root intrusion in
the sewer system has been an ongoing problem that staff works to correct. The Public Works
Department's recent focus is on sewer line rehabilitation and maintenance hole repairs (S. Buenting,
personal communication, 11/13/2023).
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 (2019) has several recommended remedies for
California's aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a WWTP is, what
kind of wastes it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the sewer pipes. Continue
educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom to call if such an event
occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling.
Cooperative Programs
The City has developed a recycled water program with DD and implemented shared maintenance
programs with DDSD and the City of Pittsburg, including preparation of their SSMP. The City's
successful partnership with DD, including their collaboration on the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit and operation of facilities, is particularly noteworthy (personal
communication, S. Buenting, 11/13/2023). Additionally, Antioch shares resources with the Iron
House Sanitary District and Bay Point when needed (Antioch, 2022a). The City also participates in
regional water conservation programs and the Bay Area Pollution Prevention Program.
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Settlement Agreement: Several years ago, the City reached a legal settlement agreement with
California River Watch. The settlement agreement required the City to complete several tasks,
including: inspect all gravity mainlines 10" or greater within five years; repair any PAPC-rated 4 or 5
defects within two years of identifying them; televise all lines within 200' of a water body within five
years and repair within two years with higher priority; CCTV all main lines within 10 years; present to
the City council an ordinance that establishes mandatory inspection and repair of the sewer lateral
at point of property transfer or remodel of greater than $25,000; repair all sewer lines that have two
or more spills in a year; provide more detailed spill reporting; create a link on the City website for
SWRCB and CIWIQS; create a door hanger/handout for notification; sample for total fecal matter,
ammonia, E.coli and metals on Category 1 spills; immediately repair any spill that was caused by a
structural defect; and pay fees of $35k. Antioch successfully completed all of these tasks required
by the Settlement Agreement (personal communication, S. Buenting, 11/13/2023).
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
As noted above, the development of a recycled water project with DD has reduced the dependence
on purchasing imported untreated water to meet the City's conservation goals. Additionally, the City
seeks grants as possible alternative funding for City projects.
3.5: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
Two state databases provide City-wide financial summaries, including:
• California Auditor's website at: <https://www.auditor.ca.gov/local_high_risk/lhr-main-
landing>.
• State Controller's Office at <https://cities.bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov> runs the Government
Financial Reports database that includes detailed financial data from 58 California counties
and more than 450 cities and pension-related information for state and local government.
The focus of this analysis is the Sewer Enterprise Fund. Enterprise funds are used to separately
account for self-supporting operations. The City of Antioch uses enterprise funds to account for its
water, sewer, and marina funds. The City's budget and Certified Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs)
are the primary information sources for data related to the Sewer Enterprise Fund, and these reports
are posted on the City's website at <https://www.antiochca.gov/finance-
department/reports/financial-reports/>. This financial analysis represents a snapshot in time (i.e. a
limited time period). However, the City regularly updates its financial data and readers may review
the new data on Antioch’s website. Badawi & Associates, Certified Public Accountants, has issued
an unmodified ("clean") opinion of the City of Antioch's financial statements for the year ended June
30, 2022.
The City Council presides over and adopts the City's annual budget and financial affairs. Antioch
operates its wastewater services as an enterprise fund within the confines of overall City operations.
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Service fees comprise the significant majority of revenues that fund the services provided for
wastewater. The wastewater enterprise fund does not receive funds directly or indirectly from the
City's General Fund. The Sewer Fund accounts for the maintenance of the City's sewer lines and
related facilities. It is a self-supporting activity that provides services on a user-charge basis to
residences and businesses (Antioch, CAFR, 2022d). Rate increases were implemented over the last
several years to accommodate the expenditures. The City maintains a reserve fund balance for the
Sewer Enterprise fund, providing the ability to absorb short-term impacts. Six primary areas of
criteria are utilized to assess the present and future financial condition of the City's wastewater and
water service operations, as discussed below.
Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
The Sewer Fund expenses for a 10-year timeframe are shown in Figure 3-4 below. Revenues
exceeded expenses in nine of the ten study years. This key performance measure indicates that the
Sewer Fund is solvent and has the capacity to cover its costs. The exception was FY18/19, where
revenues of $6,192,000 were less than expenses of $6,898,000. FY20/21 Total Operating Expenses
($7,202,204) were $107,207 less than Total Operating Revenue ($7,309,411) (Antioch, CAFR, 2022d).
Over the last several years, the wastewater fund overall has experienced a surplus.
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Source for Figure 3-4: Antioch CAFR for FY21/22
For the year ending June 30, 2022, the unrestricted net position of the Sewer Fund amounted to
$14,469,888. The Sewer Fund total net position increased $1,134,543 during fiscal year (FY) 21/22,
mainly due to capital contributions for connection fees (Antioch CAFR, 2022d).
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-15
sdnasuoht
ni
desserpxe
stnuoma(
Figure 3-4: Comparison of Revenues and
Expenditures, Sewer Enterprise Fund by Year
Total Revenues Expenses Sewer
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Ratios of Revenue Sources
The City's Sewer Enterprise fund receives funds from three sources: monthly charges for service,
operating grants, and capital improvement grants. Approximately 82 percent of its wastewater
enterprise fund revenues are from service charges and fees. There is no revenue from property taxes.
Grants comprise a small percentage of total revenue, as shown in Table 3-4 below. The ratios for the
wastewater fund sources reflect an appropriate balance for typical enterprise fund services, and this
minimizes the impact that negative economic factors will have on more elastic revenues such as
property tax.
Table 3-4: Revenue Sources – Antioch Sewer Enterprise Fund (values shown in "Thousands")
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Charges for services 4,523 4,714 5,013 5,395 5,755 6,032 6,334 6,585 6,599 7,109
Operating grants, contributions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 200
Capital grants 524 1,193 1,063 1,387 293 160 595 1,926 3,858 1,340
Total Revenues $5,047 $5,907 $6,076 $6,782 $6,048 $6,192 $6,929 $8,511 $10,506 $8,649
Data Source: Antioch, CAFR, 2022d
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited
by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to
the annual fund expenditures. The City's wastewater fund currently has cash and cash equivalents
valued at $18,527,461, as shown in Table 3-5 below.
Table 3-5: Cash Flows, Antioch Wastewater
Business-type Activities Sewer
Cash Flows from Operating Activities:
Cash receipts from customers $ 7,245,505
Cash paid to suppliers for goods and services (3,293,342)
Cash paid to employees for services (3,050,228)
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities 901,935
Cash Flows from Noncapital Financing Activities:
Transfers in 398,804
Transfers (out) (354,018)
Net cash provided by (used in) noncapital financing activities 44,786
Cash Flows From Capital & Related Financing Activities:
Capital asset additions (1,274,489)
Capital contributions 1,339,637
Proceeds from disposal of capital assets -
Proceeds from long-term borrowings -
Lease principal paid (53,895)
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Lease interest received (paid) (6,105)
Principal paid on long-term loans -
Interest paid on long-term loans -
Net cash provided by (used in) capital and related financing
activities 5,148
Cash Flows From Investing Activities:
Interest received (paid) (291,549)
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities (291,549)
Net change in cash and cash equivalents 660,320
Cash And Cash Equivalents:
Beginning of year 17,867,141
End of year $ 18,527,461
Data Source for Table 3-5: Antioch, CAFR, 2022d
Given that annual expenditures for FY21/22 were $6,845,117, the ratio to reserves (i.e., fund balance
ratio) calculates to approximately 271 percent of annual expenditures. This fund ratio is positive.
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
The City of Antioch's Sewer Enterprise Fund has several types of liabilities related to wastewater
services, including current liabilities such as Accounts payable, Accrued payroll, and Interest
payable. The Fund's noncurrent liabilities include a lease payable, compensated absences - due in
more than one year, net pension liability, and net Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) liability,
as listed in Table 3-6 (next page).
Because Antioch is not responsible for maintaining a WWTP (see DD), the City's Sewer Fund does
not appear to have debt related to capital improvements or associated bonds. The ratio of annual
debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of the City's ability to meet debt
obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a 10% or less ratio would reflect a
very stable ratio. The City's wastewater fund has no significant debt and, therefore, no ratio to
assess.
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 3-6: Liabilities
Business-type Activities Sewer
LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable $301,689
Accrued payroll 67,081
Interest payable 505
Deposits -
Compensated absences - due within one year 12,032
Lease payable - due within one year 60,000
Long-Term Payable - DDSD due within one year -
Long Term loan payable - SWRCB due
within one year -
Total current liabilities 441,307
Noncurrent liabilities:
Lease payable 372,259
Long-Term Payable - DDSD -
Long Term loan payable - SWRCB -
Compensated absences - due in more than one year 108,286
Net pension liability 3,442,312
Net OPEB liability 108,781
Total noncurrent liabilities 4,031,638
Total liabilities 4,472,945
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Lease related amounts -
Pension related amounts 1,690,792
OPEB related amounts 398,597
Total deferred inflows of resources 2,089,389
NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets 61,022,761
Unrestricted 14,469,888
Total net position $ 75,492,649
Data Source for Table 3-6: Antioch, CAFR, 2022d
Rate Structure
The rate structure for wastewater services was considered in a March 2021 report titled "Evaluation
of Sewer Enterprise Funds Cash Flow and Rates" (Antioch, 2021). This report evaluates the sewer
enterprise funds cash flow for the period of FY22-FY26 using projected expenditures and revenues.
The recommended sewer service charges for each customer class are determined based on a
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
uniform charge for each residential customer class and a combination of a uniform charge and a
flow-based charge for non-residential customers. The evaluation suggests that the City of Antioch
can improve its cash flow management for sewer enterprise funds by implementing a rate
stabilization fund and a CIP (Antioch, 2021). In June 2021, the City Council approved a new rate
structure that reflected the recommendations of the report, as shown in Table 3- 7 below. The City's
current rate structure for wastewater reflects a fixed monthly maintenance charge plus a monthly
sewer lateral maintenance charge for residential and non-residential customers.
Table 3-7: Wastewater Rates
In addition to the City's wastewater collection charges, DD also has a fee for its wastewater
treatment and disposal service. DD charges Antioch residents $403.10 annually on property taxes
(Antioch, 2021). Therefore, the average single-family home pays a monthly total of approximately
$48.59, which includes $33.59 in City collection fees plus $15 in DD treatment fees.
3.6: POPULATION
There were approximately 115,291 residents within the City boundary as of 2020 (LAFCO, 2023). Of
the 115,291 residents within the City boundary, it is estimated that 100% of residents receive
wastewater services from the City of Antioch. As of January 1, 2023, the population has increased
slightly to 115,442 persons. Detailed information regarding population demographics in Contra
Costa County is provided in Appendix A.
Table 3-8: Existing Permanent Population, City of Antioch, 2021 to 2022
Name of City Population in Number of Registered Population in SOI
Boundary (1) Voters in Boundary (2) only (3)
City of Antioch 115,291 62,792 69
Sources:
(1) Population as of 2020 per Contra Costa Department of Conservation and LAFCO.
(2). Registered Voter data provided by Contra Costa LAFCO as of January 2023.
(3): Calculated estimate based on an average of 3.02 persons per parcel in Contra Costa
County.
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Projected Future Population: Projecting a city's future population is complicated due to varying
annexation rates and census tracts that do not match the City boundary. Data from the California
Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth for Contra Costa County, as
shown in Table 3-9 below. The anticipated future population growth of the City has the potential to
influence the demand for wastewater services. The projections shown in Table 3-9 indicate that by
the year 2045 Antioch’s population may grow to approximately 129,966 persons. This represents an
annual average (compound) growth rate of 0.59%, similar to that of Contra Costa County, as a whole.
The City is located within the Legal Delta Secondary Zone, and a detailed population analysis of the
Delta area has been prepared by state agencies (Visser et al., 2018). Readers are encouraged to
review this information directly on the state website (as updates are expected soon) as follows:
• The Delta Plan available at: <https://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan/>.
• Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta available at
<https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Land-Use-and-Resource-
Management-Plan-2.25.10_-m508.pdf >.
• Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta available at
<https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Delta-Socio-Economic-Indicators-
Report-508.pdf>
3.7: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address
municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in some disadvantaged
communities. Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part of this MSR update process. Data
query results showed no disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous
to the City's SOI. All unincorporated communities receive sewer, water, and fire protection services
(Contra Costa LAFCO, 2019).
However, there are several low-income communities within Antioch's incorporated boundary. Two
types of disadvantaged areas (DACs) include Severely Disadvantaged Communities (MHI < $47,203),
shown in red, and Disadvantaged Communities (MHI = $47,203-$62,937) shown in orange in Figure
3-5 below. All parcels within Antioch's boundary receive municipal services. No public health and
safety issues were identified.
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 3-9: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2045)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2020 to
2020 to 2020 to 2045
2045 2045
County of Contra
Costa1 1,149,800 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.80% 181,631 0.59%
City of Antioch2
115,291 116,877 121,448 125,305 128,121 129,966 15.80% 17,730 0.59%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties,
2010-2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
2: Population projection for the City of Antioch calculated as 9.76 percent of the County of Contra Costa population.
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 3-5: Disadvantaged Communities in Antioch
Status of Issues Identified in 2014 MSR
LAFCO's 2014 MSR identified several recommendations with respect to the City's provision of
wastewater service, including the Sewer System Master Plan, fiscal and efficiency issues, and sewer
rates. Each of these issues is described in more detail in the pertinent sections of this chapter. Any
new or remaining issues are identified in the determinations listed below.
3.8: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
Three government structure alternatives were identified in LAFCO's 2014 Wastewater MSR:
1) maintain the status quo,
2) consolidate service with the DD, and
3) annex all small county unincorporated islands within the City's boundary/SOI
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Maintain the status quo
The City of Antioch currently provides wastewater collection service for its residents and businesses
(plus one parcel outside the City boundary - County Fairgrounds). The City's wastewater fund is
stable, and the City has approved a 5-year CIP to repair and upgrade needed infrastructure. The MSR
authors and City staff recommend this option (S. Buenting, personal communication, 11/13/2023).
Consolidate service with DD (DD)
Antioch provides wastewater collection and conveyance services, while DD provides treatment and
disposal services. In the 2014 MSR, LAFCO recommended a regional approach to wastewater
treatment and invited the City to participate in discussions with DD and the Ironhouse Sanitary
District (ISD) regarding potential collaboration or consolidation. Consolidation may provide
potential opportunities for economies of scale and other efficiencies. Further study is needed to
determine the merits of this option and the benefits/costs that would affect ratepayers for both the
district and the City. Although no formal review of this proposal has been undertaken, the City's
preference is to maintain the status quo (S. Buenting, personal communication, 11/13/2023).
A specific proposal for a future merger or consolidation would suggest the need for a study to
consider the financial and operational impacts associated with merger/consolidation, including:
• Right of way (ROW) issues (sewer lines are located under City roads where the City owns the
ROW).
• Easements
• Financial and technical burden of maintaining the City's collection systems, which includes
several older areas with vitrified clay pipes.
• Staffing (City's staff has experience maintaining the collection system. Would City staff
transfer over to DD or another entity? Would staff from the other agency have the experience
to operate the City's system?)
• Coordination with other City utilities,
including water service and PG&E's
electrical wires, which are often in the City
ROW.
Figure 3-6: Current SOI for Antioch
Annex all small islands within the City's
boundary
Antioch has three (3) small unincorporated island
areas located within the City boundary, including
the Fairgrounds, a former landfill site, and an area
located west of State Route 160. These small
islands are described in more detail in the section
called "Small Islands" on page 3-4. It is unlikely that
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
the City will pursue annexation of the Fairgrounds because it is a state-owned parcel governed by
Board of Directors who are appointed by the State. It is also unlikely that the City would annex the
former landfill site due to its limited development potential and due to ongoing environmental
monitoring and remediation requirements. This alternative was considered by the MSR authors and
determined to be infeasible in the near-term. Regarding the third island, in 2016, LAFCO approved
annexation of this area to the City of Antioch; however, the voters rejected the annexation.
3.9: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
Table 3-10: MSR Determinations
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected area. • According to the Department of Finance,
• Is the existing population estimated? the City's existing population is estimated at
• Is the projected future growth 115,074.
estimated? • The City added 2,325 new sewer
connections in 2022.
• The City's existing population is expected to
grow to 129,966 by 2045. From 2020 to
2045, there is an estimated growth rate of
0.59 percent.
Location and characteristics of any Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried to
disadvantaged unincorporated communities determine the location and status of
within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. disadvantaged communities as part of this MSR
process. Data query results showed no
disadvantaged unincorporated communities
(DUCs) within or contiguous to the City's SOI.
However, there are several low-income
communities within Antioch's incorporated
boundary. All parcels within Antioch's boundary
receive municipal services. No public health
and safety issues were identified.
Present and planned capacity of public Current infrastructure needs are addressed
facilities, adequacy of public services, and through the City's 5-Year CIP. The CIP includes
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, including several wastewater projects to improve the
needs or deficiencies related to sewers, City's wastewater system. For example, the
municipal and industrial water, and structural proposed Wastewater Collection System
fire protection in any disadvantaged, Rehabilitation project will involve repairing and
unincorporated communities within or replacing aging sewer lines and maintenance
contiguous to the sphere of influence. holes throughout the
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
(continued) (continued)
• Does the agency have a CIP? City. The project aims to reduce the number of
• Are SSOs identified? sewer overflows and improve the overall reliability
• Are local hazards identified? of the wastewater system.
SSOs were identified by querying the CIWQS-SSO
database for a 3.5-year term from January 1, 2019,
to August 9, 2022. This query result showed 77
SSOs in the City of Antioch. Additionally, nutrient
management is a concern for all wastewater
service providers in the Bay Area.
Antioch actively participated in the Contra Costa
County HMP. The HMP shows that Antioch has a
wastewater facility located within or in proximity
to areas with moderate to high liquefaction
susceptibility; moderate earthquake risk with Site
Class / Soil Profile "D" with stiff soil; and potential
flood hazard areas.
There are no DUCs within or contiguous to the
City's SOI.
Financial ability of agencies to provide services. Rates are periodically studied and considered by
• Has the agency prepared a rate study? the City Council. Currently, the average single-
• Do revenues exceed expenditures? family home pays a monthly total of
• Is the ratio of annual debt service to total approximately $48.59, which includes $33.59 in
fund annual expenditures is 10% or less? City collection fees plus $15 in DD treatment fees.
Revenues exceeded expenses in nine of the ten
study years. This key performance measure
indicates that the Sewer Fund has the capacity to
cover its costs.
Because Antioch is not responsible for
maintaining a WWTP (see DD), the City's Sewer
Fund does not appear to have debt related to
capital improvements or associated bonds. The
City's wastewater fund has no significant debt.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared The City has developed a recycled water program
facilities. with DD and implemented shared maintenance
programs with DD and the City of Pittsburg. The
City also participates in regional water
conservation programs and the Bay Area Pollution
Prevention Program.
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Accountability for community service needs, The City provides a comprehensive website
including government structure and operational providing the public with internet access to City
facilities. Council agendas and minutes, public notices,
• Does the agency have a website? City budgets, CIPs, water quality reports, and
• Does the agency post a public outreach SSMPs. A City calendar is also posted listing
tool (such as a calendar or newsletter) on upcoming meetings.
its website?
• What is the recommendation for mergers, Three government structure alternatives were
consolidations, or other changes to identified in LAFCO's 2014 Wastewater MSR:
governance structure? maintain the status quo,
consolidate service with the DD, and
annex all small county unincorporated islands
within the City's SOI.
(continued)
The MSR authors recommend Alternative #1,
maintain the status quo over the near-term. In the
future, as water and wastewater conditions
change, LAFCO may wish to consider other
alternatives.
Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues were identified.
service delivery, as required by commission
policy.
3.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California's Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
CA Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) - State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.)
California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS) SSO Public Report - Detail Page.
Query run on August 27, 2023 from <https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/chc_sso.html
>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit California State Data Center.
5/23/2023. Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC)
Data Release. Table 2: Land Area, Population and Population Density for California,
Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP), Census
2020Contributions from U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 1, 2023b. Report E-1 & E-1H,
Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2022 and
2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance. (2021). Report E-1: Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and
the State January 1, 2020, and 2021.
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
California Department of Finance. (2021). Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, 2010-2060
California and Counties (2019 Baseline). Retrieved on August 9, 2022, from:
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/>.
California Department of Finance. (2022). Report E-1: Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and
the State January 1, 2021, and 2022. Retrieved on August 11, 2022, from:
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/estimates-e1/>.
California Secretary of State. (2022). Registration by Political Subdivision by County. 88-pages.
Retrieved August 26, 2022 from: <file:///C:/Users/laylo/AppData/Local/
Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/IYW11PY2/politicalsub(1).pdf>.
California State Water Resources Control Board. CIWQS SSO Database: Interactive SSO Report.
Retrieved on August 9, 2022, from: <https://ciwqs.waterboards.
ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet?reportAction=criteria&reportId=sso_main
>.
City of Antioch. October 2014. Wastewater Master Plan Final. Contributions from RMC Consultants.
180 – pages. Retrieved September 10, 2023 from <https://www.antiochca.gov/public-works-
department/capital-improvements-division/>.
City of Antioch. (2015). Water and Sewer Rates and Capacity Charges Study. 108-pages. Retrieved
on August 12, 2022, from: <https://www.antiochca.gov/fc/environment/water-rate-
study.pdf>.
City of Antioch Public Works Department. (2018). Sewer System Management Plan October 2018.
Contributions from Causey Consulting, Walnut Creek, CA. 245-Pages. Retrieved on August
8, 2022, from: <https://www.antiochca.gov/fc/public-works/proposed-2018-ssmp.pdf>.
City of Antioch. March 2021. Draft Evaluation of Sewer Enterprise Funds Cash Flow and Rates.
Contributions from Municipal Financial Services Consulting in Henderson, Nevada. 20-
pages.
City of Antioch. September 28, 2022a. Staff Response to LAFCO's Request for Information via ESRI's
123 On-line Survey. 2-pages. Available in LAFCO's office upon request.
City of Antioch. (2022b). 5-Year Capital Improvement Program 2022-2027. 116-pages. Retrieved on
August 11, 2022, from: <https://www.antiochca.gov/fc/capital-improvements/Adopted-5-
Year-CIP-2022-2027.pdf>.
City of Antioch. (2022c). Draft 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Antioch Housing Element. 453-pages. Retrieved
on August 8, 2022, from: <https://www.antiochca.gov/fc/community-
development/planning/housing-element/AntiochHousingElement_PubReviewDraft-
App_final_reduced.pdf>.
City of Antioch Department of Finance. (December 20, 2022d). Annual Comprehensive Financial
Report For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022. Contributions from Badawi & Associates,
Certified Public Accountants. 263-pages. Retrieved on February 8, 2023 from
<https://www.antiochca.gov>.
City of Antioch. Adopted June 13, 2023. 5-Year Capital Improvement Program 2023-2028. 121-
pages. Retrieved September 10, 2023 from <https://www.antiochca.gov/public-works-
department/capital-improvements-division/>.
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Contra Costa County. (2022). GIS Data Downloads. Retrieved on August 11, 2022, from:
<https://gis.cccounty.us/Downloads/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. (2019). Municipal Service Review Update. 793-pages. Prepared by Lamphier-
Gregory Consultants and Berkson Associates. Retrieved on August 9, 2022, from:
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/municipal_service_reviews/City-
Services/City%20Services%20MSR%20Final%20Adopted.pdf>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from:
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/?>.
Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updated through 2024. The Delta Plan. Available online
at: <https://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan/ >.
Delta Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010. Land Use and Resource Management Plan
for the Primary Zone of the Delta. 42-pages. Retrieved on April 8, 2024 from
<https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Land-Use-and-Resource-
Management-Plan-2.25.10_-m508.pdf >.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. (2019). CIQWS Database: NPDES Order.
140-pages. Retrieved on August 11, 2022, from:
<https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/CiwqsReportServlet?reportID=486834
8&inCommand=displaysubpage&subPage=rmAttachmentPopup®MeasID=435913>.
Visser, M.A.; Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. (2018) Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta. Sacramento, CA: The Delta Protection Commission. 46-pages. Available
online at: <https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Delta-Socio-Economic-
Indicators-Report-508.pdf>.
Chapter 3: Antioch Page 3-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 4: CITY OF BRENTWOOD –
WASTEWATER SERVICES
Table of Contents
4.1: OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY & SOI ................................................................................................................ 4-4
4.3: POPULATION ....................................................................................................................................... 4-6
4.4: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ....................................................................................................... 4-8
4.5: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 4-8
4.6: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 4-17
4.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES...................................................................................... 4-25
4.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ................................................ 4-25
4.9: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ..................................................................................................................... 4-28
4.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................ 4-28
4.1: OVERVIEW
The City of Brentwood is bordered to the north by the City of Oakley, to the west by the City of Antioch,
and to the south and east by unincorporated Contra Costa County. Brentwood's current population
is 64,292. Settled in 1874, the area that would eventually become the City of Brentwood began as a
farming community in the late 19th century. It is still known throughout the Bay Area for its agricultural
products, primarily cherries, corn, and peaches. The City of Brentwood was incorporated in 1948.
Since 1990, many of the old farms and orchards have been replaced by suburban development.
The City of Brentwood provides wastewater services to over 64,292 residential and commercial
customers in an approximately 14.86 square miles service area. The City Public Works Department
includes the Engineering and Operations Divisions. The Operations Division oversees the sewer
operations. The City was awarded the "2021 California Water Environment Association – San
Francisco Bay Section Tertiary Recycled Water Plan of the Year". The City's Public Works Department
describes the wastewater system on its website at:
<https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/public-works/sewer-wastewater>. The City's Agency
Profile is included in Table 4-1. A map of the City's current boundary and SOI is shown in Figure 4-1.
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 4-1, Agency Profile – City of Brentwood
General Information
Agency Type Municipal
Principal Act General laws of the State of California
Date Formed 1948
Services Wastewater collection, conveyance, treatment, and disposal
Service Area
Location City of Brentwood
Sq. Miles/Acres Approximately 14.86 square miles/9,511.35 acres
Land Uses Residential, commercial, industrial, open space
Dwelling Units 21,180 (U.S. Census, 2022)
Population Served Approximately 64,292 persons. There are 520 commercial customers
and 78 multifamily customers (Brentwood, 2022b).
Last SOI Update June 12, 2019
Sewer Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities Brentwood wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), 247 miles of main
sewer line, 3 lift stations (City of Brentwood, 2022c)
Treatment Plant 5 MGD ADWF.
Capacity (MGD) Per NPDES permit, capacity may be increased in future to 6.4 MGD ADWF
if specific permit conditions are met. (SWRCB, 2019)
Connections 20,494 (Brentwood, 2022b)
Primary Disposal Brentwood WWTP provides tertiary treatment; effluent pumped off-
Method site for recycled water use or discharge into Marsh Creek.
Financial Information- FY 2021-2022 (Wastewater Funds)
Revenues Expenditures Net (Revenues -
Expenditures)
Wastewater Fund $21,572,154 $11,516,45 $ 10,055,702
FY 2022-2023 Lon g-Term Planned CIP Expenditures
Capital Expenditures The City’s Budget for • $83.3 million for the expansion of the
FY2022-23 allocates WWTP
CIP Expenditures in
the amount of $36.6
million for wastewater
improvements.
Wastewater Fund Total $198,053,337 June 30, 2022 per Annual Financial Statement
Assets
Governance
Governing Body City Council (5 members)
Agency Contact McKinney, Philip. Wastewater Operations Manager/Public Works.
Notes
None
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 4-1: Boundary/SOI Map – City of Brentwood
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
4.2: CITY BOUNDARY & SOI
The City of Brentwood is located in Eastern Contra Costa County and is surrounded by the cities
and/or communities of Antioch, Oakley, Knightsen, Discovery Bay, and Byron. The predominant land
use is now residential, with most of the residential development being single-family homes. The City
currently has several small to mid-sized office buildings and larger business park sites that house
financial, consulting, telecommunications, computer, and biotech companies (LAFCO, 2014). In
1998, the City of Brentwood was named the fastest-growing city in California. The City of Brentwood
lies within the San Francisco Bay / Sacramento Delta Estuary watershed. Additional information
about this watershed is provided in Appendix F. The City of Brentwood General Plan Update was
adopted on July 22, 2014, and is available on the City's website here:
<https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/community-development/planning/long-range-
planning>. The City Planning Commission and the staff at the City Planning Department implement
the General Plan Update. The Housing Element of the General Plan was most recently certified by
the State in 2015 and covers the planning period from 2015 to 2022. The City of Brentwood is
updating the next Housing Element (the 6th Cycle) to demonstrate the ability to accommodate 1,522
housing units during the 2023-2031 Planning Period at various affordability levels. The 6th cycle
Housing Element Update is expected to be approved by the City Council in Spring 2023 and then
submitted to the California Dept of Housing & Community Development (HCD).
Sphere of Influence
The sphere of influence (SOI) for the City of Brentwood includes the municipal boundary and extends
to the north near Oakley and east and west along the southern municipal boundary, as shown in
Figure 4.1. The City of Brentwood is bound by the cities of Antioch to the northwest and Oakley to the
north, and County lands to the south, east, and west. The City's SOI was reconfirmed as part of
LAFCO's 2014 MSR/SOI Update for Wastewater Services and in the June 12, 2019 MSR for City
Municipal Services. The City of Brentwood does not anticipate changes to the SOI boundary
(Brentwood, 2022b).
LAFCO's 2019 MSR for the City noted two unincorporated islands totaling 281 acres within the City
SOI and urban limit line. These areas are located in north Brentwood, bifurcated by Brentwood
Boulevard, adjoining the south boundary of the City of Oakley (LAFCO, 2019).
Extra-Territorial Service
The 2014 MSR states, "There are currently two parcels with Out-of-Agency Service Agreements1 for
sewer service (approved by CC LAFCO in 2005). Both property owners have signed a covenant and
1
•
Out-of-Agency Service Agreements filed with LAFCO may include:
• LAFCO 05-16 (sewer & water) approved in 2005. The address is 8011 Lone Tree Way. This parcel is not contiguous
• to the City.
8153 Lone Tree Way, received OAS water & sewer (LAFCO 00-20) in anticipation of a future annexation.
In 2000, three parcels received OAS water & sewer in anticipation of a future annexation (7765 Lone Tree Way,
7161 Lone Tree Way, and 2410 Smith Road).
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
agreement to annex their properties to the City". However, the properties were not planned for
annexation in 2014 (LAFCO, 2014). Additionally, the 2014 MSR recommended that both properties be
included within the City's SOI (LAFCO, 2014).
Dwelley Mori annexation application
In October 2020, the City prepared a 90-page Initial Study consistent with CEQA for a proposed
project. The project site is currently located in unincorporated Contra Costa County and under the
land use jurisdiction of the Contra Costa General Plan. The specific location is West of Marsh Creek,
south of Delta Road, east of Brentwood Boulevard, and north of Lone Tree Way, in Brentwood, CA
94561. The proposed application contemplated annexing the 90.6-acre project site into the City of
Brentwood to receive the full slate of municipal services, including water and wastewater services.
Rezoning the land use designation to allow conversion from agriculture to higher-density residential
was also part of the proposal. Based on the maximum allowable build-out pursuant to the City's R-
LD land use designation for the site, the residential build-out capacity of the project site that could
be expected to ultimately result from annexation of the project site would be 453 single-family
residential units (90.6 acres x 5.0 units per acre) (Brentwood, 2020). The Dwelley Mori annexation
application was abandoned in 2021 due to community concerns. An alternative approach to
annexing only a developer-owned private parcel(s) was briefly discussed in the community.
However, that would have created a large service island. If this application is to be resubmitted to
LAFCO in the future, it is recommended that the City provide LAFCo with details regarding the type,
size, and location of all wastewater infrastructure needed to support future build-out of the project
sites.
Delta Land Use
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta: Portions of the city boundary and SOI are located within the
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Estuary watershed (Delta), specifically within the “Secondary Zone”.
The Delta is a large inland river delta geographically connected to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and
home to several rare and endangered fish species. The Delta is also designated a National Heritage
Area. The Secondary Zone is within the “Legal Delta” and is described by various state laws and
planning documents (DPC, 2010 and DSC, 2013). For local government planners and administrators,
there are three key Delta planning documents listed below:
• The Delta Plan, by the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updated through 2024.
• Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta by the Delta
Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010.
• Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by Visser, M.A.;
Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. in 2018.
DPC’s Land Use and Resource Management Plan recognizes that urbanization and other
development projects within the secondary zone have the potential to impact the Primary Zone of
the Delta (DPC, 2010). These planning documents are important because the city’s discharge of
treated wastewater has the potential to influence water quality and endangered species within the
Delta.
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
4.3: POPULATION
There are approximately 64,292 residents within the City boundary. This is a decline in population of
1.41 percent from the 2020 population of 65,263. Of the 64,292 residents within the City boundary,
nearly 100% of residents are estimated to receive wastewater services from the City of Brentwood.
There are a few septic systems on private properties in the older parts of the City. Detailed
information regarding population demographics in Contra Costa County is provided in Appendix A.
Table 4-2: Existing Permanent Population, City of Brentwood, 2021 to 2022
Name of City Population in Number of Registered Population in SOI
Boundary (1) Voters in Boundary (2) only (3)
City of Brentwood 64,292 40,975 586
Sources:
(1) California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State:
January 1, 2021 and 2022. Sacramento, California.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/.
(2). Registered Voter data provided by LAFCO’s Directory as of (January 2023).
(3): Calculated estimate based on an average of 3.02 persons per parcel in Contra Costa County.
Projected Future Population: Data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to
calculate population growth for the City of Brentwood, reaching 75,572 residents by 2045. Since the
anticipated future population growth of the City has the potential to influence the demand for
wastewater services, the projections are shown in Table 4-3 below. The annual growth rate from
2020 to 2045 is projected by CA DOF to be 0.59 percent, as shown in Table 4-3. Brentwood is also
expected to have a build-out population of 76,226 based on the most recent General Plan Update
(Brentwood, 2021).
New Development Projects
The City of Brentwood is growing, and its future population is expected to expand. The City has
recently approved several new projects that will require wastewater service, as listed below. Most of
these projects are within the existing City boundary and do not require LAFCO approval.
• Innovation Center @ Brentwood is a 373-acre project site located in the northwest corner of
Brentwood and a projected focal point for jobs and mixed-use development.
• Vineyards at Marsh Creek - Event Center/Amphitheater Phase I. This project includes the
construction of an outdoor amphitheater and supporting structures and amenities.
• Costco: On June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission approved Costco's proposed plan for a
warehouse to be constructed on a vacant lot located south of Lone Tree Plaza Drive, near
Kohl's and Home Depot. The final project size approved by the commission is a 154,852
square-foot warehouse, with a parking lot to accommodate 864 vehicles and a 32-pump gas
station.
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 4-3: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2045)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2020 to
2020 to 2045 2020 to 2045 2045
County of Contra Costa1
1,149,800 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.8% 181,631 0.59%
City of Brentwood 2,3 64,292 67,961 70,620 72,862 74,500 75,572 15.8% 10,309 0.59%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-
2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
2: 2020 Population Data for Brentwood was provided by LAFCO’s Directory
3: Population projection for the City of Brentwood calculated as 5.68 percent of the County of Contra Costa population.
(Please note that CA DWR estimates 3.3 residents per sewer connection).
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
The city is located within the Legal Delta Secondary Zone, and state agencies have prepared a
detailed population analysis of the Delta area (Visser et al., 2018). Readers are encouraged to review
this information directly on the state website (as updates are expected soon) as follows:
• Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updated through 2024. The Delta Plan. Available
on-line at: <https://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan/ >.
• Delta Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010. Land Use and Resource
Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta. 42-pages. Retrieved on April 8, 2024 from
<https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Land-Use-and-Resource-
Management-Plan-2.25.10_-m508.pdf >.
• Visser, M.A.; Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. (2018) Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Sacramento, CA: The Delta Protection Commission. 46-
pages. Available on-line at: <https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Delta-
Socio-Economic-Indicators-Report-508.pdf>.
4.4: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address
municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in disadvantaged communities.
Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part of this MSR Update process. Data query results
showed no disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the City's
SOI, as shown in Appendix B (DUC map).
However, within the City's boundary, there is one low-income census block that meets the criteria
to be classified as disadvantaged (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). This area receives sewer, water, and
fire protection services. No public health or safety issues have been identified. Readers can learn
more about disadvantaged communities within the city and Contra Costa County through the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services database of socioeconomic and health indicators in
disadvantaged communities called the Environmental Justice Explorer Database. This database can
be queried at <https://onemap.cdc.gov/portal/apps/sites/#/eji-explorer>.
4.5: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
The City's wastewater service includes collection and conveyance to the WWTP for treatment and
disposal. The City provides wastewater collection and conveyance services to approximately 20,494
sewer connections, as shown in Table 4-1 above (Brentwood, 2022b). One City sewer connection
may serve many individual customers. Between 2021 to 2022, there was an increase of 378
connections to the City's services.
The City of Brentwood provides wastewater collection and conveyance services through 247 miles
of main sewer line and three lift stations (City of Brentwood, 2022c). The lift stations include:
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
1) The Sellers lift station collects the majority of sewage for the southeast quadrant of the City
of Brentwood. This lift station is located 1,900 feet south of Sunset Road on Sellers Ave. and
was constructed due to a conflict with the buried EBMUD Mokelumne Aqueduct.
2) A small "package lift station" also exists at the end of Pacific Grove Court and serves a limited
area in a small neighborhood of approximately 24 lots in a new subdivision (Brentwood,
2017).
The Brentwood WWTP is located in the northeastern part of the City. The WWTP has an average daily
flow of 4.01 MGD in 2021/2022 with 5 MGD capacity. The WWTP is an extended aeration/activated
sludge facility, and the treated effluent meets or exceeds CA Title 22 drinking water standards.
Treated effluent is supplied to a recycled water system, which averaged 1.22 MGD in 2022. Excess
treated tertiary effluent is disposed of through an outfall into Marsh Creek. The City's Sewer System
Management Plan (SSMP) was recently updated in 2021. City staff indicates that over the next five
years, the city plans to develop rate studies, update the master plan, and develop staffing plans to
improve wastewater services (Brentwood, 2022b).
The wastewater treatment system at the treatment plant consists of headworks (screening and grit
removal), anoxic basins (two existing, three after completed expansion), two extended aeration-
activated sludge basins, two denitrification basins, two secondary clarifiers, two banks of two single
media filters (total of four filters), chlorine disinfection, dechlorination, and a cascade aeration
system. Sludge is mixed with a polymer and dewatered using a belt filter press. Dried biosolids are
hauled off-site for disposal at the Altamont Landfill located in Alameda County. Once the expansion
upgrades are complete, the Discharger intends to implement heat drying as a means of producing
Class A biosolids, as well as provide diverse options for biosolids disposal. Occasionally, the
Discharger will dispose of biosolids at the Potrero Hill Landfill in Suisun City; however, the Altamont
Landfill is the primary disposal location. The WWTP produced 1,179 dry metric tons of biosolids in
2022 (personal communication, Philip McKinney, Brentwood, 2023).
The City's WWTP is currently being expanded to accommodate 6.4 MGD. The treatment plant was
originally designed to facilitate future expansion to an average dry weather flow of 10 MGD. However,
due to the drought and associated water conservation, per capita wastewater generation is less than
expected. Therefore, the 6.4 MGD expansion will accommodate current and near-term needs. The
construction work on the expansion should be completed by the end of 2024. Funding for this capital
improvement was through a loan (1.5%). The treatment plant expansion will be finished in 2024 per
the financing terms. Overaa is the primary construction contractor (McKinney, 2023, personal
communication).
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 4-4: Brentwood WWTP Facility Summary
Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) 5B070101001
CIWQS Facility Place ID 210322
Discharger City of Brentwood
Name of Facility Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facility Address 2251 Elkins Way, Brentwood, CA 94513
Watershed Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Receiving Water Marsh Creek
Receiving Water Type Estuary
Data Source: CA-RWQCB, 2019
The WWTP operates under a permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CA-
RWQCB) Central Valley Region, dated April 5, 2019. Order R5-2019-0029 and NPDES No. Ca0082660
- Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Brentwood WWTP In Contra Costa County will likely
expire in 2024. Therefore, the City is beginning the permit renewal process.
Commercial And Industrial Customers
The City's wastewater system serves approximately 520 Commercial and 78 multifamily customers,
as listed below in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5: Types of Commercial and Industrial Wastewater Service Customers
Type of Wastewater Customer Number of Customers
Commercial Sewer Other 65
Commercial Sewer School 36
Commercial Sewer Restaurant 86
Commercial Sewer Institutions, Churches, HOA 49
Commercial Sewer Retail 93
Commercial Sewer Office, Bank 114
Commercial Sewer Auto Sales/Repair 20
Commercial Sewer Gas Station 17
Commercial Sewer Grocery 12
Commercial Sewer Laundromat 2
Commercial Sewer Barber/Beauty 11
Commercial Sewer Hotel no Restaurant 3
Commercial Sewer Laundry 1
Commercial Sewer Carwash 7
Commercial Sewer Bakery 2
Multi Family 78
Commercial Sewer Mixed 2
Source City of Brentwood, Response to LAFCO's RFI, September 28, 2022b
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Please note that the City's wastewater system currently has no significant industrial users (i.e., no
EPA categorical users) (Brentwood, 2022b).
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2, dated January 2018, identifies critical
infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards (Contra Costa County,
2018). The Hazard Mitigation Plan shows that the Brentwood WWTP is located within an area of high
Liquefaction Susceptibility; moderate earthquake risk with Site Class/ Soil Profile "D" with stiff soil;
and potential flood hazard (Contra Costa County, 2018). The initial impression is that a significant
part of the city's infrastructure (the WWTP) is at risk for natural hazards. However, the city indicates
that during construction, the WWTP site soils were improved with pilings, rock columns, and other
engineered solutions to mitigate the potential for soil liquefaction. The city believes this has been
mitigated and is no longer a concern. (personal communication, C. Wichert, August 2023).
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted
systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California
Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General
Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. Order
No. WQ 2022-0103-DWQ (SSS WDRs), on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate
a sanitary sewer system comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to
a publicly owned treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A
5.6-year term from January 1, 2017, to August 9, 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The
results of the database queries regarding the City of Brentwood are listed below in Table 4-6.
During this 5.6-year timeframe, there were 20 SSO events in the City of Brentwood. All the SSOs
originated from failure at lower lateral points. The overflows were relatively small; however, some
spill material was not recovered. None of the overflows have leaked large amounts of sewage into
surface water. In this query, the largest spill was a volume of 65 gallons caused by pipe structural
issues. Two SSOs had a volume of one gallon. For example, on March 1, 2020, an SSO with a volume
of one gallon occurred due to root intrusion and offset lateral piping. Factors influencing the City's
ability to collect, treat, and dispose wastewater and provide public service to customers were
considered. According to City staff, the funding of projects and the adequacy of staffing are the
biggest factors influencing wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal (Brentwood, 2022b).
From July to October 2022, San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known as a
red tide, as described in Appendix F. The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 4-6: City of Brentwood Sanitary Sewer Overflows
EVENT Region Collection SSO Start SSO Vol of SSO Vol of SSO Failure WDID
ID System Category Date Vol Recovered SSO Point
Reached
Surface
Water
843829 5S City of Category 3 1/11/2018 10 10 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
844038 5S City of Category 3 1/13/2018 50 25 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
844863 5S City of Category 3 2/8/2018 21 21 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
846654 5S City of Category 3 4/20/2018 1 0 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
862430 5S City of Category 3 10/26/2019 10 0 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
863284 5S City of Category 3 11/22/2019 19 19 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
864726 5S City of Category 3 1/27/2020 2 0 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
865217 5S City of Category 3 2/21/2020 3 0 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
(Public)
865543 5S City of Category 3 3/1/2020 1 0 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
866380 5S City of Category 3 3/31/2020 45 0 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
868719 5S City of Category 3 8/21/2020 4 1 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
868926 5S City of Category 3 9/7/2020 16 16 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
869928 5S City of Category 3 10/14/2020 11 0 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
869930 5S City of Category 3 10/19/2020 65 0 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
870144 5S City of Category 3 10/21/2020 2 0 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
871388 5S City of Category 3 12/14/2020 15 2 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
875464 5S City of Category 3 7/16/2021 5 5 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
876948 5S City of Category 3 10/14/2021 10 10 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
881664 5S City of Category 3 5/11/2022 10 3 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
882156 5S City of Category 3 6/23/2022 15 0 0 Lower 5SSO10891
Brentwood CS Lateral
(Public)
Data Source: CIQWS Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
Figure 4-2. Google Maps Street View of the Brentwood City Hall
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
akashiwo, can cause water to take on a reddish-brown color. The HAB extended throughout the
open-bay regions of the South Bay, the Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths linked to the
red tide included sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, and anchovy. The San Francisco
Bay Water Board is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay through the Nutrient Management
Strategy, which includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other agencies to study
the potential impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. The City of Brentwood has an opportunity
to assist with this effort by continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by discussing the
nutrient problem with other wastewater Districts and the Water Board.
Infrastructure Needs
Existing Infrastructure: The City of Brentwood maintains various equipment, vehicles2,
infrastructure, and other assets associated with its wastewater infrastructure. The City of Brentwood
adopted its 76-page Sewer Master Plan on August 1, 2017. The purpose of the Master Plan (2017)
was to utilize a hydraulic sewer model and planning analysis to determine the operational condition
of the existing collection system network and to ascertain the various sewer infrastructure needs in
serving a 'full build' general plan that is expected to see the city grow up to 12,037 acres in size in the
future. The Master Plan (2017) found that the average daily flow into the city's WWTP was
approximately 3.8 MGD (64.6 gpcd). The flow rate was 64.6 gpcd. City staff utilizes a master planning
value of 69 gpcd when planning for existing and future sewer facilities. In 2017, the city sewer system
did not encounter Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) during storm events. The 2017 Master Plan identified
several needed capital facilities projects as follows:
• A new 0.4 MGD (peak) lift station with approximately 3,300 linear feet of 6" force main to
service the northern half of SPA 3.
• A new 0.15 MGD (peak) lift station with approximately 1,800 linear feet of 4" force main to
service the northeast quadrant of the city (north and east of the WWTP)
• Expansion of the capacity at the city WWTP.
The City is currently in the process of expanding the treatment capacity to 6.4 MGD, which should
be sufficient for the build-out of the city per the city's General Plan, including the 2023-2031 RHNA
(per Brentwood Housing Element, 2023).
In 2021, the city updated its SSMP. The SSMP addresses the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) mandate to meet the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements (GWDR). The
SSMP includes several elements: Goals, Operation and Maintenance Program, Overflow Emergency
Response Plan, Fats, Oils, and Grease Control Program, and a Communication Plan. The SSMP aims
2
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the City of Brentwood, it is likely that sometime in the
future, the City may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting vehicle s reliant upon an alternative energy
source such as electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen;
therefore, alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
to reduce sanitary sewer overflows such as those described in Table 4-6. The City has identified a
series of facility expansions and replacement upgrades as part of its SSMP and other infrastructure-
related master plans. The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) adopted in 2022 includes funds
to expand the WWTP to accommodate the average flow of 69 GPD per capita in recent years. This
CIP project is necessary because it will allow the city to maintain compliance with more stringent
discharge requirements (City of Brentwood, 2022a). The City developed a water and wastewater
Cost of Service Study in 2018 that outlined financial plans, conducted service rate analysis, and
created equitable rates. The Cost-of-Service Study formed a Water Enterprise Financial Plan
focusing on the fiscal years (FY) 2018 through 2023 (City of Brentwood, 2018). The Water Enterprise
Financial Plan considers the operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses, capital improvement
expenses, debt service costs, and other components.
Future Challenges: The MSR Authors asked City staff to describe the factors that may affect the
ability to serve wastewater customers in the future. City staff indicated that funding projects and
adequate staffing are the biggest factors (Brentwood, 2022b).
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 (2019) has several recommended remedies for
California's aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a wastewater
treatment plant is, what kind of wastes it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the
sewer pipes. Continue educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom
to call if such an event occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling.
Cooperative Program
A recycled water system came on-line in 2019 and has pumped over one billion gallons of recycled
water for use inside the city for landscaping in street medians and parks. This system may be
expanded in a few years with funds from regional grants with other Bay Area agencies. Maintenance
functions and training are conducted regionally with several other wastewater agencies. Brentwood
is well known for its dedication to providing recycled water.
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The City has developed several cooperative programs with long-term savings benefits, such as the
sales of recycled water. Reduction of City-paid amounts for retirement and health benefits has been
implemented in recent bargaining unit agreements.
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
4.6: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
Two state databases provide City-wide financial summaries, including:
• California Auditor's website at: <https://www.auditor.ca.gov/local_high_risk/lhr-main-landing>.
• State Controller's Office at <https://cities.bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov> runs the Government
Financial Reports database, including detailed financial data from 58 California counties and
more than 450 cities and pension-related information for state and local government.
The focus of this analysis is the Sewer Enterprise Fund. Enterprise Funds are used to separately
account for self-supporting operations such as the city's wastewater system. The City's budget and
Certified Annual Financial Reports are the primary information source for data related to the Sewer
Enterprise Fund, and these reports are posted on the city's website at:
<https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/finance-information-systems/financial-
documents/annual-comprehensive-financial-reports-acfr>. This financial analysis represents a
snapshot in time (i.e., a limited time period). However, the city regularly updates its financial data,
and readers may review the new data on the city’s website.
The City's 2021-22 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report provides a detailed overview of the city's
financial activities for the FY ended June 30, 2022. The report includes an independent auditor's
report, management's discussion and analysis, and basic financial statements, including
government-wide financial statements, a statement of net position, a statement of activities, and
fund financial statements. The City's financial statements are presented in conformity with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and audited by an independent, certified public
accounting firm. The report provides a comprehensive overview of the city's financial position and
results of operations, including information about revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities, and fund
balances. The report demonstrates the city's commitment to financial transparency and
accountability and provides valuable information for residents, stakeholders, and other interested
parties (Brentwood, 2022c).
The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United States and Canada awarded a
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Brentwood for its
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the FY ended June 30, 2021. In order to be awarded a
Certificate of Achievement, a government must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. This report must satisfy both generally accepted
accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for
one year (Brentwood, 2022c).
The City operates its wastewater services as enterprise funds within the confines of overall City
operations. Service fees comprise the significant majority of revenues that fund the services
provided for wastewater. Rate increases were implemented over the last several years to
accommodate the expenditures. The City maintains a reserve fund balance in its wastewater-related
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
funds. Seven primary areas of criteria have been utilized to assess the present and future financial
condition of the city's wastewater service operations, as discussed below:
3 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
The Wastewater Fund expenses for FY 2021-22 were $11,516,452, which was less than Total
Revenue ($21,572,154). Total Revenue exceeded Total Expenses in each of the three study years, as
shown in Figure 4-3 below. This key performance measure indicates that the Wastewater Fund is
solvent and has the capacity to cover its costs. Planned capital expenditures and debt service have
specific requirements. However, the Fund has experienced surpluses in the operating portions of
the Fund. Rate increases have been implemented over the past years to accommodate the
expenditures (Brentwood, 2022c).
Figure 4-3: Comparison of Revenue to
Expenses
$25,000,000
$22,225,792
$21,572,154
$20,000,000
$16,007,910
$15,000,000
$11,152,196 $11,803,229 $11,516,452
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22
Total Revenues Expenses
Source for Figure 4-3: Brentwood Annual Comp Financial Report for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21, FY
2021-22. Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Position on page 35 (Brentwood, 2022c).
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 4-7: Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Position for the year ended
June 30, 2022
Data Source: (Brentwood, 2022c).
Please note that the city's Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Enterprise Funds were impacted by
account delinquencies resulting from pandemic restrictions on collection-related service
interruptions. During the pandemic, the State of California prohibited water shutoffs for non-
payment, resulting in significant delinquent balances. During FY 2021-22, the city received relief
through the State's Water and Wastewater Arrearage Payment Program for a portion of the
delinquent balances. The City received $559,000 in grant funding, which was applied to delinquent
accounts; however, as of June 30, 2022, delinquent balances were still approximately $800,000
higher than comparable pre-pandemic balances. Despite the collection challenges, the city's
enterprise fund for Wastewater achieved the 30% cash reserve goal.
Net Position
The Wastewater Fund had an increase in net position of $9.5 million in FY 2021-22, as shown in Table
4-8 below. The Fund had increased contributions from development due to the acceptance of
developer-dedicated assets, development impact fees, and increased non-residential permit
activity. Additionally, the Wastewater Fund had increases in operational income from rate
adjustments (Brentwood, 2022c).
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 4-8: Statement of Net Position Wastewater Fund FY 2021-22
Category Value
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and Investments $38,685,613
Restricted Cash and Investments $1,054,545
Receivables, Net of Allowance for Doubtful Accounts $22,964,854
Inventories -
Prepaid $9,150
Internal Advance Receivable -
Total Current Assets $62,373,064
Non-Current Assets:
Long-Term Notes Receivable -
Internal Advance Receivable -
Capital Assets:
Land and Work in Progress $34,829,604
Depreciable, Net of Accumulated Depreciation and
Amortization $131,406,134
Total Capital Assets $166,235,738
Intangible, Net of Accumulated Amortization ($30,755,467)
Total Non-Current Assets $135,480,271
Total Assets $198,053,337
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES:
Deferred Amount on Refunding $284,371
Related to OPEB $854,441
Related to Pensions -
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources $1,136,814
LIABILITIES
Current Liabilities:
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities $3,007,759
Deposits Held -
Long-Term Debt Due Within One Year $2,240,846
Compensated Absences Payable $129,614
Total Current Liabilities $5,378,219
Non-Current Liabilities Due in More Than One Year:
Bonds $39,388,569
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 4-8: Statement of Net Position Wastewater Fund FY 2021-22
Category Value
Notes Payable and Other $1,944,845
Net OPEB Liability $884,803
Net Pension Liability -
Compensated Absences Payable $20,000
Total Non-Current Liabilities $42,238,217
Total Liabilities $47,616,436
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES:
Related to OPEB $805,083
Related to Pensions $1,495,548
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources $2,300,631
NET POSITION:
Net Investment in Capital Assets and Capacity Rights $94,055,836
Restricted:
Special Projects $23,176,924
Capacity $1,742,532
Unrestricted $31,664,792
Total Net Position $149,640,084
Data Source: Brentwood, 2022c
Ratios of Revenue Sources
The City receives 99% of its wastewater fund's operational revenues from service charges and fees.
There is no revenue from property taxes since this is an enterprise fund. Other sources of both
operational and non-operational revenue include Charges for Services, Other Income, Income
Before Contributions, Contributions, Fees, Credits, Intergovernmental, Capital Contributions,
From Governmental Activities, and Transfers-In, as shown in Figure 4-4 below. LAFCO's 2014 MSR
concluded that ratios for the wastewater funds reflect an appropriate balance for typical enterprise
fund services and minimize the impact that negative economic factors will have on more elastic
revenues such as property tax. This conclusion remains valid.
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 4-4: Revenue Sources for
Wastewater Services FY 21/22
9%
0%
10%
1%
11%
59%
10%
0%
Charges for Services Other Income
Income Before Contributions Contributions Fees Credits
Intergovernmental Capital Contributions
From Governmental Activities Transfers In
Ratio of Reserves to Annual Expenditures
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given FY is exhibited by the
amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to the
annual fund expenditures. The City's wastewater fund currently has $ 38,685,613 amount in cash
and investments, as shown in Table 4-8 above. The ratio of reserves to annual expenditures equates
to 336% of annual expenditures. This Wastewater Fund ratio represent a positive ratio.
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. Specifically, the city of Brentwood's loans
have recently been utilized to fund two key capital improvement projects. The City's WWTP is currently
being expanded and should be completed by the end of 2024. Funding for this capital improvement
was through a loan (1.5%). A tank improvement/replacement project was also financed through a
loan. In FY 2021-22, the Wastewater Enterprise Fund had a net increase in long-term liabilities of
$13.0 million for State Water Resources (SWR) Loans on Wastewater Enterprise Fund capital
projects. The Fund's total liabilities for FY 2021-22 were $47,480,129, as shown in Figure 4-5 below.
Total liabilities have increased in each of the three study years.
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 4-5: Total Liabilities Wastewater Fund
$47,480,129
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000 $35,423,663
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000 $20,950,415
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22
Data Source: Brentwood Annual Comprehensive Financial Report FY 2019-20 to FY
2021-22
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of the city's ability
to meet debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. The Annual Comprehensive
Financial Report states that the total debt service for FY 2021-22 for all Enterprise Funds was
$6,644,081. However, this number includes the debt service fee for the water and the solid waste
funds. For the Wastewater Fund specifically, the total notes payable within one year for FY 2021-22
was $2,240,846 (Brentwood, 2022c). Ideally, a ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual
expenditures of 10% or less would reflect a very stable ratio. The City's wastewater fund annual debt
service ratio to total expenditures is approximately 19%3, a slightly high but manageable ratio.
Please note that Brentwood also utilizes an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to
finance public facilities. For example, the Brentwood Innovation Center and the Brentwood
Boulevard-Downtown both participate in EIFDs. The City has a Public Financing Authority (PFA)
Board that oversees its EIFDs. The PFA Board will recommend plans to fund infrastructure
improvements within the Community's Innovation Center and Brentwood Boulevard areas. Board
member duties include providing insights on certain neighborhood improvements through approval
of an Infrastructure Financing Plan and prospective sale of bonds to focus on the creation of new
infrastructure for economic development and focusing on needed improvements in underserved
parts of the community.
Capital Improvement Program
On June 13, 2023, the City Council adopted the 2023-24 –2027-28 Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) Budget. The CIP is a five-year plan that addresses the city's future infrastructure needs and
projects supporting City Council Strategic Plan Initiatives, new infrastructure or facilities, and
3 $2,240,846 is 19.4578% of $11,516,452
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
maintenance or replacement of existing infrastructure. One key wastewater project included in the
FY 2023/24 CIP is the WWTP Expansion - Phase II, with a total cost of $83.3 million (Brentwood
Budget). This project expands the existing treatment facility to accommodate the planned and
approved development within the city. The project is necessary to keep the system in compliance
with increasingly stringent water discharge requirements. The City has secured a low-interest rate
State Water Resources Control Board Revolving Fund ("SRF") loan to fund the majority of this project
with a 30-year term. In addition, this project includes a biosolids dryer component funded by
wastewater operations revenue, wastewater replacement funds, and wastewater Loan repayments
will be funded from a combination of wastewater development impact fees and wastewater
operations revenue (Brentwood Budget, 2023). Another wastewater-related CIP project is the
Downtown Alley Rehabilitation - Midway and Park Way project. This project will install new water,
sewer, and storm drain facilities and either remove or replace existing infrastructure to bring the
aging infrastructure up to current standards. The City’s Budget for FY 2022-23 allocates CIP
Expenditures in the amount of $36.6 million for wastewater improvements.
Rate Structure
The City's current rate structure for wastewater reflects a fixed rate monthly base charge of $19.51,
plus a monthly sewer lateral maintenance charge of $4.07 per unit. Monthly wastewater charges for
commercial and other non-residential customer are variable. Annual increases over the next five
years are included in the city's current rate structure, as shown in Table 4-9 below. On June 13, 2023,
the City Council approved an increase in water, sewer, and garbage rates. The public hearing was
held after direct mailing notification was provided to the city's 20,000+ customers and property
owners. The increase will help fund daily operations of the utility services, as well as maintenance
and replacement of aging infrastructure, amid rising costs and state-mandated regulations.
Table 4-9: Monthly Wastewater Rates
Data Source for Table 4-9: Brentwood, 2023
The City charges developers of new buildings a connection fee consistent with the city's
Development Fee Program, which aims to ensure that future development will pay for their share of
infrastructure and capital improvement costs related to new residential and commercial
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
development.
4.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
Two government structure options were identified for the city of Brentwood in the 2014 MSR:
Maintain the status quo:
The City is currently providing wastewater services within its boundary. LAFCO's 2014 MSR found
that the city is financially sound and has developed and implemented an aggressive CIP Program to
maintain and upgrade necessary infrastructure (LAFCO, 2014). These conclusions remain valid in
2023.
Annex residential parcels currently receiving services outside the city boundary
through an out-of-agency services agreement:
This option is described for the purpose of exploring alternatives for the city boundary and/or SOI.
There are currently two parcels with Out-of-Agency Service Agreements for sewer service (approved
by CC LAFCO in 2005). Both property owners have signed a covenant and agreement to annex their
properties to the city. The 2014 MSR recommended that both properties be included within the city's
SOI (LAFCO, 2014). There are likely other parcels receiving services through an out-of-agency service
agreement. However, since most of these parcels are not contiguous to the city boundary, this
option is not recommended at this time.
LAFCO’s 2014 MSR noted that the Liberty Union High School District's fourth high school site could
also be considered for placement in the city's SOI for consideration of future City services (LAFCO,
2014). However, the 2014 MSR did not provide any additional details. LAFCO does not have enough
information to move forward with the discussion of this option.
4.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 4-10: MSR Determinations
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected area. The city's existing population is estimated at
• Is the existing population estimated? 64,292 persons. The City's existing population
• Is the projected future growth estimated? is expected to grow to 75,572 by 2045. From
2020 to 2045, there is an estimated growth
rate of 0.59 percent.
Location and characteristics of any No disadvantaged unincorporated
disadvantaged unincorporated communities communities are within or contiguous to the
within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. city's SOI. However, within the city's
boundary, one census tract with a low income
meets the criteria to be classified as
disadvantaged.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities, The City's consultant, Raftelis, prepared a
adequacy of public services, and infrastructure Water and Wastewater Rate Study, which the
needs or deficiencies, including needs or City Council approved in July 2023. As part of
deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and its water and wastewater cost of service
industrial water, and structural fire protection in study, the city analyzed the operations and
any disadvantaged, unincorporated maintenance (O&M) expenses, capital
communities within or contiguous to the sphere improvement expenses, and debt service
of influence. costs for FY 2018 to FY 2023.
• Does the agency have a CIP?
• Are SSOs identified? The City's Capital Improvement Program
includes funds to expand the WWTP due to the
• Are local hazards identified?
flows reaching 69 GPD per capita in recent
years.
The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018)
shows that the Brentwood WWTP is located
within an area of high Liquefaction
Susceptibility; moderate earthquake risk with
Site Class/ Soil Profile "D" with stiff soil; and
potential flood hazard (Contra Costa County,
2018). However, the city indicates that During
construction, the WWTP site soils were
improved with pilings, rock columns, and
other engineered solutions to mitigate the
potential for soil liquefaction. The City
believes this has been mitigated and is no
longer a concern. No disadvantaged
unincorporated communities are within or
contiguous to the city's SOI.
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Financial ability of agencies to provide services. • The Wastewater Fund expenses for FY
• Has the agency prepared a rate study? 2021-22 were $ 11,516,452, which was less
• Do revenues exceed expenditures? than Total Revenue ($21,572,154). Total
• Is the ratio of annual debt service to total Revenue exceeded Total Expenses in each
fund annual expenditures 10% or less? of the three study years. This key
performance measure indicates that the
Wastewater Fund is solvent and has the
capacity to cover its costs.
• The City's wastewater fund annual debt
service ratio to total expenditures is
approximately 19%. Although this exceeds
the ideal goal for the ratio of annual debt
service to total fund annual expenditures of
10% or less, the city has a manageable
ratio.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The City WWTP produces recycled water that
is suited for non-potable reuse (City of
Brentwood, 2018). The City has a non-potable
water supply system that distributes the
recycled and untreated water (City of
Brentwood, 2018).
Accountability for community service needs, The City provides a comprehensive website
including government structure and operational providing the public with internet access to
City Council agendas and minutes, public
facilities.
notices, City budgets, CIP programs, and
• Does the agency have a website?
water quality-related reports. A City Calendar
• Does the agency post a public outreach
is also posted on its website, listing City
tool (such as a calendar or newsletter) on projects, events, and public hearings.
its website?
• What is the recommendation for This MSR considered two options for potential
future mergers, consolidations, or other
mergers, consolidations, or other
changes to governance structure. It is
changes to governance structure?
recommended that LAFCO maintain the
status quo in regards to Brentwood’s
wastewater service. The City is currently
providing wastewater services within its
boundary. LAFCO's 2014 MSR found that the
city is financially sound and has developed
and implemented an aggressive CIP Program.
Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified.
service delivery, as required by commission
policy.
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
4.9: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Section 4.7, Government Structure Alternatives, describes various issues and options associated
with changing the structure of this local government agency. specifically, Section 4.7 noted that two
government structure options were identified for the City of Brentwood in the 2014 MSR as listed
below.
• Maintain the status quo:
• Annex the two residential parcels currently receiving services outside the city boundary
through an out-of-agency services agreement
LAFCO often accomplishes its government structure issues through changes to boundaries and/or
SOIs. This MSR focuses solely on wastewater service. The City does not currently anticipate any
boundary or SOI changes in conjunction with wastewater services (McKinney, 2023, personal
communication). Therefore, this report recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain the existing
SOI for the City of Brentwood. However, when LAFCO next considers City-wide municipal services,
the City's General Plan should be consulted as its policies may signal the intention to ultimately
adjust the city's boundary and SOI in certain areas of the city. Additionally, the City Council may wish
to share additional information with LAFCO about their potential future boundaries and SOI. See also
LAFCO's June 12, 2019 MSR on City Municipal Services.
4.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
Calif. Dept. of Finance Demographic Research Unit. December 28, 2021, Date Updated. November
8, 2021, Published Date. Web App: PL94 data at different geographies. Retrieved on Aug 8,
2022 from: <https://dru-data-portal-cacensus.hub.arcgis.com/apps/pl94-data-at-different-
geographies/explore>.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CA-RWQCB) Central Valley Region. April 5, 2019.
Order R5-2019-0029 and NPDES No. Ca0082660 - Waste Discharge Requirements for the
City of Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant In Contra Costa County. 142-Pages.
Retrieved on Aug 8, 2022 from:
<https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/CiwqsReportServlet?reportID=173558
3&inCommand=displaysubpage&subPage=rmAttachmentPopup®MeasID=430031>.
California Secretary of State. (2022). Registration by Political Subdivision by County. 88-pages.
Retrieved August 26, 2022 from:
<file:///C:/Users/laylo/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/IY
W11PY2/politicalsub(1).pdf>.
City of Brentwood. August 1, 2017. Sewer Master Plan. 76-pages. Contributions from Ennis
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Consulting of Fresno, CA. Retrieved August 19, 2022 from:
<https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/public-works/operations-division>.
City of Brentwood. (2018). Water and Wastewater Cost of Service study. 75-pages. Retrieved August
19, 2022 from:
<https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/164/637787930000170000>.
City of Brentwood Community Development Department. October 2020. Dwelley-Mori Annexation
Project. Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Contributions from Raney Planning and
Management Inc. 90-pages.
City of Brentwood. April 28, 2015, Housing Element. 128-pages. Retrieved on Aug 8, 2022 from:
<https://www.brentwoodca.gov › home › showpublisheddocument › 2904 ›
637794954182470000>.
City of Brentwood. March 2019 Revision. Sewer System Management Plan for WDID #: 5SSO10891.
189-pages. Retrieved on Aug 15, 2022 from:
<https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3188/6378036120444300
00>.
City of Brentwood. January 2021 Revision. Sewer System Management Plan for WDID #: 5SSO10891.
105-pages. Retrieved on Aug 8, 2022 from
<https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/public-works/operations-division/sewer-
wastewater>.
City of Brentwood. 2022a. Capital Improvement Plan 2022/23-2026/27. 146-pages. Retrieved on
August 16, 2022 from:
<https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5525/637931175342830000>.
City of Brentwood. September 28, 2022b. Staff Response to LAFCO's Request for Information via
ESRI's 123 On-line Survey. 2-pages. Available in LAFCO's office upon request.
City of Brentwood Finance and Information Systems Department. December 13, 2022c. Annual
Comprehensive Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022. Contributions from Maze
and Associates Accountancy Corporation, Pleasant Hill, CA. 179-pages. Retrieved on July
22, 2023 from <https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/finance-information-
systems/financial-documents/annual-comprehensive-financial-reports-acfr>.
City of Brentwood. April 11, 2023. Water and Wastewater Rate Study Final Draft Report. Raftelis
Consultants. 69-pages. Retrieved on July 24, 2023 from
<https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/finance-information-systems/utility-
billing/rate-studies/-folder-494>.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-29
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Contra Costa LAFCO. Final; Approved May 14, 2014. Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Contra Costa (LAFCO). June 12, 2019.
Municipal Service Review Update (for City-wide Services). Prepared by Lamphier Gregory
Consultants, Oakland, CA. 793-pages.
McKinney, Philip, Wastewater Operations Manager/Public Works. April 3, 2023. Personal
communication with Amanda Ross and Bruce Baracco.
U.S. Census Bureau. November 2, 2021. 2020 American Community Survey 1-Year Experimental
Estimates. Table ID: XK201902. Table Title: Median Household Income In The Past 12 Months
(In 2020 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars). Retrieved July 7, 2021 from
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/experimental-data/1-year.html.
Chapter 4: Brentwood Page 4-30
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CONCORD –
WASTEWATER SERVICES
Table of Contents
5.1: OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2: CONCORD BOUNDARY & SOI ............................................................................................................. 5-4
5.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 5-8
5.4: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 5-20
5.5: POPULATION .................................................................................................................................... 5-26
5.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ..................................................................................................... 5-28
5.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES...................................................................................... 5-29
5.8: RECOMMENDED MSR DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................ 5-31
5.9 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ....................................................................................................................... 5-33
5.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................ 5-34
5.1: OVERVIEW
Founded in 1869 as the community of Todos Santos (“All Saints”), the City of Concord (City) was
incorporated in 1905. The City boundary encompasses 30.54 square miles, and the City has a
population of approximately 125,410 residents as of 2020 [California Department of Finance (CA
DOF), 2022]. The City shares boundaries with the cities of Pittsburg and Clayton to the east; the City
of Walnut Creek to the south; and the City of Pleasant Hill and portions of unincorporated Contra
Costa County to the west. The City Council has an Infrastructure & Franchise Sub-Committee which
meets as needed. The Sub-Committee’s responsibilities include Cable and Garbage Franchises,
Public Works, Sewers, Solid Waste, Streets, and Transportation as described on its website at:
<https://www.cityofconcord.org/391/Infrastructure-Franchise>. The City of Concord lies within the
San Francisco Bay/Sacramento Delta Estuary
watershed. Additional information about this
watershed is provided in Appendix F. A map of the
City’s current boundary, and sphere of influence
(SOI) is shown in Figure 5-2 on Page 5-3. The City of
Concord’s Agency Profile is in Table 5-1 (next page).
Figure 5-1: Photo of Concord City Hall
Photo Credit: Courtesy of Google Maps, Street View
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 5-1: Agency Profile – City of Concord
General Information
Agency Type Municipal
Principal Act General laws of State of California
Date Formed City of Concord incorporated in 1905
Services Wastewater collection and conveyance
Service Area
Location Wastewater service area includes: the cities of Concord and Clayton,
Ayers Ranch unincorporated area, the Concord Navel Weapons
Station (unincorporated area), and a small Walnut Creek
neighborhood.
Sq. Miles/Acres 30.54 square miles/19,545.07acres
Land Uses Residential, commercial, light industrial, office/business park, open
space
Population Served 125,410 Concord residents (CA DOF, 2022), 10,863 Clayton residents
(CA DOF 2022), several residents of unincorporated areas, and 1,609
commercial accounts (Concord, 2022).
Last SOI Update 06/12/2019
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities 345 miles of sewer main, 119.7 miles of sewer laterals, 7,140
maintenance holes, and three siphons
Connections 40,37 0 ( Concord, 2022) ; 47,683 du’s (CA DOF, 2022)
Treatment Plant Capacity Wastewater treatment provided by Central Contra Costa Sanitary
(MGD) District (Central San). See Chapter 12 for additional information.
Primary Disposal Method Gravity flow through Concord sewage collection and conveyance
system to Central San system. See Chapter 12 for additional
information.
Budget Information- FY 2023-2023 (Sewer Fund)
Revenues Expenditures Net
Sewer Fund $44,007,728 $34,277,515 $9,730,213
FY 2023-2024 (Budgeted) Long-Term Planned Expenditures
Capital Expenditures $8,590,615
$30,556,500 - 5 Year Projection
Total Net Assets $1,071,900,000 June 30, 2022 City-wide Net Position
Total Net Position $33,627,416 Estimated for June 30, 2022
Governance
Governing Body City Council (5 members)
Agency Contact Bruce Davis, Engineer, City of Concord. (925) 671-3470.
Bruce.Davis@cityofconcord.org.
Notes
None
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 5-2: Boundary/SOI Map – City of Concord
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
5.2: CONCORD BOUNDARY & SOI
Boundary:
The City’s boundary encompasses 30.54 square miles/19,545.07 acres. Downtown Concord
contains Todos Santos Plaza, known for its farmer’s market. Surrounding downtown is high-density
apartment and condominium projects. Other land uses in the City are primarily residential and also
include commercial, mixed uses, and open space. No agricultural land uses exist in the City of
Concord (LAFCO, 2019). Please note that the voter-approved Urban Limit Line surrounds the entire
City and the majority of the SOI, except for the far northern SOI areas adjacent to Suisun Bay (LAFCO,
2019). The City of Clayton is located east to southeast of Concord.
San Francisco Bay Land Use
The City’s boundary/SOI is near a portion of the San Francisco Bay which is a sensitive environmental
resource. The California state planning and regulatory agency with regional authority over the San
Francisco Bay, the Bay’s shoreline band, and the Suisun Marsh is called the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Its mission is to protect and enhance San
Francisco Bay and to encourage the Bay’s responsible and productive use for this and future
generations. BCDC works to ensure projects are compatible with the conservation of Bay resources
as described on its website at: <https://bcdc.ca.gov/>.
The Bay Area Regional Collaborative is another planning agency in the Bay, and includes the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and Bay Area Air Quality
Management District. This collaborative multi-agency regional committee allows for cross-
jurisdictional work on projects such as Resilient Bay Area and Carbon Free Future.
Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS):
The CNWS was originally established in 1942 and is located within the City’s existing boundary. In
November 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission announced that the Inland
Area of the base was approved for closure and the area was surplused by the Navy in March 2007.
The Tidal Area remains in operation as a port under the command of the Army. In 2006, the
Department of Defense designated the Concord City Council to serve as the Local Reuse Authority
(LRA). In 2007, the U.S. Government announced that the inland portion of the CNWS would be
closed. Subsequently, the City coordinated with a 21-member advisory committee to develop the
Concord Community Reuse Project Area Plan adopted in 2012, described on a website at:
<https://concordreuseproject.org/27/About>. Under this plan, the 5,046 acres of land will be re-
developed into new neighborhoods, community facilities, business districts, and conservation areas
with greater circulation (City of Concord, 2012).
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
On September 19, 2023, the City Council, acting as the Local Reuse Authority, entered into an
Exclusive Agreement to Negotiate (ENA) with Brookfield Properties regarding the development of the
Community Reuse Project at the former CNWS. During the November 14, 2023, City Council
meeting1, Brookfield Properties presented the Conceptual Preliminary Land Use Plan for the
construction of approximately 12,300 homes on roughly 2,306 acres of the CNWS, provided as
Figure 5-3 below. This MSR does not assess whether there is sufficient wastewater infrastructure
capacity to serve the future buildout of the CNWS. However, details about this question are
described in the Concord Sewer Master Plan (2023b). Additionally, two engineering studies were
completed to address the development of the CNWS and its impact on water and sanitary system
utilities: (1) the City’s Hydraulic Evaluation Report (authored by Brown and Caldwell Engineering)
completed in April 2011 and (2) Central San prepared a Recycled Water Facilities Plan for the
development of CNWS (authored by Carollo Engineering) completed in December 2011. On February
20, 2024, the LRA is planned to review the Term Sheet for approval and if approved Brookfied will
commence the DDA stage of the ENA and begin preparations of the Infrastructure Master Plan
portion of the Specific Plan as well as comprehensive Community outreach on the project. The
Specific Plan and EIR are anticipated for preparation over the next three years.
The City currently provides wastewater connections to the adjacent former Coast Guard property to
the west of the CNWS; however, the 286 units at the property are currently vacant and do not utilize
wastewater service. A new property owner is planning to re-tenant the site.
The City must decide how to handle projected future wastewater flow from the CNWS. Within the
CNWS, Concord’s wastewater service area would function via gravity. It is possible that the area of
CNWS currently in the Central San boundary will continue to be served by Central San. Under this
scenario, Concord would collect and run wastewater through the City’s existing infrastructure with
upgrades. Another option would be to send wastewater north to the Central San area. This option
would require new infrastructure, including new pumping facilities.
1
Ththtep sm:/e/ectiitnygo fpcaocnkceotr dfo.orr tgh/eA Cgietnyd CaoCuenncteilr’s N ovember 14, 2023 meeting contains additional details
about the CNWS and is available as a downloadable .pdf document from:
C<hapter 5: Concord >. Page 5-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 5-3: CNWS Preliminary Plan by Brookfield Properties
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Sphere of Influence:
Section 5.7, Government Structure Alternatives, describes various issues and options associated
with changing the structure of this local government agency. LAFCO often accomplishes its
government structure issues through changes to boundaries and/or SOIs. Additionally, the City’s
SOI includes an additional 15.56 square miles, including lands to the north and small
unincorporated areas adjacent to the City’s boundary. The SOI was most recently considered in
LAFCO’s 2019 City Services MSR, and the SOI was retained in its current configuration. Although
Concord’s SOI is large, much of the area is unusable bay or tidal lands, including coastal salt marsh.
Included in the SOI are the Ayers Ranch unincorporated neighborhood and the Concord Naval
Weapons Station, described in more detail under Section 5.2 below.
• Ayers Ranch: Ayers Ranch is a 183-acre unincorporated island within Concord’s SOI,
located south of Bailey Road. Most of the houses in this area were built with septic systems.
A local newspaper, East Bay Times, reported in 2015 that several septic tanks were failing. In
June 2021, LAFCO approved LAFCO Resolution 21-01, allowing Concord to provide out-of-
agency wastewater service to a local parcel. At the time, LAFCO’s staff report noted that
some parcels in this area were experiencing issues with septic systems, including failure,
and had requested municipal sewer service from the City on an individual basis. While a
significant portion of the unincorporated island is developed, vacant and under-developed
properties in the area will eventually need municipal sewer service. LAFCO placed the Ayers
Ranch area within the City’s SOI signifying that the City is the logical, long-term service
provider. The 2014 and 2008 LAFCO Water/Wastewater Municipal Service Reviews
recommended that the City of Concord annex the Ayers Ranch island. In September 2015,
the Concord City Council took an affirmative step and adopted Resolution No. 15-59,
establishing a non-binding strategy to annex Ayers Ranch by 2030. This signals the City’s
intent to annex the area in the future.
The current status of the Ayers Ranch community (as of January 2024) is that portions
o
of the community have been annexed over the years in a piecemeal fashion. One
challenge to providing wastewater service to the entire community is that specific
parts of the neighborhood are physically difficult for a pipeline to access. For
example, if a pipeline must cross the Creek, then a pumping station would likely be
needed. A pumping station and other infrastructure can be expensive to plan and
install. Additionally, this unincorporated (island) area faces policy and legal issues in
regards to service provision and future annexation. Typically, failed septic systems
trigger an environmental health letter. If the parcel with a failed septic is located 200
feet from an existing line, then health rules require the parcel to hook up with the
City’s system physically. When Concord provides out-of-area service to an Ayers
Ranch parcel, the customer is invited to submit a pre-annexation agreement
(personal communication, B. Davis, January 2024). LAFCO has approved 10 out-of-
agency service applications (2015 – 2023).
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
• LAFCO’s 2014 Wastewater MSR described efforts to annex Ayers Ranch and other
unincorporated areas receiving service. The primary obstacles to annexation include
landowner opposition, the inability to reach agreement on a mutually agreeable property tax
exchange agreement between the City and the County, and the cost of extending
infrastructure. The City is willing to consider extending sewer service to parcels or areas
experiencing failing septic tanks if acceptable to CC LAFCO, the residents, and the County
(LAFCO, 2014).
Service Area Outside Concord’s Boundary
Concord provides wastewater services to areas located outside the City boundary. For example, the
Argonne Drive neighborhood, near Minert, is located in Walnut Creek. This small neighborhood of 60
parcels receives wastewater collection service from Concord.
In another example, Concord provides wastewater collection service to the City of Clayton by
contract. Concord owns and maintains the lines in Clayton. This is an agency-to-agency contract
between two cities. The collected wastewater is sent to Central San wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) for treatment and disposal.
During the 2014 Wastewater MSR process, LAFCO encouraged the City to update its policies,
procedures, ordinances, and Municipal Code regarding out-of-agency sewer service agreements. At
that time, the City indicated that for many years, it had requested CC LAFCO approval before
extensions of sewer service through contract or agreement outside its jurisdictional boundary
(LAFCO, 2014).
5.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
The City’s wastewater service includes collection and conveyance to the Central San treatment
plant for treatment and disposal. The City provides wastewater collection and conveyance services
to 40,370 sewer connections, as shown in Table 5-1 above (Concord, 2022). One City sewer
connection may serve many individual customers. Concord serves no industrial customers, but it
does serve 1,609 commercial accounts (Concord, 2022). Over the past five years, the City has
improved wastewater operations. For example, according to the City staff, Concord introduced two
new positions: a lead collection systems worker and a collection systems worker (Concord, 2022).
In addition, the City of Concord completed a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan in 2022 (Concord, 2022).
The City’s sewer standards and regulations are in the Concord Municipal Code Chapter 13.05.
Developers may be required to conduct off-site improvements.
Concord provides sewage collection and conveyance services for Concord residents and
businesses, the adjacent City of Clayton, Ayers Ranch unincorporated area, and a small portion of
CNWS unincorporated area. Concord’s wastewater system conveys the effluent flows to the Central
San system via a line relief interceptor and gravity-flow connection between the City’s former sewage
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
pump station and the Central San line in Martinez. Central San operates a WWTP as described in
Chapter 12. Additionally, wastewater from Clayton is conveyed by gravity flow through the Concord
system to the Central San system. Central San provides treatment and disposal services for all
Concord and Clayton sewer connections. Central San also provides sewage collection services for
northern Concord, including the northern portion of the CNWS and some areas along the City’s
western boundary, as described in Chapter 12. The City pays its proportional share of the cost of
operation of the Central San WTP based on metered flows. The costs include operations, capital
expenses, and hazardous materials disposal.
Concord Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (CSSMP)
Concord completed a SSMP in 2023 with assistance from Stantec Consulting Services Inc. The
CSSMP is available on the City’s Rate webpage at: <https://www.cityofconcord.org/1049/Sewer-
Service-Rates>. The CSSMP provides a detailed assessment of existing and future conditions related
to the City’s sewer system. The CSSMP is compatible with the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan
(SSMP), and these plans ensure compliance with the General Order requirements of the State Water
Resources Control Board. The CSSMP includes a capacity evaluation, a recommended sewer
improvement program, and an existing capital improvement program. Inflow and infiltration (I&I)
were studied in the CSSMP, which recommends that future mitigation efforts focus on Basins 2, 3,
5, 6, and 11. The CSSMP considers potential future changes and provides a framework for the City
to maintain and improve its sewer system (Concord, 2023b). The CSSMP enables Concord to better
plan and budget for capacity and condition upgrades to its sanitary sewer system (Concord, 2022).
Concord’s CSSMP (2023b) states that the total annual average flow for the service area (Concord
and Clayton) ranged from 9.9 MGD to 13.2 MGD between 2011 and 2019. The average dry weather
flow (ADWF) averaged over this period is 10.2 MGD, equating to a per capita rate of 73 gallons per
person per day (gpcd), similar to the typical ADWF range of 65-85 gpcd for California cities. Peak
flows discharged to the Central San between 2011 to 2019 have ranged from 14.3 MGD (2014) to 29.8
MGD (2017), with peaking factors (Peak Flow / ADWF) ranging from 1.3 to 2.7 times average annual
flows (average peaking factor of 2.0) (Concord, 2023b).
The CSSMP functions as a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the City’s wastewater system. The
CSSMP lists several near-term projects to provide capacity under existing or near-term development
conditions, considering system flows and ongoing development projects as listed in Table 5-2 below.
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 5-2: Near-term Capacity Improvement Project Costs Summary
Trunk Sewer Upstream Downstream Total Proposed Existing Estimated
Improvement Maintenance Maintenance Length Pipe Size Pipe Size Total
hole hole (LF) (in) (in) Project
Cost
Landana H16-060 H16-002 478 10 8 $502,000
Willow Pass H15-607 H15-591 667 15 12
(Segments H15-591 H15-381 4,155 15 15
$7,479,000
1-3) (Line Pipe)
H15-097 H14-102 3,431 15 12 to 14
Aspen J14-077 J14-070 335 12 10 $455,000
Total: 9,066 Total: $8,436,000
Source: (City, 2023b)
The CSSMP lists long-term projects needed to provide wastewater system capacity under future or
long-term development scenarios. These projects are dependent on the development of specific
plan areas, including the CNWS and Marsh Creek. Long-term improvement project costs are listed
in Table 5-3 below.
Table 5-3: Long-term Capacity Improvement Project Costs Summary
Trunk Sewer Upstream Downstream Total Proposed Existing Estimated
Improvement Maintenance Maintenance Length Pipe Size Pipe Total
hole hole (LF) (in) Size (in) Project
Cost
Willow Pass H15-576 New Manhole 10,487 27 12 to 15
(All H16-004 H15-576 1,968 24 12 to 15 $23,410,000
Segments)
Marsh Creek M18-043 L18-028 2,316 8 6 $1,825,000
Sewer (6-
inch)
Total: 14,761 Total: $25,235,000
Source: (City, 2023b)
The near-term and long-term project costs total approximately $33.7 million (Concord, 2023b). The
CSSMP contains additional details about project costs.
Concord Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) (2021)
Concord updated its SSMP, which is published as Appendix A in the Master Plan. Concord’s SSMP
describes the system’s goals, organization, legal authority, and operations and maintenance
program. The City uses an electronic reporting system to track and analyze sanitary sewer overflows
(SSOs) and evaluate the effectiveness of its preventive maintenance program. The SSMP describes
staffing as consisting of two cleaning crews, one Closed Circuit Television Video (CCTV) crew, and
one construction crew. These crews provide regular and hot spot line cleaning, easement
maintenance, lateral maintenance, CCTV inspection, condition assessment of lines, and routine
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
small, shallow construction repairs to the sewer system and laterals. The sanitary sewer operations
are supported by part-time administrative and clerical support. Additionally, engineering and
technical support is provided by the City’s Public Works Department and the Community
Development Department.
Clayton Service Area
The City of Clayton has a service agreement with the City of Concord, such that Concord provides
maintenance service to the public wastewater collection system within Clayton’s boundary. Clayton
has a population of approximately 11,090 residents and comprises 3.83 square miles. Clayton’s
waste discharger identification number (WDID) in the California Integrated Water Quality System
(CIWQS) is 2SSO18102. Infrastructure within the Clayton boundary is listed in Table 5-4 below. The
Sewer System Service Area for both Clayton and Concord is shown in Figure 5-4 (next page).
Table 5-4: Wastewater Infrastructure in Clayton
*Data Source: Clayton SSMP, 2019
Clayton’s Sewer System Management Plan (2019) outlines the goals, organization, legal authority,
and operations and maintenance program for the City’s sewer system. The Plan aims to prevent
SSOs and protect public health and the environment. It requires the City to maintain relevant
information, monitor and measure the effectiveness of the SSMP, assess the success of the
preventive maintenance program, update program elements, and identify and illustrate SSO trends.
The City’s authorized representatives are responsible for implementing and enforcing the Plan and
ensuring compliance with state and federal regulations. The maintenance service area is anticipated
to continue to expand by infill and by annexations in Clayton. For example, the SSMP indicates about
290 potential new units in the Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan area, south and east of the City
(Clayton SSMP, 2019). However, City staff correctly noted that most of these units are outside of the
ULL and will not likely come to fruition unless the 30-year ULL is changed.
In recent years, Clayton’s Mitchell Canyon neighborhood required a sewer pipeline main extension.
There are no major new projects planned for the Clayton area (personal communication, B. Davis,
January 2024).
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 5-4: Map of Sewer Service Maintenance Area for Cities of Concord and Clayton
Map courtesy of the City of Concord
Infrastructure Needs
Existing Infrastructure:
Concord’s Public Works Department maintains various equipment, vehicles2, infrastructure, and
associated assets. The City’s collection system includes 345 miles of sewer main, 119.7 miles of
sewer laterals, 7,140 maintenance holes, and 3 siphons. LAFCO’s 2014 MSR noted that the City
2
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the district, it is likely that sometime in the future, the
district may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting vehicles reliant upon an alternative energy source
s uch as electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore,
alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cost effective.
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
made efforts to repair corroded pipes and rectify hydraulic issues for those pipes with inadequate
capacity. For example, the A-Line Relief Interceptor was completed in FY 2008-09. The collection
system has aged portions that need replacement, as identified in the City’s Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). Problem spots and old sewer mains are being replaced on the basis of
timing and funding availability. The CIP (dated November 2022) includes funds to improve the
downtown sewer, Kirker Pass Road sewer repair, Whitman Road sanitary sewer improvements, and
other projects (Concord, 2022). The CIP is described in more detail on page 5-19.
Future Challenges:
The MSR authors asked City staff to describe the factors that may affect the ability to serve
wastewater customers in the future. City staff indicated that Concord has recently added two new
position classifications with increased pay scales to account for specialized knowledge in
wastewater (Concord, 2022). Additionally, Concord increased staff levels of front-line wastewater
maintenance staff from eight to twelve to support an enhanced deferred maintenance program.
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 (2019) has several recommended remedies for
California’s aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a WWTP is, what
kind of waste it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the sewer pipes. Continue
educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom to call if such an event
occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling.
Cooperative Programs
The City contracts with Central San for part of the inspection, enforcement, and education aspects
of the Fats, Oil, and Grease Program (FOG Control Program). Central San has a Waste Hauler
Program that maintains a list of the permitted waste haulers that pay fees for the disposal of FOG at
each treatment plant (City of Concord, 2019). As part of public education and outreach, the Central
San creates pamphlets, posters, and brochures that are delivered to customers through mail to
minimize the grease within the collection system (City of Concord, 2019).
Service Agreements
In 1964, the Concord City Council adopted Resolution No. 2423, establishing an “ultimate sewerage
service boundary” that includes areas outside the corporate boundaries of Concord. It is unclear if
the County Board of Supervisors approved the resolution. CC LAFCO did not approve the City’s
ultimate sewage service boundary. Nevertheless, the City has historically provided service to
unincorporated areas outside the City boundary without CC LAFCO approval. More recently, the City
has requested CC LAFCO’s approval of out-of-agency service agreements for the extension of
services outside the City boundary and has also required landowner consent to future annexation.
However, the City has not pursued annexation of these parcels, and this remains an important issue
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
to resolve.
In 1966, Concord and Clayton entered into an agreement for Concord to provide sewer service to
Clayton. On December 18, 1991, the City of Concord and the City of Clayton entered into a new
agreement for Concord to provide sanitary sewer service to Clayton. One of the terms of the
agreement, “Areas to be Served by Concord,” states that sewer service will be available to all areas
within the City boundary of Clayton. Furthermore, Clayton may extend sewer service to any
unincorporated area that cannot be annexed to Concord, “whether such annexation is prohibited by
State annexation laws or decisions of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa
County, or its successor agency or agencies.” The agreement does not contain a severability clause
that would allow the remainder of the agreement to be applicable should one clause be found to be
unenforceable or invalid. However, the City Attorney’s Office has concluded that “To the extent
that there may be language in the agreement that authorizes out-of-area service agreements or
services to be provided after January 1, 2001, such language would be contrary to State law and
would be superseded and unenforceable.”
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
Concord implements several cost-avoidance measures for its wastewater system. For example, the
implementation of the SSMP and FOG program is expected to reduce problem locations and
overflows over time. Additionally, the City of Concord and the City of Clayton have a service
agreement and understanding that the bills received from the Central San will be shared (Central
San, 2021). Therefore, these cities are incentivized to control their infiltration flows to reduce costs
(Central San, 2021). Costs associated with maintaining and expanding, when necessary, the WWTP
with Central San may be less expensive than considering separate sewage treatment alternatives,
including probable expansion to serve the new areas of the CNWS and infill projects in the City
service area. Please see Chapter 12 for additional information on the WWTP. Additionally, LAFCO’s
2014 Wastewater Service MSR noted that the City was able to significantly reduce the cost of sewer
rehabilitation work through the competitive bid process for construction methods using trenchless
technology.
Local Hazards
The City of Concord adopted an updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) on March 28, 2023,
and received final approval from FEMA on April 18, 2023 (City, 2023e). This plan assesses risks from
natural, human health, and human-caused hazards and identifies ways to reduce those risks. The
LHMP identifies seismicity, sea level rise, liquefaction, wildfire, and terrorist events as possible
threats to critical infrastructure throughout the City, and includes Action Item C-15 to develop a City
Critical Infrastructure Map. The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan (CCCHMP) Volume 2,
dated January 2018, maps critical infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to
local hazards (Contra Costa County, 2018). The CCCHMP shows that Concord’s wastewater
facilities are located within or in proximity to areas with low to moderate liquefaction susceptibility;
moderate earthquake risk with Site Class/Soil Profile “D” with stiff soil; and potential flood hazard
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
areas (Contra Costa County, 2018). Information about these hazards should be incorporated into
the City’s next Sanitary Sewer Management Plan update as recommended by the CCCHMP (Contra
Costa County, 2018). Additionally, it is recommended that detailed spatial mapping of the City’s
wastewater infrastructure in relation to the hazards identified in the LHMP and CCCHMP be
conducted when LAFCO next updates its Wastewater Services MSR/SOI.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains an SSO database from public/permitted systems and private
lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California Integrated Water
Quality System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General Waste Discharge
Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. WQ 2022-0103-DWQ (SSS
WDRs), on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer system
comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a publicly owned
treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A 3.5-year term
from January 1, 2019, to August 23, 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The query found
a record of 43 SSOs. Table 5-5 (next page) lists the queries from 2019 through 2022.
During this 3.5-year timeframe, 43 SSO events occurred in the City of Concord. The largest overflow,
which was 18,425 gallons, took place on October 8, 2019, and its failure point was located at the
gravity mainline. This spill occurred due to root intrusion and reached the street curb, gutter, and
surface water. In most cases, the SSOs originated from the gravity mainline. As seen in Table 5-5,
many of the spills from 2019 through 2022 had a volume of less than 1,000 gallons. One SSO that
was quite significant in volume occurred on February 14, 2021, and it had a volume of 7,805 gallons.
This spill occurred due to root intrusion.
Since 2008, the City has implemented the following practices/programs to reduce Sewer System
Overflows: mainline and lateral repairs and replacements; closed-circuit television of mainlines;
weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual hotspot cleaning; routine rodding/jetting and inspection of
mainlines; use of herbicides for root control; Fats, Oil and Grease (FOG) Program via Central San
(LAFCO, 2014).
During July to October 2022, San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known as
a red tide, as described in Appendix F. The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma
akashiwo, can cause water to turn reddish-brown. The HAB extended throughout the open-bay
regions of the South Bay, the Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths linked to the red tide
included sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, and anchovy. The San Francisco Bay Water
Board is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay through the Nutrient Management Strategy,
which includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other agencies to study potential
impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. Concord has an opportunity to assist with this effort by
continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by discussing the nutrient problem with other
wastewater districts and the Water Board.
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 5-5: City of Concord Sanitary Sewer Overflows from 2019 through 2022
SSO Responsible Collection SSO Start Date SSO Vol of SSO Vol of SSO Failure WDID
Event Agency System Category Vol Recovered SSO Point
ID Reached
Surface
Water
859714 Concord City Concord City Category 3 7/5/2019 950 940 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
861051 Concord City Concord City Category 3 9/9/2019 4 2 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
861124 Concord City Concord City Category 3 9/9/2019 15 2 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
861439 Concord City Concord City Category 3 9/23/2019 3 3 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
861803 Concord City Concord City Category 3 10/3/2019 122 122 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
862056 Concord City Concord City Category 1 10/8/2019 18,425 1,200 13,300 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
862572 Concord City Concord City Category 3 10/24/2019 3 1 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
863750 Concord City Concord City Category 1 12/25/2019 891 750 121 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
863922 Concord City Concord City Category 3 12/30/2019 304 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
863990 Concord City Concord City Category 3 1/2/2020 22 20 0 Lower 2SSO10109
CS Lateral
(Public)
864005 Concord City Concord City Category 3 1/4/2020 69 60 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
864686 Concord City Concord City Category 3 2/6/2020 2 2 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
864861 Concord City Concord City Category 3 2/16/2020 69 52 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
SSO Responsible Collection SSO Start Date SSO Vol of SSO Vol of SSO Failure WDID
Event Agency System Category Vol Recovered SSO Point
ID Reached
Surface
Water
865911 Concord City Concord City Category 1 3/31/2020 4,670 500 4,070 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
866035 Concord City Concord City Category 3 4/7/2020 5 4 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
866539 Concord City Concord City Category 1 5/2/2020 3,660 2,400 1,260 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
867769 Concord City Concord City Category 1 7/4/2020 430 415 15 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
868420 Concord City Concord City Category 3 8/12/2020 696 596 0 Maintenance 2SSO10109
CS hole
869933 Concord City Concord City Category 3 10/20/2020 10 8 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
870241 Concord City Concord City Category 3 11/3/2020 530 330 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
870756 Concord City Concord City Category 3 12/1/2020 455 455 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
871213 Concord City Concord City Category 3 12/25/2020 555 545 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
872048 Concord City Concord City Category 3 1/30/2021 3 0 0 Maintenance 2SSO10109
CS hole
872255 Concord City Concord City Category 1 2/14/2021 7,805 800 7,405 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
873850 Concord City Concord City Category 3 4/28/2021 45 40 0 Maintenance 2SSO10109
CS hole
874200 Concord City Concord City Category 1 5/23/2021 990 975 10 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
874364 Concord City Concord City Category 3 5/28/2021 3 1 0 Force Main 2SSO10109
CS
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
SSO Responsible Collection SSO Start Date SSO Vol of SSO Vol of SSO Failure WDID
Event Agency System Category Vol Recovered SSO Point
ID Reached
Surface
Water
874411 Concord City Concord City Category 3 5/30/2021 20 12 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
874683 Concord City Concord City Category 3 6/11/2021 15 15 0 Maintenance 2SSO10109
CS hole
876450 Concord City Concord City Category 1 9/18/2021 7,200 1,200 6,000 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
877386 Concord City Concord City Category 3 11/3/2021 5 5 0 Maintenance 2SSO10109
CS hole
877809 Concord City Concord City Category 3 11/28/2021 196 176 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
878081 Concord City Concord City Category 3 12/10/2021 25 23 0 Maintenance 2SSO10109
CS hole
878835 Concord City Concord City Category 3 1/14/2022 10 1 0 Maintenance 2SSO10109
CS hole
879329 Concord City Concord City Category 3 2/8/2022 432 432 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
879387 Concord City Concord City Category 3 2/11/2022 20 20 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
879822 Concord City Concord City Category 1 3/4/2022 2,070 50 2,070 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
879842 Concord City Concord City Category 1 3/7/2022 140 0 140 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
880485 Concord City Concord City Category 3 4/2/2022 20 15 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
881222 Concord City Concord City Category 3 5/13/2022 3 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
881724 Concord City Concord City Category 3 6/11/2022 25 23 0 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
SSO Responsible Collection SSO Start Date SSO Vol of SSO Vol of SSO Failure WDID
Event Agency System Category Vol Recovered SSO Point
ID Reached
Surface
Water
881948 Concord City Concord City Category 1 6/26/2022 715 100 715 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
882691 Concord City Concord City Category 1 8/10/2022 384 0 20 Gravity 2SSO10109
CS Mainline
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
5.4: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
The focus of this analysis is the Sewer Enterprise Fund (SEF). Enterprise Funds are used to separately
account for self-supporting operations. The City’s budget and Certified Annual Financial Reports are
the primary information sources for data related to the SEF. Since the City routinely updates these
reports, readers are encouraged to visit the City’s website at
<https://www.cityofconcord.org/231/Finance> for the most recent financial reports (City of
Concord, 2019; 2020; 2021c; 2021d; 2022d). Concord operates its wastewater services as an
enterprise fund within the confines of overall City operations. Service fees comprise the majority of
revenues (99.5 percent in FY 2022/2023) that fund the services provided for wastewater. The
wastewater fund does not receive funds directly or indirectly from the City’s General Fund (City of
Concord, 2021d).
According to the City’s most recent sewer rate study, the City utilizes the SEF to provide for
maintenance, repair, and operation of the sanitary sewer collection systems in the cities of Concord
and Clayton and some unincorporated county properties. The City contracts with Central San to
provide wastewater treatment and disposal of both cities’ sewage at Central San’s treatment plant
by paying a proportionate share of the maintenance, operation, and capital improvement costs at
the treatment plant, and at the Household Hazardous Waste Facility. Concord’s share of Central
San operating costs is approximately 31.2 percent (City of Concord, 2023c).
Joint Powers Financing Authority
The City of Concord Joint Powers Financing Authority (“Authority”) is a joint powers authority
organized by the City of Concord and the former Concord Redevelopment Agency (RDA) under the
laws of the State of California. The Authority was organized to provide financial assistance to the City
by financing real and personal properties and improvements for the benefit of the residents of the
City and surrounding areas. The primary project of the RDA is the 2018 Wastewater Refunding
Revenue Bonds. In 2018, the RDA issued $7,920,000 original principal amount of bonds to provide
funds to refund the outstanding 2007 Wastewater System Improvements Certificates of
Participation. A separate financial statement is provided for this financial project, as shown in Table
5-6 below (City of Concord, 2022b).
Sewer Enterprise Funds for the City are considered stable and self-sustaining for operational,
capital, and debt service activities as revenues exceed expenditures for the five fiscal years studied.
The City maintains a substantial reserve fund balance in each fund, providing good capability to
absorb short-term impacts, with a very good debt service to annual expenditure ratio (City of
Concord, 2019; 2020; 2021c; 2021d; 2022d).
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 5-6: Future Payments on Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds (June
30, 2022)
Note: Future principal and interest payments on the Wastewater Revenue
Refunding Bonds are as follows for the year ended June 30, 2022:
For the Year Ending
Principal Interest
June 30
2023 $490,000 $276,950
2024 $510,000 $252,450
2025 $540,000 $226,950
2026 $565,000 $199,950
2027 $590,000 $171,700
2028-2032 $3,415,000 $411,400
Total $6,110,000 $1,539,400
Six primary areas of criteria were utilized to assess the present and future financial condition of the
City’s wastewater and water service operations, as discussed below:
5 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
The Sewer Fund revenues exceeded expenditures for all years studied as shown in Figure 5-5 below.
Expenditures fluctuated, with some decreases occurring during FY 2020-21 and 2021-22. Revenues
have continued to steadily increase based on increases in sewer rates. This key performance
measure indicates that the Sewer Fund is solvent and has the capacity to cover its costs. The fund
overall has experienced surpluses with rate increases implemented to accommodate expenditures.
The Enterprise fund net position increased to $92.4 million in 2022, up $8.4 million from $84.0 million
in the prior year. The net position increase was due to two factors: an increase in sewer service rates
and a decrease in sewer operating costs (City of Concord, 2019; 2020; 2021c; 2021d; 2022d).
Figure 5-5: Sewer Enterprise Fund Operating Revenues
Compared to Expenditures
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$-
2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023
Revenues Expenditures
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
The Fund has averaged a six percent increase over five fiscal years with the largest increase occurring
in FY 2022-23 at a nine percent increase compared to the previous year. The Sewer Fund generated
service fee revenues of $41.2 million in fiscal 2022, reflecting a $1.5 million increase over the prior
year. Operating expenses decreased by $2.1 million to $33.2 million. As a result, the Sewer Fund
experienced an $8 million operating gain for the year (City of Concord, 2019; 2020; 2021c; 2021d;
2022d).
Ratios of Revenue Sources
The City receives approximately 99 percent of its wastewater fund revenues from charges and fees
for services, no revenue from property taxes, and a small percentage from miscellaneous other
sources such as use of money and property and transfers in. This ratio reflects an appropriate
balance for a typical enterprise fund service and minimizes the impact that negative economic
factors will have on more elastic revenues such as property tax (City of Concord, 2022d).
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited
by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to
the annual fund expenditures. Figure 5-6 shows assets for the City’s Sewer Enterprise Fund form the
most recent audit completed in FY 2021-22 (City of Concord, 2022d).
Figure 5-6: Sewer Enterprise Fund Assets, FY 2021/2022
Noncurrent Assets
Current Assets
$59,000,000 $60,000,000 $61,000,000 $62,000,000 $63,000,000 $64,000,000 $65,000,000
The most recent audit completed in FY 2021-22 shows an unrestricted amount of $40,984,161.
Operating expenses for the same fiscal year were $33,219,397. This equates to a positive ratio of 123
percent, a very good ratio (City of Concord, 2022d). Current assets include cash and investments,
interest, and accounts receivable. The City has approximately $59.4 million in net capital assets for
FY 2021-22.
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable; and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. The City of Concord has several types of debt
related to wastewater services, including accounts and contracts payable, accrued liabilities,
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
interest payable, revenue refunding bonds, and compensated absences. Noncurrent and current
liability totals for FY 2021-22 are shown in Figure 5-7 below (City of Concord, 2022d).
Figure 5-7: Sewer Enterprise Fund Liabilities, FY 2021-22
Noncurrent Liabilities
Current Liabilities
$(30,000,000) $(20,000,000) $(10,000,000) $-
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of the City’s ability
to meet debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a 10% or less ratio
reflects a very stable ratio. The annual expenditure for the City in FY 2021-22 was $33,219,397, and
the debt service for that same year was $1,521,281 (City of Concord, 2022d). Therefore, the ratio of
annual debt service to total expenditures was approximately five percent, a very stable ratio. On
September 18, 2012, the City issued Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012, in the
original principal amount of $10,080,000 at interest rates that ranged from 1.50 percent to 4.00
percent to provide for a refunding of the City’s outstanding 2004 Certificates of Participation
Wastewater System Improvement Bonds. Principal payments are due annually on February 1, with
interest payments payable semi-annually on August 1 and February 1 through February 1, 2029.
Repayment of these bonds is from a pledge of revenue from the Sewer Enterprise Fund. As of June
30, 2022, the principal balance outstanding was $4,705,000.
On February 27, 2018, the City issued Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2018, in the
original principal amount of $7,920,000 at interest rates that range from 2.00 percent to 5.00 percent
to provide for a refunding of the City’s outstanding 2007 Certificates of Participation Wastewater
System Improvement Bonds. Principal payments are paid annually on February 1. Interest is paid
semi-annually on August 1 and February 1, through 2032. Repayment of these bonds is from a pledge
of revenue from the Sewer Enterprise Fund. As of June 30, 2022, the principal balance outstanding
was $6,110,000.
The City has pledged future wastewater customer revenues, net of specified operating expenses, to
repay the 2012 and 2018 bonds through 2032. The Sewer Enterprise Fund’s total principal and
interest remaining to be paid on the bonds is $12,914,676 as of FY 2021-22. The Municipal Sewer
Enterprise Fund’s principal and interest paid for the current year and total customer net revenues
were $1,521,281 and $12,551,608, respectively, for that same fiscal year (City of Concord, 2022d).
Capital Improvement Program
The 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) FY 2021-2025 includes major sewer improvements,
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
road sewer repairs, and assessment studies. The CIP 2-year budget focuses on repairing and
upgrading the Downtown area (City of Concord, 2022a). Additionally, Concord reports that it has
implemented several program efforts to improve the operation of the collection system and reduce
Sewer System Overflows (SSOs), including increased inspections by closed circuit TV, cleaning of
mainlines and trouble spot locations, adoption and implementation of a Fats, Oil and Grease
Program (FOG Program) to reduce inflows, and mainline repairs and replacements. The City
contracts with Central San for several of these services. A Sewer System Master Plan was adopted
in 2023, and a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) was adopted on May 2021. The Master Plan
contains a list of near-term and long-term projects along with a cost summary as listed in Tables 5-
2 and 5-3 of this chapter (City of Concord, 2021b).
Rate Structure
The City completed the most recent rate study in May 2023 to ensure the financial stability of the
sewer enterprise fund over the next four years (FY 2023-24 through FY 2026-27). The City projects
cost increases over the next eight years related to its share of the operating, maintenance, and
capital costs of Central San’s WWPT and the ongoing operation and rehabilitation of its own sewer
collection system. Figure 5-8 shows the 8-year financial plan for the most recent rate study, which
includes a six percent annual increase for four years and six percent for the next four years (City of
Concord, 2023c).
Figure 5-8: 2023 Rate Study 8-year financial projections
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Residential customers are billed a flat rate per equivalent dwelling unit, and nonresidential
customers are charged based on annualized winter water usage, per hundred cubic feet (HCF),
subject to a minimum charge. Industrial customers pay based on their actual flow and loadings;
however, there are currently no industrial customers charged in Concord. The charges are placed on
the tax roll. Table 5-7 below shows a summary of approved rates. Residential rates are anticipated
to increase from $717 in FY 2022-23 to $905 by FY 2026-27. Commercial rates are anticipated to
increase from $6.34 per HCF winter usage for most commercial uses in FY 2022-23 to $8.01 per HCF
winter usage (City of Concord, 2023c).
Table 5-7: 2023 Rate Study Proposed Rates
The City’s rate structure is described on this webpage <https://www.cityofconcord.org/1049/Sewer-
Service-Rates>. The Sewer Service Charge is collected annually via a property tax bill. It appears in
the “Special Taxes & Assessments” portion of the bill.
New sewer connection fees range from $1,664 to $2,522 per residential unit, according to the City’s
General Plan Housing Element. One time capacity fees for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are
calculated at $2.765/square foot. These fees are utilized to fund capital improvements to serve new
development. Additionally, there are fees associated with the Central San WTP, including a one-time
sewerage hookup fee of just over $5,000 per unit and up, depending on size, location, and height of
the ground. An annual Sewer Service Charge is collected for each property connected to the sewer
system at a residential rate of $660 per year for single-family units and $625 per year for multifamily
units (Concord Housing Element, 2023a).
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
5.5: POPULATION
There were approximately 125,410 residents within the City of Concord boundary as of 2020 (CA
DOF, 2023a and Contra Costa Dept. of Conservation, 2023). However, since then, the population
has declined slightly to 122,074 as of January 2023 (CA DOF, 2023b). Detailed information regarding
population demographics in Contra Costa County is provided in Appendix A.
Table 5-8: Existing Permanent Population, City of Concord
Name of City Population in Number of Registered Population in SOI
Boundary (1) Voters in Boundary (2) only (3)
City of Concord 125,410 71,259 3,165
Sources:
(1) CA DOF, 2023a and Contra Costa Dept. of Conservation, 2023
(2) Registered Voter data for January 2023 provided LAFCO’s Agency Directory. Please note
California Secretary of State, Registration by Political Subdivision by County, May 23, 2022,
listed 72,554 registered voters, indicating the number of registered voters has declined in the
past year.
(3): Calculated estimate based on an average of 3.02 persons per parcel in the County of Contra
Costa.
Projected Future Population: Anticipated future population growth in the City has the potential to
influence the demand for the provision of wastewater services. However, projecting a city’s future
population is complicated due to varying annexation rates and census tracts that do not match the
City boundary. Data from the CA DOF was used to project population growth for Contra Costa
County and the City, as shown in Table 5-9 below.
The annual growth rate from 2020 to 2045 is projected by CA DOF to be 0.59 percent, as shown in
Table 5-9. The City reports that a series of General Plan amendments have been made over the years,
and the current General Plan estimates a buildout population of 167,360, including the Concord
Reuse Project (CRP) development (City of Concord, 2012).
Future growth within the City’s existing boundary is possible. The City’s Housing Element includes a
vacant land inventory, which analyzed assessor and local data and ground-level inspections.
Approximately 148 vacant parcels were identified in Concord. Approximately 135 of the 148 vacant
parcels were zoned for residential uses. Furthermore, 98 of those 135 parcels were developable.
This equates to infill opportunities on 56 acres of vacant land. Some of the 148 vacant sites are
unsuitable for development due to their irregular shapes or steep slopes, are designated as a right-
of-way, or lack street access (Concord Housing Element, 2023a). The potential population increase
based on the 98 parcels is approximately 296 additional people using the average of 3.02 persons
per parcel in Contra Costa County.
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 5-9: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2045)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2020 to
2020 to 2020 to 2045
2045 2045
County of Contra
Costa1 1,149,800 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.80% 181,631 0.59%
City of Concord 2
125,410 134,806 140,078 144,526 147,775 149,902 15.80% 20,449 0.59%
City of Clayton
11,290 11,757 12,217 12,605 12,888 13,073 15.80% 1,783 0.59%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties,
2010-2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021
2: Population projection for the City of Concord calculated as 11.26 percent of the County of Contra Costa population.
3: Population projection for the City of Clayton calculated as 0.98 percent of the County of Contra Costa population.
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
5.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address
municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in some disadvantaged
communities. Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part of this MSR Update process. Data
query results showed no disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous
to the City’s SOI.
However, there are several low-income communities within Concord’s incorporated boundary. Two
types of disadvantaged areas (DACs) include Severely Disadvantaged Communities (MHI < $47,203),
shown in red, and Disadvantaged Communities (MHI = $47,203-$62,937) shown in orange in Figure
5-9 below. The City has no programs to provide financial assistance to low-income residents for
utility bills such as water or sewer. However, the Housing Element describes the City’s rental
assistance program and housing rehabilitation loans for low-income residents (Concord 2023d). All
parcels within Concord’s boundary receive municipal services. No public health and safety issues
were identified.
Figure 5-9: Disadvantaged Communities in Concord
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
5.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
The City provides adequate wastewater collection services, with Central San providing wastewater
treatment and disposal services. The City provides sewer collection and conveyance services for the
City of Clayton. The City also provides service to parcels outside the corporate boundary of Concord.
Many of these service connections are located in the Ayers Ranch area, a 183-acre unincorporated
island within Concord’s SOI. Some parcels within this area are experiencing issues with septic
systems, including failure, and have requested service from the City on an individual basis.
Three government structure options were identified: (1) maintain the status quo; (2) annex areas
receiving City service into the City; and (3) consolidate with the Central San. These three options
were identified in LAFCO’s 2014 MSR and remain valid.
Maintain the status quo
The City provides adequate wastewater collection services to its residents and businesses within its
sewer service area, including the City of Clayton. Concord also provides service to areas outside the
City boundary, most notably in the Ayers Ranch community. The City has a long-term CIP, which
strategically plans for infrastructure upgrades and repairs. The City’s Wastewater Fund is stable.
Annex areas receiving City service into Concord
The City provides service to parcels outside the City boundary, including properties within the 183-
acre unincorporated Ayers Ranch island surrounded by Concord and within the City’s SOI. The City
includes this island within its ultimate sewer service boundary. A significant portion of this island is
developed or developable. In areas with concerns due to failing septic systems, the provision of
municipal wastewater services would address public health issues.
The City reports that many property owners in the Ayers Ranch area have strongly opposed
annexation to Concord. Additionally, the City and the County have been unable to reach a mutually
agreeable property tax-sharing agreement should the area be annexed to Concord. Costs to extend
the wastewater collection system to Ayers Ranch are currently unknown. The City is potentially
willing to extend sanitary service to areas in the County experiencing septic tank failure if it is
acceptable to the landowner, CC LAFCO, and the County. Ayers Ranch has been placed by CC
LAFCO within the City’s SOI, signifying that the City is the logical, long-term service provider for the
unincorporated island. Annexation of those areas being served extra- territorially by the City of
Concord should be a high-priority annexation for the City and the County to clean up outstanding
boundary issues.
Consolidate service with Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
The City provides wastewater collection services for Concord and Clayton, while Central San
provides conveyance, treatment, and disposal services. Central San also provides wastewater
collection service to northern Concord and other unincorporated areas to the north, west, and south
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-29
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
of the City. Consolidation may provide economies of scale and other efficiencies due to the single-
purpose focus of Central San.
LAFCO’s 2014 MSR noted that the sewer service rates charged by Central San were substantially
higher than those charged by the City. Consolidation may also impact the ad valorem property tax
allocation for Central San. The FY 2013-14 base rate charged by the City of Concord was $363
annually versus the Central San base rate of $405. In 2014, the City believed it provided sanitary
sewer services at a substantially lower cost than Central San. Since 2014, the City has not given
further consideration to this consolidation option. Currently, the base rate as of FY 2022-2023
charged by the City of Concord is $717, compared to the Central San base rate of $820, including ad
valorem taxes. As of January 2024, City staff reports that the relationship between the City and
Central San is positive, and both agencies share information and coordinate on areas of service.
Concord’s new rate study shows that Concord’s fees are lower than the fees charged by Central San.
City staff indicates that if a proposed future merger or consolidation were to result in higher fees for
Concord residents, the process would be unlikely to gain support in the community (personal
communication, B. Davis, January 2024).
The above three options provide a
range of tradeoffs regarding
wastewater services. Additional study
of the options would allow an
opportunity to collect more data prior
to making a final decision. At this time,
the MSR consultants recommend
retention of the status quo.
Figure 5-10: Existing SOI – Concord
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-30
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
5.8: RECOMMENDED MSR DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
Table 5-10: MSR Determinations for Concord
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected area. According to the DOF, the City’s existing
• Is the existing population estimated? population is estimated at 125,410. The City’s
• Is the projected future growth existing population is expected to grow to
estimated? 149,902 by 2045, an increase of 21 percent.
The City of Clayton, also served by Concord,
has a population of approximately 10,863. It is
projected to grow to 13,073 by 2045, an
increase of 20 percent.
Location and characteristics of any Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried to
disadvantaged unincorporated communities determine the location and status of
within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. disadvantaged communities as part of this
MSR process. Data query results showed no
disadvantaged unincorporated communities
(DUCs) within or contiguous to the City’s SOI.
However, there are several Disadvantaged
Communities (DACs) within Concord’s
incorporated boundary. All parcels within
Concord’s boundary receive municipal
services. No public health and safety issues
were identified.
Present and planned capacity of public The Concord SSMP (2023) functions as a CIP
facilities, adequacy of public services, and for the City’s Wastewater System. The SSMP
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, lists several near-term and long-term projects.
including needs or deficiencies related to The City’s collection system has portions that
sewers, municipal and industrial water, and are aged and in need of replacement, as
structural fire protection in any identified in the 5-Year CIP and SSMP studies.
disadvantaged, unincorporated communities The City’s CIP budget is currently $31.7 million
within or contiguous to the sphere of for FY 2020-2021 and FY 2021-2022.
influence.
• Does the agency have a capital A 3.5-year query of the SSO database revealed
improvement plan? that the City reported 43 overflows between
• Are SSOs identified? 2019 to mid-2022.
• Are local hazards identified?
The CCCHMP Volume 2, dated January 2018,
shows that Concord’s wastewater facilities are
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-31
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 5-10: MSR Determinations for Concord
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATION
(continued)
located within or in proximity to areas with low
to moderate Liquefaction Susceptibility;
moderate earthquake risk with Site Class/Soil
Profile “D” with stiff soil; and potential flood
hazard areas. Information about these hazards
should be incorporated into the City’s next
SSMP update as recommended by the HMP
(Contra Costa County, 2018). It is also
recommended that detailed spatial mapping of
the City’s wastewater infrastructure in relation
to the hazards identified in the HMP be
conducted when LAFCO next updates its
Wastewater Services MSR/SOI.
Financial ability of agencies to provide The City completed the most recent rate study
services. in May 2023 to ensure the financial stability of
• Has the agency prepared a rate study? the sewer enterprise fund over the next four
• Do revenues exceed expenditures? years (FY 2023-24 through FY 2026-27). The
• Is the ratio of annual debt service to City projects cost increases over the next eight
total fund annual expenditures 10% or years related to its share of the operating,
less? maintenance, capital costs of Central San’s
WWTP, and the ongoing operation and
rehabilitation of its own sewer collection
system.
The financial outlook for the City’s Wastewater
Enterprise Fund is currently stable and self-
sustaining. Revenues exceed expenses in all
fiscal years studied. The Fund overall, has
experienced surpluses with rate increases
implemented to accommodate expenditures.
The annual expenditure for the City in FY 2021-
22 was $33,219,397, and the debt service for
that same year was $1,521,281. The ratio of
annual debt service to total expenditures was
approximately five percent, a very stable ratio.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared The City contracts with Central San for
facilities. wastewater treatment and for major collection
system maintenance and inspections. The City
also participates in regional training and
customer education programs to reduce
pollution and impacts on the Central San
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-32
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 5-10: MSR Determinations for Concord
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATION
WWTP operations.
Accountability for community service needs, The City has a comprehensive website
including government structure and providing the public with internet access to
operational facilities. City Council agendas and minutes, public
• Does the agency have a website? notices, and City budgets. The City also offers
• Does the agency post a public an e-newsletter to keep residents updated on
outreach tool (such as a calendar or City events.
newsletter) on its website?
• What is the recommendation for Three government structure options are
mergers, consolidations, or other identified: (1) status quo, (2) annex areas
changes to governance structure? receiving City service, and (3) consolidate with
Central San.
Any other matter related to effective or efficient LAFCO’s 2014 MSR recommended that the
service delivery, as required by commission City update its policies, ordinances, and
policy. municipal codes to conform to Government
Code Section 56133 regarding out-of-area
agreements. This recommendation remains
valid.
5.9 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Section 5.7, Government Structure Alternatives, describes various issues and options associated
with changing the structure of this local government agency. LAFCO often accomplishes its
government structure issues through changes to boundaries and/or SOIs. The three options studied
includes:
• Maintain the status quo
• Annex areas receiving City service into Concord
• Consolidate service with Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
The City’s SOI includes 15.56 square miles, including lands to the north and small unincorporated areas
adjacent to the City’s boundary. The SOI was most recently considered in LAFCO’s 2019 City Services MSR,
and the SOI was retained in its current configuration. Although Concord’s SOI is large, much of the area is
unusable bay or tidal lands, including coastal salt marsh. Included in the SOI are the Ayers Ranch
unincorporated neighborhood and the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Page 5-7 of this MSR contains a
detailed discussion of the SOI. Based on the information presented in this chapter, it is recommended
that LAFCO re-confirm the existing City SOI and maintain the status quo in relation to wastewater service
provision. The determinations LAFCO adopted in 2019 can be reconfirmed.
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-33
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
5.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California’s Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved September 21, 2021, from: <https://infrastructurereportcard.org/
state-item/california/>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit California State Data Center.
5/23/2023. Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC)
Data Release. Table 2: Land Area, Population and Population Density for California,
Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP), Census
2020Contributions from U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 1, 2023b. Report E-1 & E-1H,
Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2022 and
2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) - State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.)
California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS) SSO Public Report - Detail Page.
Query run on August 27, 2023 from <https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/chc_sso.html
>.
California Secretary of State. (2022). Registration by Political Subdivision by County. 88-pages.
Retrieved August 26, 2022 from: <file:///C:/Users/laylo/AppData/Local/
Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/IYW11PY2/politicalsub(1).pdf>.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. (2021). Sewer System Management Plan. Retrieved August
29, 2022 from: <https://www.centralsan.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2020_
ssmp_approved_audit_06.05.2020.pdf?1620312805>.
City of Clayton. October 15, 2019. Sewer System Management Plan for CIWQS WDID: 2SSO18102.
81-pages. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from <https://claytonca.gov/engineering-and-
public-works/sanitary-sewer/>.
City of Concord. (2012). Concord 2030 General Plan: Chapter 8 – Public Facilities and Utilities. 254-
pages. Retrieved August 29, 2022 from: <https://www.cityofconcord.org/
DocumentCenter/View/846/Volume-I---Plan-Policies-PDF>.
City of Concord. (2012). Concord Reuse Project Area Plan Book One: Vision and Standards. 136-
pages. Retrieved on August 26, 2022 from:
<http://www.concordreuseproject.org/DocumentCenter/View/1105/2012-01-24-CRP-
Area-Plan---Book-1-Vision-and-Stand?bidId=>.
City of Concord. 2019. City of Concord Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Fiscal Year
Ending June 30, 2019. Available online at: <https://www.cityofconcord.org/
DocumentCenter/View/5343/2019-Concord-CAFR-w-bookmarks-reduced-size>.
City of Concord. 2020. City of Concord Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Fiscal Year
Ending June 30, 2020. Available online at: <https://www.cityofconcord.org/
DocumentCenter/View/5520/2020-City-of-Concord-CAFR>.
City of Concord. 2021. Sewer System Management Plan for CIWQS WDID: 2SSO10109. 89-pages
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-34
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Published as Appendix A of the Sewer System Master Plan (2023).
City of Concord. (n.d.). City of Concord 2-Year CIP Budget and 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan.
344-pages. Retrieved on August 26, 2022 from: <https://ca-
concord.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/4884/CIP-Budget-and-Plan-2020-
2025?bidId=>.
City of Concord. 2021c. City of Concord Adopted Biennial Operating Budget for FY 2021-22 and FY
2022-23. Available online at: <https://www.cityofconcord.org/documentcenter/view/6257>.
City of Concord. 2021d. City of Concord Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Fiscal Year
Ending June 30, 2021. Available online at:
<https://www.cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/7089/2021-Annual-
Comprehensive-Financial-Report>.
City of Concord. November 18, 2022a. Two-Year CIP Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement
Plan Fiscal Years 2022-2027. Contributions from: Kevin Marstall, P.E., Director of
Community Development. 307 pages.
City of Concord. November 1, 2022b. Staff Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information via ESRI’s
123 Online Survey. 2-pages. Available in LAFCO’s office upon request.
City Of Concord. December 29, 2022c. Joint Powers Financing Authority. A Component Unit Of The
City Of Concord, California. Basic Financial Statements, For The Year Ended June 30, 2022.
Contributions from Maze & Associates, Pleasant Hill, California. 32 pages. Retrieved on
September 3, 2023 from <https://www.cityofconcord.org/231/Finance>.
City of Concord. 2022d. City of Concord Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Fiscal Year
Ending June 30, 2022. Available online at: <https://www.cityofconcord.org/
DocumentCenter/View/8855/2022-Annual-Comprehensive-Financial-Report>.
City of Concord. March 14, 2023a. 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031). 1089-pages. Retrieved
from <https://concordhousingelement.org/>.
City of Concord. March 29, 2023b. Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. 1166-pages. Contributions from
Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Roseville, CA. Retrieved on September 1, 2023 from:
<https://www.cityofconcord.org/1049/Sewer-Service-Rates>.
City of Concord. May 2023c. Sewer Rate Study. Available online at:
<https://www.cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/9621>.
City of Concord. Adopted: 8/22/23 and Certified: 10/23/23d. Concord’s Housing Element (2023 -
2031). 1,107 pages. Retrieved on January 24, 2024 from:
<https://concordhousingelement.org/>.
City of Concord. June 2023e. City of Concord Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update. Retrieved May 16,
2024 from: <https://www.cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/10296/Local-Hazard-
Mitigation-Plan-LHMP---Final-Approved-Document-?bidId=>.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies
Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-35
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from <https://www.
contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. June 12, 2019. City-wide Services Municipal Service Review Update. Prepared
by Lamphier-Gregory Consultants and Berkson Associates. 793-pages. Retrieved December
2022 from <https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Chapter 5: Concord Page 5-36
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 6: CITY OF HERCULES –
WASTEWATER SERVICES
Table of Contents
6.1: OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2: HERCULES BOUNDARY & SOI ............................................................................................................. 6-4
6.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................. 6-5
6.4: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 6-13
6.5: POPULATION ..................................................................................................................................... 6-17
6.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ..................................................................................................... 6-20
6.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 6-21
6.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ................................................ 6-23
6.9 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ....................................................................................................................... 6-25
6.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................... 6-26
6.1: OVERVIEW
The City of Hercules (City) was incorporated in 1900 and encompasses approximately 19.3 square
miles. The City of Hercules lies within the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento Delta Estuary watershed.
Additional information about this watershed is provided in Appendix F. A map of the City's current
boundary and sphere of influence (SOI) is shown in Figure 6-1. Hercules provides wastewater
collection and conveyance service for the City's incorporated area. Treatment is provided at the
Pinole-Hercules Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). The cities of Hercules and Pinole each have
a 50% ownership in the WPCP, although Pinole is the designated operator. Secondary treated
effluent is conveyed to the Rodeo Sanitary District (RSD) WPCP, where it is combined with RSD
effluent and discharged into San Pablo Bay. In 1977, RSD, Pinole, and Hercules entered a Joint
Powers Agreement (JPA) to provide deep water wastewater disposal facilities (LAFCO, 2014). The
City provides wastewater services to 8,410 connections serving commercial customers and the
residential population of 26,300 (as of 2020 per Contra Costa Dept. of Conservation). The City of
Hercules's Agency Profile is in Table 6-1.
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 6-1: Agency Profile – City of Hercules
General Information
Agency Type Municipal
Principal Act General laws of the State of California
Date Formed 1900
Services Wastewater collection and conveyance
Service Area
Location City of Hercules
Sq. Miles/Acres 19.26 square miles/ 12,329 acres
Land Uses Residential, commercial, industrial, office, open space
Population Served 26,300 (as of 2020 per Contra Costa Dept. of Conservation)
Last SOI Update 05/14/2014 and reconfirmed 6/12/2019
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities Collection system includes approximately 352,000 linear feet (67 miles)
of pipeline, of which 328,000 feet is gravity main, and the remaining
24,000 feet is force main. The system contains approximately 1,729
individual pipes, 1,661 maintenance holes, 13 cleanouts, 9 plugs, and
13 diversions. The Pinole-Hercules Wastewater CP is jointly shared with
the City of Pinole).
Connections 8,410; 9,165 dwelling units (CA DOF, 2021)
Treatment Plant Capacity The WPCP was recently upgraded and meets the standards of the Clean
(MGD) Water Act. The WPCP can accommodate 20 MGD of peak flows. The
permitted average dry weather flow is 4.06 MGD.
Primary Disposal Method Pinole-Hercules WPCP; secondary effluent conveyed to Rodeo Sanitary
District. The final treated effluent is discharged to San Pablo Bay.
Budget Information- FY 2022-23 (Wastewater Enterprise Fund)
Revenues Expenditures Net
Wastewater Fund $ 6,053,000 $ 5,640,750 $ 412,250
FY 2022-23 Long-Term Planned Expenditures
Capital Expenditures $ 4.15 million $90.1 million - 5-year Capital Improvement
allocated for FY 2022- Program (CIP) projection for various system
23 and infrastructure upgrades. This includes
$27.1M for collection/conveyance system.
City Net Assets $15,704,349 Enterprise fund net investment in capital
assets at fiscal year-end per the June 30, 2022
Financial Report. (Note: Unrestricted net
position at fiscal year-end was $18,566,052.)
Fund Balance $ N/A (not available)
Governance
Governing Body City Council (5 members)
Agency Contact Mike Roberts, City Engineer, (510) 799-8241
Notes
None.
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 6-1: Boundary/SOI Map – City of Hercules
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
6.2: HERCULES BOUNDARY & SOI
Hercules shares its southern boundary with the City of Pinole. North of the City is the unincorporated
community of Rodeo. East of the City are primarily agricultural lands, including the Carquinez Strait
Regional Shoreline Park. San Pablo Bay lies to the west (LAFCO, 2014). Hercules' boundary
encompasses approximately 19.9 square miles, which includes 6.41 square miles of land area and
13.57 square miles of water area (i.e., San Francisco Bay). The City adopted the county-wide Urban
Limit Line in 2009. Land uses in the City include a mix of residential, research and development,
commercial, and open space. There are no designated agricultural land uses in the City of Hercules;
however, livestock grazing does occur on some open space parcels (LAFCO, 2019).
Within the City's existing boundary, a small to moderate amount of new residential development has
occurred. For example, two multifamily buildings completed construction and received new sewer
connections in 2020 and 2021. Additionally, there is a 40-unit subdivision that was recently
approved, and construction is expected to begin in Spring 2024. Recent increases in interest rates
have affected the feasibility of building out previously approved multifamily projects. Nevertheless,
Hercules has seen a steady increase in the number of sewer connections over the years, as shown
in Figure 6-2.
The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City of Hercules is mostly coterminous with the municipal
boundary, except for an extension to the north near Highway 4, as shown in Figure 6-1. The SOI was
retained and reconfirmed as part of LAFCO's 2014 MSR/SOI Update for Wastewater Services and the
June 12, 2019 MSR for City Municipal Services. The SOI is 1.27 sq. mi. in size and contains a
population of approximately 112 persons. The City of Hercules does not anticipate changing the
current SOI (personal communication, T. Rood, 11/14/2023). Section 6.7, Government Structure
Alternatives, describes various issues and options associated with changing the structure of this
local government agency. LAFCO often accomplishes its government structure issues through
changes to boundaries and/or SOIs. Additionally, expanding the City's SOI would be challenging due
to several old agreements, ballot initiatives, and an urban limit line.
San Francisco Bay Land Use
The City’s boundary is on portion of the San Francisco Bay which is a sensitive environmental
resource. The California state planning and regulatory agency with regional authority over the San
Francisco Bay, the Bay’s shoreline band, and the Suisun Marsh is called the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Its mission is to protect and enhance San
Francisco Bay and to encourage the Bay’s responsible and productive use for this and future
generations. BCDC works to ensure projects are compatible with the conservation of Bay resources
as described on its website at: <https://bcdc.ca.gov/>.
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
The Bay Area Regional Collaborative is another planning agency in the Bay, and includes the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and Bay Area Air Quality
Management District. This collaborative multi-agency regional committee allows for cross-
jurisdictional work on projects such as Resilient Bay Area and Carbon Free Future.
6.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
The City's wastewater service includes collection, conveyance, and secondary treatment at the
Pinole-Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), operated by the City of Pinole. Additionally,
Hercules disposes of treated effluent in conjunction with the Rodeo Sanitary District. The City
provides wastewater collection and conveyance services to 8,410 accounts, as shown in Figure 6-2.
One City sewer connection (or account) may serve many individual customers. The City Public
Works Department manages the Wastewater collection system, and they may be contacted for
additional details as listed in Table 6-2 (on page 6-5).
Property owners retain responsibility for private sewer laterals. The City is not responsible for
installing, maintaining, operating, repairing, or replacing private sewer laterals connected to the City
sewer mains (Hercules, SSMP, 2019). Since 2008, the City has adopted and is enforcing a Lateral
Inspection Program for all homes sold and/or added additional plumbing fixtures to prevent inflow
and infiltration (I&I) (LAFCO, 2014).
Figure 6-2: Total Number of Sewer Connections
(City of Hercules)
8,450
8,400
8,350
8,300
8,250
8,200
8,150
8,100
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Data Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report FY2021-23
Hercules' collection system includes approximately 352,000 linear feet (67 miles) of pipeline, of
which 328,000 feet is gravity main and the remaining 24,000 feet is force main. The system contains
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
approximately 1,729 individual pipes, 1,661 maintenance holes, 13 cleanouts, 9 plugs, and 13
diversions (Hercules, Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), 2019). The gravity collection system
transports or conveys wastewater from homes and businesses using the power of gravity. Gravity
systems have sewer pipes that vary by diameter depending on the available slope, wastewater
loading, and associated infrastructure. Gravity sewer pipes located in the City's older areas are
believed to be constructed of asbestos cement (AC) pipe, also known as "Transite" pipe. New gravity
sewer construction is typically polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe. The City also owns six pump stations
within the collection system, and they are associated with the force mains. Maintenance holes are
located in horizontal or vertical alignment and provide maintenance access to the pipes below.
Keeping the gravity collection system flowing freely is the job of the operations and maintenance
staff. They regularly respond to blockages or stoppages on pipes. These situations are most
frequently caused by roots, fats, oil, and grease (FOG) (Hercules, SSMP, 2019).
The collection system conveys an average dry weather flow of approximately 1.7 million gallons per
day (MGD) of wastewater (Hercules, SSMP, 2019). The wastewater generated by the City is conveyed
to the Pinole-Hercules WPCP, located southwest of the City limits in the City of Pinole. The WPCP
treats the wastewater to a "secondary" level of treatment, and it is then conveyed to the RSD
cooperative outfall for disposal into San Pablo Bay. (Hercules, SSMP, 2019). Hercules' wastewater
collection system operates under permits from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board as detailed in Tables 6-3 and 6-4 below:
Table 6-3: RWQCB General Information – Collection System
Region Place ID Place Name Type Address County
2 630898 Hercules City CS Collection 111 Civic, Hercules, Contra
System CA, 94547 Costa
Data Source: State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Facility At-A-Glance Report
Table 6-4: RWQCB Regulatory Measures & Information – Collection System
Reg Reg Program Order WDID Effective Status Amended
Measure Measure No.* Date ?
ID Type
299938 Enrollee SSOMUNIS 2006- 2SSO1014 08/21/2006 Active N
ML 0003- 1
DWQ
Data Source: SWRCB Facility At-A-Glance Report
*See Updated Order No. Order No. WQ 2022-0103-DWQ (SSS WDRs), on December 6, 2022
To ensure proper maintenance of the collection system, the City conducts hydro flushing of sewer
mainlines on a seven-year cycle, a CCTV inspection program to determine the condition of the gravity
sewers, and rehabilitation and replacement of sewers and lift stations in poor condition. The City
also maintains an up-to-date map of the sanitary sewer system, showing all gravity line segments
and maintenance holes, pumping facilities, pressure pipes and valves, and applicable stormwater
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
conveyance facilities. Routine preventive operation and maintenance activities are performed by
staff and contractors, and a system is in place for scheduling regular maintenance and cleaning of
the sanitary sewer system with more frequent cleaning and maintenance targeted at known problem
areas. The City also has a rehabilitation and replacement plan to identify and prioritize system
deficiencies and implement short-term and long-term rehabilitation actions to address each
deficiency (Hercules, 2019).
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP): The City of Hercules worked with consultants to prepare a
SSMP for its wastewater collection system in January 2019. The SSMP covers various topics,
including system evaluation and capacity assurance, operations and maintenance, overflow
emergency response, fats, oils, grease control, and pretreatment. The City has a preventive and
corrective maintenance program, which includes hydroflushing of sewer mainlines, CCTV
inspection, and rehabilitation and replacement of sewers and lift stations. The City also enforces its
sewer ordinances. The City also has several upcoming projects and initiatives related to its sewer
system, including a maintenance hole I/I program, capacity enhancement projects, and emergency
training (Hercules, 2019).
Sycamore Avenue Trunk Sewer Replacement Project: The old Sycamore Avenue Trunk Sewer line
was constructed in 1972 and consisted of approximately 5,200 linear feet (LF) of 24 inch asbestos
cement pipe and 200-LF of 24 inch welded steel pipe. The Sycamore Avenue sewer line conveys
‐
sewage from Sycamore Avenue to the Pinole/Hercules WPCP. In addition, there are 21 associated
‐
maintenance holes and vaults along the existing alignment. In November 2020, Hercules completed
a Preliminary Design Report for a new Sycamore Avenue Trunk Sewer Replacement project. This
Design Report provides an overview of the existing sewer system, including its capacity and
condition, and describes the proposed replacement sewer. The hydraulic model developed for the
project includes approximately 5,400 LF of pipeline with new 27-to 36-inch diameter pipelines. The
proposed Sycamore Avenue Trunk Sewer Replacement will be constructed with watertight joints,
using a high-strength, corrosion-resistant pipe material to address rainfall-dependent infiltration
and inflow. Eight collection system tie-in points are located along the 5,400-foot stretch of trunk
sewer. For example, collection system tie-ins for the Industrial Lift Station and Duck Pond Park are
discussed in Section 3.3 of the Design Report. The City of Hercules requested that sewer capacity
design adhere to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's (CCCSD) design standards, which are
summarized in the report. The report concludes with a discussion of the project schedule and budget
(Hercules, 2020).
Sewer Lateral Ordinance: Hercules has a Sewer Lateral Ordinance No. 457, adopted on May 13,
2010. This Ordinance fulfills several purposes, including:
• to provide for the operation and maintenance of the City's sewer system in a reliable
and serviceable condition,
• to eliminate or minimize sewage overflows by eliminating or minimizing stoppages and
reducing sources of infiltration and inflow into the City's sewer system,
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
• to comply with applicable legal requirements pertaining to the City's sewer system and
• protect public health and safety by establishing and providing a mechanism for
enforcing performance standards for private sewer laterals connected to a City Public
Sewer Main.
JPA Sanitary WPCP: The City jointly operates the Hercules–Pinole JPA Sanitary WPCP with the City
of Pinole. The Cities of Pinole and Hercules each have a 50% ownership in the WPCP, although Pinole
is the designated operator. The WPCP occupies 5.28 acres on Tennent Avenue, south of San Pablo
Bay and north of Highway 80. The WPCP has a total service population of approximately 13,825
customers (5,415 sewer connections from Pinole and 8,410 service connections from Hercules. One
service connection may serve many individual customers.) Secondary effluent is conveyed to the
Rodeo Sanitary District (RSD) WPCP, where it is combined with RSD effluent and discharged into San
Pablo Bay. In 1977, RSD, Pinole, and Hercules entered a JPA to provide deep water wastewater
disposal facilities (LAFCO, 2014).
Hercules and Pinole have a Subcommittee called the "Hercules/Pinole - Wastewater Management,"
which includes representatives from both cities. The Wastewater Management Subcommittee
handles administrative matters associated with the WPCP. Currently, Hercules Council Members
Romero and Grimsley participate on the Subcommittee. The original agreement requires that the
Subcommittee have quarterly meetings; often, however, the Subcommittee meets less frequently,
depending upon need with the regularly scheduled meetings on 1st Thursday at 8:30 a.m. The
location historically alternates between cities but recently has occurred in Pinole. Meeting agendas
and minutes are available on the City of Pinole's website at:
<https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=10947056&pageId=14626563#jpa>.
The WPCP was upgraded in the 2015 to 2017 timeframe. Prior to 2015, several other improvements
to the WPCP were made, including the addition of a fourth digester and design for the larger upgrade
totaling $40 million that was shared by the cities of Pinole and Hercules (LAFCO, 2014).
From 2019 to 2021, the WPCP completed a major upgrade led by a contractor, HDR Inc., and Carallo
Engineers. With the upgrade, the WPCP meets the standards of the Clean Water Act and can
accommodate 20 MGD of peak flows. The permitted average dry weather flow is 4.06 MGD.
Improvements included an influent pumping station, headworks, primary clarifier, aeration basins,
three new secondary clarifiers, return-activated sludge/waste-activated sludge pumping,
disinfection, solids handling (centrifuge dewatering), effluent pumping, odor control, and electrical
facilities. Chemical and biological processes are used to treat the wastewater. As of 2018, the
plant's average discharge to the San Pablo Bay was 2.4 million gallons per day. Detailed information
about the recent physical improvements to the WPCP and continued daily operation of the facility is
available on the City's website at: <https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/city_government/
public_works/wastewater_treatment_plant>.
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Biosolids are handled by first using a settling tank called a gravity thickener, where sludge settles to
the bottom. The sludge is then sent to a rotary drum thickener. Sludge solids are then sent to
anaerobic digesters, where bacteria break down the solids and produce byproducts, including
methane gas, carbon dioxide, and stabilized organic solids. The methane gas (a greenhouse gas)
fuels the plant's cogeneration facility, providing electricity for plant equipment. Engine and exhaust
heat are captured and utilized to heat the anaerobic digesters. Any remaining solids are sent to a
landfill.
Recycled Water
Recycled water is not currently available from the WPCP. Pinole is currently studying options to
recycle water resulting from the joint WWTP1. The City of Hercules is not participating in this current
study because recycling is likely to be financially and technically challenging at this time. However,
a joint study is possible in the longer-term future. Part of the expense is installing a purple pipeline
to convey the recycled water to appropriate locations for reuse. Ideally, in the future, Pinole and
Hercules would study the possible use of treated wastewater for productive purposes, such as to
recharge underground aquifers, provide irrigation water in specific instances, and for industrial
purposes if it is processed further.
Local Hazards
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation (HMP) Plan Volume 2, dated January 2018, maps critical
infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards (Contra Costa County,
2018). The City of Hercules did not participate in the 2018 county-wide local hazard mitigation plan
but coordinated with the County on its own LHMP update in 2021 and is now participating in the next
update to the County's HMP.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The SWRCB maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted systems
and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California Integrated
Water Quality System (CIWQS). The SWRCB formalized the Statewide General Waste Discharge
Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. WQ 2022-0103-DWQ (SSS
WDRs), on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer system
comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a publicly owned
treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A 4.5-year term
from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2023, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The results of the
database queries regarding the City of Hercules are listed in Table 6-5.
1 The City of Pinole’s wastewater operations are described in Chapter 7. The City of Pinole City has retained a
consulting expert to assess the financial and technical feasibility of recycling the treated wastewater. As part of this
study, the City will learn what opportunities are feasible in the current regulatory and contractual environment.
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 6-5: City of Hercules Sanitary Sewer Overflows 2018 – 2023
SSO
Event Responsible SSO Vol of Vol of SSO
ID Region Agency Category Start Date SSO Recovered Spill Location SSO Point
Maintenance
859149 2 Hercules City Category 3 2019.06.18 500 0 Willow Ave (Church) hole
Maintenance
859805 2 Hercules City Category 2 2019.07.16 1000 0 Willow Ave (Church) hole
Maintenance
869939 2 Hercules City Category 1 2020.10.26 2000 1200 Sycamore Rd hole
Canterbury Access Maintenance
876940 2 Hercules City Category 1 2021.10.18 500 0 Rd. hole
Turquoise at Crystal in
878715 2 Hercules City Category 1 2022.01.07 500 0 Hercules Gravity Mainline
Willow Ave by Cal Maintenance
879355 2 Hercules City Category 3 2022.02.10 50 0 Trans hole
Data Source: CA EPA, n.d. CIQWS Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
Figure 6-3. Hercules City Hall (Google Maps Street View)
Photo Credit: Courtesy of Google Maps
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
During this 4.5-year timeframe, six SSO events occurred in the City of Hercules' WDID 2SSO10141.
For all six SSOs, the volume of spillage totaled 4,500 gallons. Of this, 1,400 gallons reached surface
water, calculating to a 26% recovery rate (CA EPA, n.d.).
In most cases, the SSOs had failure points at the gravity mainline and the pump station mechanical.
Most of the spills were greater than 100 gallons, and almost all the spill material was not recovered.
The largest spill in the query occurred on October 26, 2020, consisting of 2,000 gallons. This spill
occurred due to grease deposition (FOG), and it managed to reach a drainage channel (CA EPA, n.d.).
During July to October 2022, San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known as
a red tide, as described in Appendix F. The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma
akashiwo, can cause water to turn reddish-brown. The HAB extended throughout the open-bay
regions of the South Bay, the Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths linked to the red tide
included sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, and anchovy. The San Francisco Bay Water
Board is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay through the Nutrient Management Strategy,
which includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other agencies to study the
potential impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. Hercules has an opportunity to assist with this
effort by continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by discussing the nutrient problem with
other wastewater districts and the Water Board.
Infrastructure Needs
Existing Infrastructure: Hercules maintains various equipment, vehicles2, infrastructure, and
associated assets. The City's 2019 SSMP identifies several upcoming projects and initiatives for the
collection system. For example, a City-wide program to address maintenance hole I&I began in 2020.
As part of this program, maintenance holes will be sealed to reduce the amount of I&I coming into
the sewer system. The City is also updating the Collection System Master Plan, which includes the
CIP budget and schedule for capacity enhancement projects. Additionally, staff will conduct
quarterly training on emergency bypass pumping and generator power at all lift stations (Hercules,
2019).
The 2015 to 2017 WPCP upgrade and the subsequent 2019 to 2021 WPCP upgrade helped the JPA
partners meet the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (SRWQCB) permit requirements on
treatment capacity and operating compliance. Ongoing maintenance and upgrades at the WPCP are
needed to meet SRWQCB requirements and expected growth. Collection main repairs and
2
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the district, it is likely that sometime in the future, the
district may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting vehicles reliant upon an alternative energy source
Csuhcahp atse re l6e:c tHriecirtcyu, lbeiosg a s , hydrog en, or o ther sou rce. The price pe r gallon of gaso line has Priasgeen ;6 t-h1e1r efore,
alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cheaper.
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
replacements are being completed as funding is available to reduce inflow and overflows. For
example, an aggressive main and lateral inspection program utilizing TV inspection identifies the
high-priority locations and pipelines for work. All homes sold in the City are now required to have a
sewer lateral inspection to identify laterals requiring repair or replacement. Additional information
about infrastructure needs is described in the City's CIP, as summarized on page 6-16.
Future Challenges: The MSR authors asked City staff to describe the factors that may affect the
ability to serve wastewater customers in the future. The City Engineer indicates that the City's
conveyance system and the joint WPCP are in good shape and have sufficient capacity to serve
demand (personal communication, M. Roberts, 11/14/2023).
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 (2019) has several recommended remedies for
California's aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and as summarized below:
• Implement an education program at the state and local levels about what a WWTP is,
what kind of waste it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the sewer pipes.
Continue educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom to call if
such an event occurs.
• Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
• Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling.
Cooperative Programs
The City provides wastewater treatment services at the WPCP through two agreements with other
governmental entities, which are not separate legal bodies:
• Hercules/Pinole/Rodeo Sanitary District Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)
• Pinole/Hercules Waste Water Joint Letter Agreement
The above two items function as cooperative agreements between existing entities. These
agreements are implemented through the daily cooperation between Pinole and Hercules in the
stable operation of the WPCP. The cities of Pinole and Hercules seem to have a solid working
relationship.
There are several privately maintained wastewater collection systems located within the City
boundaries that convey flows to the City's pipeline and then onto the WPCP for treatment. City staff
coordinates with these private entities to ensure the safe connection of the systems.
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The cooperative programs listed above are expected to continue to allow sewer service to City
customers at the lowest reasonable cost based upon the size and area of the City (LAFCO, 2014).
Implementation of the SSMP is expected to reduce potential overflows and costs in the long term.
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
LAFCO's 2014 MSR noted that the Cities of Pinole and Hercules had studied the option of conveying
flows to West County Wastewater District (WCWD) facilities in North Richmond for treatment as a
potential cost-avoidance measure. However, those studies revealed that the option was more costly
than upgrades to the existing Pinole-Hercules WPCP facilities (LAFCO, 2014). The City previously
implemented measures such as flow monitoring and a Sewer Lateral Inspection Program. Areas that
may lend themselves to I&I have been identified in various parts of the City (LAFCO, 2014).
6.4: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
The City’s budget and Certified Annual Financial Reports are the primary information source for data
for this analysis. This financial analysis represents a snapshot in time (i.e. a limited time period).
However, the City regularly updates its financial data and readers may review the new data on the
City’s website.
The main focus of this analysis is the Wastewater Enterprise Fund, also called the “Sewer Fund” or
“Wastewater Fund”. Enterprise funds are used to separately account for self-supporting operations.
The City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for FY 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and the 2022-
23 Annual Budget are the primary information sources for data related to the wastewater financials
for the City. As this is a report related to the wastewater services the City provides, the majority of
the analysis for this section will focus on this activity (City of Hercules, 2019b; 2020b; 2021; 2022;
2023a). These reports are posted on the City's website at:
<https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/ finance/comprehensive-annual-financial-reports>,
and <https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/finance/budgets>.
In January 2001, the cities of Hercules and Pinole entered into a Joint Letter Agreement for the
operation and ownership of the Pinole/Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plan. The City of Hercules
has an undivided 50% ownership interest in the Plant, and the City of Pinole has the right and
responsibility to manage and operate the Plant. The City of Hercules retains responsibility for
operating and maintaining its wastewater collection system. Also, the City of Pinole maintains the
records and accounts for all the WWTP transactions. Hercules owns and operates the collection
system in the city limits, which includes over 60 miles of underground piping and five lift stations.
The City of Hercules collects approximately $6 million a year in service charges from approximately
8,410 sewer connections. The Wastewater Enterprise Fund pays for sewer system operations,
maintenance, and capital improvements (City of Hercules, 2023a).
There are six primary areas of criteria that have been utilized to assess the present and future
financial condition of the City's wastewater service operations, as discussed below:
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
5 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
Wastewater Fund revenues have exceeded expenses for all years studied. Expenditures appear to
have increased significantly, 110%, from the FY 2020-21 audit to the FY 2022-23 budget. In FY 2022-
23, revenues exceeded expenditures by only approximately $400,000. In prior fiscal years, revenues
exceeded expenditures by an average of $1.9 million.
Figure 6-3: Wastewater Enterprise Funds Operating Revenues
Compared to Expenditures
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$-
2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023
Revenues Expenditures
The difference between the FY 2022-23 budget and prior fiscal years is likely due to the difference in
financial accounting between audits and budgets. If the expenditures for capital improvements
specific to the City of Hercules ($751,000) were removed from total expenditures for FY 2022-23,
total expenditures would be approximately $4.89 million, similar to previous years. The wastewater
fund overall has been experiencing balanced budgets with annual surpluses. This key performance
measure indicates that the Wastewater Fund is solvent and has the capacity to cover its annual
costs.
Ratios of Revenue Sources
According to the FY 2022-23 budget, the City of Hercules’ main revenue comes from taxes at
approximately $10.9 million budgeted in FY 2021-22. Figure 6-4 below shows revenue trends for the
City from FY 2018-19 through FY 2021-22. Sewer revenues were projected to make up 15% of City
revenue in FY 2021-22 (City of Hercules, 2023a).
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 6-4: City-wide Revenue Trends from FY 2018-19 through FY 2021-22
For FY 2021-22, the City of Hercules received 98% of its Wastewater Fund revenues from charges for
services, with the remaining two percent from interest income (City of Hercules, 2022). This ratio
reflects an appropriate balance for a typical enterprise fund service and minimizes negative
economic factors' impact on more elastic revenues, such as property taxes.
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
Figure 6-5 below shows the City of Hercules Wastewater Fund assets from the most recent audit
completed in FY 2021-22.
Figure 6-5: Wastewater Enterprise Fund Assets, FY 2021-22
Noncurrent Assets
Current Assets
$- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited
by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to
the annual fund expenditures. The most recent audit, completed in FY 2021-22, shows an
unrestricted amount of $18,566,052. Operating expenses for the same fiscal year were $4,495,565.
This equates to a positive ratio of 76%, a positive ratio. Current assets include cash, investments,
and cash and investments with a fiscal agent. The City had approximately $39 million in net capital
assets for the Wastewater Utility Enterprise Fund in FY 2021-22 (City of Hercules, 2022).
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. Specifically, the City of Hercules has several
types of debt related to wastewater services, including revenue bonds, a construction loan, total
OPEB liability, and net pension liability, as listed in Figure 6-6.
Figure 6-6: Wastewater Enterprise Fund Liabilities, FY 2021-
22
Noncurrent Liabilities
Current Liabilities
$(40,000,000) $(30,000,000) $(20,000,000) $(10,000,000) $-
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of the City's ability
to meet debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a ratio of 10% or less
would reflect a very stable ratio. The Wastewater Fund's annual debt service ratio to total
expenditures is approximately 50%, a very high ratio. This suggests that the City may have trouble
meeting debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures (City of Hercules, 2022).
Capital Improvement Program
Hercules' CIP and the 10-Year Capital Funding Plan are part of the City Budget for FY 2023-24. At the
March 28, 2023 City Council meeting, the Council received and provided direction on the CIP and
10-Year Capital Funding Plan. This CIP outlines the budget and strategic spending the city will utilize
for long and short-term building and maintenance projects. The CIP's allocated funding is intended
to upkeep and expand the City for the extended community, including residents, tourists,
businesses, and more. The Hercules Public Works' Engineering Division develops, manages, and
implements the CIP for the City. Current CIP projects can be found on an online map at:
<https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/engineering-public-works/construction-projects>.
For example, one CIP project is the Sewer Main Replacement Project #3, which is described online
at <https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/engineering-public-works/construction-projects/
sewer-main-replacement-project>.
The City's current 5-year CIP reflects approximately $90.1 million in improvements, with
approximately $4.15 million allocated for FY 2022-2023 for various system and infrastructure
upgrades. This includes $651,000 for the Sycamore Avenue Lower Trunk Main project and $100,000
for the Sycamore Avenue Upper Trunk Main project. Additional projects for the 5-Year CIP for the
Wastewater Fund include inspecting and repairing sewer, promenade lift station, State Route 4, and
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
along Willow Ave and Foxboro sewer access road (City of Hercules, 2023a).
Rate Structure
On April 28, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 09-070, increasing the sewer service
charge by $2.00 per month per year successively for five years (FY 2009-10 through 2013-14) along
with an increase by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The City's rate structure reflects a combination
of fixed rate service charges for residential customers and consumption-based usage charges for
non-residential customers. The monthly sewer rates for FY 2013-14 through FY 2018-19 were $52.15
per single-family and multifamily unit; $35.60 for apartment units; and commercial, retail, and
institutional are charged based on individual water consumption provided by East Bay Municipal
Utility District (Hercules, 2023b). A new rate study is currently underway at the City, which should
ensure that rates are commensurate with contemporary costs.
6.5: POPULATION
The City's wastewater collection system serves the area within the City boundary. The system is
designed to serve a population of approximately 25,000 (as of 2019), with an additional 5,000
residents expected at full buildout of the service area (Hercules, SSMP, 2019). In 2020, the
population increased to 26,300 (Contra Costa Dept. of Conservation). The population data in the
City's SSMP aligns with the population analysis prepared in this MSR, as shown in Tables 6-6 and 6-
7. It is estimated that all residents within the City boundaries receive wastewater services from the
City of Hercules. Detailed information regarding population demographics in Contra Costa County
is provided in Appendix A.
Table 6-6: Existing Permanent Population, City of Hercules, 2021 to 2022
Name of City Population in Number of Registered Population in SOI
Boundary (1) Voters in Boundary (2) only (3)
City of Hercules 26,300 16,979 112
Sources:
(1) Contra Costa Dept. of Conservation
(2). Registered Voter data provided by LAFCO as of January 2023.
(3): Calculated estimate based on an average of 3.02 persons per parcel in Contra Costa
County.
Note: Current population data is available from California Department of Finance. E-1
Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State: January 1, 2021 and 2022.
Sacramento, California. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/.
(Please note that CA DWR estimates 3.3 residents per sewer connection).
Projected Future Population: Projecting a city's future population is complicated due to varying
annexation rates and census tracts that do not match City boundaries. Data from the California
Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth for Contra Costa County, as
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
shown in Table 6-8 below. Since the anticipated future population growth of the City has the potential
to influence the demand for wastewater services, the projections are shown in Table 6-8 below.
The annual growth rate from 2020 to 2045 is projected by CA DOF to be 0.59%, as shown in Table 6-
8. The City's General Plan and associated environmental impact report (EIR) guide future growth and
were adopted in approximately 1995. Certain elements, such as the Housing Element and the Safety
Element, have been updated since then. For example, the City’s Housing Element was updated and
adopted in April 2015 and covers an eight-year time period through 2023. The Housing Element
contains a table listing the vacant properties totaling 87.33 acres with 2.732 potential units that
could be developed (City of Hercules, 2015). The City Housing Element (2015) projects a future
population of 39,500 by 2040, as shown in Table 6-7 below.
Table 6-7: Hercules Housing Element Population Projections
The Housing Element's 2040 projection differs from this MSR's projection shown in Table 6-8 by a
total of 10,401 persons. The Housing Element projects a more robust rate of future growth.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area 2050 indicates that Hercules has
identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs) as shown in "pink" in Figure 6-7 below. PDAs are locally
designated geographies that meet transportation and planning criteria adopted under ABAG
Resolution No. 02-19.
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 6-8: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2045)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2020 to
2020 to 2020 to 2045
2045 2045
County of Contra
Costa1 1,149,800 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.8% 181,631 0.59%
City of Hercules 2
26,300 26,545 27,583 28,459 29,099 29,518 12.2% 3,218 0.59%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties,
2010-2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
2: Population projection for the City of Hercules calculated as 2.22% of the County of Contra Costa population.
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 6-7: ABAG Priority
Development Areas
(Data Source: ABAG,
2021)
6.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The CKH Act defines a disadvantaged community in the unincorporated area as an inhabited territory
of 12 or more registered voters that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual MHI
that is less than 80% of the statewide annual MHI. This state legislation is intended to ensure that
the needs of these unincorporated communities are met when considering service extensions
and/or annexations, particularly water, wastewater, drainage, and structural fire protection
services. The statewide annual MHI in California for 2022 was $88,930 (ESRI, 2022). The DUC
threshold is 80% of the MHI, which calculates to less than $71,144. Relevant data were reviewed for
the City of Hercules and its SOI. Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies,
cities, and counties to address municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies in some
disadvantaged communities. Data from the 2020 U.S. Census were queried as part of this MSR
Update process. Data query results showed no disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs)
within or contiguous to the City's SOI.3
In addition, an analysis of Figure 6-8 below shows no disadvantaged communities within Hercules'
municipal boundary. The nearest disadvantaged community appears to be in the community of
Rodeo, located outside the City's boundary and SOI.
3 City staff has noted that the disadvantaged communities designated by CalEPA for the purposes of SB 535
include portions of Pinole as well as Rodeo (which is contiguous to Hercules). The Priority Populations Map
2023 update distributed by CARB for the California Climate Investments Priority Populations also shows
portions of Pinole and the portion of Rodeo contiguous to Hercules as "Disadvantaged Communities CES4".
The MSR consultants note this is not applicable to this MSR; however, it is acknowledged that the City may
use a variety of definitions and resources to characterize the socio-economic status of its community.
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 6-8: Disadvantaged Communities Near Hercules
6.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
LAFCO's 2014 Wastewater Services MSR identified two government structure options for the City of
Hercules. These two options remain valid, as listed below.
Maintain the Status Quo
The City is currently providing adequate wastewater services within its boundaries. The City is
financially sound and has developed and implemented a CIP to maintain and upgrade necessary
infrastructure (LAFCO, 2014). The MSR authors recommend this first option to maintain the status
quo because Pinole and Hercules have a solid working relationship, and both entities have invested
effort and funding into the joint WPCP.
Consolidate Sanitary Sewer Service with the West County Wastewater District
Studies have been completed evaluating the feasibility of conveying flows from the cities of Hercules
and Pinole (or Hercules alone) to the WCWD (LAFCO, 2014). The costs of right-of-way, pipeline
construction, decommissioning the existing WPCP, and the "buy-in" cost to the WCWD system make
this alternative cost-prohibitive (LAFCO, 2014). However, economics and cost structures are
variable and subject to change over time. Therefore, Hercules may wish to revisit this issue in future
years.
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
New Option #3: Consolidate Sanitary Sewer Service with Pinole and Rodeo
Based on the structure of the JPA and shared outfall with the City of Pinole and Rodeo San District,
LAFCO, Hercules may wish to evaluate an alternative option to consolidate sanitary sewer service
with Hercules, Pinole, and Rodeo. Although this new option was not evaluated in this MSR, LAFCO
may wish to include an evaluation in the next update of the Wastewater MSR, or at a time when any
of the three entities submit an application to LAFCO. Such an evaluation should assess the financial
and technical feasibility of the proposal to ensure it is cost-effective before adoption or
implementation.
Figure 6-9: Option to Maintain the Existing SOI – City of Hercules
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
6.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
Table 6-9: MSR Determinations for Hercules
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected area. The City of Hercules existing population is 26,300
• Is the existing population estimated? (2020). The City's population is expected to grow
• Is the projected future growth to 29,518 by the year 2045, an increase of 12.2%
estimated? of the current population.
Location and characteristics of any There are no disadvantaged communities within
disadvantaged unincorporated communities the City of Hercules boundary and SOI.
within or contiguous to the sphere of influence.
Present and planned capacity of public Hercules' CIP and the 10-Year Capital Funding
facilities, adequacy of public services, and Plan are part of the City Budget for FY 2023-
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, including 24. This CIP outlines the budget and strategic
needs or deficiencies related to sewers, spending the city will utilize for long and short-
municipal and industrial water, and structural term building and maintenance projects. The
fire protection in any disadvantaged, Public Works’ Engineering Division develops,
unincorporated communities within or manages, and implements the CIP.
contiguous to the sphere of influence.
• Does the agency have a CIP? The SWRCB maintains a SSOs database for
• Are SSOs identified? public/permitted systems and private lateral
• Are local hazards identified? sewage discharges. A 4.5-year term from January
1, 2018, to June 30, 2023, was queried in the
CIWQS-SSO database. The results of the
database queries show that during this 4.5-year
timeframe, six SSO events occurred in the City of
Hercules' system. For all six SSOs, the volume of
spillage totaled 4,500 gallons. Of this, 1,400
gallons reached surface water, calculating to a
26% recovery rate (CA EPA, n.d.). In most cases,
the SSOs had failure points at the gravity
mainline and the pump station mechanical.
The City of Hercules did not participate in the
2018 county-wide Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Therefore, local hazards that may pose a risk to
the wastewater system are not identified.
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Financial ability of agencies to provide The City completed the last rate study in 2009,
services. with rates set through FY 2018-19. No more
• Has the agency prepared a rate study? recent information was found on the City website
• Do revenues exceed expenditures? or provided to consultants.
• Is the ratio of annual debt service to total
fund annual expenditures 10% or less? Recommendation: Consultants recommend
the City conduct a new rate study.
The financial outlook for the City's Wastewater
Enterprise Fund is currently stable and self-
sustaining. Revenues exceed expenses in all
fiscal years studied.
The City has a relatively good fund balance,
providing good capability to absorb short-term
impacts. The ratio of annual debt service to total
fund annual expenditures is 50%, which
suggests the City may have difficulty meeting
debt obligations in relation to service provision
expenditures.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared The City has a cooperative agreement with the
facilities. City of Pinole to operate the jointly owned WPCP.
The two agencies also have an agreement with
the Rodeo Sanitation District for effluent
disposal.
Accountability for community service needs, The City provides a comprehensive website
including government structure and providing the public with internet access to City
operational facilities. Council agendas and minutes, public notices,
• Does the agency have a website? budgets, and environmental reports. A City
• Does the agency post a public outreach calendar is also posted listing City meetings,
tool (such as a calendar or newsletter) on events, and commission meetings.
its website?
• What is the recommendation for mergers, Two government structure options were
consolidations, or other changes to identified in the 2014 MSR: (1) status quo and (2)
governance structure? consolidation with the WCWD.
Both options remain valid. LAFCO's 2014
Wastewater MSR reported that the City's Study
indicated that consolidation with WCWD was
financially infeasible. However, if financial or
regulatory circumstances change, the City may
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
(continued)
wish to re-study this issue. Additionally, a third
option is suggested to consolidate Sanitary
Sewer Service among Hercules, Pinole, and
Rodeo. However, additional financial and
technical feasibility analysis is necessary prior to
further consideration of this new option.
Recommendation: Retain the status quo.
Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified.
service delivery, as required by commission
policy.
6.9 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Section 6.7, Government Structure Alternatives, describes various issues and identified three
options associated with changing the structure of this local government agency as listed below:
• Maintain the Status Quo
• Consolidate Sanitary Sewer Service with the West County Wastewater District
• New Option #3: Consolidate Sanitary Sewer Service with Pinole and Rodeo
LAFCO often accomplishes its government structure issues through changes to boundaries and/or
SOIs. The SOI for the City of Hercules is mostly coterminous with the municipal boundary, except
for an extension to the north near Highway 4. The SOI was retained and reconfirmed as part of
LAFCO's 2014 MSR/SOI Update for Wastewater Services and the June 12, 2019 MSR for City
Municipal Services. The SOI is 1.27 sq. mi. in size and contains a population of approximately 112
persons. The City of Hercules does not anticipate changing the current SOI (personal
communication, T. Rood, 11/14/2023). Expanding the City's SOI would be challenging due to several
old agreements, ballot initiatives, and an urban limit line. Therefore, it is recommended that the
existing SOI be retained and LAFCO should maintain the status quo in relation to Hercules
wastewater system. The SOI determinations LAFCO made for the City in 2014 and 2019 can be
reconfirmed.
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
6.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). October 21, 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 A Vision for the
Future. 196 pages. Retrieved August 29, 2023 from <https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/land-
use/plan-bay-area-2050>.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California's Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
CA Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.)
California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database.
Query run on August 29, 2023, from
<https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet?reportAction
=criteria&reportId=sso_main>.
California Dept. of Finance Demographic Research Unit. (2021). 2020 Census PL94 Data at Various
Geographies. Retrieved September 9, 2022, from: <https://dru-data-portal-
cacensus.hub.arcgis.com/apps/pl94-data-at-different-geographies/explore>.
California Secretary of State. (2022). Registration by Political Subdivision by County. 88-pages.
Retrieved August 26, 2022 from: <https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/15day-primary-
2022/politicalsub.pdf>.
City of Hercules. 2015. Housing Element, 2015-2023. Retrieved September 7, 2022 from:
<https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/7801/6365828020569300
00>.
City of Hercules. January 2019a. Sewer System Management Plan, Project No. 682-21-16-01.
Contributions from West Yost Associates. 156-pages. Retrieved August 28, 2023 from
<https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/engineering-public-works/sanitary-sewer>.
City of Hercules. 2019b. City of Hercules, California Annual Financial Report Year Ended June 30,
2019. Available online at:
<https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/13379/637149549803430
000>.
City of Hercules. November 2020a. Final Sycamore Avenue Trunk Sewer Replacement. Volume 1 of
2, Preliminary Design Report. Contributions from Carollo Engineers. 433-pages.
City of Hercules. 2020b. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2020.
Available online at:
<https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/14099/637453646764770
000>.
City of Hercules. 2021. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2020-21. Available
online at:
<https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/15013/637782899375700
000>.
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
City of Hercules. 2022. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report For the Year Ended June 30, 2022.
Available online at:
<https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/15988/638119107835030
000>.
City of Hercules. 2023a. Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. Available online at:
<https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/15493/637937467573630
000>.
City of Hercules. 2023b. City Website, Sanitary Sewer page. Accessed on October 12, 2023.
Available online at: <https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/engineering-public-
works/sanitary-sewer>.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Contra Costa LAFCO. May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater Agencies
Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. June 12, 2019. City-wide Services Municipal Service Review Update. Prepared
by Lamphier-Gregory Consultants and Berkson Associates. 793-pages. Retrieved December
2022 from <https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
State Water Resource Control Board. (n.d.). Facility At-A-Glance Report. Retrieved September 8,
2022 from:
<https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/CiwqsReportServlet?inCommand=drill
down&reportName=facilityAtAGlance&placeID=630898&reportID=5033279>.
Chapter 6: Hercules Page 6-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Chapter 7: CITY OF PINOLE – Contra Costa LAFCO
WASTEWATER SERVICES
Table of Contents
7.1: OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 7-1
7.2: BOUNDARY, SOI, AND FORMATION ................................................................................... 7-4
7.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS .............................................................................................. 7-5
7.4: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................7 -12
7.5: POPULATION ...................................................................................................................7 -21
7.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES .....................................................................................7 -23
7.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................7 -23
7.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS .................................... 7-25
7.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE .........................................................................7 -27
7.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................7 -28
7.1: OVERVIEW
The recorded history of Pinole dates back to the early 1700s when a Spanish commandant, Don
Pedro Fages, led an exploration through Contra Costa. With a small band of soldiers and an Indian
guide, Don Pedro Fages left Monterey and traveled north until he reached the area known today as
Pinole. Short on provisions, the team found a village of Indians who gave them a meal made from
acorns, seeds, and wild grain called "pinole." The soldiers named their camp "El Pinole" (LAFCO,
2014). The city’s Profile is presented in Table 7-1, next page. The boundary and SOI are shown in
Figure 7-2.
Figure 7-1. Google Image of the Pinole City Hall (Google Maps Street View)
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-1
Table 7-1: Agency Profile – City of Pinole Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
General Information Contra Costa LAFCO
Agency Type Municipal
Principal Act General laws of the State of California
Date Formed 1903
Sewer Services Wastewater collection and conveyance
Service Area
Location City of Pinole
Sq. Miles/Acres 11.6 square miles/7,430 acres
Land Uses Residential, commercial, industrial, office, open space
Dwelling Units 7,106 (CA DOF, 2021)
Population Served 18,244 (City of Pinole); Pinole-Hercules JPA Water Pollution Control
Plant (WPCP) serves approximately 44,719 (Cities of Pinole and
Hercules). The City of Pinole has 2 industrial customers and 78
permitted commercial customers (Pinole, 2022b).
Last SOI Update 05/14/2014
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities Pinole-Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant (jointly shared by the city
of Hercules). The collection system includes 50 linear miles of gravity
flow sewers, two pump stations, and 807 linear feet of force mains.
(Pinole, 2022b).
Connections There are 5,415 sewer connections in the city's collection system.
Treatment Plant The WPCP was recently upgraded and meets the standards of the Clean
Capacity (MGD) Water Act. The WPCP can accommodate 20 MGD of peak flows. The
permitted average dry weather flow is 4.06 MGD.
Primary Pinole-Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant; secondary effluent
Disposal conveyed to Rodeo Sanitary District (RSD). The final treated effluent is
Method discharged to San Pablo Bay.
Budget Information- FY 2021-2022 (Sewer Utility Fund)
Revenues Expenditures Net (Revenues –
expenditures)
Surplus/(Deficit)
Wastewater Utility $ 7,770,772 $ 6,736,755 $1,034,017
Enterprise Fund
FY 2022-23 (Budgeted) Long-Term Planned Expenditures
Capital Expenditures $2,300,000 n/a
Fund Balance n/a
Fund Assets $7,650,185 • Capital Assets (Sewer Lines)
$12.9 million • net investment in capital assets and
$11.0 million • unrestricted net assets at June 30, 2022.
Governance
Governing Body City Council (5 members)
Agency Contact City Telephone Number: (510) 724-9000
Notes
LAFCO reduced SOI (9/5/2010) in conjunction with Kay Road.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 7-2: Boundary and SOI Map – City of Pinole Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
7.2: BOUNDARY, SOI, AND FORMATION Contra Costa LAFCO
The City of Pinole (City) was incorporated in 1903 and comprises approximately 11.6 square miles,
located on the shores of San Pablo Bay in west Contra Costa County. A map of the city's current
boundary and sphere of influence (SOI) is shown in Figure 7-2, such that the boundary is shown in
solid dark gray, marked with dashed black lines. The SOI area is shaded with diagonal lines. The
County Urban Limit Line is represented with a solid blue line. Neighboring regions include:
• Richmond: Located to the southwest of Pinole.
• San Pablo: South of Pinole.
• El Sobrante: Southeast of Pinole.
• Hercules: Northeast of Pinole.
• San Pablo Bay: Northwest of Pinole, and:
• Montalvin Manor, Bay View, and Tara Hills: within the Pinole SOI.
The city lies within the San Pablo Bay, which is part of the San Francisco Bay / Sacramento Delta
Estuary watershed. Additional information about this watershed is provided in Appendix F. The City
adopted the countywide Urban Limit Line in 2007. The SOI for the city of Pinole extends beyond the
municipal boundary to the south and west. The city's 1.73 square mile SOI was retained and
reconfirmed as part of LAFCO's 2014 MSR/SOI Update for Wastewater Services and in the June 12,
2019 MSR for “City” Services. The City of Pinole does not anticipate changing the current SOI (Pinole,
2022b). In the past, consolidation with West County Wastewater District (WCWD) was considered,
but it was not implemented due to the cost (Pinole, 2022b).
Pinole is a suburban area, and its land uses include a mix of residential, multi-family residential,
commercial, retail, mixed-use, and open spaces. Although there are no designated agricultural land
uses in Pinole, some rural designated areas may allow for community gardening and specialty crop
farming (LAFCO, 2014). Major roads and highways include Interstate 80 (I-80), which runs through
Pinole, connecting it to neighboring regions; San Pablo Avenue, a major road running parallel to I-80;
and Richmond Parkway, located near the southwestern edge of the map.
Regional Planning
The Bay Area Regional Collaborative includes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. This collaborative multi-
agency regional committee allows for cross-jurisdictional work on projects such as Resilient Bay
Area and Carbon Free Future. Pinole’s boundary/SOI is adjacent to or encompasses a portion of the
San Francisco Bay, a sensitive environmental resource. The California state planning and regulatory
agency with regional authority over the San Francisco Bay, the Bay’s shoreline band, and the Suisun
Marsh is called the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Its
mission is to protect and enhance San Francisco Bay and to encourage the Bay’s responsible and
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
productive use for this and future generations. BCDC ensures projects are c Coomnptraat iCbolest aw LitAh FtChOe
conservation of Bay resources as described on its website at: <https://bcdc.ca.gov/ >.
7.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
The city's wastewater service includes collection, conveyance to the Pinole-Hercules WPCP, and
disposal to the outfall near Rodeo (City of Pinole, 2022a). The city provides wastewater collection
and conveyance services to approximately 5,415 sewer connections, as shown in Table 7-1 above
(Pinole, 2022b). One connection may serve many individual customers.
Collection System: The city’s wastewater collection system includes 50 linear miles of gravity flow
sewers, two pump stations, and 807 linear feet of force mains that collect and convey wastewater
to the Pinole-Hercules WPCP. The collection system also includes over 1,300 maintenance holes. A
majority (54%) of the pipes in the collection system are sized 8 inches in diameter. The remaining
pipes are sized either larger or smaller than 8 inches in diameter. TV videotaping was completed in
the city collection system in 2013 to address infiltration issues. In 2019, the city of Pinole completed
its full upgrade of the Pinole-Hercules Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) (City of Pinole, n.d.).
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update (2022) (Master Plan): Pinole's Master Plan provides a
comprehensive assessment of the city's sanitary sewer collection system, including its current
condition, capacity, and future needs. Chapters 5 and 6 describe proposed improvements and
expansions to the system. A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and recommendations for future
action are also described. The Master Plan guides decision-making and planning for the system's
maintenance, repair, and expansion to ensure its continued functionality and compliance with
regulatory requirements (Pinole, 2022c). The Master Plan provides a map of the wastewater service
area, as shown in Figure 7-3 below.
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) (Management Plan) (2022): The SSMP outlines the
regulatory requirements, goals, and maintenance programs for the city's wastewater collection
system. The Management Plan addresses 11 elements, including goals, organization, legal authority,
operation and maintenance program, design and performance provisions, overflow emergency
response plan, FOG control program, system evaluation, and capacity assurance plan, monitoring,
measurement, and program modifications, program audits, and communication program. The
Management Plan documents the city's procedures for conducting routine preventive operations
and maintenance activities by staff and contractors. A rehabilitation and replacement plan is also
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 7-3: Wastewater Collection System and Service Area. Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 7-3 above was created by Carollo Engineers for the 2022 Final Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Update.
included to identify and prioritize system deficiencies. Element 4 of the Management Plan outlines
the operation and maintenance program, including hydro-jetting of lines, rodding, and condition
assessment of various infrastructure. The program also includes a system for scheduling regular
maintenance and cleaning of the sanitary sewer system with more frequent cleaning and
maintenance targeted at known problem areas. FOG inspections are conducted around the year for
food service establishments. Pinole’s SSMP is based on A Guide for Developing and Updating of
Sewer System Management Plans, September 2015, which was developed by a consortium of sewer
collection system agencies and environmental professionals (COP, 2022d). The Management Plan
states the following about flows within the city wastewater collection system:
Average dry weather flows (ADWF) to the WPCP, based on analysis of influent flow
data from 2013-2017, is approximately 1.1 to 1.2 million gallons per day (MGD),
with a Maximum Day: ADWF peaking factor of up to 1.3 to 5.7, depending on
drought conditions. Existing peak wet weather flow (PWWF) was derived using
hydraulic modeling and a 10-year, 24-hour design storm condition (approximately
3.52 inches of rainfall). The existing PWWF is 15.21, which represents a wet
weather peaking factor (PWWF:ADWF) of 13.8 due to I&I (COP, 2022d).
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Joint Power Authority (JPA) Sanitary WPCP: The City jointly operates the Hercules C–Ponintorale C JoPsAt aS aLnAiFtaCrOy
WPCP with the city of Hercules. The cities of Pinole and Hercules each have a 50% ownership in the
WPCP, although Pinole is the designated operator. The WPCP has approximately eleven employees.
The WPCP occupies 5.28 acres on Tennent Avenue, south of San Pablo Bay and north of Highway 80.
The WPCP has a total service population of approximately 13,825 customers (5,415 sewer
connections from Pinole and 8,410 service connections from Hercules. One service connection may
serve many individual customers. Secondary effluent is conveyed to the RSD WPCP, where it is
combined with RSD effluent and discharged into San Pablo Bay. In 1977, RSD, Pinole, and Hercules
entered into a JPA to provide deep-water wastewater disposal facilities (LAFCO, 2014).
The WPCP was upgraded in the 2015 to 2017 timeframe. Prior to 2015, several other improvements
to the WPCP were made, including the addition of a fourth digester and design for the larger upgrade
totaling $50 million, which was shared by the cities of Pinole and Hercules.
From 2019 to 2021, the WPCP completed a major upgrade led by a contractor, HDR Inc., and Carallo
Engineers. With the upgrade, the WPCP meets the standards of the Clean Water Act and can
accommodate 20 MGD of peak flows. The permitted average dry weather flow is 4.06 MGD.
Improvements included an influent pumping station, headworks, primary clarifier, aeration basins,
three new secondary clarifiers, return-activated sludge/waste activated sludge pumping,
disinfection, solids handling (centrifuge dewatering), effluent pumping, odor control, and electrical
facilities. Chemical and biological processes are used to treat the wastewater. As of 2018, the
plant's average discharge to the San Pablo Bay was 2.4 million gallons per day. In 2022, the WPCP
treated an average of 2.7 million gallons per day (Pinole AFS, 2023). Detailed information about the
recent physical improvements to the WPCP and continued daily operation of the facility is
available from the city's website at:
<https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/city_government/public_works/wastewater_treatment_plant >.
Biosolids are handled by first using a settling tank called a gravity thickener, where sludge settles to
the bottom. The sludge is then sent to a rotary drum thickener. Sludge solids are then sent to
anaerobic digesters where bacteria break down the solids and produce byproducts, including
methane gas, carbon dioxide, and stabilized organic solids. The methane gas (a greenhouse gas) is
used to fuel the plant's cogeneration facility, providing electricity for plant equipment. Engine and
exhaust heat are captured and utilized to heat the anaerobic digesters. Any remaining solids are sent
to a landfill.
Recycled Water
Recycled water is not currently available from the WPCP. However, in the future, it might be possible
to use the treated wastewater for productive purposes, such as to recharge underground aquifers,
provide irrigation water in specific instances, and for industrial purposes if it is processed further.
Pinole is currently assessing the technical and financial feasibility of reusing treated wastewater.
Readers are invited to participate in the city's online survey to share their thoughts and ideas on this
matter: <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YQJ5FQV>.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Local Hazards
The 2018 Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Volume 2 maps critical infrastructure,
such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards (Contra Costa County, 2018). The City
of Pinole did not participate in the countywide HMP. However, several neighboring jurisdictions did
participate in the HMP, including the city of Martinez and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
(CCCSD). It is recommended that the city of Pinole request an invitation from the County to
participate in the next update to the HMP. Alternatively, Pinole could provide a detailed spatial
mapping of the city's wastewater infrastructure in relation to hazards identified to LAFCO before the
next update of its Wastewater Services MSR/SOI.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted
systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California
Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General
Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. Order
No. WQ 2022-0103-DWQ (SSS Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs)), on December 6, 2022. All
public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer system comprised of more than one mile of
sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility must be covered under the
SSS WDRs. A 3.5-year term from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2023, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO
database. The results of the database queries regarding the city of Pinole are listed below in Table 7-
2 (next page). The adopted SSMP has assisted the city in identifying problem sewer mains and
laterals and managing flows and overflow events.
During this 5.5-year timeframe, eight SSO events occurred in the city of Pinole. In most cases, the
SSOs originated from the gravity mainline. All the overflows were relatively large, and very little spill
material was recovered. The largest spill in the query occurred on February 13, 2019, with a volume
of 82,000 gallons. This spill originated at the maintenance hole and occurred due to rainfall
exceeding design. Only 7,000 gallons were recovered from the spill, resulting in an estimated 75,000
gallons reaching surface water. During the entire 5.5-year timeframe, the total volume of the eight
SSOs was 106,000 gallons, and the total volume that reached surface water was 91,700 gallons.
Currently, collection system projects are planned to increase capacity, reduce inflow and infiltration
(I&I), and reduce SSOs (Pinole, 2022b).
From July to October 2022, San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known as a
red tide, as described in Appendix F. The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma akashiwo,
can cause water to take on a reddish-brown color. The HAB extended throughout the open-bay
regions of the South Bay, the Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths linked to the red tide
were reported to include sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, and anchovy. The San
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Francisco Bay Water Board is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay t hCroonutgrah Cthoest aN LuAtrFieCnOt
Management Strategy, which includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other
agencies to study the potential impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. The city has an
opportunity to assist with this effort by continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by
discussing the nutrient problem with other wastewater service providers and the Water Board.
Note: City staff indicated the following via email message dated April 23, 2024:
We object to the entire paragraph that discusses Harmful Algal Blooms are linked to
SSO’s and Nutrient impacts. These algal blooms are not occurring in Pinole’s Sphere
of Influence. The waterboard doesn’t even know what’s causing the algal blooms as
they’ve detailed in the article:
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/HAB_FAQ.html>. Any
unsubstantiated information regarding SSO and Nutrient inputs into the San
Francisco Bay needs to be removed since there is no evidence to support this.
Response from MSR Consultants:
The comments City staff provided were carefully considered. The article the City
linked provides Frequently Asked Questions about the HAB, and it is consistent with
the description of the HAB provided in this MSR. The MSR consultants contacted the
RWQCB directly and requested additional information. RWQCB staff referred us to the
following information sources:
• US EPA’s webpage regarding nutrients and HABs: https://www.epa.gov/water-
research/nutrients-and-harmful-algal-blooms-research.
• The Interstate Technology Regulatory Council, a national group of experts, also
has a very helpful webpage that includes cited literature: https://hcb-
1.itrcweb.org/strategies/.
• Webpage on linking nutrients to land use: https://hcb-
1.itrcweb.org/strategies/#7_4.
Based on these and other information sources, it is clear that nutrients (including nitrogen and
phosphorous) originate from agriculture runoff, industrial wastewater, municipal wastewaters, and
other sources. The relative contribution of each nutrient source is specific for each water body. The
RWQCB is working to develop a more comprehensive model of nutrient dynamics and potential
nutrient control strategies. In the meantime, this MSR’s statement that “The City has an opportunity
to assist with this effort by continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by discussing the
nutrient problem with other wastewater service providers and the Water Board” remains directly
applicable.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 7-2: City of Pinole Sanitary Sewer Overflows Contra Costa LAFCO
Vol of SSO
EVENT Collection SSO Vol of SSO
Start Date SSO Vol Reached SSO Failure Point WDID
ID System Category Recovered
Surface Water
852683 Pinole City CS Category 2 2018-11-11 5,000 500 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10112
854443 Pinole City CS Category 2 2018-12-17 2,100 200 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10112
855088 Pinole City CS Category 1 2019-01-06 6,000 0 6,000 Maintenance hole 2SSO10112
855433 Pinole City CS Category 1 2019-01-16 8,500 0 8,500 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10112
856234 Pinole City CS Category 1 2019-02-13 82,000 7,000 75,000 Maintenance hole 2SSO10112
862982 Pinole City CS Category 1 2019-11-19 1,100 100 1,000 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10112
877115 Pinole City CS Category 2 2021-10-24 1,000 500 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10112
887324 Pinole City CS Category 1 2023-03-21 1,200 0 1,200 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10112
Data Source: CIQWS Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
Figure 7- 4: SSO Frequency and Volume Graph
Data Source for Figure 7-4: Pinole SSMP, 2022
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Infrastructure Needs Contra Costa LAFCO
The City maintains various equipment, vehicles1, infrastructure, and associated assets. The 2015 to
2017 WPCP upgrade and the subsequent 2019 to 2021 WPCP upgrade helped the JPA partners meet
the Stare Regional Water Quality Control Board (SRWQCB) permit requirements on treatment
capacity and operating compliance. Replacement of problem sewer mains and laterals to reduce
infiltration continues to be a major priority in the city's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), as described
on page 7-19.
LAFCO's 2008 and 2014 MSRs identified I&I as a concern due to the age of the sewer mains.
However, since then, the city has made several improvements to its system and continues to
monitor its infrastructure. The relatively low number of SSO's shows that the physical infrastructure
improvements have been effective.
Future Challenges: The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 (2019) has several
recommended remedies for California's aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J
and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local levels about what a wastewater
treatment plant is, what kind of wastes it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the
sewer pipes. Continue educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom
to call if such an event occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in wastewater reuse/recycling.
Cooperative Programs
The City provides wastewater treatment services at the WPCP through two (2) Joint Exercise of Power
Agreements (JEPA) with other governmental entities, which are not separate legal bodies:
1) Hercules/Pinole/RSD JEPA
2) Pinole/Hercules Waste Water JEPA
The above two items function as cooperative agreements between existing entities. These
agreements are implemented through the daily cooperation between Pinole and Hercules in the
stable operation of the WPCP. Pinole also has an agreement with the East Bay Municipal Utility
District (EBMUD) to handle and dispose of biosolids after treatment if surplus volume processing is
required. The City also participates in regional staff training and pollution education programs
1
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the city, it is likely that sometime in the future, the
District may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting veh icles reliant upon an alternative energy source
such as electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore,
alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(LAFCO, 2014). Contra Costa LAFCO
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
LAFCO's 2014 MSR noted that the cities of Pinole and Hercules both studied the option of conveying
flows to WCWD facilities in North Richmond for treatment as a potential cost-avoidance measure.
However, those studies revealed that the option was more costly than upgrades to the existing
Pinole-Hercules WPCP facilities. The City of Pinole believed savings in capital and operation costs
could be achieved if I&I were better controlled. The City of Pinole studied areas where I&I was
occurring with the goal of repairing the collection system in those areas (LAFCO, 2014). Additionally,
the city implemented various cost control steps in the past years to control staff numbers and
related costs (LAFCO, 2014). City staff considered other potential future cost control opportunities
and noted two areas they are studying, including: 1) solar panels and 2) projects to reduce chemical
usage as PG&E and chemical cost are rising (personal communication, S. Mishra, April 2024).
7.4: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
The main focus of this analysis is the Wastewater Enterprise Fund, also called the Sewer Enterprise
Fund. Enterprise Funds are used to separately account for self-supporting operations. The city’s
Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for FY 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and Operating and
Capital Budget for FY 2022-23 and 2023-24 are the primary information sources for data related to
the wastewater financials for the city. As this is a report related to the city's wastewater services,
most of the analysis for this section will focus on this activity (Pinole 2019; 2020; 2021; 2022e;
2023a). These reports are posted on the city's website at:
<https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/city_government/finance/annual_comprehensive_financial_report>.
This financial analysis represents a snapshot in time (i.e., a limited time period). However, the city
regularly updates its financial data, and readers may review the new data on the city’s website.
The city’s sole business-type activity is the operation of its WPCP Wastewater Utility, which is
accounted for in a proprietary-type enterprise fund. The WPCP accounts for the collection,
treatment, and disposal of wastewater generated by city residents and businesses (Pinole, 2020).
The WPCP is operated jointly between Pinole and the city of Hercules. Hercules pays for these
services directly as a wholesale purchaser on behalf of its retail customers. Pinole sends an invoice
to Hercules for the services provided at the WPCP based on the actual flow volumes. The total flow
split varies based on retail customer demands and the effects of I&I. Please note that this
arrangement is only for the WPCP. The City of Pinole retains fiscal responsibility for the wastewater
collection system within its boundary (COP, 2018, Wastewater Rate Study).
The most recent independent audit completed for FY 2021-22 stated that the financial statements
were presented fairly in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America. The Management’s Discussion and Analysis included the following statements
related to the Wastewater Enterprise Fund:
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
• The net position for the fund increased by $0.3 million compared to FY 2 C0o2n0t-r2a1 .C osta LAFCO
• Program revenues increased $0.2 million (3.2%) over the prior fiscal year (FY).
• There was an increase in expenses over the prior FY of $0.6 million (8.6%). Depreciation
expense is considered a cost of service in proprietary funds, which accounted for $1.2 million
in FY 2021-22.
• The City of Pinole is financing its share of the WPCP Upgrade project through a low-interest
loan from the State Revolving Loan Fund. The City was approved for a loan in the amount of
$26.7 million by the State Water Resources Control Board. In order to repay the loan, the city
Council approved Resolution Number 2013-47 with scheduled rate increases over a five-
year period, beginning July 1, 2013. The rate plan was amended on July 17, 2018, by
Resolution Number 2018-66. The 2021 monthly rate for single-family residents was $71.44
and $60.72 for multi-family residents (Pinole, 2022e).
The Pinole Joint Powers Financing Authority (JPFA) is a separate government entity with the purpose
to assist with the financing or refinancing of public capital facilities within the city. The JPFA has the
power to purchase bonds, sell bonds, and is controlled by the same governing body as the city. The
financial activities for the JPFA include the Wastewater Utility Fund.
Six primary areas of criteria have been utilized to assess the present and future financial condition
of the city's wastewater service operations, as discussed below:
3 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
The Sewer Enterprise Fund operated with revenues exceeding expenditures for the three fiscal years
(FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22). The city anticipates expenditures exceeding revenues by approximately
$3.04 million in FY 2022-23 and a much larger deficit of $14.93 million in FY 2023-24. The data
provided in Figure 7-5 below is from the audited financial statements for FY 2019-20 through FY 2021-
22 and the budget for FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24. It is important to note that, in general, revenues
and expenditures for the audits and the budgets can vary in how the finances are presented.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-13
437,390,7$
075,670,5$
650,725,7$
891,760,6$
277,077,7$
557,637,6$
671,663,8$
399,404,11$
902,452,9$z
933,581,42$
Figure 7-5: Sewer Enterprise Fund Revenues and
Expenditures
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$-
2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023 2023/2024
Revenues Expenditures Linear (Revenues) Linear (Expenditures)
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
The budget for FY 2023-24 shows a 267% increase in sewer collections expense and 56% increase
in sewer treatment plant expense compared to FY 2022-23. Of the approximately $12.8 million for
sewer collections expense, $11.13 million is allocated for sewer pump station rehabilitation
($6,783,000) and sanitary sewer rehabilitation ($4,700,000) as part of the capital improvement plan.
Though expenses have slowly increased, the large jump in expenses over revenues could suggest
the beginnings of a trend in deficit spending. However, City staff has recently indicated that these
expenses are due to planned capital expenditures for those fiscal years. For example, a large Capital
improvement Projects expenditure is slated for FY2324. Division: 642 Sewer Collections Total for the
budget is $12,785,925. This is 267% higher than the previous year. This is based on the budget for
Capital Projects, which are planned for the 5-year period (personal communication, S. Mishra, April
2024). More information is available in the published CIP for the FY 2023-2028 on the city website.
The City completed its most recent rate study in May 2018. This study provided sufficient rate
increases to meet operating expenses, non-operating expenses, capital projects, and key financial
policies through FY 2022-23 (Pinole, 2018). The city is currently in the process of updating this rate
study to analyze future fiscal years (consultants could not find a line item for this study in the FY
2023-24 budget) (personal communication, S. Mishra, April 2024).
Ratios of Revenue Sources
The FY 2023-24 budget provides a breakdown of all revenue funds by category for the city, as shown
in Figure 7-6 below. Sewer Enterprise charges are anticipated to make up 19% or $9,154,209 for FY
2023-24, the second largest revenue source for the city. The largest revenue source for the city is
anticipated to be sales and use taxes at 20%.
According to the FY 2023-24 budget, the largest revenue source for the Sewer Enterprise Fund is
Sewer Enterprise Charges at approximately $9.15 million. The only other revenue stream is an
additional $100k in interest and investment income.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 7- 6: FY 2023-24, All City Funds Revenue by Category Contra Costa LAFCO
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
Figure 7-7 below shows assets for the city’s Wastewater Utility Enterprise Fund from the most recent
audit completed in FY 2021-22.
Figure 7-7: Wastewater Utility Enterprise Fund Assets, FY
2021-22
Non-current Assets
Current Assets
$- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given FY is exhibited by the
amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to the
annual fund expenditures. The most recent audit, completed in FY 2021-22, shows an unrestricted
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
amount of $11,022,842. Operating expenses for the same FY came to $6,736,75 C5o. nTthrias Ceoqsutaat LeAs FtoC Oa
positive ratio of 164%, a very good ratio (Pinole, 2022). Current assets include cash and investments,
accounts receivable, prepaid items, and inventory. The City had approximately $43.3 million in net
capital assets for the Wastewater Utility Enterprise Fund in FY 2021-22.
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. Specifically, the city of Pinole has several
types of debt related to wastewater services, including total OPEB liability, refunding bonds, net
pension liability, the 2016 Clean Water State Revolving fund, and revenue bonds. Figure 7-8 shows
the liabilities for the city’s Wastewater Utility Enterprise Fund as of FY 2021-22 (Pinole, 2022).
Figure 7-8: Wastewater Utility Enterprise Fund
Liabilities/Debts, FY 2021-22
Non-current Liabilities
Current Liabilities
$(40,000,000) $(30,000,000) $(20,000,000) $(10,000,000) $-
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of the city's ability
to meet debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a ratio of 10% or less
would reflect a very stable ratio. The Wastewater Fund's debt service ratio in FY 2021-22 was
$1,742,248. Total expenditures that same year were $6,736,755. The debt service ratio to total
expenditures was approximately 26%. This reflects the significant capital expenditures funded
through bond revenue as part of the city's infrastructure upgrade program. Therefore, this ratio is
higher than ideal. The FY 2021-22 audited financial statement included a chart of revenue bond
coverage for the wastewater revenue bonds over the last ten fiscal years, as replicated in Figure 7-9
below.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 7-9: Revenue Bond Coverage for Wastewater Revenue Bonds 2013-2022 Contra Costa LAFCO
Revenue for Figure 7-9 includes all wastewater operating revenue, non-operating interest revenue,
connection fees, and other non-operating revenue. Expenses include all wastewater operating
expenses less depreciation. Since 2019, the city has seen expenses increase which has reduced the
amount of net revenue to cover the debt service. This could be the start of a worrying trend for the
city. Table 7-3 below shows a summary of the long-term liabilities for the Wastewater Utility
Enterprise Fund as presented in the audited financial statement for FY 2021-22.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 7-3: Long-term Liabilities Debt, FY 2021-22 Contra Costa LAFCO
In 2016, the city issued an $8,251,000 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bond to redeem its 2006
Wastewater Revenue Bonds. The bonds bear an annual interest of 2.95%, payable semi-annually on
March 1 and September 1 of each year through 2036. Principal payments are due annually from
September 1, 2016 through 2036. The bond is secured with pledged net wastewater revenues. Table
7-4 below shows the future debt service payments for the city.
Table 7-4: 2016 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bond Debt, FY 2021-22
In May 2016, the city entered into a loan agreement with the State of California Water Resources
Control Board to provide funding for its 50% share of upgrades to the Pinole-Hercules WPCP in order
to achieve compliance with the Regional Water Quality Board National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System. Funds are drawn on the agreement as work is completed up to a maximum
amount of $26.7 million plus any construction period interest. The loan accrues interest at a rate of
1.7% annually. Annual principal payments are due each July 1, commencing July 1, 2020. The final
payment is due July 2049. Net revenues, defined as all sewer enterprise fund revenues less
operations and maintenance costs (excluding depreciation and amortization expenses), are pledged
for future debt service. As of June 30, 2022, the total debt outstanding on the loan is $24,105,949.
Table 7-5 below shows future debt service requirements.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 7-5: 2016 Clean Water State Revolving Loan, FY 2021-2 C2o ntra Costa LAFCO
Based on average rates of revenue growth and expense growth over the last five years (2018 to 2022),
the city will be unable to meet its yearly debt obligations within the next fiscal year with incoming
revenue alone. Preliminary calculations, factoring in budgeted revenue and costs for FY 2022-23 and
2023-24, indicate that the city will not be able to cover debt obligations (using anticipated revenues
minus anticipated expenditures). However, City staff provided additional information about how the
city plans to meet its yearly debt obligations. The City indicates it has adequate funds from the sewer
rate collection to meet the yearly debt obligations. It must be noted that the WWTP
operations/maintenance and Capital Projects are a shared cost between the City of Pinole and the
City of Hercules. The details of the share are available in the budget document for the FY 2023-28.
Additionally, the city is conducting an update to its Sewer Rate study, and new rates will help fund
the debt obligations and capital project needs (personal communication, S. Mishra, April 2024).
Capital Improvement Program
Pinole’s annual CIP was most recently approved in 2022 by the city Council. The CIP indicates that
the city plans to initiate a sewer pump station rehabilitation project and the development of a new
recycled water supply (City of Pinole, 2022a). For FY 2022-23, the city's funds include a total of
$8,476,899 for projects of various categories (City of Pinole, 2022a). The city's total funding for
sanitary sewer projects includes $2,300,000 (City of Pinole, 2022a). The city’s 2023 budget describes
several capital improvement projects associated with the wastewater system, as listed in Table 7-6
below.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 7-6: CIP Related to Wastewater Services Contra Costa LAFCO
The city’s Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update (2022c) describes several capital improvement
projects associated with the wastewater system, including pipeline projects such as the PVR
Project, Pinon Project, San Pablo FM Project, South Project, Summit Project, Tennent Project, and
other gravity main improvement projects.
Rate Structure
The city’s rate structure includes a combination of fixed rate service charges for residential
customers and consumption-based usage charges for non-residential customers. The current fee
schedule can be seen in Table 7-7 below. The rates were approved by resolution in July 2018 and run
through July 1, 2022.
Table 7-7: CIP Related to Wastewater Services
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
On August 8, 2023, the city Council voted to maintain the sewer rates for FY 2023-24 as a stop-gap
measure before the new sewer rate study assessment is completed (Pinole, 2023b). The most
recently approved rates were established in 2018, based on the rate study conducted at that time.
The rates have been adjusted for inflation annually in 2018 through 2023. The next rate study is
anticipated to be conducted in Fall 2023 (Pinole, 2023c).
7.5: POPULATION
There are approximately 18,244 residents within the city boundary as of 2023 (CA DOF, 2023a). This
is a decline in population of 5.91% from the 2020 population of 19,390. Of the 18,244 residents within
the city boundary, it is estimated that 75% receive wastewater services from the city of Pinole. The
remaining households in the city receive service from the WC WD. Pinole has approximately 7,117
housing units, including single-family and multi-family units (DOF, 2023b). Detailed information
regarding population demographics in Contra Costa County is provided in Appendix A.
Table 7-8: Existing Permanent Population, City of Pinole, 2022 to 2023
Name of City Population in Number of Registered Population in SOI
Boundary (1) Voters in Boundary (2) only (3)
City of Pinole 18,244 12,259 Data not available
Sources:
(1) California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State: January
1, 2023. Sacramento, California. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/.
(2). Registered Voter data provided by California Secretary of State, Registration by Political Subdivision by
County, May 23, 2022.
(3): Calculated estimate based on an average of 3.02 persons per parcel in Contra Costa County.
Note: There are approximately 6,635 APNs within the boundary and SOI.
Projected Future Population: Projecting a city's future population is complicated due to varying
annexation rates and census tracts that do not match City boundaries. Data from the California
Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth for Contra Costa County, as
shown in Table 7-9 below. The anticipated future population growth of the city has the potential to
influence the demand for the provision of wastewater services. The estimated projections are shown
in Table 7-9 below.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 7-9: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2045)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase 2020 Increase 2020 2020 to
to 2045 to 2045 2045
County of Contra
Costa1 1,149,800 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1 ,312,536 1 ,331,431 15.80% 181,631 0.59%
City of Pinole2 19,022 20,192 20,981 21,648 22,134 22,453 15.80% 3,063 0.59%
Sources:
1: Contra Costa Department of Conservation. [Note: See also: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A:
Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento:
California. July 2021.]
2: Population projection for the city of Pinole calculated as 1.69 percent of The County of Contra Costa's population.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
7.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES Contra Costa LAFCO
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address
municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in some disadvantaged
communities. Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part of this MSR update. Data query
results showed no disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the
city's SOI. In addition, an analysis of Figure 7-10 below shows no disadvantaged communities within
Pinole's municipal boundary. The nearest disadvantaged community appears to be near Point Pinole
Regional Park, located outside the city's boundary and SOI.
Figure 7-10: Disadvantaged Communities Near Pinole
7.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
Two government structure options were identified for the city of Pinole in the 2014 MSR, and both
remain valid options for future consideration:
Maintain the status quo
The City is currently providing adequate wastewater services within its boundary. The City
implemented an aggressive CIP Program to maintain and upgrade necessary infrastructure. Section
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
7-10 below recommends that LAFCO retain the existing SOI in order to maintain C tohnet srata Ctuosst qau LoA. F CO
Consolidate sanitary sewer service with the West County Wastewater District
The 2014 MSR noted that the city’s previous studies indicated that consolidation with WCWD was
financially infeasible. However, LAFCO has not received a copy of these previous studies. (Note:
SWALE Consultants requested a copy of these previous studies from City staff via email on October
9, 2023. No response has been received as of 5/24.) Therefore, it is recommended that if LAFCO
chooses to consider this option, a new study should be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of
conveying flows from the cities of Hercules and Pinole to WCWD. The new study should analyze the
costs of right-of-way, pipeline construction, decommissioning of the existing Pinole/Hercules
WPCP, and the "buy-in" cost to the WCWD system. The study should also recognize that since the
wastewater systems rely upon gravity flow given the topography, new pump and lift stations may be
needed. The topography also poses a constraint on infrastructure sharing. The new study should also
address any rate changes Pinole residents may experience as a result of any future consolidation.
The public review process for this new study should include the numerous stakeholders associated
with both wastewater systems.
Note: City staff provided the following comments regarding this option to potentially
consolidate sanitary sewer service with the West County Wastewater District. The
City noted that merging Pinole-Hercules with West County Wastewater District has
been analyzed multiple times dating back to the 1990s. There may have been an
opportunity to merge at some point over that time span, but that opportunity has now
come and gone. ….. The cities have spent $50 million dollars to upgrade the WPCP.
….. Past studies indicated the ….. Buy-in was around $75-100 million, now it’s
probably double with the sharp escalation in construction and engineering costs.
Response from MSR consultants: The CKH Act gives LAFCO the flexibility to consider
a wide range of options regarding governance structure and/or sphere of influence.
The text correctly describes the conclusions of the 2014 MSR. The MSR authors
continue to recommend the option to maintain the status quo. If LAFCO and/or the
subject agencies were to pursue other options, additional studies would be needed
at that time. Additionally, this MSR provides suggestions about what issues should
be included in any future study on this topic.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
7.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVIC ECo nRtraE CoVstIaE LAWFCO
DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for the Commission’s consideration:
Table 7-10: MSR Determinations for Pinole Wastewater Service
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected area. According to the Department of Finance, the current
• Is the existing population estimated? population of Pinole is 18,244. After experiencing
• Is the projected future growth rapid growth in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s,
population growth in Pinole slowed in the 1980s and
estimated?
1990s. From 2020 to 2045, population projections
indicate a growth of 3,063 people for the city of
Pinole, which is an increase of 15.80%.
Location and characteristics of any U.S. Census data was queried to determine the MHI
disadvantaged unincorporated communities for areas in and near the city. Data query results
within or contiguous to the sphere of influence showed no disadvantaged communities within or
contiguous to the city's SOI.
Present and planned capacity of public The WPCP was upgraded in the 2015 to 2017
facilities, adequacy of public services, and timeframe to help both Pinole and Hercules to meet
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, RWQCB permit requirements on treatment capacity
including needs or deficiencies related to and operating compliance. Replacement of problem
sewers, municipal and industrial water, and sewer mains and laterals to reduce infiltration
structural fire protection in any continues to be a major priority in the city's CIP. No
disadvantaged, unincorporated communities disadvantaged unincorporated communities are
within or contiguous to the sphere of within or contiguous to the City of Pinole sphere of
influence. influence.
• Does the agency have a CIP?
• Are SSOs identified? The CIWQS-SSO database query revealed eight SSO
events in the city of Pinole from January 1, 2018, to
• Are local hazards identified?
June 30, 2023.
The City of Pinole did not participate in the
countywide 2018 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. It is
recommended that the city participate in the next
update to the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Financial ability of agencies to provide The city completed the last r aCtoen strtua dCyo sinta 2 L0A1F8C, Ow ith
services. rates set through July 1, 2022, and a new rate study is
• Has the agency prepared a rate study? currently underway. The financial outlook for the
• Do revenues exceed expenditures? city’s Sewer Enterprise Fund is in flux. Though
expenses have slowly increased over the last three
• Is the ratio of annual debt service to total
fiscal years, a large jump in expenses over revenues
fund annual expenditures 10% or less?
within the last two fiscal years is noted. However,
City staff has recently indicated that these expenses
are due to planned capital expenditures for those
fiscal years. For example, a large Capital
improvement Project expenditure is slated for FY
2023-24. Division: 642 Sewer Collections Total for
the budget is $12,785,925. This is 267% higher than
the previous year. This is based on the budget for
Capital Projects, which are planned for the 5-Year
period (personal communication, S. Mishra, April
2024). More information is available in the published
FY 2023-2028 CIP on the city website.
Revenues have exceeded expenses from FY 2019-20
through 2021-22. However, expenses are projected
to exceed revenues by $3.04 million in FY 2022-23
and $14.9 million in FY 2023-24.
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual
expenditures is 26% which suggests the city may
have difficulty meeting debt obligations in relation to
service provision expenditures. Based on average
rates of revenue growth and expense growth over the
last five years (2018 to 2022), the city could
potentially be unable to meet its yearly debt
obligations. However, the city is currently updating
its rate study and anticipates raising rates in the
near-term. This would allow the city to be able to
cover debt obligations (with anticipated revenues
minus anticipated expenditures).
Status of, and opportunities for, shared The primary cooperative program is the joint
facilities. operation of the WPCP with the city of Hercules. The
City also has an agreement with the EBMUD to
handle and dispose of biosolids after treatment if
surplus volume processing is required. The City also
participates in regional staff training and pollution
education programs.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Accountability for community service needs, The City provides a comp rCeohnetnras iCveo stwa eLbAsFitCeO at
including government structure and https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/, which provides the
operational facilities. public with internet access to City Council agendas
and minutes, public notices, City budgets, and CIP
• Does the agency have a website? programs. A City Calendar listing City Council
• Does the agency post a public meetings, committee meetings, and commission
meetings, is also posted on the website.
outreach tool (such as a calendar or
newsletter) on its website?
LAFCO’s 2014 Wastewater MSR identified two
• What is the recommendation for
government structure options: (1) status quo and (2)
mergers, consolidations, or other
consolidation with the WCWD. Both of these
changes to governance structure?
options remain as valid recommendations. The 2014
MSR noted that the city’s studies indicated that
consolidation with WCWD is financially infeasible.
However, LAFCO has not received a copy of these
previous studies.
Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified.
service delivery, as required by commission
policy.
7.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Section 7.7, Government Structure Alternatives, describes various issues and options associated
with changing the structure of this local government agency. LAFCO often accomplishes its
government structure issues through changes to boundaries and/or SOIs. It is recommended that
LAFCO reconfirm current determinations and coterminous City of Pinole SOI, consistent with the
information noted in Section 7.7. When LAFCO reviews or modifies an SOI for a district, it typically
considers all of its options to change the governance structure. For Pinole, two alternative options
were considered as listed:
1) Maintain the status quo.
2) Consolidate sanitary sewer service with the West County Wastewater District.
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires that LAFCO
review and update the sphere of influence (SOI) for each of the special districts and cities within the
County (LAFCO, 2008). Pinole provides wastewater collection services to the residents, businesses,
and visitors within its 11.6 square mile boundary area. There will be an increased need for cost-
effective wastewater services within the Pinole service area, given current urban land uses, an aging
wastewater collection system, and increasingly stringent water quality standards. The city has
planned for service needs through its CIP and fee structure.
In conclusion, it is recommended that LAFCO maintain Pinole’s existing boundary and SOI in relation
to the provision of wastewater service.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
7.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY Contra Costa LAFCO
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California's Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
California Department of Finance. (2021). Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total
Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060 (Baseline 2019 Population
Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. Retrieved on August 26, 2022
from:
<https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fdof.ca.gov%2Fwp-
content%2Fuploads%2FForecasting%2FDemographics%2FDocuments%2FP2A_County_
Total.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK>.
California Department of Finance. (2023a). E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the
State: January 1, 2022 and 2023 Sacramento, California. Retrieved on August 26, 2023 from:
<https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/>.
California Department of Finance. (2023b). E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates,
1/1/2023. Sacramento, California. Retrieved on August 26, 2023 from:
<https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Secretary of State. (2022). Registration by Political Subdivision by County. 88-pages.
Retrieved August 26, 2022 from: <https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/15day-primary-
2022/politicalsub.pdf >.
City of Pinole. (2008). Sewer Collection System Master Plan. 164-pages. Retrieved on September 23,
2022 from: <https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10946972/File/City%20Government/Public
%20Works/Wastewater/sewer_master_plan_2008.pdf>.
City of Pinole. (2019). City of Pinole, California Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019. Retrieved on August 30, 2023 from:
<https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/city_government/finance/annual_comprehensive_financial_r
eport>.
City of Pinole. (2020). City of Pinole, California Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2020. Retrieved on August 30, 2023 from:
<https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/city_government/finance/annual_comprehensive_financial_r
eport>.
City of Pinole. (2021). City of Pinole, California Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021. Retrieved on August 30, 2023 from:
<https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/city_government/finance/annual_comprehensive_financial_r
eport.>
City of Pinole. (2022a). Capital Improvement Plan FY 2022/23-2026/27. 70-pages. Retrieved on
August 16, 2022 from:
<https://cdn5hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10946972/File/City%20Gover
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
nment/Public%20Works/Capital%20Projects/AttachmentA_Final_Prop oCsoendtr_aC CIPo.sptda fL>A. FCO
City of Pinole. September 19, 2022b. Staff Response to LAFCO's Request for Information via ESRI's
123 Online Survey. 2-pages. Available in LAFCO's office upon request.
Pinole. September 2022c. Final Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update. Contributions from Carollo
Engineers. 418-pages. Retrieved on August 25, 2023 from:
<https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/city_government/public_works/wastewater_collection>.
City of Pinole Public Works Department. June 7, 2022d. Sanitary Sewer System Management Plan.
91-pages. Retrieved August 25, 2023 from
<https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/city_government/public_works/wastewater_collection>.
City of Pinole. (2022e). City of Pinole, California Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022. Retrieved on August 30, 2023 from:
https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/city_government/finance/annual_comprehensive_financial_re
port.
City of Pinole. (2023a). City of Pinole Fiscal Year 2023/24 Operating and Capital Budget, Adopted
June 20, 2023. Retrieved on August 30, 2023 from:
https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/city_government/finance/budget.
City of Pinole. (2023b). Pinole City Council Meeting Agenda, August 8, 2023 Agenda Packet. Agenda
Item 5A – Resolution Setting the city’s Sewer Rates for Fiscal Year 2023-24. Available online
at:
https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10946972/File/City%20Government
/City%20Clerk/Agendas/2023/08.08.2023/2023-08-
08%20HYBRID%20SPECIAL%20AGENDA%20PACKET%20FINAL.pdf.
City of Pinole. (2023c). Pinole City Council Meeting Agenda, May 16, 2023 Agenda Packet. Agenda
Item 10B – Resolution Adopting Updated User and Regulatory Fees and the Master Fee
Schedule. Available online at:
https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10946972/File/City%20Government
/City%20Clerk/Agendas/2023/05-16.2023/2023-05-
16%20HYBRID%20AGEBDA%20PACKET%20FINAL.pdf.
City of Pinole. (n.d.). City of Pinole: Wastewater Treatment Plant. Retrieved on August 26, 2022 from:
<https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/cms/one.aspx?objectId=14630056>.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Final Approved May 14, 2014. Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. June 12, 2019. City-wide Services Municipal Service Review Update. Prepared
by Lamphier-Gregory Consultants and Berkson Associates. 793-pages. Retrieved December
2022 from <https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Chapter 7: Pinole Page 7-29
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Chapter 8: CITY OF PITTSBURG –Contra Costa LAFCO
WASTEWATER SERVICES
Table of Contents
8.1: OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2: PITTSBURG BOUNDARY & SOI............................................................................................................. 8-4
8.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................. 8-6
8.4: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 8-14
8.5: POPULATION .................................................................................................................................... 8-19
8.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................... 8-21
8.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 8-22
8.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ................................................. 8-23
8.9 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ....................................................................................................................... 8-25
8.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................ 8-26
8.1: OVERVIEW
The City of Pittsburg (City) was established along the Suisun Bay/Delta shoreline as a 10,000-acre
land grant from the government of Mexico in 1839. Initially named New York of the Pacific, the name
was changed to New York Landing during the Gold Rush and then to Pittsburg in 1911. Originally a
coal shipping port, the City was founded in 1849 and incorporated in 1903 as a general law city. In
the 1940s and early 1950s, the City was a major commercial and industrial center for the County and
the eastern ports of the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Pittsburg experienced rapid population
growth during the 1970s and 1980s, evolving into a bedroom community for employment centers in
west and central Contra Costa County. Today, the City is the second-largest industrial center in the
County and has a population of approximately 76,416 (2020) [California Department of Finance
(DOF), 2022]. The City provides wastewater collection services. The collected wastewater is
discharged into the Delta Diablo (DD) system for treatment and disposal. The City’s Agency Profile
is in Table 8-1 (next page).
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 8-1: Agency Profile – City of Pittsburg Contra Costa LAFCO
General Information
Agency Type Municipal
Principal Act General laws of the State of California
Date Formed 1903
Services Water and wastewater collection and conveyance
Service Area
Location City of Pittsburg
Sq. Miles/Acres 17.22 square miles/11,020 acres
Land Uses Residential, commercial, industrial, open space
Population Served 76,416 (2020) (Department of Finance, 2023)
Last SOI Update 06/12/2019
Sewer Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities Approximately 178 linear miles of sewer lines, two sewer lift stations,
and over 18,850 sewer laterals
Connections n/a
Treatment Plant Delta Diablo (DD) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Capacity (MGD) Design Flow: 19.5 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) (DD avg. dry weather
Primary Disposal DD W WTP
Budget Information- FY 2023-24 (Sewer Utility Fund)
Revenues Expenditures Net Surplus/(Deficit)
Sewer Utility Fund $5,589,315 $3,577,962 $3,603,203
FY 2023-24 Long-Term Planned Expenditures
Capital Expenditures $7,740,148 5-Year Projection- Wastewater
City Net Assets $668,088,274 June 30, 2022 Financial Statement – Summary of
Net Position
Sewer Utility Fund $2,433,311 Estimated Reserves for June 30, 2023
Governa nce
Governing Body City Council (5 members)
Agency Contact Garrett Evans, City Manager, gevans@ci.pittsburg.ca.us , Hilario Mata,
Assistant Director of Public Works, Hmata@pittsburgca.gov, or Jolan
Longway, Development Services Supervisor,
Notes
None.
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-2
Figure 8-2: Boundary/SOI Map – City of Pittsburg Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
8.2: PITTSBURG BOUNDARY & SOI Contra Costa LAFCO
Boundary
The City’s boundary encompasses 17.22 sq mi. Parcels within the City boundary are eligible to
receive wastewater service from the City. Land use within the boundary includes a variety of low- to
high-density residential, office, commercial, industrial, public facilities and institutions, utilities,
parks, and open space. Sensitive receptors within the City include schools, hospitals, and
convalescent homes. Steel, chemical, and other industrial uses1 are located along the Delta
waterfront near New York Slough, including DOW Chemical, USS-POSCO, Isle Capital, LLC, Marine
Express, Tesoro, and NRG. Pittsburg’s waterfront (including New York Slough) provides industries
access to the Sacramento Deep Water Channel and rail lines. The DD WWTP is located at 2500
Pittsburg Antioch Highway, Antioch. Pittsburg has two waterfront parks, an East Bay Regional Park
District regional preserve, public boat launch ramps and associated parking lots, and the Pittsburg
Municipal Marina. In addition, several City parks provide playgrounds and recreation.
A new development is proposed in Table 8-2: Existing General Plan Designations in Boundary & SOI
Acreages
Pittsburg’s boundary called “Tuscany
Land Use City Limits SOI
Meadows.” Tuscany Meadows is
Business Commercial 275.85 66.13
located near Antioch and will utilize Community Commercial 133.07 -
Antioch’s collection system with one Downtown Commercial 10.18 -
Downtown High Density Residential 14.07 -
shared trunk line. This development
Downtown Low Density Residential 52.76 -
will be constructed in eight phases.
Downtown Medium Density
Phase 1 has started construction. 124.59 -
Residential
The City conducted studies to High Density Residential 224.12 158.21
analyze wastewater capacity and Hillside Low Density Residential 152.55 93.56
Industrial 1,603.52 441.45
discharge to DD (personal
Low Density Residential 2,040.12 1,420.55
communication, H. Mata, Jan 2024).
Marine Commercial 30.97 -
Medium Density Residential 357.77 46.88
Mixed Use 179.09 0.04
Open Space 1,390.38 1,821.45
Park 1,318.09 127.14
Public/Institutional 417.39 688.17
Regional Commercial 200.95 -
Roadway 8.21 -
Service Commercial 87.69 -
Utility/Right of Way 278.44 103.66
Water 221.71 350.96
Landfill - -
Total 9,722.23 5,318.90
Data Source: Pittsburg, 2019a, Existing Conditions Report,
Chapter 1, Land Use
1 These industrial sites are considered “Industrial Categorical Users” by the EPA and their wastewater may
require pre-treatment as described <https://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-pretreatment-program>.
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
The SOI was most recently considered in LAFCO’s 2019 City Services MSR, and tChoen StOraI wCoasst are LtaAiFnCeOd
in its current configuration. Pittsburg’s SOI is 11.26 square miles. in size. A map of the City’s current
boundary and SOI is shown in Figure 8-2 (previous page).
Faria South West Hills
The City and a private developer have applied to LAFCO to annex the Faria South West Hills site,
indicating that the City will provide public services to the site.
Bay Point
Bay Point is an unincorporated community classified as a census-designated place (CDP). Bay Point
is located in the East Bay, west of Pittsburg, California, and northeast of Concord. State Route 4, the
California Delta Highway, crosses through the community. Since it is unincorporated, the County of
Contra Costa provides most of its public services. DD provides wastewater services to Bay Point.
The Bay Point CDP has a population of approximately 23,896 (2020). This calculates to an average
population density of approximately 3,719 per square miles. The Bay Point CDP has a total area of
7.4 square miles, comprising 88.3% land and 11.7% water. Bay Point is within Pittsburg’s SOI.
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta
Portions of the City boundary and SOI are located within the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Estuary
watershed (Delta), specifically within the “Secondary Zone”. The Delta is a large inland river delta
geographically connected to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and home to several rare and
endangered fish species. The Delta is also designated a National Heritage Area. The Secondary Zone
is within the “Legal Delta” and is described by various state laws and planning documents (DPC,
2010 and DSC, 2013). For local government planners and administrators, there are three key Delta
planning documents listed below:
• The Delta Plan, by the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updated through 2024.
• Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta by the Delta
Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010.
• Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by Visser, M.A.;
Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. in 2018.
DPC’s Land Use and Resource Management Plan recognizes that urbanization and other
development projects within the secondary zone have the potential to impact the Primary Zone of
the Delta (DPC, 2010). These planning documents are important because the City’s discharge of
treated wastewater to the San Joaquin River has the potential to influence water quality and
endangered species within the Delta.
City Planning Documents
The City of Pittsburg has several important planning documents to guide its future development, and
those related to wastewater service are listed below:
• Existing City of Pittsburg General Plan adopted November 16, 2001 (City Council Resolution
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
No. 01-9490) is posted to the City website <https://wwCown.ptritat sCbousrtgac LaA.gFoCvO/
services/community-development/planning/general-plan-current> and includes:
• Public Facilities Element lists several policies related to wastewater services.
• On May 6, 2024, the City adopted the2040 General Plan, which aims to allow responsible
new development aligned within natural resource limitations, providing a diversity of
available and affordable housing to residents and the local workforce. The 2040 General Plan
Update identifies additional sites for multi-family housing and increased opportunities for a
wide range of residential development types and densities.
• The City’s Housing Element was updated in May 2023 and submitted to the California
Department of Housing & Community Development (CA HCD) for approval. The Element
identifies housing needs and issues for the 2023-2031 planning period. The Housing Element
contains policies to address housing diversity and housing affordability as described on the
website at: <https://www.pittsburgca.gov/services/community-development/planning/
advanced-planning-special-projects/housing-element-update-2015-2023> (Pittsburg,
2023).
• The City of Pittsburg Municipal Code, Title 13 (Waters and Sewers), Chapter 13.20 (Industrial
Waste Disposal), Chapter 13.24 (Sewer Service Charges), Chapter 13.26 (Sewer
Maintenance and Repair), and Chapter 13.28 (Stormwater Management and Discharge
Control) contain regulations associated with wastewater and sewer management.
• The City of Pittsburg maintains a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) document that
guides the sewer utilities’ design, development, and maintenance within the City.
• Pittsburg participates in the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) (2007) to streamline the environmental
permitting process for impacts on endangered species. The Plan is available at:
<https://www.cocohcp.org/221/Final-HCP-NCCP>.
• The Contra Costa County Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative (“Northern
Waterfront Initiative”) aims to elevate East Contra Costa County by attracting advanced
manufacturing sub-sectors to create 18,000 new jobs by 2035 in advanced transportation
fuels, biotech/biomedical, diverse manufacturing, food processing, and clean tech clusters.
Pittsburg’s waterfront (including the Delta and New York Slough) provides industries access
to the Sacramento Deep Water Channel and rail lines.
8.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
The City’s wastewater service includes collection and conveyance to the DD for treatment and
disposal. The City provides sewer collection services through approximately 178 linear miles of
sewer lines ranging in diameter from six to 36 inches, two sewer lift stations, and over 18,850 sewer
laterals within the City of Pittsburg rights-of-way (Pittsburg, Budget, 2023b). One City connection
may serve many individual customers. The wastewater collection system has two distinct
geographic sections:
• the older portion north of State Route 4, where sewer lines drain to DD’s Pittsburg Pump
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Station located south of Marina Park, and Contra Costa LAFCO
• the portion serving newer areas south of State Route 4, where sewer lines enter the DD
interceptor system on the Pittsburg-Antioch Highway (Pittsburg, 2023).
The City maintains and owns the local sewage collection system that serves the City’s municipal
users. The City’s collection system operates independently, and there
are no physical interties with
other agencies.
During the previous year (FY 2022-23), City staff conducted ongoing maintenance to the collection
system, including:
• Cleaned approximately 70,000 linear feet of sewer mains with sewer combination trucks to
prevent mainline overflows, and
• Completed CCTV of approximately 4,950 linear feet of main sewer line to evaluate the pipe
condition and to avoid sewer surcharges (Pittsburg, Budget, 2023b).
Wastewater Treatment by Delta Diablo
As described in Chapter 14, DD’s service area includes the cities of Pittsburg and Antioch and the
unincorporated Bay Point community. DD owns and operates the collection system that serves the
Bay Point community, as well as the regional interceptors and the sewage treatment plant located
north of the Pittsburg-Antioch Highway (Pittsburg, 2023).
Effluent treatment is provided under contract by DD Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), as
described in Chapter 14. The Delta Diablo WWTP originally opened on May 13, 1982. The WWTP is
located north of Pittsburg-Antioch Highway, just east of Pittsburg City limits. The WWTP has a 54-
square-mile service area with a 2023 average annual wastewater flow of 14.3 MGD and an average
dry weather flow (ADWF) of 13.5 MGD (2023 Flows).
The WWTP serves the cities of Pittsburg and Antioch and the unincorporated Bay Point community.
Therefore, it is important to consider future potential growth in all three communities2. Pittsburg and
Antioch have a combined RHNA (6th Cycle) of 5,068. DD, like many other wastewater districts, uses
an average wastewater flow of 200 gallons per day (gpd) per residential connection to estimate
wastewater flows. Future flows to the WWTP are expected to increase by 1.01 MGD (5,068 x 200 gpd
/ 1,000,000). The 1.01 MGD increase is within the remaining capacity of the WWTP, approximately 5
MGD for average dry weather flows (Pittsburg, Housing Element, 2023). Please note that this
2 The 2007 CC LAFCO MSR and the 2014 CC LAFCO MSR identified an issue regarding DD plans to
accommodate increased growth (e.g., pending reorganization proposals, including Northeast Antioch). At that
time (2014) DD had wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities planned and under construction to
increase system capacity. DD collected Capital Facilities Capacity Charges (CFCCs) to build capacity as it is
consumed by new connections. The Conveyance and Treatment Plant Master Plans utilized City planning data
for the communities in the DD service area.
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
calculated remaining capacity is based on average dry weather flow and doesC onnottr ac oCnossitdae Lr ApFeCaOk
wastewater flows. During rainy periods, peak flows increase, and the ability (capacity) of the WWTP
to accommodate peak flows is an important factor. The Delta Diablo Resource Recovery Facility
2022 Master Plan includes phased treatment plant expansion to increase the plant’s solid loading
capacity beyond the current capacity of 58,000 lbs BOD/day in order to accommodate the
anticipated General Plan buildout for the communities of Pittsburg, Antioch, and unincorporated
Bay Point (Pittsburg, Housing Element, 2023). The Master Plan projects that the current solids
loading capacity will be exceeded sometimes between 2030 and 2037.
The City provided DD with legal authority to permit and inspect fats, oils, and grease (FOG)-
producing facilities within the City’s service area. The City amended its Municipal Code to provide
this legal authority on April 5, 2010 (per Pittsburg, SSMP, 2019b).
Pittsburg and Antioch are described as “satellite” sewer systems that discharge into DD’s
conveyance system. The relationships among DD, Antioch, and Pittsburg are delineated in DD’s
Code. The DD Board is comprised of one Antioch City Council member, one Pittsburg Council
member, and one member of the County Board of Supervisors.
Sewer System Management Plan
Pittsburg’s SSMP was updated in 2019. The SSMP provides guidelines, plans, and schedules to
manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the City’s collection system. Providing adequate capacity
to convey peak wastewater flows is listed as a goal. Additionally, the SSMP aims to reduce the
frequency of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and prevent SSOs from occurring in the future
(Pittsburg, SSMP, 2019b).
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
The City completed a Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (“Master Plan”) in April 2003. The
Master Plan was updated in February 2007, using revised peak wet weather design flows derived
from the modified base wastewater flow projections. Flows were monitored at seven locations (four
permanent and three temporary metering sites). The flows were estimated for gravity sewers 10
inches in diameter and larger (some 8-inch sewers were included in the model) using Wallingford
HydroWorksTM flow modeling software and a 5-year 6-hour return interval design storm. Gravity
sewers flowing full (d/D > 1) were considered deficient.
The 2003 Master Plan identified three capacity deficiencies: Highway 4 Trunk, West Leland Road,
and Bailey Road3. The three projects are needed to serve new developments in the southwest portion
3 The 2014 Wastewater MSR indicated that construction of the Highway 4 trunk line relief (Segment A) and the
Bailey Road sewer main project were on hold pending new development. As of January 2024, these projects
remain on hold and will be triggered by actual development. This project is now separated into two actual
projects: 1) Highway 4, and 2) Bailey Road. The City is in the process of updating their sewer and water master
plan which will provide additional details (personal communication, H. Mata, January 2024).
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
of the City. These three projects will be funded by the facility reserve charges Ccoonlltercat eCdo sftrao mLA nFeCwO
development and implemented as the development proceeds. However, the Master Plan indicates
that after the current projects are implemented, portions of the Highway 4 trunk will still be flowing
full at the design peak weather flow. Any additional development may result in the need for further
upsizing. The City aims to update its Master Plan every five years or as needed to address changes in
the General Plan (Pittsburg, SSMP, 2019b). As of January 2024, the City is in the process of updating
the master plan. Since the identified deficiencies relate to new proposed developments, they will be
resolved once the development moves forward and the infrastructure is installed. The existing
deficiencies will be further addressed in the forthcoming updated master plan (Personal
communication, H. Mata, January 2024).
Recycled Water
Pittsburg receives an allotment of recycled water from DD and utilizes this recycled water to irrigate
street medians and parks.
Local Hazards
The City developed a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to meet the requirements of the Disaster
Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act of 2000 as a condition to pre- and post-disaster assistance. The
Plan was incorporated by amendment to the Safety Element of the 2040 General Plan. Figure 11-1 in
the General Plan identifies critical infrastructure in the City, and Figures 11-2 and 11-3 identify
hazards in the City. Some of the City’s wastewater collection infrastructure lies within areas
identified as having flood, earthquake and liquefaction risk. The Safety Element contains policies
addressing these risks.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a SSO database from public/permitted systems and private lateral
sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California Integrated Water Quality
System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General Waste Discharge
Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. WQ 2022-0103-DWQ (SSS
WDRs), on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer system
comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a publicly owned
treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A 3.5-year term
from January 1, 2019, to August 9, 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. Since the
database query for the City of Pittsburg resulted in a high amount of SSO reports, only 19 of the most
recent SSOs are listed in Table 8-3 (next page).
Based on the 3.5-year database query, there were 94 Sanitary Sewer Overflow events for the City of
Pittsburg. In most cases, the SSOs originated from sewer maintenance holes. Most of the overflows
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 8-3: City of Pittsburg Sanitary Sewer Overflows
Contra Costa LAFCO
EVENT Region Collection SSO Start Date SSO Vol of SSO Vol of SSO SSO Failure WDID
ID System Category Vol Recovered Reached Point
Surface
Water
878732 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 1/3/2022 10 10 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
879132 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 1/27/2022 10 10 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
879243 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 1/28/2022 2 2 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
879244 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 1/30/2022 1 1 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
879451 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 2/15/2022 275 275 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
879488 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 2/17/2022 4 4 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
880294 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 3/23/2022 10 10 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
880404 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 3/23/2022 5 5 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
880594 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 4/5/2022 50 50 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
880850 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 4/21/2022 15 15 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
880958 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 2 4/26/2022 4,750 4,750 0 Maintenance 2SSO10113
hole
880971 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 4/27/2022 100 100 0 Upper Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
880982 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 4/25/2022 10 10 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
881361 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 5/18/2022 1 1 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
EVENT Region Collection SSO Start Date SSO Vol of SSO Vol of SSO SSO Failure WDID
Contra Costa LAFCO
ID System Category Vol Recovered Reached Point
Surface
Water
881522 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 5/26/2022 5 5 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
881921 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 6/18/2022 35 35 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
882387 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 7/18/2022 10 10 0 Maintenance 2SSO10113
hole
882416 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 7/22/2022 10 10 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
882683 2 Pittsburg City CS Category 3 8/9/2022 2 2 0 Lower Lateral 2SSO10113
(Public)
Data Source: CIQWS Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
Figure 8-3. Google Image of the Pittsburg Civic Center (Google Maps Street View)
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
from the query had failure points at the lower public lateral. Based on the databaCsoen tqruae Croy,s ttha eL ASSFOCOs
were contained, averaging 104.63 gallons overall, preventing any flows from reaching storm drains
or channels. Within the database query, the largest spill occurred on April 26, 2022, and had a
volume of 4,750 gallons. According to the SSO report, the cause of the spill was due to root intrusion,
and the failure occurred at the maintenance hole. This spill did not reach surface water and instead
was fully recovered. Most of the SSOs from the query were less than 100 gallons.
From July to October 2022, the San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known
as a red tide, as described in Appendix F. The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma
akashiwo, can cause water to turn reddish-brown. The HAB extended throughout the open-bay
regions of the South Bay, the Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths linked to the red tide
were reported to include sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, and anchovy. The San
Francisco Bay Water Board is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay through the Nutrient
Management Strategy, which includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other
agencies to study the potential impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. The City of Pittsburg has
an opportunity to assist with this effort by continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by
discussing the nutrient problem with other wastewater districts and the Water Board.
Infrastructure Needs
Existing Infrastructure: The City currently maintains various equipment, vehicles4, infrastructure,
and associated assets as listed in Table 8-4 below.
Table 8-4: Major Equipment (Existing) for City Sewer Service
Equipment Year
Major Equipment Type
Number Purchased
561 Combination Hydroflush Truck 2016
562 Combination Hydroflush Truck 2018
563 Combination Hydroflush Truck 2014
564 Cues CCTV Truck 2017
990 6" portable pump 2010
981 Bobcat Mini Excavator 2009
585 F-750 Dump truck 2008
Data Source for Table 8-4: Pittsburg, SSMP, 2019b
4 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car sales in
California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric vehicle laws will
apply to the type of trucks utilized by the district, it is likely that sometime in the future, the district may be asked
to consider purchasing or retrofitting vehicles reliant upon an alternative energy source such as electricity, biogas,
hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore, alternative fuel/energy for vehicles
can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
The 2019 SSMP also contains a list of capital improvement projects, summarizedC oinn Ttraab Cleo 8st-a5 LbAelFoCwO.
The City has recently developed a comprehensive Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which is
described in further detail in the Finance section on page 8-17.
Table 8-5: Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan
Current
Project Estimated FY 2019- FY 2020- FY 2021- FY 2022- FY 2023-
Project Title Funded
Number Project Costs 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Projects
2022/23 Sewer
Replacement/ Rehabilitation
SS-2 $2,900,000 $400,000 $2,500,000
Program (Central Addition
Phase II)
P/A Highway Sewer Line
SS-20 $605,000
Improvements
Highway 4 Trunk Line Relief
SS-23 (Segment A) & Bailey Rd $3,404,000 $200,000
Sewer Main
Highway 4 Trunk Line Relief
SS-29 $1,854,000
(Segment B)
2014/15 Sewer/Water
SS-30 Replacement/Rehabilitation $10,000,000 $10,000,000
Program
2018/17 Sewer
SS-34 Replacement/Rehabilitation $12,927,500 $11,627,500 $1,300,000
Program
2020/21 Sewer
SS-36 Replacement/Rehabilitation $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $500,000 $1,600,000
Program
Totals $33,490,500 $23,927,500 $1,300,000 $500,000 $1,600,000 $400,000 $2,500,000
Source: Pittsburg, SSMP, 2019b
Future Challenges: The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 (2019) has several
recommended remedies for California’s aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J
and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a WWTP is, what
kind of waste it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the sewer pipes. Continue
educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom to call if such an event
occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling.
Cooperative Programs
Pittsburg collaborates with the City of Antioch and DD regarding open communication, emergencies,
and equipment sharing. The City also participates with DD in regional pollution control education
and prevention. There is multi-level coordination, including phone calls, Email, and Zoom. City
council members participate on the DD board.
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The City purchases supplies and chemicals with the aim of reducing annual costs. The City
anticipates that annexations may benefit the sewer collection distribution systems since the
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
expansion of capacity will be coordinated with replacement projects. TypicaClloyn, tar ac Coomsptaa cLtA FCCitOy
design lends itself to being an efficient wastewater collection system. The City should remain
cognizant of this general principle when considering proposed annexations and proposed infill
developments.
8.4: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
This analysis focuses on the City’s enterprise funds for wastewater services. The City’s wastewater
services utilize two enterprise funds: the Sewer Operations fund and the Sewer Facility Reserve.
Enterprise Funds are used to separately account for self-supporting operations. The City’s audits
collectively review these funds under the Sewer Utility Fund. These funds will be collectively referred
to as the Sewer Utility Fund moving forward in this analysis.
The Sewer Facility Reserve Charge (FRC) is a development impact mitigation fee to pay for public
facilities in existence at the time the charge was imposed and to serve new development or to pay
for new facilities that will be of benefit to the person or property being charged (new development or
upgrades to existing meter capacity). The sewer FRC is intended to recover a portion of the City’s CIP
costs and utility rate payers’ prior investment in capital facilities that support land development
through utility system expansion prior to new development (City of Pittsburg, 2023). The FRC is
collected at the time of building permit issuance. The FRC has an annual escalator, so it remains
current. The City is updating the FRC structure, which will be studied in a 2025 update to the fee
structure.
The City’s budget and Certified Annual Financial Reports are the primary information source for data
related to the Sewer Enterprise Fund. These reports are posted on the City’s website at
<https://www.pittsburgca.gov/services/finance/budget-and-other-financial-documents> (City of
Pittsburg, 2019c, 2020, 2021, 2022b, 2022c, 2023b). This financial analysis represents a snapshot in
time (i.e., a limited time period). However, the City regularly updates its financial data and readers
may review the new data on the City’s website above. Service fees comprise the majority of revenues
that fund wastewater collection services. The Sewer Utility Fund does not receive funding either
directly or indirectly from the City’s General Fund. The City’s sewer fees have remained the same
since March 2014 (City of Pittsburg, 2023). Based on available information, it is difficult to determine
whether necessary capital improvements have been deferred as a result of rate stabilization. On
June 30, 2023, the estimated reserves for the Sewer Utility Fund were $2,433,311. This amount
represents working capital and does not include fixed assets, inventory, long-term advances, or
loans. There are six primary areas of criteria that have been utilized to assess the present and future
financial condition of the City’s wastewater service operations as discussed below.
5 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
Sewer Utility Fund revenues have exceeded expenses for all years studied except FY 2022-23. The
difference between the FY 2022-23 budget expenses and prior fiscal years is likely due to the
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
difference in financial accounting between audits and budgets. ExpenditureCso hnatrvae Cvoasrtiae dL,A wFCitOh
relatively stable expenses from FY 2018-19 through 2020-21, a decrease in 2021-22, and the highest
level of expenses in FY 2022-23 at approximately $6.05 million. This key performance measure
indicates that the Sewer Fund is solvent and has the capacity to cover its annual costs. The
estimated gross revenue for the FY 2022-23 adopted budget is $5.2 million. The excess annual
revenues over operating expenses are utilized to maintain and update the system’s infrastructure
through capital projects (City of Pittsburg, 2023b). Figure 8-4 below shows the Sewer Utility Funds
revenues compared to expenditures for FY 2018-19 through FY 2022-23.
Figure 8-4: Sewer Funds Operating Revenues Compared to
Expenditures
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$-
2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023
Revenues Expenditures
Ratios of Revenue Sources
In FY 2021-22, the City received 98% of its Sewer Utility Fund revenues from charges for services and
the remaining from facility rental fees and other revenue sources. The ratios for the Sewer Utility
Fund reflect an appropriate balance for typical enterprise fund services and minimizes the impact
that negative economic factors could have on more elastic revenues, such as property taxes (City of
Pittsburg, 2022b).
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited
by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to
the annual fund expenditures. The most recent audit, completed in FY 2021-22, shows an
unrestricted amount of $1,966,484. Operating expenses for the same fiscal year came to
$2,030,549. This equates to a positive ratio of 97%, a very good ratio (City of Pittsburg, 2022b).
Current assets include cash and investments, leases receivable, prepaid items, and other assets.
Figure 8-5 below shows the assets for the Sewer Utility Fund for FY 2021-22.
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 8-5: Sewer Utility Fund Assets, FY 2021-22
Noncurrent Assets
Current Assets
$- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. Specifically, the City of Pittsburg has several
types of debt related to wastewater services, including accounts payable, refundable deposits,
compensated absences, net pension liability, and net OPEB liability (City of Pittsburg, 2022b).
Figure 8-6: Sewer Utility Fund Liabilities, FY 2021-22
Noncurrent Liabilities
Current Liabilities
$(2,000,000.00) $(1,500,000.00) $(1,000,000.00) $(500,000.00) $-
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of the City’s ability
to meet debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a ratio of 10% or less
would reflect a very stable ratio. The City’s Sewer Utility Fund annual debt service ratio to total
expenditures is approximately 113%. This suggests the City may have difficulty meeting debt
obligations in relation to service provision expenditures (City of Pittsburg, 2022b).
Interfund Transactions
In FY 2021-22, there were three interfund transfers from the Sewer Utility Fund as follows:
1) $60,000 to the General Fund to cover operations and administrative services. This is the cost
of other City employees that worked on sewer-related work whose positions are not
allocated to sewer services;
2) $794,490 to Water Utility Enterprise Fund to allocate Utility Billing administrative time.
Employee costs are shared between Water and Sewer Funds. Additionally, some CIP
projects share costs between the water and sewer funds. For example, the replacement of
water and sewer lines on 9th Street; and
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
3) $23,596 to fund unfunded OPEB liability. Contra Costa LAFCO
In addition, the City has utilized the Sewer Utility Fund to pay for costs accrued by City staff working
on sewer projects, but who do not typically work for sewer services.
During fiscal year 2017-2018, the Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund advanced $650,000 to the General
Fund for the purchase of property located at the Northwest Corner of Railroad Avenue and Civic
Avenue (APN 086-100-015) and associated expenses. The advance is to be repaid within five years
and bears simple interest at the average Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) rate. The balance as
of June 30, 2022 was $105,755.
During fiscal year 2016-2017, the Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund advanced $252,960 to the Building
Maintenance Internal Service Fund to assist in financing the City Hall HVAC Chiller Replacement
project. The advance is to be repaid within ten years and bears interest at 1.5% per year. The balance
as of June 30, 2022 was fully paid off (City of Pittsburg, 2022b).
Capital Improvement Program
The City’s five-year CIP from 2022/23 through 2026/27 identifies 11 sewer CIP projects that total $27
million (City of Pittsburg, 2022). Of these, five sewer projects totaling $14.4 million are already
funded/partially funded within the next five years. The CIP states “Rehabilitation, upgrade, and
maintenance of the City’s sanitary sewer system is usually funded by the City’s Sewer Operation
Fund, which is derived from customer service charges. Projects for system expansion are funded by
new development connection facility reserve charges. There are sufficient funds to finance new
projects in the immediate future (City of Pittsburg, 2022a). The projected funding availability is
shown in Table 8-7 below. In addition, the City’s Sewer Facility Reserve Fund (SFR) Collection System
Capacity-Buy-In is funded by a one-time charge per residential unit paid by developers. This fund is
projected to have a half-million dollars for FY 2023-24.
Table 8-6: CIP Projected Sewer Operations Funding Availability (Fund 521)
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26
Description
($) ($) ($) ($)
SS-2 FY 22/23 Sewer
Replacement/Rehabilitation -200,000 -100,000 -1,500,000
Project (Central Addition Phase I)
SS-36 21/22 Sewer
Replacement/Rehabilitation (11th -1,000,000
Street Area)
SS-37 24/25 Sewer Replacement
-400,000 -2,000,000
Rehab Program
G-2 City Standard & Details Update
-50,000
(Fou)
CIP Expenditures -1,250,000 -100,000 -1,500,000 -2,000,000
Data Source: City financial documents
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
One wastewater-related capital improvement project was allocated funding in tChoen Ctritay C’so Bstuad LgAeFt CfoOr
FY 2023-24, as listed in Table 8-7 below.
Table 8-7: CIP Projects Funded
Name of CIP Project Funding Source Amount Funded Year
West Santa Fe Ave. Sewer Water Sewer Operating $712,079 FY 2023
Rehabilitation (1) Fund -24
CCTV/Inspection/Sewer Replacement (2) Not specified $2,227,487 FY 2021-
22
2021-2022 Sewer Replacement Project (2) Not specified $2,187,311 FY 2021-
22
Data Source: (1) Pittsburg, Budget, 2023b and (2) Pittsburg, ACFR FY 2021-22, 2022
Rate Structure
The City’s monthly sewer charge for a residential family is a flat fee. The City’s current published rate
structure for wastewater reflects a fixed monthly base charge of $15.79 for single-family residential
customers and $13.50 for multi-family residential customers. The City’s sewer fees have remained
the same since March 2014 (Pittsburg, Budget, 2023b). The City’s “Water and Sewer Rates”
document, effective 8/1/2022, as posted to the City’s website at
<https://www.pittsburgca.gov/services/pittsburg-water/sewer>, is shown below in Table 8-10.
However, it should be noted that the City’s rate structure is currently being studied. Rates from
comparable wastewater service providers will also be studied. The City expects an updated rate
structure to be considered in 2024 or 2025. Recommendation: To ensure that rates collected will
meet future wastewater service needs, the City should provide LAFCO with a copy of its new
wastewater rate study upon adoption and prior to June 2025.
Table 8-8: Pittsburg Sewer Fees
In addition to the City’s wastewater collection charges, Delta Diablo also has a fee for its wastewater
treatment and disposal service. Delta Diablo’s charge to Pittsburg residents is anticipated to be
approximately $448.75 annually on property taxes (does not include collection system charges), the
same level for FY 2023-24 as in FY 2022-23. Therefore, the average single-family home pays a
monthly total of approximately $37.40.
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
8.5: POPULATION Contra Costa LAFCO
Approximately 76,416 (2020) residents were within the City boundary as of April 2020 (CA DOF,
2022). Between the years 2010 and 2020, the population increased by approximately 17.48% or
11,057 persons, with an annual average increase of approximately 1.7%. By January 2023, the
population had declined to 74,809 persons (CA DOF, 2023). Detailed information regarding
population demographics in Contra Costa County is provided in Appendix A.
Table 8-9: Existing Permanent Population, City of Pittsburg, 2022
Name of City Population in Number of Registered Population in SOI
Boundary (1) Voters in Boundary (2) only (3)
City of Pittsburg 76,416 (2020) 39,276 (January 2023) 16,504
Sources:
(1) California Department of Finance. May 2023. Census 2020, Demographic Profile and Demographic
and Housing Characteristics File (DHC) Data Release. Table 2: Land Area, Population, and Population
Density for California, Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP). Excel
file. Retrieved on August 30, 2023 from < https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics>.
(2). Registered Voter data provided by Contra Costa LAFCo City Directory/Profile, 2023.
(3): Calculated estimate based on an average of 3.02 persons per parcel in Contra Costa County.
Projected Future Population: Projecting a city’s future population is complicated due to varying
annexation rates and census tracts that do not match the City boundary. Data from the California
Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth for Contra Costa County.
Additionally, the anticipated future population growth of the City has the potential to influence the
demand for the provision of municipal wastewater services. The City’s projected future population
is listed in Table 8-10 (next page).
The City is located within the Legal Delta Secondary Zone, and a detailed population analysis of the
Delta area has been prepared by state agencies (Visser et al., 2018). Readers are encouraged to
review this information directly on the state website (as updates are expected soon) as follows:
• The Delta Plan available at: <https://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan/>.
• Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta available at
<https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Land-Use-and-Resource-
Management-Plan-2.25.10_-m508.pdf >.
• Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta available at
<https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Delta-Socio-Economic-Indicators-
Report-508.pdf>
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 8-10: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2045)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2020 to
2020 to 2020 to 2045
20453 2045
County of Contra
Costa1 1,149,800 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.8% 181,631 0.59%
City of Pittsburg2
76,416 77,581 80,616 83,176 85,045 86,270 15.8% 9,854 0.59%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060
(Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
2: California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State: January 1, 2020 and 2021. Sacramento, California.
3: Population projection for City of Pittsburg calculated as 6.48% of the County of Contra Costa’s population.
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
8.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES Contra Costa LAFCO
Identifying disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) allows public agencies, cities, and
counties to address municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in
disadvantaged communities. Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part of this MSR
Update process. Data query results showed several disadvantaged areas in the unincorporated area
within or contiguous to the City’s SOI. The Bay Point community lies northwest of Pittsburg, and the
DUCs within this community are listed by census block in Table 8-11.
DUCs are inhabited communities containing 12 or more registered voters that constitute all or a
portion of a “disadvantaged community.” A disadvantaged community is defined as a community in
which the median household income (MHI) is 80% or less than the statewide MHI. This determination
assesses the prospect of including a DUC(s) when an agency’s SOI is updated or expanded. In 2011
SB 244 began requiring cities and counties to address the infrastructure needs of unincorporated
disadvantaged communities in city and county general plans, MSRs, and annexation decisions.
Therefore, this MSR update identified disadvantaged communities within relevant jurisdictions’ SOI.
The MHI for California in the year 2020 was $83,056 (ACS, 2021). 80% of the MHI ($66,445) is the
income threshold used to identify DUC status. 2020 is the base year because data from the US 2020
Census is readily available. Table 8-10 and Figure 8-7 below show that this MSR update identified
disadvantaged communities within the unincorporated community of Bay Point, a Census
Designated Place. Please note that the City has no plans to annex the Bay Point community. No
wastewater from Bay Point moves through the City as this community is directly served by DD
.
Readers can learn more about disadvantaged communities within the City and Contra Costa County
through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services database of socioeconomic and health
indicators in disadvantaged communities called the Environmental Justice Explorer Database. This
database can be queried at <https://onemap.cdc.gov/portal/apps/sites/#/eji-explorer>. Query
results indicate that disadvantaged communities near the City may experience hardships, including:
potentially hazardous and toxic sites, high volume roads, railways, socioeconomic disparities, high
prevalence of asthma, and high rates of poor mental health.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal, and industrial water, and structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services were last reviewed under the 2nd
Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates (2016), the Contra
Costa City Services Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round) (2019), and
the Contra Costa County-wide Water Service Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence
Study (2nd Round) (2014). These services have remained relatively unchanged since publication.
Communities within the existing City boundary or SOI do not lack public services because they either
receive services from a municipal provider or the properties are self-sufficient, relying upon
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
groundwater wells and septic tanks. No health or safety issues were identified. Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 8-11: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities in Pittsburg’s SOI and Delta Diablo Sanitation
District Zone 1
Unincorporated Census Tract Geo Census Block Median Household Income in
Community ID Number 2020
Bay Point CDP 060133141031 1 $46,509
Bay Point CDP 060133141051 1 $51,250
Bay Point CDP 060133142001 1 $60,395
Bay Point CDP 060133142002 2 $44,091
Additionally, there are several low-income communities within Pittsburg’s incorporated boundary.
Two types of disadvantaged areas (DACs) include Severely Disadvantaged Communities (MHI
<$47,203), shown in red, and
Disadvantaged Communities,
shown in orange in Figure 8-7
below. All parcels within
Pittsburg’s boundary receive
municipal services. No public
health and safety issues were
identified. The City has no
programs to help low-income
residents pay their sewer bills.
Figure 8-7: Disadvantaged
Communities in Proximity to
Pittsburg
Data Source for Figure 8-7:
Contra Costa County GIS Data and U.S. Census at: https://census.data.gov
8.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
LAFCO’s 2014 MSR identified two government structure options for the City of Pittsburg: maintain
the status quo and consolidate with DD. Both of the following options remain valid.
Maintain the status quo
The City is currently providing adequate wastewater services within its boundary. One parcel located
outside the City boundary is also provided wastewater services; however, it is the subject of a
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
proposed annexation, which LAFCO is currently reviewing. The City is financiCaollnyt rsao uCnodst aa nLdA FhCaOs
developed and adopted a CIP to maintain and upgrade necessary infrastructure (LAFCO, 2014).
Consolidate with DD
The City provides wastewater collection services, while the DD provides conveyance, treatment, and
disposal services to the City. Additional analysis would be required to evaluate the long-term fiscal
and operation impacts of consolidation and impacts on ratepayers (LAFCO, 2014).
8.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
Table 8-12: MSR Determinations
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected area. According to the Department of Finance,
• Is the existing population estimated? Pittsburg’s population was 76,416 (2020). It is
• Is the projected future growth projected that the 2045 population for Pittsburg
estimated? could be approximately 86,270, an increase of over
15.8%.
Location and characteristics of any There are multiple DUCs within the City’s SOI,
disadvantaged unincorporated communities located in the Bay Point area. Additionally, there
within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. are several low-income areas located within the
City boundary. However, communities within the
existing City boundary or SOI do not lack public
services because they either receive services from
a municipal provider or the properties are self-
sufficient, relying upon groundwater wells and
septic tanks. No health or safety issues were
identified.
Present and planned capacity of public Pittsburg’s five-year CIP from 2022/23 through
facilities, adequacy of public services, and 2026/27 identifies 11 sewer CIP projects that total
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, including $27 million. Of these, five sewer projects totaling
needs or deficiencies related to sewers, $14.4 million are already funded/partially funded
municipal and industrial water, and structural within the next five years. New development is
fire protection in any disadvantaged, expected to install some needed pipelines as
unincorporated communities within or growth develops. Delta Diablo’s Master Plan
contiguous to the sphere of influence. projects that the current solids loading capacity of
• Does the agency have a capital the WWTP will be exceeded sometimes between
improvement plan? 2030 and 2037.
• Ate SSOs identified?
• Are local hazards identified?
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
SSOs were counted for a 3.5-year term from January
1, 2019, to August 9, 2022, in the CIWQS-SSO
database. The database query results showed 94
SSOs for the City of Pittsburg. This is a significant
number of SSOs and is an item that needs
improvement. Additionally, nutrient management
is a concern for all wastewater service providers in
the Bay Area.
The City of Pittsburg prepared a Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan which is incorporated by reference
into the City’s new General Plan Safety Element.
Some of the City’s wastewater collection
infrastructure lies within areas identified as having
flood, earthquake, and liquefaction risk. The Safety
Element contains policies addressing these risks.
There are multiple DUCs within the City’s SOI,
located in the Bay Point area.
Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The City’s monthly sewer charge for a residential
• Has the agency prepared a rate study? family is a flat fee of $15.79 for single-family
• Do revenues exceed expenditures? residential customers and $13.50 for multi-family
• Is the ratio of annual debt service to total residential customers. The City’s sewer fees have
fund annual expenditures 10% or less? remained the same since March 2014. A rate study
has not been prepared during the past 10 years.
There is limited information about whether rates
are sufficient to cover the needed capital
improvement costs. The high number of SSO
events indicates that some improvements are
necessary.
Recommendation: To ensure that rates collected
will meet future wastewater service needs, the City
should provide LAFCO with a copy of its new
wastewater rate study upon adoption and prior to
June 2025.
Overall, the Sewer Utility Fund is considered stable
and self-sustaining for operational, capital, and
debt service activities. Revenues have exceeded
expenses for all years studied except FY 2022-23.
The difference between the FY 2022-23 budget
expenses and prior fiscal years is likely due to the
difference in financial accounting between audits
and budgets.
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
The City has a relatively good fund balance,
providing good capability to absorb short-term
impacts. The ratio of annual debt service to total
fund annual expenditures is 113%, which suggests
the City may have difficulty meeting debt
obligations in relation to service provision
expenditures.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared The City participates with DD in regional pollution
facilities. control education and prevention.
Accountability for community service needs, The City has a comprehensive website that
including government structure and operational provides the public with access to City Council
facilities. agendas and minutes, public notices, City budgets,
• Does the agency have a website? CIP programs, rate studies, and water quality-
• Does the agency post a public outreach related reports. A City Council meeting calendar
tool (such as a calendar or newsletter) on listing upcoming meetings is posted at
its website? <https://www.pittsburgca.gov/services/city-
• What is the recommendation for mergers, council/streaming-media>. In addition, the City
consolidations, or other changes to utilizes Facebook and Instagram to share
governance structure? information about upcoming community events.
LAFCO’s 2014 MSR identified two alternative
government structures: (1) status quo, and (2)
consolidation with DD. These alternatives remain
valid. In the near-term, retention of the status quo
is recommended. However, The City should pursue
the preparation of a focused study evaluating the
feasibility/cost-effectiveness of merging its
wastewater operations with Delta Diablo as a
potential long-term governance alternative.
Any other matter related to effective or No additional issues have been identified.
efficient service delivery, as required by
commission policy.
8.9 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Section 8.7, Government Structure Alternatives, describes various issues and options associated
with changing the structure of this local government agency as listed below.
• Maintain the status quo
• Consolidate with DD
LAFCO often accomplishes its government structure issues through changes to boundaries and/or
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
SOIs. The SOI was most recently considered in LAFCO’s 2019 City Services MSR, and Cthoen tSrOaI C woasst ar eLtAaiFnCeOd
in its current configuration. Pittsburg’s SOI is 11.26 square miles. in size. For the reasons outlined in
Section 8.7 retention of the status quo, with no change to the City’s SOI is recommended. The SOI
determinations LAFCO adopted in its 2019 City Services MSR and its 2021 Park and Recreation Services
MSR can be reconfirmed.
8.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California’s Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from: <https://infrastructurereportcard.
org/state-item/california/>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit California State Data Center.
5/23/2023. Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC)
Data Release. Table 2: Land Area, Population and Population Density for California,
Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP), Census
2020Contributions from U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 1, 2023b. Report E-1 & E-1H,
Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2022 and
2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions. (2022). CALAFCO DUC Map.
<https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4319a8066745442cbe7de6af1d13
f98a>. Accessed 9 Sept. 2022.
California Department of Finance. (2021). E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the
State: January 1, 2020 and 2021. Sacramento, California.
California Department of Finance. (2021). Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, 2010-2060
California and Counties (2019 Baseline). Retrieved on August 9, 2022, from:
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/>.
California Department of Finance. (2022). Report E-1: Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and
the State January 1, 2021, and 2022. Retrieved on August 11, 2022, from:
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/estimates-e1/>.
California Dept. of Finance Demographic Research Unit. (2021). 2020 Census PL94 Data at Various
Geographies. Retrieved September 9, 2022 from: <https://dru-data-portal-
cacensus.hub.arcgis.com/apps/pl94-data-at-different-geographies/explore>.
CA Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) - State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.)
California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS) SSO Public Report - Detail Page.
Query run on August 27, 2023 from
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/chc_sso.html>.
California Secretary of State. (2022). Registration by Political Subdivision by County. 88-pages.
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Retrieved August 26, 2022 from: <https://www.sos.ca.goCvo/netlreac Ctioosntsa/ rLeApFoCrOt-
registration/15day-primary-2022>.
City of Pittsburg. November 2019a. Existing Conditions Report Chapter 1, Land Use, and Chapter 3,
Public Facilities. Contributions from De Novo Planning Group in El Dorado Hills, CA.
Retrieved September 16, 2023 from <https://pittsburg.generalplan.org/documents-and-
maps>.
City of Pittsburg. December 4, 2019b Update (originally published August 31, 2008). Sewer System
Management Plan. 91-pages.
City of Pittsburg. June 2019c. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2019. Available online at: <https://www.pittsburgca.gov/services/finance/budget-and-
other-financial-documents/comprehensive-annual-financial-report-cafr-fiscal-year>.
City of Pittsburg. June 2020. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2020. Available online at: <https://www.pittsburgca.gov/services/finance/budget-and-
other-financial-documents/comprehensive-annual-financial-report-cafr-fiscal-year>.
City of Pittsburg. June 2021. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2021. Available online at: <https://www.pittsburgca.gov/services/finance/budget-and-
other-financial-documents/comprehensive-annual-financial-report-cafr-fiscal-year>.
City of Pittsburg. June 20, 2022a. Final Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2022/23 through
2026/27. 281-pages. Retrieved September 30, 2022 from:
<https://www.pittsburgca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/14244/6379348851123000
00>.
City of Pittsburg. June 2022b. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2022. Available online at: <https://www.pittsburgca.gov/services/finance/budget-and-
other-financial-documents/comprehensive-annual-financial-report-cafr-fiscal-year>.
City of Pittsburg. June 2022c. Adopted Annual Budget FY 2022-23. Available online at:
<https://www.pittsburgca.gov/services/finance/budget-and-other-financial-
documents/adopted-annual-budget>.
City of Pittsburg. May 2023a. 6th Cycle Housing Element including Housing Plan and Background
Report. HCD Review Draft. Contributions from De Novo Planning Group in El Dorado Hills,
CA. 289-pages. Retrieved on September 16, 2023 from
<https://www.pittsburgca.gov/services/community-development/planning/advanced-
planning-special-projects/housing-element-update-2015-2023>.
City of Pittsburg. June 2023b. Adopted Annual Budget FY 2023-24. Available online at:
<https://www.pittsburgca.gov/services/finance/budget-and-other-financial-
documents/adopted-annual-budget>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. June 12, 2019. City-wide Services Municipal Service Review Update. Prepared
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
by Lamphier-Gregory Consultants and Berkson Associates. 793-pages. RCeotnritervae Cdo Dsteac LeAmFbCeOr
2022 from <https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Delta Diablo. (2018). Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. 123-pages. Retrieved October 1, 2022 from:
<https://www.deltadiablo.org/files/242fbceb9/Delta+Diablo+SSMP+2018+-
+Revised+August+2021.pdf>.
Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updated through 2024. The Delta Plan. Available online
at: <https://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan/>.
Delta Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010. Land Use and Resource Management Plan
for the Primary Zone of the Delta. 42-pages. Retrieved on April 8, 2024 from
<https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Land-Use-and-Resource-
Management-Plan-2.25.10_-m508.pdf>.
Visser, M.A.; Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. (2018) Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta. Sacramento, CA: The Delta Protection Commission. 46-pages. Available
online at: <https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Delta-Socio-Economic-
Indicators-Report-508.pdf>.
Chapter 8: Pittsburg Page 8-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Chapter 9: CITY OF RICHMOND –C ontra Costa LAFCO
WASTEWATER SERVICES
Table of Contents
9.1: OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2: BOUNDARY AND SOI ........................................................................................................................... 9-4
9.3: CITY WASTEWATER OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................... 9-4
9.4: CITY FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 15
9.5: POPULATION ..................................................................................................................................... 9-25
9.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ..................................................................................................... 9-26
9.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES...................................................................................... 9-29
9.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ................................................. 9-30
9.9: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 9-34
9.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................ 9-35
9.1: OVERVIEW
The City of Richmond (City) is a Charter City, incorporated on August 7, 1905 (LAFCO, 2014). The city
has a population estimated at 113,518 residents. The city is bounded on the north by San Pablo Bay,
the unincorporated community of Tara Hills and the City of Pinole; on the south by the cities of El
Cerrito and Berkeley; on the east by the unincorporated El Sobrante community; and, on the west by
the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays (LAFCO, 2014). The city lies within the San Francisco Bay /
Sacramento Delta Estuary watershed. Additional information about this watershed is provided in
Appendix F.
The city provides wastewater service to a majority of the city's residents (approximately 59% or
60,100 people) within Richmond (Phelps, personal communication, Jan 2023). In June 2021, the
Richmond Municipal Sewer System served approximately 21,000 lateral sewer connections1
(Phelps, personal communication, Jan 2023). A profile of the city’s wastewater service is provided in
Table 9-1. A map of the city's current boundary and sphere of influence (SOI) is shown in Figure 9-1.
1
This is a slight increase from the previous year (2020) when the Richmond Municipal Sewer System served
approximately 19,904 sewer connections (Richmond, 2022a).
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 9-1: Agency Profile – City of Richmond Contra Costa LAFCO
General Information
Agency Type Municipal
Principal Act General laws of the State of California- Charter City
Date Formed 1905
Water/Sewer Services Wastewater collection and conveyance
Service Area
Location City of Richmond
Acres Wastewater Service Area: 13.5 square miles/ 8,640 acres. City provides
wastewater services to approximately 25% of the city's total acreage [Note
the City of Richmond's full boundary contains a total of 52.6 square miles
(which includes 18.9 square miles of tidal zones)].
Land Uses Residential, regional office, commercial, industrial, and port-related uses.
Dwelling Units 40,375 (CA DOF, 2021)
Population Served Approximately 68,100 residents are served by the Richmond Municipal Sewer
System (21,000 sewer lateral connections).
Last SOI Update June 12, 2019 (Contra Costa LAFCO, 2019)
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities City of Richmond Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), 194 miles of sewer
collection system pipelines, 13 pump stations
Treatment 6.3 MGD (average dry weather flow), 33 MGD (peak wet weather flow) (City of
Plant Capacity Richmond, 2011)
Primar y Disposal Treatment through Richmond WWTP and discharge through a deep-
Method water outfall in central San Francisco Bay (LAFCO, 2014).
Financial Information- FY 2021-2022 (Sewer Fund)
Revenues Expenditures Net
Sewer Fund (FY20/21) $ 27,772,641 $ 20,466,640 $ 7,306,001
FY 2023-2024 Planned Expenditures
Capital Expenditures $ 2,750.000 Proposed CIP Budget for FY23/24 per Table 9-12.
Fund Balance Data Not
Net Assets Municipal $60 milli on in FY As of June 30, 2022 per the Annual Comprehensive
Sewer Fund 2021-22 in Net Financial Report
Position
Governance
Governing Body City Council (7 members)
Agency Contact • Mary Phelps <Mary_Phelps@ci.richmond.ca.us>;
• Lina Velasco <Lina_Velasco@ci.richmond.ca.us>;
• Robert Armijo <Robert_Armijo@ci.richmond.ca.us>
Notes
LAFCO expanded Richmond’s SOI (9/15/2010) in conjunction with the Kay Road
Annexation.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 9-1: Boundary/SOI Map – City of Richmond Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Abutting the city's service area, West County Wastewater District (WCWD) provides sewer collection
service to a small portion of the city on its northern border, adjacent to the City of San Pablo, as
shown in Figure 9-2. Stege Sanitary District collects wastewater for a portion of the city in the eastern
hills adjacent to the City of El Cerrito (LAFCO, 2014).
9.2: BOUNDARY AND SOI
The city’s boundary encompasses approximately 52.6 square miles, including approximately 18.9
miles of tidal zones on the San Pablo and San Francisco Bays shores, plus 33.7 square miles of land
area. The city's General Plan along with the General Plan’s Housing Element guides future growth in
the community. It is projected that the city will grow to 132,600 by 2030, an increase of almost 15.8%
over the current population of 113,518. The city's SOI encompasses the entire incorporated territory
of the city as well as an additional 1.56 square miles of unincorporated territory to the north and east
of the city.
There appears to be some geographic overlap between the City of Richmond’s boundary and SOI
and El Cerrito’s boundary and SOI. Specifically, there is an area located along Vista Heights Road
and Rifle Range Road that is currently served by the Stege Sanitary District and seems to have either
geographic overlap or a mapping error.
It is recommended that when LAFCO next updates a MSR for the City of Richmond and/or the City of
El Cerrito, the GIS data should be closely studied and compared to older maps to graphically depict
any areas of geographic overlap.
9.3: CITY WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
The city operates and manages the Richmond Municipal Sewer District (RMSD). The City Public
Works Department has a division named "Water Resource Recovery," which is responsible for
wastewater services, including:
Sanitary Sewer Collection System
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Capital Improvement Program
Pre-treatment Program
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Compliance
The Division aims to protect Richmond's public health and environment by carefully managing and
monitoring stormwater and wastewater. The Division encourages private sewer lateral
replacement by offering a grant program.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
The RMSD (along with WCWD) is a member of the West County Agency (WCA), a joint powers
authority (JPA) with the WCWD. Through the JPA, the city provides collection services to a portion of
the city, operates its WWTP, and disposes of effluent through an outfall owned by the JPA (LAFCO,
2014). The city operates its WWTP through a 27-year contract with Veolia Water North America
Corporation, which expires in May 2027 (Richmond, CIP, 2022). The contract covers the following
items:
• Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Collection System (Sanitary and Storm Sewer)
• Emergency response for sewer problems and odors
• Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)
• (Source: Phelps, personal communication Jan 2023; March 2023)
The city's wastewater service includes collection, conveyance to the City of Richmond WWTP, and
disposal services. The city's Wastewater Collection System includes 183 miles of underground
pipelines and 13 pump stations, which convey wastewater from Richmond residents and businesses
to a WWTP. The city's Collection System Maintenance Crew and the Pump Station Mechanics work
together to operate the pipelines, and pump stations operate continuously 7 days a week.
Three (3) WWTPs serve the city, including:
1) Richmond's Water Pollution Control Plant (run by Veolia) serves central Richmond.
2) West County Sanitation District on Garden Tract by the landfill serves the northern half of
Richmond (approximately north of Rheem) [2910 Hilltop Drive, Richmond, CA]. See also
Chapter 22 in this MSR.
3) In southern Richmond [i.e., the southern part of the Richmond "Annex"], the conveyance
system (i.e., sewer pipes) is maintained by the Stege Sanitation District, and this wastewater
travels to the EBMUD wastewater plant located near the Oakland San Francisco Bridge. See
also Chapter 16 in this MSR.
The city provides wastewater collection and conveyance services to approximately 21,000
residential and business sewer connections (Phelps, personal communication, Jan 2023). One City
sewer connection may serve many individual customers. Specifically, the city's wastewater system
serves 1,344 commercial and industrial customers (Richmond, 2022a). Approximately 68,100
people are served by the Richmond Municipal Sewer District (Phelps, personal communication Jan
2023).
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 9-2: City of Richmond Area Overlap with Wastewater Districts
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is adminisCtoenretrda Cboy sttah eL AUFC.SO.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California's State Water Board. Effluent limitations
guidelines and pre-treatment standards are uniform national standards developed by EPA for
specific industrial categories. These pre-treatment standards can also be considered pollutant
discharge limits that apply to industrial users, commonly referred to as EPA Categorical Users.
Richmond has four types of EPA categorical users, as listed below:
• 40 CFR Part 414 Subpart E, Thermosetting Resins
• 1- 40 CFR Part 433, Subpart A, Metal Finishing
• 1- 40 CFR Part 469, Subpart A, Semi-conductor
• 2 - Non-categorical Significant Industrial Users
• Source City of Richmond, 2022a
Existing Infrastructure
Richmond's Water Pollution Control Plant:
Richmond's Water Pollution Control Plant has a wastewater treatment system that includes
screening, grit removal, primary sedimentation, conventional activated sludge (biological secondary
treatment), secondary clarification, disinfection, and de-chlorination, as well as sludge thickening
and anaerobic digestion (Richmond, CIP, 2022). The WWTP includes a new wet weather storage
facility with some remaining capacity. This new facility includes improvements to the sewer
collection system to reduce wet weather overflows from two engineered overflow structures, known
as Boat Ramp and Harbour & Wright.
Veolia is a private company with a contract to operate Richmond's Water Pollution Control Plant. In
2018, Veolia prepared an Annual Operations Report for the City of Richmond WWTP. The report
assessed WWTP performance, capital projects management, and sewer system status. The report
outlined planned maintenance projects for 2019 (City of Richmond, 2018). Some of the high-priority
projects planned include the completion of the 23rd Street storm water lift station M & C panel
upgrade, wet-well safety hatch replacement for five sewer and storm pump lift stations, the
replacement of clarifiers, and various other projects (City of Richmond, 2018). In addition, there were
achievements in 2018, including the rehabilitation project that replaced pipes in the city on 13th
Street and 23rd Street, the completion of the design engineering of a WWTP Biosolids to Energy Plan,
and the initiation of construction for the Cutting, Carlson, and Hoffman Boulevard wet weather
improvement sewer project (City of Richmond, 2018). During the past several years, the city
completed three important milestones related to wastewater operations, including:
• Sewer Rate Increase - passed by City Council 07/01/2020
• Major CIPs upgrades at the WWTP
• Baykeeper Settlement Agreement 2018
• (Data Source City of Richmond, 2022a)
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Additionally, during FY 2021-22, City staff completed the following tasks relCatoendt rtao C wosatsat eLwAFaCteOr
conveyance:
Met Baykeeper Settlement Agreement (2018) Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs)
Reported 20 SSOs (the limit was 20 per Requirement for 2021)
Completed 52 Point Repairs in the Sanitary Sewer System (SSS)
Awarded 55 Sewer Lateral Repair Grants totaling $99,000
Awarded CIPs:
Upgrade Sodium Bisulfite Tank at WWTP - $6.4M
North Richmond Pump Station - $1.8M (ARPA)
High Priority Sewer Line Replacements - $956k
Grade 5 Sewer Line Replacements - $474k
Ferry Point Pump Station Rehabilitation - $2.7M
(Data Source: Richmond Budget, 2022)
As of January 2023, the WWTP began undertaking construction for several CIPs (Phelps, personal
communication, Jan 2023).
History of the Operation
The city system experienced significant system spills in the past. It was under a Cease & Desist Order
until 2008 when a new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit was issued
(City of Richmond, 2010). Before 2014, the city initiated several studies and identified alternative
solutions for improving the collection system and for advanced treatment to reduce overflows in wet
weather conditions (LAFCO, 2014).
In the fall of 2010, there was a significant increase in odor complaints from residents and businesses
located around the wastewater treatment facility. Typically, increased odors occur due to changes
in weather patterns and warm fall weather (LAFCO, 2014). The Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) investigated the facility and concluded that the covers on the anaerobic digester
facility had failed. This failure resulted in the release of digester gas (methane and hydrogen sulfide)
into the atmosphere, thus creating a potentially explosive condition at the plant and odor impacts to
areas around the facility (LAFCO, 2014). The BAAQMD investigation also revealed a lack of proper
maintenance and inspection on the covers and the removal of monitoring equipment that would
have provided an alarm indicating that the covers were malfunctioning. As a result, the anaerobic
digester facility was shut down, and raw, undigested sludge was trucked to the East Bay Municipal
Utilities District (EBMUD) Oakland facility for several months while work was being completed to
replace the cover as well as perform other maintenance and repair to the digesters (LAFCO, 2014).
Veolia's response to residents' complaints was not satisfactory to the BAAQMD, which issued a
number of "Notice of Violations" to Veolia as the plant operator and the City of Richmond as the
facility's owner (LAFCO, 2014). The BAAQMD turned their investigation over to the Contra Costa
County District Attorney, and the DA proceeded with further enforcement action against Veolia
Water. However, they did not include the city in any of the enforcement. The two digester covers have
since been replaced, and the city had two functioning redundant digesters (LAFCO, 2014).
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
The city completed a Sewer System Master Plan (SSMP) update in May 2017 that addresses
maintenance requirements and system evaluations. The 13 pump stations deliver effluent to the
WWTP for treatment and disposal through a jointly owned outfall with the WCA. Despite upgrades,
the city’s WWTP requires improvements to comply with modern standards since most structures are
at least 45 years old (City of Richmond, 2016). One priority for the city is to develop a dewatering
facility to avoid biosolid disposal costs from the WCWD (City of Richmond, 2016). Additionally,
inflow from tidal surges and rainy weather may sometimes cause peak flow conditions and sewer
system overflows (SSOs), as identified in Table 9-2. City staff indicates the SSMP is being updated
(City staff, personal communication, Mar 2023).
Local Hazards
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) maps critical infrastructure, such as
wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards. The HMP identifies 11 critical wastewater
infrastructure facilities in Richmond. Three facilities are located such that they are at potential risk.
The Richmond area is at strong risk of Earthquake Peak Ground Acceleration. Portions of the city are
at very high risk of Liquefaction Susceptibility. Other risks are described in the Contra Costa County
HMP. The information about these hazards should be incorporated into the city's next Sanitary Sewer
Management Plan update as recommended by the HMP (Contra Costa County, 2018). Additionally,
it is recommended that detailed spatial mapping of the city's wastewater infrastructure in relation to
the hazards identified in the HMP be conducted when LAFCO next updates its Wastewater Services
MSR/SOI (Contra Costa County, 2018).
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a (SSO) database from public/permitted systems and private
lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California Integrated Water
Quality System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General Waste Discharge
Requirements for SSSs under Water Quality Order No. Order No. WQ 2022-0103-DWQ (SSS WDRs),
on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate a SSS comprised of more than one mile
of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility must be covered under
the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A 3.5-year term from January 1, 2019, to August 9, 2022, was
queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The 20 most recent SSOs from the database query regarding
the City of Richmond are listed below in Table 9-2 (next page).
During the 3.5-year timeframe from 2019 to 2022, 61 SSO events occurred in the City of Richmond.
In most cases, SSOs have failure points at the gravity mainline. Most overflows were relatively large,
and many spills were not recovered. Query results showed that the 61 SSOs had a total volume of
3,411,771 gallons of sewage that were not recovered. In the database query, the largest SSO
occurred on February 13, 2019, and had a volume of 580,670 gallons. This spill occurred due to a
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
storm surge that caused the flow to exceed capacity. None of the spill was reCcoonvterrae Cdo, sletaa dLiAnFgC tOo
580,670 gallons of sewage reaching surface waters. Only the SSOs occurring in 2021 and 2022 are
listed in Table 9-2.
The San Francisco Baykeepers lawsuit and subsequent settlement agreement stipulate that the city
cannot exceed 16 SSOs in a calendar year. This limitation could be waived if the city endures a 100-
year storm event. For the 2023 calendar year, the city has already experienced 27 SSOs as of March
15, 2023. If the number of SSOs exceeds 16, the city must produce and submit a Sewer Spill
Reduction Plan to San Francisco Baykeepers. The city submits a report of SSOs every March to
Baykeepers. The city plans to submit a Sewer Spill Reduction Plan soon. Because of the settlement
agreement, the Regional Water Quality Control Board has not escalated enforcement with the city
due to the SSOs that have occurred. The Board is using the Baykeepers as an extension of oversight,
which has kept the city from being fined. The city informed consultants that they are working well
with San Francisco Baykeepers.
Atmospheric river events generate heavy rain. The January 2023 atmospheric river event resulted in
localized flooding, infiltration, and inflow to local sewer pipes as described in Appendix F,
Watersheds. One fundamental challenge with the Richmond wastewater system is that older sewer
mains are too small to handle flows during heavy rains. For example, cracks can develop in older
sewer pipes and joints, which then admit groundwater (i.e., "inflow and infiltration"). This is more
noticeable in specific locations. For example, a local newspaper reported that in Richmond, at least
six maintenance holes released sewage into San Francisco Bay during the atmospheric river event
on January 11, 2023. Older privately owned sewer laterals can also develop cracks and create SSO
problems. Given the SSO concerns described above, it is important for the city to charge a rate for
sewer fees that can support and fund necessary upgrades to older sewer pipes.
The city has a program in place for replacing older privately-owned sewer laterals. When homes in
the city change ownership, the seller must complete an inspection of the lateral for the home. Based
on that inspection, the seller may have to repair or replace the lateral. The city has grants available
for the replacement of laterals up to $250,000 a year. A large number of laterals need to be replaced,
and the existing grant budget is expended every year. The city allows the seller to make the
replacement or repair of the lateral a condition of the sale. If this is the case, the buyer has 60 days
from the close of escrow to replace or repair the lateral. Based on costs, the city provided grant
funding to replace 36 laterals in 2022. HOAs can also apply for grant money, but requests must be
taken to the City Council for approval.
As part of the San Francisco Baykeepers settlement agreement, the city must rehabilitate, repair, or
replace up to two miles of sewer line annually. Because the city could not maintain the terms of the
agreement in 2016, the agreement was reinstated with the same terms in 2018 and will sunset in
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 9-2: City of Richmond Sanitary Sewer Overflows Contra Costa LAFCO
SSO Region Responsible Collectio SSO Start SSO SSO Volume of SSO Failure WDID
Event Agency n Category Date Address Volume SSO Point
ID System Recovered
875023 2 Richmond Richmond Category 6/2/2021 244 244 0 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 3 19:30 Mainline
876081 2 Richmond Richmond Category 7/2/2021 20 18 0 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 3 17:45 Mainline
876082 2 Richmond Richmond Category 7/5/2021 60 60 0 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 3 18:53 Mainline
876083 2 Richmond Richmond Category 7/10/2021 297 297 0 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 3 8:00 Mainline
877078 2 Richmond Richmond Category 10/24/2021 112,390 0 112,390 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 1 15:00 Mainline
877079 2 Richmond Richmond Category 10/24/2021 492,025 0 492,025 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 1 5:45 Mainline
877080 2 Richmond Richmond Category 10/24/2021 233,755 0 233,755 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 1 7:40 Mainline
877081 2 Richmond Richmond Category 10/24/2021 220,475 0 220,475 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 1 5:45 Mainline
877952 2 Richmond Richmond Category 12/2/2021 9,000 9,000 0 Maintenanc 2SSO10170
City City CS 2 7:00 e hole
878126 2 Richmond Richmond Category 12/13/2021 65,400 0 65,400 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 1 7:14 Mainline
878127 2 Richmond Richmond Category 12/13/2021 112,575 0 112,575 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 1 7:25 Mainline
878130 2 Richmond Richmond Category 12/13/2021 26,300 0 26,300 Maintenanc 2SSO10170
City City CS 1 8:44 e hole
878135 2 Richmond Richmond Category 12/14/2021 1,800 1,800 0 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 2 10:43 Mainline
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
878160 2 Richmond Richmond Category 12/15/2021 13,875 0 13,875 Gravity Contra2 SCSoOst1a0 L1A7F0C O
City City CS 1 23:31 Mainline
878162 2 Richmond Richmond Category 12/15/2021 21,200 0 21,200 Maintenanc 2SSO10170
City City CS 1 23:30 e hole
879561 2 Richmond Richmond Category 2/18/2022 105,000 105,000 0 Force Main 2SSO10170
City City CS 2 10:00
879562 2 Richmond Richmond Category 1/28/2022 120 120 0 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 3 21:00 Mainline
879564 2 Richmond Richmond Category 2/7/2022 775 775 0 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 3 9:00 Mainline
880857 2 Richmond Richmond Category 3/13/2022 215 215 0 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 3 11:00 Mainline
881191 2 Richmond Richmond Category 5/9/2022 30,600 30,600 0 Gravity 2SSO10170
City City CS 2 8:00 Mainline
Data Source: CIQWS Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
Figure 9-3: Google Maps Street View of the City of Richmond Civic Center
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
2027. The city is committed to improving the sewer collection system to the equCiovnatleran tC oofs t1a0 L mAiFleCsO.
To make these improvements, the city assesses all PAPC rated grade five pipes for inclusion in
capital improvement replacement projects, including lines with hydraulic capacity. The Harbor Way
South project, a 10-million-dollar rehabilitation project, is scheduled to be completed in June 2026.
Another project listed in the settlement agreement, South 33rd, was completed, and the city is asking
to reallocate the remaining funds to other areas that would be more cost-effective.
At the regional level, from July to October 2022, San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal
bloom (HAB) known as “a red tide”, as described in Appendix F. The species associated with this
bloom, Heterosigma akashiwo, can cause water to take on a reddish-brown color. The HAB extended
throughout the open-bay regions of the South Bay, the Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay. Fish
deaths linked to the red tide were reported to include sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt,
and anchovy. The San Francisco Bay Water Board is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay
through the Nutrient Management Strategy, which includes collaboration with researchers,
dischargers, and other agencies to study potential impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. The
city of Richmond has an opportunity to assist with this effort by continuing to reduce the number of
SSO events and by discussing the nutrient problem with other wastewater Districts and the Water
Board.
Infrastructure Needs
The City of Richmond maintains various equipment, vehicles2, infrastructure, and associated
assets. The MSR authors queried City staff about improvements that could be potentially made in
the future to improve the efficiency and affordability of infrastructure and service delivery and
sharing of resources and facilities. City staff indicates that several ideas are being considered for
future long-term improvements to the system, including several CIP projects underway at the WWTP:
• Grit and Aeration Rehabilitation Project
• Sludge Thickener Project
• SCADA System Upgrade
• Co-generation Project
• Source City of Richmond, 2022a
In addition, due to the contract with Veolia ending in 2027, the city is currently looking at
other opportunities and options for operations of the system. The city is considering
2
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the city, it is likely that sometime in the future, the city
may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting vehicles reliant upon an alternative energy source such as
electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore, alternative
fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
soliciting vendors or operators to take over the system after the Veolia contract eCxpoinretrsa. TChoes ta LAFCO
city is informally exploring all options, such as inviting other jurisdictions like EBMUD or
WCWD to contract with the city in the future to run operations.
During FY 2022-23, City staff hoped to complete the following:
Complete First Street Wet Weather Project (replace/rehabilitate 7,452 linear feet of
sewer line = 1.4 miles)
Rehabilitate brick maintenance holes in the sanitary sewer system
Replace/rehabilitate the force main sewer line on Dornan Drive
Finalize Feasibility Study for Keller Beach sewer line
Install trash capture device in stormwater collection system at Bayview Ave
(Data Source: Richmond Budget, 2022)
Future Challenges:
Several factors influence an agency's ability to provide public wastewater-related service to
customers. City staff has noted that an important factor influencing the system's ability to serve is
the inflow and infiltration during storm events combined with King Tides (Source: City of Richmond,
2022a). SSOs occur in certain sections of the city, and the city conducts flow studies for those areas.
In one area, Marina Bay Parkway, by extending the force main, the city could reduce the two or three
SSOs that occur in that area yearly. The city plans to fix this force main in 2023 on an emergency
basis. Inflow and infiltration can sometimes cause SSOs, as described in Table 9-2 below. Because
inflow and infiltration occur in low lying areas, tides over six feet mean that the city is treating water
from the Bay (City staff, personal communication, Mar 2023).
Integrating wastewater treatment plants into a healthy watershed context is an ongoing effort. For
example, a non-profit organization, Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge at:
<https://www.resilientbayarea.org> suggests that recycled water from Richmond Area WWTPs
could support restoration of coastal salt marsh.
The MSR authors note that Richmond has experienced high staff turnover. It is recommended that
the staff turnover issue be studied in more detail in LAFCO’s next City-wide MSR.
Also, the American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 has several recommended remedies for
California's aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a WWTP is, what
kind of waste it can treat, and the impacts waste has on the sewer pipes. Also, continue
educational programs which identify a sewer overflow and whom to call if such an event
occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Cooperative Programs Contra Costa LAFCO
A JPA exists for the joint disposal of effluent by the agencies. The treated effluent from the city WWTP
is combined with the effluent from the WCWD Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) and discharged
into San Francisco Bay (City of Richmond, 2016). This agreement ends in December 2024. The city
hopes to renegotiate with WCWD to continue to receive and treat the city's effluent. This
renegotiation is in the infancy stages of planning. Additionally, the city is coordinating its potential
participation in the EBMUD recycled water program (City of Richmond, 2016). The city's participation
would support a future recycled water project and ensure that the WWTP improvements meet the
State goal of maximizing water reuse (City of Richmond, 2016).
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The city, WCWD, and EBMUD have coordinated programs to reduce costs, including pipeline main
inspections, testing, repairs, and pump station maintenance (LAFCO, 2014). Operations staff
training is coordinated on a regional level as part of the Bay Area Agencies' training group. The city,
WCWD, and EMBUD are all participating members of the BACWA collections group. Quarterly
meetings and trainings are held every year regarding the latest CCTV, maintenance, and inspection
techniques available in the industry. City staff have attended meetings in the past but have been
unable to attend recently due to staffing shortages and increased workload.
The city's WWTP is undergoing an innovative methane gas energy renewal project. The “Cogen
Project” will be designed and delivered in two phases. The goal is to provide additional flexibility for
the Richmond WWTP to develop a Fat-Oil-Grease (FOG) receiving program in the future but still
capitalizes on the plant's currently available digester gas. The cogen unit that will be installed with
this project will beneficially use digester gas instead of flaring off the gas, reducing plant energy use.
A package cogen system would likely be an efficient and cost-effective option for the Richmond
WWTP.
9.4: CITY FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
Two state databases provide City-wide financial summaries, including:
• California Auditor's website at: <https://www.auditor.ca.gov/local_high_risk/lhr-main-
landing>.
• State Controller's Office at: <https://cities.bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov> runs the Government
Financial Reports database that includes detailed financial data from 58 California counties
and more than 450 cities and pension-related information for state and local government.
The main focus of this analysis is the Sewer Enterprise Fund described in the city's Annual
Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and its Operating Budget. The city's Financial Report and
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Operating Budget are updated annually, and readers are encouraged to view thCeo cnittyra's C mosotsat LreAcFeCnOt
financial data as listed on its website: https://ci.richmond.ca.us/1000/Financial-Reports. Enterprise
Funds are used to separately account for self-supporting operations. The city's budget and Certified
Annual Financial Reports are the primary information sources for data related to the Sewer
Enterprise Fund. These reports are posted on the city's website at:
https://ci.richmond.ca.us/2969/Annual-Comprehensive-Financial-Report-AC. The city operates its
wastewater service as an enterprise fund within the confines of overall City operations. Sewer
service fees comprise the significant majority of revenues that fund the services provided (Richmond
ACFR, 2021). The ACFR for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021, is the most recent report available
on the city's website.
The Municipal Sewer Fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the city's Wastewater
Collection and Treatment. Services are on a user-charge basis to residents and business owners
located in Richmond (Richmond ACFR, 2021). Six primary areas of criteria have been utilized to
assess the present and future financial condition of the city's wastewater service operations, as
discussed below.
3 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
Wastewater Enterprise Funds derives revenues from the sewer use tax fees, plan check fees and
sewer lateral fees, pre-treatment permits, and design review fees. Expenditures include operating
costs and capital improvements for the conveyance system and the WWTP (Richmond Budget,
2022). The city's Master Fee Schedule lists the sewer connection fee at $2,950.00 (Richmond, 2020).
The Wastewater Enterprise Fund does not appear to receive funds directly or indirectly from the city's
General Fund. During the pandemic years of 2020 through 2022, the City of Richmond received $27.7
million from the American Rescue-Plan Act, administered through the U.S. Treasury Department.
The city received the first installment of $13.8 million in August 2021, and the second installment
was expected in 2023. A small portion of these funds was designated towards investments in water,
sewer, and broadband services for local residents and businesses (Richmond Budget, 2022).
The Municipal Sewer Fund reported an operating income of approximately $12.2 million in FY 2020-
21. There were $4.9 million of non-operating expenses, the majority of which represented interest
and swap expenses incurred on various Wastewater Debt issues, resulting in a $7.4 million increase
in net position (Richmond ACFR, 2021). During the previous year (FY 2019-20), The Municipal Sewer
Fund reported an operating income of approximately $11.2 million. There were $4.4 million of non-
operating expenses, the majority of which represented interest and swap expenses incurred on
various wastewater debt issues, offset by federal subsidies received to reduce interest cost
associated with Richmond Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2010B, resulting in a $7.1 million
increase in net position to $43.2 million (Richmond ACFR, 2020).
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 9-4: 3- Year Comparison of
Revenue to Expenses
$30,000,000 $28,256,848
$27,772,641
$24,938,325
$25,000,000
$21,767,690
$19,259,997 $20,466,640
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21
Total Revenues Total Expenses
(Data Source for Figure 9-4: City of Richmond, ACFR, 2021, 2020, and 2019)
As shown in Figure 9-4 above, the Wastewater Fund has experienced revenues that have been higher
than expenses in each of the three study years. This indicates that the Fund has been experiencing
surpluses in the operating portion of the Fund.
Ratios of Revenue Sources
The city’ Annual Financial Report indicates that 99.95% of its Wastewater Fund receives revenues
from charges and fees for services, no revenue from property taxes, and 0.05 percent from Capital
Grants and Contributions, as shown in Table 9-3 below. However, the city budget (2022) indicates
that of the total property tax received, approximately 16% is dedicated to the sewer fund. Property
tax is considered a more elastic revenue source.
Table 9-3: Revenue Sources FY 2020-21
Revenue Sources Amount Percent
Charges For Service $27,759,474 99.95%
Capital Grants and Contributions $13,167 0.05%
Total Revenue $27,772,641 100%
(Data Source: City of Richmond, ACFR, 2021)
Ratio of Reserves to Annual Expenditures
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited
by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to
the annual fund expenditures. The wastewater fund currently has an unrestricted cash reserve of
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
$2,541,182. The annual Fund expenditures were $20,466,640 for FY 2020-21, asC sohnotwran C ino sFtiag uLrAeF 9C-O4
above. The ratio of unrestricted reserves to expenditures is approximately 12% of annual
expenditures, a slightly positive ratio.
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
The City of Richmond has current liabilities, including accounts payable and accrued liabilities;
interest payable; compensated absences – current; and long-term debt – current, as listed in Table
9-4 below. Noncurrent liabilities include unearned revenue; compensated absences; long-term
debt; net pension liability; and net Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) liability (Richmond, ACFR,
2021).
Table 9-4: Liabilities (FY 2020-21)
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 6,491,825
Interest payable 2,315,458
Compensated absences - current 102,443
Long-term debt - current 2,480,000
Total current liabilities 11,389,726
Noncurrent liabilities:
Unearned revenue 36,280
Compensated absences 5,200
Long-term debt 135,406,366
Net pension liability 3,253,302
Net OPEB liability 1,522,213
Total noncurrent liabilities 140,223,361
Total liabilities 151,613,087
(Data Source: City of Richmond, ACFR, 2021)
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of the city's ability
to meet debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a 10% or less ratio
would reflect a very stable ratio (LAFCO, 2014). The Municipal Sewer Fund's annual debt service was
$8,148,851 in FY 2020-21 due to bond service liability, as shown in Table 9-5 below (Richmond,
ACFR, 2021). Given the annual expenditures of $20,466,640, the ratio of annual debt service to total
expenditures is approximately 40%. This reflects the significant capital expenditures funded through
bond proceeds as part of the city's infrastructure upgrade program. Therefore, this ratio is high
relative to the ideal. Additional details are provided in the following paragraphs.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 9-5: Revenue Bond Coverage 1999, 2006, 2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2017aC, o2n0t1ra9 aC oasntda L2A0F1C9Ob
Wastewater Revenue Bonds Last 10 Fiscal Years
On May 13, 2015, Moody's Investor Services ("Moody's") considered the city's Wastewater Enterprise
bonds and placed under review for possible downgrades. On August 4, 2015, Moody's downgraded
its rating on the city's Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A, to "Baa2" from "A2". Other credit
rating downgrades included S&P's assigned underlying rating (SPUR) for the Wastewater Enterprise
Fund, which was lowered from "A+" to "BBB" (Richmond, ACFR, 2021).
FY 2020-21 saw the termination of the 2008A Wastewater SWAP agreement (Richmond ACFR, 2021).
During FY 2018-19, the city issued Series 2019B Wastewater Revenue Bonds to partially refund and
defease $36,480,000 of the 2010B Bonds (described below). The bonds were paid in full as of June
30, 2021 (Richmond ACFR, 2021).
Richmond Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A – Original Issue $33,530,000
On July 19, 2017, the city issued Series 2017A Wastewater Revenue Bonds in the amount of
$33,530,000. The proceeds from the Bonds were used to finance improvements to the city's
wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system and to refund all of the city's outstanding
Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2006A. Principal payments are due annually on
August 1. Interest rates on the Bonds range from 2% to 5.25%, and payments are due semiannually
on August 1 and February 1 beginning February 1, 2018. The bonds mature on August 1, 2047.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
The Series 2017A Bonds (as of June 30, 2021) are described in Table 9-6 below. Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 9-6: 2017A Bonds – Description
The annual debt service requirements on the 2017A Bonds are listed in Table 9-7 below.
Table 9-7: 2017A Bonds – Wastewater, Annual Debt Service
(Data Source: Richmond, ACFR, 2021).
Richmond Wastewater Revenue Bond Series 2019A and Wastewater Revenue Refunding
Bonds, Series 2019B – Original Issue Series 2019A ($22,510,000) and Series 2019B ($66,075,000):
On June 26, 2019, the city issued Series 2019A Wastewater Revenue Bonds and the 2019B
Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds in the amounts of $22,510,000 and $66,075,000,
respectively. The proceeds from the 2019A Bonds were used to finance improvements to the city's
wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system. The proceeds from the 2019B Bonds were
used to refund all of the city's outstanding Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2008A, and
to partially refund and defease the city's outstanding Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series
2010B. The outstanding balance of the defeased 2010B Bonds was $36,480,000 on June 30, 2019.
Principal payments are due annually on August 1. Interest rates on the bonds range from 3% to 5%,
and payments are due semiannually on August 1 and February 1 beginning February 1, 2020. The
refund resulted in an overall debt service savings of $6,799,507. The net present value of the debt
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
service savings is called an economic gain and amounted to $4,738,022. ThCeo bnotrnad Cs omstaat LuAreF CoOn
August 1, 2049. The Series 2019A Bonds are described in Table 9-8 below.
Table 9-8: Series 2019A Bonds description as of June 30, 2021
The annual debt service requirements on the 2019A Bonds are listed in Table 9-9 below.
Table 9-9: Annual Debt Service Requirements on the 2019A Bonds
(Data Source for Table 9-9: Richmond, ACFR, 2021).
Richmond Wastewater Revenue Bond Series 2019A and Wastewater Revenue Refunding
Bonds, Series 2019B – Original Issue Series 2019A ($22,510,000) and Series 2019B ($66,075,000):
The Series 2019B bonds as of June 30, 2021, are described in Table 9-10 below:
Table 9-10: Series 2019B Bonds as of June 30, 2021 Description
The annual debt service requirements on the 2019B bonds are listed in Table 9-11 below.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 9-11: Annual Debt Service Requirements on the 2019B Bonds Contra Costa LAFCO
(Data Source: Richmond, ACFR, 2021).
In summary, the city has pledged future wastewater customer revenues, net of specified operating
expenses, to repay the 2017A, 2019A, and 2019B Bonds through 2050. The Municipal Sewer
Enterprise Fund's total principal and interest remaining to be paid on the bonds are $206,801,213.
The Municipal Sewer Enterprise Fund's principal and interest paid for the current year and total
customer net revenues were $8,148,851 and $15,510,420, respectively.
Capital Improvement Program
The city has developed and implemented a comprehensive Capital Improvement Program for
wastewater infrastructure improvements (LAFCO, 2014). The city's FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27 Capital
Improvement Program was approved in 2022. The largest project identified in the city's is the WWTP
Critical Improvements. This project rehabilitates or replaces treatment plant process equipment
and structures that have reached the end of their useful life and are a liability from a regulatory and
safety standpoint. Project elements include grit and screening, an aeration system for the biological
secondary treatment process, sludge thickening, dechlorinating, and protecting plant assets and
property from rockslides. This project will cost $34,314,184 over multiple fiscal years. Funding
Sources include Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan, Revenue Bonds, and Enterprise Fund
(Richmond CIP, 2022c). The CIP for 2022 to 2027 is shown in Table 9-12 below.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 9-12: Capital Improvement Program for Wastewater Infrastructure FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
As part of the CIP program outlined in Table 9-12 above, during the week of DecemCobnetrr 6a, C 2o0s2t3a, L VAeFoCliOa
Water West Operating Services, Inc. (“Veolia”) and its contractors completed two important steps
in the $42 million project to rehabilitate portions of Richmond’s wastewater treatment plant and
provide better environmental services to the Richmond community. Construction crews replaced
an outdated fan that dispersed exhaust air from the wastewater processing area, and they drained a
wastewater process tank in preparation for connecting new piping from that tank to aeration basins
being upgraded as part of the project.
It is important to remember that the city is responsible for funding capital improvements to both the
wastewater collection system and the WWTP. Veolia is a private company contracted to operate the
treatment plant and may not necessarily be responsible for all of the capital improvements.
Additionally, the city has a list of sewer infrastructure projects it will undertake as a result of the
major storms and the Baykeeper settlement within the next two to three years, as listed here:
a) Sanitary Sewer Line Improvement at 21st Street and Cutting Blvd
b) Sanitary Sewer Line Improvement at Cutting Blvd and Harbour Way
c) Extension of Force Main on Marina Bay Parkway (South 27th St)
d) Possible sewer line improvement at South 33rd Street (this project is under review based on
flow modeling)
Rate Structure
The city's rate structure for wastewater services is determined by its Master Fee Schedule for 2022.
The Master Fee Schedule lists various fees, including:
• Developer Fees (also known as a public facility impact fee) which fund major infrastructure
improvements to serve new development, such as off-site roads, traffic signals, fire and
police facilities, and park and recreation facilities. This fee is currently set at 3,625 per single-
family dwelling unit. However, this fee varies depending on the type of development.
• The sewer Connection Fee is currently set at $3,018 per connection.
• The sewer pipeline incident Basic Response Fee is currently set at $ 442
• Sanitary System Sewer Charges, Richmond Municipal Sewer District No. 1, single-unit
residential, annual charge is $880 (2020). The city's fees vary depending on the specific
location or zone the customer is located in and can range from $770 to $880.
Commercial customers pay this fee at a different rate: FY 19-20 $63.81 per IWU
o
$1.350 per pound of biological oxygen demand and $0.630 per pound Total
suspended solid (TSS), but not less than $527 based on water usage.
• Industrial customers pay a waste discharge fee, depending on the type of waste produced.
For example, the Annual Permit fee, Class I A (Categorical Industrial Users as defined in 40
CFR Chapter I Subchapter N), discharges more than 25,000 gallons of wastewater daily. The
annual fee is $ 3,797.
• Wastewater Inspection Program: Fees vary by type of inspection needed.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
• Fats Oils and Grease Program Fees. For example, the Annual PeCromnittr af eCeo,s tCa lLaAsFsC OV
(Commercial Facility classified as a Fats, Oils, and Grease "FOG" as determined by the
Control Authority is $306.
• Wastewater Plan Review Fee
• Certificate of Lateral Compliance
• Other miscellaneous wastewater fees
The most recent rate increase was adopted on July 1, 2021, based on an Employment Cost Index
factor of 1.052% per the Master Fee Schedule.
9.5: POPULATION
There are approximately 113,518 residents within the city boundaries as of 2023 (CA DOF, 2023).
This is a decrease in the population of two percent from the 2020 population of 115,894. Of the
113,518 (2023) residents within the city boundaries, it is estimated that 68,100 receive wastewater
services from the Richmond Municipal Sewer System (Phelps, personal communication, Jan 2023).
This equates to approximately 59% of City residents receiving wastewater services from the
Richmond Municipal Sewer System. Detailed information regarding population demographics in
Contra Costa County is provided in Appendix A.
Table 9-13: Existing Permanent Population, City of Richmond, 2022
Name of City Population in Number of Registered Population in SOI
Boundary (1) (2023) Voters in Boundary (2) only (3)
57,512 (as of January 2023
City of Richmond 113,518 per LAFCO) 19,162
Sources:
(1) California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit, Report E-4. Population
Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021-2023.
Released: May 1, 2023
Sacramento, California. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/
(2). Registered Voters have declined in 2023 as compared to 2022 which had 58,705 registered
voters per data provided by California Secretary of State, Registration by Political Subdivision by
County, May 23, 2022.
(3): Calculated estimate based on an average of 3.02 persons per parcel in Contra Costa County.
As shown in Figure 9-5 below, Richmond’s population has been declining in recent years.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 9-5: Population in Richmond 2020 to 2023
116,500
115,894
116,000
115,500 115,183
115,000 114,521
114,500
114,000 113,518
113,500
113,000
112,500
112,000
4/1/2020 1/1/2021 1/1/2022 1/1/2023
Source: CA DOF, Demographic Research Unit, Report E-4. Population
Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021-2023.
Released: May 1, 2023
Projected Future Population
Projecting a city's future population is complicated due to varying annexation rates and census
tracts that do not match City boundaries. Data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was
used to project population growth for Contra Costa County, as shown in Table 9-14 below. Since the
anticipated future population growth of the city has the potential to influence the demand for the
provision of wastewater services, the projections are shown in Table 9-14 below. By 2045, the city is
projected to have 127,710 residents (CA, DOF, 2021). To ensure that wastewater infrastructure is
sufficient to accommodate future development, the city utilizes a consultant to analyze future
development and to create a hydraulic study to ensure the existing infrastructure can handle the new
development.
9.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address
municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist. Data from the 2020 U.S. Census
was queried as part of this MSR update process. Data query results showed the City of Richmond is
adjacent to the North Richmond CDP which contains one small census block that is a disadvantaged
unincorporated community (DUC) as shown in Figure 9-6. The North Richmond CDP and its
associated DUC is provided wastewater service by the West County Wastewater District, as
described in Chapter 22.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 9-14: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2045)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2020 to
2020 to 2045 2020 to 2045 2045
County of Contra Costa1
1,149,800 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.8% 181,631 0.59%
City of Richmond 2 115,894 114,848 119,340 123,130 125,898 127,710 15.8% 17,422 0.59%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-
2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
2: California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State: January 1, 2020, and 2021. Sacramento,
California.
3: Population projection for the City of Richmond calculated 9.59% of the County of Contra Costa population.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 9-6: North Richmond DUC
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-28
Figure 9-7: Disadvantaged
Communities In and Near Richmond
Within the city's boundary, there are
census blocks which meet the income
criteria to be classified as
disadvantaged as shown in Appendix B
and in Figure 9-7 (U.S. Census Bureau
2021). This area receives sewer, water,
and fire protection services. No public
health or safety issues have been
identified.
Readers can learn more about
disadvantaged communities within
the City of Richmond and Contra
Costa County through the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services database of socioeconomic and health indicators in
disadvantaged communities called the Environmental Justice Explorer Database. This database can
be queried at <https://onemap.cdc.gov/portal/apps/sites/#/eji-explorer>.
9.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
The city has a current contract with Veolia Water North America, which will sunset in 2027. Staff
informed consultants that the city is looking at other options and opportunities, such as solicitations
for other vendors or operators to take over the system after the Veolia contract ends. The city is open
to other jurisdictions, such as EBMUD or other operators, to step in and run operations. The city is
also looking at running the plant on its own.
Three government structure alternatives were identified in LAFCO's 2014 MSR: (1) maintain the
status quo, (2) contract with [or annex to] EBMUD, and (3) contract with [or annex to] with WCWD.
Maintain the Status Quo: The city's wastewater collection and treatment system only serves the
central, older core of the city. Areas in north Richmond are provided service from WCWD. The Stege
Sanitary District serves a small portion of south Richmond. Each service area is geographically
separate, and each of the three wastewater agencies has an established service area. There is no
overlap in service (LAFCO, 2014).
Contract With [Or Annex To] with East Bay Municipal Utilities District: The city has entertained a
preliminary review of options for future wastewater treatment, including a feasibility study of the
cost/benefit of contracting or annexing its sewer collection and treatment area to EBMUD. No policy
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-29
decisions have been made to date. Additional study is needed. The city should consider initiating a
focused study evaluating the fiscal and operational feasibility of merging the city's wastewater
treatment operation with EBMUD (LAFCO, 2014). There have been no new studies considering the
feasibility of merging the city's wastewater treatment operation with EBMUD (City staff, personal
communication, March 2023).
Contract With [Or Annex To] West County Wastewater District: The city is open to exploring all
options regarding wastewater collection and treatment options, including annexing to or contracting
with WCWD. Additional study is needed. The city should consider initiating a focused study
evaluating the fiscal and operational feasibility of merging the city's wastewater treatment operation
with WCWD (LAFCO, 2014). There have been no studies to date looking at the fiscal and operational
feasibility of the city merging wastewater treatment operations with WCWD (City staff, personal
communication, March 2023).
9.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
Table 9-15: MSR Determinations – City of Richmond
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected area. The city has a total current population of 113,518.
• Existing population is estimated. Approximately 68,100 residents are served by the
• Projected future growth is estimated. Richmond Municipal Sewer System (21,000 sewer
lateral connections). The city's 2030 General Plan
projects that the city will grow to 132,600 by 2030,
an increase of 16.8% from the current population of
113,518. However, the General Plan’s Growth Rate
estimate is higher than that calculated in this MSR
analysis with a 2045 population projected to be
approximately 127,710 persons.
(continued)
It is recommended that when LAFCO next updates a
MSR for the City of Richmond and/or the City of El
Cerrito, the GIS data should be closely studied and
compared to older maps to graphically depict any
areas of geographic overlap.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-30
Location and characteristics of any Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part
disadvantaged unincorporated communities of this MSR update process. The City of Richmond
within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. contains disadvantaged communities and is
adjacent to North Richmond CDP which is a
disadvantaged unincorporated community.
This area received sewer, water, and fire protection
services. No public health or safety issues have been
identified.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities, Richmond's CIP for wastewater infrastructure
adequacy of public services, and infrastructure improvements encompasses FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-
needs or deficiencies, including needs or 27 and was approved in 2022. The largest project
deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and identified in the city's CIP is the WWTP Critical
industrial water, and structural fire protection in Improvements.
any disadvantaged, unincorporated
communities within or contiguous to the sphere The city completed an SSMP update in May 2017
of influence. that addresses maintenance requirements and
• Agency has a capital improvement plan. system evaluations. A 3.5-year term from January 1,
• SSOs are identified 2019, to August 9, 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-
• Local Hazards are identified. SSO database. During that time frame, there were
61 SSOs for the City of Richmond.
The city should continue to improve its
infrastructure to reduce the number of SSOs.
When LAFCO next updates the city's MSR or a
wastewater MSR, the number of SSOs should be
studied more comprehensively, and
recommendations should be jointly developed with
the city to reduce SSOs.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-31
(continued)
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan
identifies 11 critical wastewater infrastructure
facilities in Richmond. The Richmond area is at
strong risk of Earthquake Peak Ground Acceleration.
In addition, portions of the city are at very high risk of
Liquefaction Susceptibility. The information about
these hazards should be incorporated into the city's
next Sanitary Sewer Management Plan update as
recommended by the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The city operates its wastewater service as an
• Agency prepared a rate study enterprise fund within the confines of overall City
• Revenues exceed expenditures operations. Sewer service fees comprise the
• Ratio of annual debt service to total fund significant majority of revenues that fund the
annual expenditures is 10% or less. services provided. These fees are listed on the
Master Fee Schedule.
The sewer bill is distributed to customers as follows:
• The sewer fees are submitted to the County
Tax Assessor in August each year.
• The Tax Assessor places the fees on the
Property Tax Rolls.
• The County Tax Assessor pays the city in
three payments (55% of the total amount of
fees are paid in December, 40% in April, and
the balance in June).
Revenues exceed expenditures in each of the three
study years, and this is a very good indicator that
rates cover operating expenses.
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual
expenditures was studied in this MSR. Given the
annual expenditures of $20,466,640, the ratio of
annual debt service to total expenditures is
approximately 40%. This reflects the significant
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-32
(continued)
capital expenditures funded through bond proceeds
as part of the city's infrastructure upgrade program.
As a result, this ratio is high relative to the ideal.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. The city participates with the Bay Area Clean Water
Agencies in shared training and some maintenance
operations. A JPA exists for the joint disposal of
effluent by the agencies. Additionally, the city is
assessing the feasibility of participating in some
recycling services with the EBMUD to maximize
water reuse.
Accountability for community service needs, The city's website provides the public with internet
including government structure and operational access to City Council agendas and minutes, public
facilities. notices, City budgets, CIPs, and audits. The City of
• Agency has a website. Richmond also offers a free "E-News Signup"
• Agency posts a public outreach tool service for residents wishing to receive weekly
(such as a calendar or newsletter) on its updates on city projects, programs, and agendas.
website. High staff turnover has been noted and it is
• Recommendation for mergers, recommended that LAFCO study this issue in the
consolidations, or other changes to the next City-wide MSR.
governance structure.
There are three WWTPs that serve the city.
Additionally, Figure 9-2 shows that there is
significant overlap among wastewater service
providers and the City of Richmond. Abutting the
city's service area, WCWD provides sewer
collection service to a small portion of the city on its
northern border, adjacent to the City of San Pablo.
Stege Sanitary District collects wastewater for a
portion of the city in the eastern hills adjacent to the
City of El Cerrito. In addition, EBMUD provides water
and wastewater service in the general region.
The 2014 MSR recommended preparing a focused
fiscal/feasibility study evaluating the feasibility/
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-33
(continued)
cost-effectiveness of merging its wastewater
operations with the WCWD or EBMUD. This was not
completed at the time. However, due to the contract
with Veolia Water North America expiring in 2027,
the city may consider inviting EBMUD or WCWD to
take over operations. No official studies are
underway at the time of this report.
In the past, the city conducted a Recycled Water
Feasibility Study to investigate how feasible it is to
reuse treated effluent by conveying it to EBMUD.
Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified.
service delivery, as required by commission
li
9.9: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
This MSR focuses solely on wastewater service. The city does not currently anticipate needing any
changes to the city's boundaries or SOI in relation to wastewater service. Therefore, this report
recommends that Contra Costa LAFCO maintain the existing SOI for the City of Richmond in the
near-term. However, the city’s contract with its WWTP operator will be expiring in 2027 and this may
present an opportunity for further collaboration or governance structure changes with neighboring
wastewater service providers. Any decisions regarding future SOI or governance structure refinements
should take into consideration the location of disadvantaged census blocks within the city boundary.
Additionally, when LAFCO next considers City-wide municipal services, the city's General Plan should
be consulted as its policies may signal the intention to ultimately adjust the city's boundary and SOI
in certain areas of the city. Additionally, the City Council may wish to share additional information with
LAFCO about their potential future boundaries and SOI. See also LAFCO's June 12, 2019 MSR on City
Municipal Services.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-34
9.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California's Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions. (2022). CALAFCO Statewide DUC
Map. Accessed October 13. 2022.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4319a8066745442cbe7de6af1d13f98a.
California Department of Finance. (2021). E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the
State: January 1, 2020, and 2021. Sacramento, California.
California Department of Finance. (2021). Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, 2010-
2060 California and Counties (2019 Baseline). Retrieved on August 9, 2022, from:
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/>.
California Department of Finance. (2022). Report E-1: Population Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State January 1, 2021, and 2022. Retrieved on August 11, 2022,
from: <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/estimates-e1/>.
California Dept. of Finance Demographic Research Unit. (2021). 2020 Census PL94 Data at Various
Geographies. Retrieved September 9, 2022, from: <https://dru-data-portal-
cacensus.hub.arcgis.com/apps/pl94-data-at-different-geographies/explore>.
California Secretary of State. (2022). Registration by Political Subdivision by County. 88-pages.
Retrieved August 26, 2022, from: <https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/report-
registration/15day-primary-2022 >.
City of Richmond. (2010). Annual Pollutant Prevention and Minimization Program Report Addendum.
28-pages. Retrieved on October 15, 2022, from:
<https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/6932/Richmond_Annual_P2_Rep
ort_2010?bidId=>.
City of Richmond. (2011). Sewer Collection System Master Plan. 794-pages. Retrieved on October
12, 2022, from: <https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8015/Richmond-
Sanitary-Sewer-Master-Plan?bidId=>.
City of Richmond. (2015). 5th Cycle Housing Element Update (2015-2023). 158-pages. Retrieved on
October 13, 2022, from:
<https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/31210/Richmond-Housing-
Element_10-06-2021?bidId=>.
City of Richmond. (2016). WWTP Facility Plan Final Draft. 590-pages. Retrieved October 8, 2022,
from: <https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/40233/Richmond-WWTP-
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-35
Facility-Plan---FINAL-DRAFT-2016-10-07?bidId=>.
City of Richmond. (2018). Annual Operating Report. 20-pages. Retrieved October 15, 2022, from:
<https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/50002/Veolia_Richmond_WWTP_
2018_Annual_Operating_Report?bidId=>.
City of Richmond. (2018). Wastewater Collection System Lift Station Master Plan Final Draft. 400-
pages. Retrieved on October 15, 2022, from:
<https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/53079/Richmond-Municipal-
Sewer-District--Lift-Station-Master-Plan-Final-11-01-18>.
City of Richmond. July 2020. Adopted Master Fee Schedule Approved. 19-pages. Retrieved on
November 8, 2022, from: < https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2503/Master-Fee-Schedule>.
City of Richmond. December 31, 2021. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report For The Year Ended
June 30, 2021. 308-pages. Contributions from Badawi & Associates, CPAs in Berkeley,
California. Retrieved November 9, 2020, from <https://ci.richmond.ca.us/1000/Financial-
Reports>.
City of Richmond. September 27, 2022a. Staff Response to LAFCO's Request for Information via
ESRI's 123 On-line Survey. 2-pages. Available in LAFCO's office upon request.
City Of Richmond. June 21, 2022b. Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Operating Budget. 315-pages. Retrieved
November 9, 2020, from <https://ci.richmond.ca.us/1000/Financial-Reports>.
City Of Richmond. 2022c. Fiscal Years 2022-23 to 2026-27 Capital Improvement Plan / Budget. 155-
pages.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Phelps, Mary. Thursday, January 12, 2023. Email Communication Subject: Information Request -
Wastewater Services. From M. Phelps, Project Manager I, Public Works Department, Water
Resource Recovery Division, City of Richmond, 450 Civic Center Plaza,
Richmond, CA 94804.
Veolia. (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved on October 8, 2022, from:
<https://www.richmond.veolianorthamerica.com/frequently-asked-
questions#:~:text=Veolia%20was%20engaged%20by%20the%20City%20of%20Richmond
,upgrades%20to%20the%20city%27s%20sewer%20and%20collection%20systems>.
Chapter 9: Richmond Page 9-36
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Chapter 10: COUNTY SANITATIOCNont ra Costa LAFCO
DISTRICT NO. 6
Table of Contents
10:1: OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2: SD NO. 6 BOUNDARY & SOI ............................................................................................................ 10-4
10.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................... 10-4
10.4: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 10-13
10.5: POPULATION ................................................................................................................................. 10-18
10.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ................................................................................................. 10-20
10.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................. 10-21
10.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ............................................. 10-22
10.9 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE................................................................................................................... 10-26
10.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 10-26
10:1: OVERVIEW
The Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 6 (SD No. 6) is a dependent special district formed
in 1992 to provide wastewater service to the Stonehurst subdivision located within the City of
Martinez. Stonehurst is a gated, single-family subdivision consisting of 47 parcels primarily
developed during the 1990s (Sub-Final Map recorded 4-26-91). Approximately 134 (2022) residents
live in the community, and little or no growth is anticipated. The area was annexed to the City of
Martinez in September 2012 as part of the larger Alhambra Valley annexation. The District’s sphere
of influence (SOI) is coterminous with the agency boundary, as shown in Figure 10-1. Each parcel
has an individual septic tank where wastewater receives primary treatment; the effluent from each
tank is conveyed to a community wastewater treatment plant owned by the district, where it is
filtered, disinfected, and then discharged through a leach field at the top of an adjacent ridge for final
treatment and disposal. The district lies within the San Francisco Bay / Sacramento Delta Estuary
watershed. Additional information about this watershed is provided in Appendix F. The Agency
Profile for SD No. 6 is provided in Table 10-1.
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 10-1: Agency Profile – County Sanitation District No. 6 – Wastewater SCeorvnitcreas C osta LAFCO
General Information
Agency Type County Sanitation District
Principal Act County Sanitation District Act, Health, and Safety Code
Date Formed January 28, 1992; CCC Res 92/57
Water/Sewer Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal for Stonehurst
Services Subdivision (Alhambra Valley)
Service Area
Location Stonehurst Subdivision, City of Martinez (Alhambra Valley)
Sq. Miles/Acres 0.36 square miles/232 acres
Land Uses Residential
Dwelling Units 47 (one undeveloped parcel outside Stonehurst Subdivision)
Population Approximately 134
Last SO I Update 05/14/2014 (Contra Costa LAFCO, 2014)
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities 3.25 miles of sewer main, 1 pump station
Treatment 14,100 gallons per day (GPD) (permitted flow)
Plant Capacity
Primar y Disposal Septic tank systems; community disposal system with sand filter; UV
Method disinfection; leach field disposal
Budget Information- FY 2023-24
Revenues Expenditures Net
Operating/General $115,150 $123,279 $(-8,129)
Comb ined Other $99,302 $139,537 $(-40,235)
All Fun ds $214,452 $123,279 $ (-48,364)
FY 2023-24 Long-Term Planned Expenditures
Capital Implementation of the draft plan pending approval of
Expenditures a new permit
Net Assets A reserve fund is pending approval of the Long-
(Reserves) Range Plan and permit.
Governance
Governing Body Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Agency Contact • Randy Leptien, Consulting Engineer (rleptien@cityofmartinez.org)
• Joe Enke (jenke@cityofmartinez.org)
• Ali Hatefi (ahatefi@cityofmartinez.org)
Notes
LAFCO adopted a “zero” SOI for SD No. 6 on 4/9/2008 and reconfirmed the zero SOI in May 2014.
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 10-1: Boundary/SOI Map – County Sanitation District No. 6 Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
10.2: SD NO. 6 BOUNDARY & SOI Contra Costa LAFCO
SD NO. 6 is an independent district formed in 1992 pursuant to the California County Sanitation
District Act, Health & Safety Code. SD No. 6 serves the Stonehurst subdivision located in the City of
Martinez. It has 47 wastewater connections (i.e., customers) within its 0.36 square miles/232 acres
boundary area. SD NO. 6’s profile is shown in Table 10-1. A map of SD NO. 6’s current boundary and
SOI is shown in Figure 10-1. The community lies within the County Urban Limit Line approved by the
voters in 2006; it is surrounded by lands designated as open space and agriculture, including EBPRD
lands and other open space, which is protected by the John Muir Land Trust through conservation
easements to the north, west, south, and east. Land use within the Stonehurst subdivision (i.e., SD
NO. 6 boundary area) is currently comprised of single-family homes developed on relatively large-
sized lots.
The City of Martinez General Plan and Zoning Ordinance regulates future development within the
boundary area. The City Council adopted the General Plan 2035 on November 2, 2022. The General
Plan, EIR, and accompanying documents are on the City’s website at:
<https://www.cityofmartinez.org/departments/planning/2035-general-plan/-fsiteid-1#!/ >. Most of
the Stonehurst Subdivision has the following General Plan designation: Alhambra Valley Estate
Residential - Very Low Density (City of Martinez, General Plan, 2022).
No plans exist to expand the subdivision by creating or annexing new lots. However, in recent years,
California has passed several new housing laws that describe a potential process to consider infill
development in the form of accessory dwelling units.
Sphere of Influence
The Sphere of Influence and the district boundary are coterminous. LAFCo action on 8/13/2008
affirmed the existing District boundary and coterminous SOI. LAFCO also reaffirmed the
coterminous boundary and SOI as part of its May 14, 2014 MSR/SOI for water and wastewater
services. SD No. 6 has a zero SOI, which signifies the need to dissolve SD No. 6 as soon as sanitary
sewer service becomes available in the area (LAFCO, 2014).
10.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
SD No. 6 is a dependent special district administered by the City of Martinez that serves one
subdivision of homes in the northwest area of the County. There are no commercial, industrial, or
EPA categorical users of the SD No. 6 system. Each residential parcel within the Stonehurst
development participates in SD No. 6, and each parcel has an individual septic tank that provides
primary treatment. The effluent receives secondary treatment through an on-site wastewater
treatment facility and is discharged through a leach field at the top of an adjacent ridge (LAFCO,
2008). The effluent from the septic tank is transferred to a small, on-site wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) with 14,100 GPD capacity. Average Dry Weather Flows are estimated at approximately 8,500
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
GPD. Table 10-2 below summarizes the district’s facilities. Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 10-2: County Sanitation District No. 6 Wastewater System Overview
Facility Quantity
Sewer Mains/ Effluent Line 3.25 miles
Pump Stations 1 pump station
Average Age of Collection System 32 years
Average Dry Weather Flow / Permitted 8,500 gpd / 14,100 gpd
Flow
Primary: Individual septic systems; Community
Disposal System with sand filter, UV disinfection
Treatment /Disposal
Disposal: leach field
Data Source: LAFCO, 2008. Updated in 2024.
The wastewater collection and treatment system1 was installed in 1991 for the development of the
subdivision. It is permitted under the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) Order No. R2-1991-0096 – Waste Discharge Requirements. The District’s existing sanitary
sewer system infrastructure includes small gravity lines, including a pressurized sewer main and
pump station, sewer laterals between the valve and sewer main, treatment facilities and pumps, and
a leach field, as listed in Table 10-2 above. Additionally, the leach fields at the ridge and the Ultra
Violet disinfection at the plant provide additional treatment.
The system was originally constructed and permitted to provide recycled water that could be used
for subsurface irrigation of the community landscape during dry months. During wet months, the
treated effluent would be discharged through the leach field. The system includes a recirculating
sand filter and ultraviolet disinfection treatment process to meet State requirements for this
intended use of reclaimed water. The system operates as permitted; however, irrigation has never
been implemented, and there are no plans to do so in the future (LAFCO, 2008).
Permit from Regional Water Quality Control Board
The wastewater treatment system was designed to serve the buildout condition of this subdivision
only, as specified in the Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB2.
1
Each parcel has an individual septic tank with pipelines that gather wastewater from residential bathrooms,
kitchen sink, laundry, etc. A septic tank system is a self-contained, underground wastewater treatment system.
The community -wide septic system holds the wastewater and allow solids to settle and temporarily remain in
the tank. The liquids exit into a buried drain absorp tion field, where wastewater is sent through pipes to the
underground soil. Naturally occurring bacteria and minerals located within the soil work to further filter the
wastewater before it encounters any groundwater.
2
In 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Statewide General Waste Discharge
Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (WQO No. 2006-003-DWQ) and all sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs)
must now be reported to the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). Additionally, per WQO No.
2006-003-DWQ, SD No. 6 is required to have a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) that provides a plan
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
The 1991 RWQCB permit contains Provision F.1, which states: “If at any time sanCitoanrytr sae Cwoesrt as eLrAviFcCeOs
become available in the Alhambra Valley, the sewage flow from Stonehurst shall be directed to the
sanitary sewer line. Redirection of the sewage flows from the on-site treatment system to the sewer
shall take place at the earliest possible time after construction of the sewer has been completed. A
report shall be filed with the Regional Board which details the closure of the on-site wastewater
treatment and disposal system”.
The Central Costa Contra Sanitary District (Central San) has a pipeline and a connection opportunity
located approximately 1/5 mile away at the intersection of Alhambra Valley Road and Quail Lane. To
study this connection opportunity, Woodard and Curren consulting engineers prepared two studies
to ascertain the cost of a pipeline and pump station to connect the current service users.
Based on requests from the homeowner’s association and a study from Woodard & Curran, SD No.
6 plans to request RWQCB to revise the permit to apply for coverage under Small Domestic General
Order to 1) eliminate treatment (ultraviolet disinfection) and monitoring requirements for recycled
water; and 2) discharge to leach fields indefinitely, except Alternative #4 connection to Central San.
Sanitary Sewer Management Plan
The agency’s sanitary sewer management plan (SSMP) is typically described in this section of the
MSR. The SSMP was completed on August 31, 2008, and revised on June 14, 2012 (LAFCO, 2014).
However, a more recent SSMP has not been posted on the City’s website. So, it was not available for
review by the MSR Authors. To address the unique needs of SD No. 6, the County, the City of
Martinez, and/or Central San have prepared evaluation reports written by consulting engineers as
described in the following paragraphs.
System Evaluation and Recommended Improvements Report
In 2014, consulting engineers, Harris & Associates, authored a report about SD. No. 6 entitled
“System Evaluation and Recommended Improvements Report” (Harris Report). The Harris Report
outlines the evaluation of the wastewater system’s mechanical equipment, identifies deficiencies
in various areas, and provides recommendations for improvements to address these deficiencies.
The report also suggested possible future annexation to the Central San. Key sections of the report
include the following:
• An introduction and background on SD No. 6 and the purpose of the Report.
• A detailed system description.
• Evaluations of emergencies, costs of operations and maintenance, existing deficiencies and
needed improvements, annual replacement costs, and budget review.
• Considerations for possible permit changes, an evaluation of risks associated with
and schedule to manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system to reduce and prevent
SSOs and mitigate any SSOs that do occur; this includes a Fats, Oils and Grease control program and an Overflow
Emergency Response Plan (LAFCO, 2008).
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
continued operations, and comprehensive conclusions and recommendCaotniotrnas .C osta LAFCO
The report also includes numerous tables detailing invoices from operating services, emergency
costs, operational and maintenance expenses, needed improvements, and other financial
assessments crucial for understanding the wastewater system’s current state and future needs (CC
County, 2014).
SD6 Annexation Alternatives Evaluation Final Technical Memorandum
Woodard & Curran Inc. Consulting Engineers prepared a Technical Memorandum entitled “SD6
Annexation Alternatives Evaluation Report,” dated September 10, 2021. This Technical
Memorandum analyzes four sewer alternatives for SD No. 6 concerning the annexation possibilities
for sewer service by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San). The report evaluates
feasible alternatives for providing sewer service to the community by building upon previous studies
and considering Central San’s current standards. Four main alternatives are discussed, each with
planning-level cost estimates and a high-level alternatives analysis. The alternatives developed are
based on several assumptions, including the non-utilization of existing SD-6 facilities, the direction
of flow to Central San’s system, and the specific requirements for new pump stations and private
infrastructure. The report considers criteria such as cost, operations, and maintenance (O&M)
implications, constructability, community impact, permitting and easement acquisition, and
environmental requirements. The report describes four alternatives for providing sewer service to
the Stonehurst Subdivision as part of an annexation evaluation. The Consulting Engineers evaluated
each alternative based on various criteria, including cost, operations and maintenance implications,
constructability, community impact, permitting and easement acquisition, and environmental
considerations (Woodard & Curran Inc., 2021). Table 10-3 provides a brief overview of each
alternative.
December 2022 Summary Wastewater Alternatives Descriptions
In December 2022, Woodard & Curran prepared a PowerPoint presentation entitled “City of Martinez
Stonehurst (SD-6) Wastewater Alternatives Summary Descriptions”. The analysis was funded by SD-
6 enterprise funds and the Stonehurst HOA. City staff conducted public outreach by meeting with
the Stonehurst HOA and residents to review the study’s findings and the need for improvements.
This presentation analyzes five alternatives numbered 1, 2, 3, 4a, and 4b and provides an Alternatives
Life Cycle Cost Analysis for each alternative as listed in Table 10-4. The alternatives (4a and 4b) that
consider consolidation with Central San as recommended in LAFCO’s 2008 and 2014 MSRs estimate
total capital costs ranging from $6,112,000 to $7,256,000. This equates to a per-parcel cost ranging
from $130,042 to $154,383.
The analysis concludes that Alternative 2, Rehabilitation and Upgrade of Existing Facilities, appears
to be the low-cost alternative with reasonable risk. Alternative 2 has an Immediate Rehabilitation
cost of $165,000 and a Long-Term Rehabilitation of $1,494,000. The estimated annual O&M, not
including an annual contribution to a sewer replacement fund, is $92,000.
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 10-3: Comparison of Alternatives from 2021 Woodard & Curran Report
Name of Alternative Description of Alternative Estimated Cost of
Alternative*
Alternative 1 – Street Alignment Involves installing a new eight-inch gravity sewer main Approximately $3.8 million.
utilizing Gravity and Pressure along existing streets, with portions constructed via This includes new Central San-
Mains trenchless methods to avoid additional pump stations. owned facilities within the
This alternative also incorporates multi-use low- subdivision only.
pressure (MULP) collectors for certain areas.
Alternative 2 – Street and Creek Proposes the installation of an eight-inch gravity sewer Approximately $4.1 million.
Alignments Gravity Main main along existing streets and through a creek This includes new Central San-
alignment to eliminate the need for new pump stations. owned facilities within the
This alternative leverages the natural topography to subdivision only, and it
facilitate gravity flow out of the subdivision. represents the highest cost
among the alternatives.
Alternative 3 – Multi-use Low It suggests installing new two-inch double-encased Approximately $3.2 million.
Pressure Pipe with Trenchless MULP force main collectors along existing streets, This is the lowest cost among
Gravity Mains connecting to a proposed 8-inch gravity trunk sewer the alternatives, including new
installed via horizontal directional drilling (HDD) within Central San-owned facilities
green space areas of the subdivision. This maintains within the subdivision only.
the original collection system design but updates it to
meet Central San standards.
Alternative 4 – Street Alignment Similar to Alternative 1, this involves installing a new 8- Approximately $3.7 million
Gravity Main with HDD and inch gravity sewer main by open cut methods within the
Multi-use Low-Pressure Pipe subdivision, with certain sections constructed using
trenchless methods (HDD and Jack and Bore) to
navigate difficult terrain. Additionally, this alternative
includes the use of 2-inch MULP collectors in specific
areas to connect to the gravity system.
Data Source: (Woodard & Curran Inc., 2021)
*Note: These cost estimates include new Central San-owned facilities within the subdivision but do not account for
demolition of existing facilities, new sewer construction along Alhambra, property owner improvements (e.g., grinder
pumps, laterals, connection fees), engineering/administration, or project contingency costs.
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 10-4: Alternatives Life Cycle Cost Analysis, December 2022
Data Source: Excerpt from Woodard % Curran, December 2022
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Based on the cost comparison, Woodard and Curran, Consulting EngineersC roenctorma Cmoesntad LeAd FtChOe
following:
• Proceed with Alternative 2- Rehabilitation and Upgrade of Existing Facilities
• Proceed with establishing a Sewer Replacement fund
• Apply for coverage under Small Domestic General Order with SF RWQCB once the alternative
is approved (Woodard & Curran, 2022)
Trade-offs Associated with Septic Tank Systems vs. Municipal Wastewater Treatment
The use of septic tanks in modern urban/suburban areas such as Contra Costa County has both
positive and negative aspects. Septic tank systems are an affordable and decentralized method of
wastewater treatment and disposal. When operated properly, maintained, and routinely updated,
they can offer an alternative wastewater treatment and disposal option. The negative trade-offs
typically associated with using septic systems can sometimes include methane emissions, leakage
of polluted water, infiltration during rainstorm events, and less availability of professional staff to
perform management tasks. If leaks develop, they can become smelly and present a health hazard3.
An alternative to septic tanks is modern municipal wastewater treatment systems such as those
operated by Central San. Central San’s wastewater system also has both positive and negative
trade-offs. The positive benefits are easier compliance with RWQCB regulations, professional staff,
efficient response to leaks, and the ability to recycle water and sludge materials, among other
benefits. The potential negative trade-offs include the centralized system, more expensive costs,
and concentration of waste. To help local agencies consider these types of environmental and social
trade-offs associated with operating or upgrading their wastewater treatment plant, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared a five-page fact sheet about a methodology
called life cycle assessment (LCA) available online at:
<https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-01/understanding-environmental-tradeoffs-
2023.pdf >. A community can use a LCA to identify, quantify, and compare different options’
environmental benefits and impacts. An LCA may be especially useful in helping the community
understand and evaluate trade-offs between environmental benefits, such as water quality
protection, and environmental impacts, such as reduced air quality and increased greenhouse gas
emissions (EPA, 2023). Although the Woodard & Curran 2021 and 2022 studies utilize the term “Life
Cycle Assessment”, their reports were functionally a “Life Cycle Cost Analysis”. The Woodard &
Curran reports focus primarily on costs and does not include many elements outlined in the EPA’s
3
Residents should be careful about what is flushed into the tank, as specific items (non-biodegradable items,
food waste, paper towels, etc.) can clog up the system and backed-up drains can become problematic.
Additionally, antibiotics and other medications should not be disposed of in a septic system as they can damage
the bacteria in the septic system.
Fecal sludge that is removed from septic tanks is sometimes referred to as septage. Fecal sludge from septic
tanks is pumped out and typically disposed of at a local landfill. An alternative to landfill disposal would be the
“reuse” of the material and this involves the storage, collection, transport, treatment, and safe end use. Reuse
activities within the sanitation system may focus on the nutrients, water, energy, or organic matter contained
in excreta and wastewater. SD No. 6 does not appear to have a material reuse component.
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
guideline for LCAs, such as inputs (raw materials, chemicals, and energy) and outpCuotns t(rrae lCeaossetas oLfA sFoCliOd
waste, air emissions, and water emissions). Specifically, methane and carbon dioxide, two greenhouse
gases, should be described in a LCA. Additionally, the potential for water and sludge recycling should be
included in a LCA. It is recommended that SD No. 6 submit a life cycle assessment, that is consistent
with the referenced EPA guidelines, to LAFCO prior to preparation of the next MSR for the district,
anticipated in five to ten years.
Local Hazards
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Volume 2, dated January 2018, maps critical
infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards (Contra Costa County,
2018). SD No. 6 did not directly participate in this county-wide HMP. However, the City of Martinez
actively participated in developing the HMP by attending the workshop, completing the template,
and reviewing Chapter 8 of the Plan’s Volume 2. As part of this process, the City of Martinez
performed an inventory and analysis of existing capabilities, plans, programs, and policies that
enhance its ability to implement hazard mitigation strategies. Earthquakes are the hazard for which
the City has the most risk, as listed in Table 10-5 below. Other potential hazards and risks include
wildfires, severe weather, landslides, and floods. For SD No. 6, specifically, flooding is a potential
risk as a small creek drainage and intermittent stream tributary to Arroyo Del Hambre Creek are
nearby. The boundary area of SD No. 6 also has a “High” risk for wildfires (Contra Costa County,
2018).
Table 10-5: City of Martinez Hazard Risk Ranking
Data Source: Contra Costa County HMP Volume II, Chapter 8
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database Contra Costa LAFCO
The State Water Board maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted
systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California
Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General
Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. WQ
2022-0103-DWQ (SSS WDRs), December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate a sanitary
sewer system comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a publicly
owned treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. The MSR
authors ran a query in the state database. The query was run for Place ID#258777 and Place Name:
Stonehurst SD-6 WWTP. Data query results show no SSOs occurred during the 3.3-year timeframe
from 1/1/2020 through 3/1/2-24 for the County Sanitation District No. 6.
Future Challenges
This section considers factors that influence an agency’s ability to collect, treat, and dispose of
wastewater and provide public service to customers. City staff indicates that SD No.6 has collection,
treatment, and disposal systems that are 30 years old and are reaching the end of their design life
and will need to be replaced. According to studies that have been prepared, an increase in rates will
be necessary to make the improvements necessary to maintain compliance with water quality
regulations (Martinez, 2024).
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 has several recommended remedies for
California’s aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a wastewater
treatment plant is, what kind of wastes it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the
sewer pipes. Continue educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom
to call if such an event occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling (ASOCE, 2019).
Cooperative Programs
SD No. 6 works cooperatively with the City of Martinez, the RWQCB, and a private contractor. For
example, the City Public Works Department, Special Districts Section ensures regulatory
compliance and provides financial and long-term planning. The City contracts with a private
contractor to manage the day-to-day operations and maintenance of the system. SD No. 6 is a
dependent special district administered by the City of Martinez and receives administrative services
and contract services from the City. Due to the small size of the facilities, no additional cooperative
programs appear viable (LAFCO, 2014).
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make a determination regarding the status oCfo anntrda o Cpopsotart LuAniFtiCeOs
for, shared facilities. In the long term, consolidation with Central San may be feasible, resulting in
more sharing of staff expertise, equipment, and regulatory compliance.
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
SD No. 6 works to control costs for the services by utilizing a private contractor, Valley Operators
Inc., headquartered in Manteca, to perform maintenance work and to provide professional
management of the treatment system. LAFCO’s 2008 MSR noted an opportunity to reduce costs by
modifying the terms of the district’s Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the RWQCB. The
subsurface irrigation component of the district’s wastewater system was never implemented, and
there are no plans to use recycled water in the future. Therefore, ultraviolet disinfection may not be
necessary. The ultraviolet disinfection process requires significant energy and is costly to operate.
SD No. 6 would like to discontinue its use and has been attempting to work with the RWQCB for
several years on this issue, as it would reduce costs through less energy usage, simplified
maintenance, and a lower permit fee. This change in the Waste Discharge Requirements had not yet
been approved by the RWQCB (LAFCO, 2008). In the near term, the City will apply to the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Board for a Small Discharge Permit. Included in the application is a request to
remove the need for sand filtration and ultraviolet disinfection from the permit requirements, as the
effluent is not now and has never been discharged above ground as was originally intended. This
change in the permit would reduce the cost of replacing the facilities (Martinez, 2024).
In the long term, the system would benefit from connecting to a regional wastewater collection and
treatment system (LAFCO, 2014). The City’s Public Works Director/City Engineer reports that
annexation of the SD-6 facilities and the Stonehurst subdivision to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District is an option that continues to be studied. A timeline for annexation to Central San has not
been established (Martinez, 2024).
10.4: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
LAFCO is required to make specific financial determinations for special districts per the CKH Act.
The data described in this section was obtained from a seven-page Annual Written Statement of
Revenue and Expense Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 for SD No. 6, as prepared by the City of Martinez
(Martinez, 2023). This financial Report is posted on the district’s website at:
<https://www.cityofmartinez.org/departments/engineering/ccc-sanitary-district-no-6>. Please
note that a certified public accountant has not audited this Annual Written Statement of Revenue
and Expense FY2023-24 for SD No. 6. LAFCO typically prefers that audited financial statements be
provided to LAFCO and uploaded to the State Controller’s Office financial transactions reports open
data website at https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov.
Nevertheless, the Annual Written Statement summarizes the financial outlook and changes,
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
highlighting the district's revenue streams, expenditure categories, and overCalol nftinraa nCcoisatla hLeAaFlCthO.
Typically, an MSR analyzes financial data for a total of five study years. However, in this case, the
Annual Written Statement of Revenue and Expense details only three fiscal years:
• FY 2021-22 (Actual),
• FY 2022-23 (Projected), and
• FY 2023-24 (Budget).
The Annual Written Statement of Revenue and Expense for SD No. 6 is accounted for separately from
the City’s general fund by the city’s Finance Department. This is typical for self-supporting
operations and dependent districts such as SD No. 6. The district is funded through fees for services
charged to the system’s customers. The City Public Works Department provides oversight of the
system, and a private contractor is hired to perform routine system maintenance work.
Please note that City staff provided the Budget Report for each of the years listed above, which lists
year-end income and expense for the fiscal year. Subsequently, City staff also proved the FY 2023
budget report for SD-6 prepared by City Finance. FY 2023 shows the expenditures for emergency
storm-related repairs that had to be performed. The city has applied to FEMA for reimbursement for
these costs. Also included in the FY 2023 report is a $30,000 contribution by the Stonehurst HOA to
help pay for the evaluation of the existing facilities and to prepare estimates of cost for future system
repairs and upgrades.
Six primary areas of criteria were utilized to assess the present and future financial condition of SD
No. 6 wastewater service operations, as discussed in the following paragraphs.
3 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
The FY 2023-24 Budget projects Total Revenues of $214,452 and Total Expenditures of $123,279.
Revenues exceeded expenditures in two of the three study years, as shown in Figure 10-2 below.
Figure 10-2: Comparison of Revenue to
Expenditures for 3 Fiscal Years
$350,000
$292,494
$300,000
$250,000 $214,452
$200,000
$150,000 $121,685 $123,279
$91,685
$100,000 $81,093
$50,000
$0
FY 2021-22 Actual FY 2022-23 Projected FY 2023-24 Budget
Total Revenue Total Expenditures
Data Source: Martinez, 2023
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
This key performance measure indicates SD No. 6 was solvent in two of three Cyoenatrrsa a Cnods tgae nLAerFaCllOy
has the capacity to cover its costs. SD No. 6 has been experiencing challenged budgets for
operations due to the age of its infrastructure and the need to make future improvements. Therefore,
annual service charges have recently been increased to cover the anticipated future costs.
Revenue Sources
SD No. 6 receives most of its revenues from charges and fees for services, as is typical for an
enterprise-type service. The Annual Written Statement also lists three additional sources of revenue,
including interest earnings, HOA funds for rate study, and anticipated disaster relief funds (Martinez,
2023). SD No. 6 does not receive property tax (LAFCO, 2014). The sources of revenue are graphically
depicted in Figure 10-3 and listed in more detail in Table 10-6.
Figure 10-3: Revenue Souces for 3 Fiscal Years
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
FY 2021-22 Actual FY 2022-23 Projected FY 2023-24 Budget
-$50,000
Revenue - Annual Use Charge Revenue - Interest Earnings
Revenue - HOA Funds for Rate Study Revenue - Anticipated disaster relief funds
Table 10-6: Revenue Sources for 3 Fiscal Years
Description FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Budget
Actual Projected
Fund Balance July 1 $20,699 $31,272 -$139,537
Revenue - Annual Use
Charge $91,650 $91,650 $115,150
Revenue - Interest Earnings $35 $35 -$698
Revenue - HOA Funds for
Rate Study $0 $30,000 $0
Revenue - Anticipated
disaster relief funds $0 $0 $100,000
Total Revenue $91,685 $121,685 $214,452
Data Source: Martinez, 2023
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures Contra Costa LAFCO
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited
by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to
the annual fund expenditures.
LAFCO’s 2008 MSR noted that the district did not have reserves that could be used to address
emergencies or extraordinary expenses (LAFCO, 2008). This remains true as SD No. 6 does not
currently maintain a reserve fund balance (Martinez, 2023). The fund balance at the start of FY 2023-
24 Budget was negative ($-139,537) (Martinez, 2023). This indicates that should a significant capital
repair be necessary, the district does not have reserves it could draw on and would have to take on
debt and/or assess the parcels accordingly. If any unanticipated loss of revenue occurs, SD No. 6
should avoid impacting other City revenue sources or services.
Please note that if SD No. 6 were to be considered for annexation into Central San in the future, then
a level of reserve funds will need to be established. If the City determines that consolidation with
Central San is not yet feasible, then an infrastructure and capital equipment replacement schedule
should be implemented, and associated funding should be provided.
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. The ratio of annual debt service to total fund
annual expenditures is an indicator of the ability to meet debt obligations in relation to service
provision expenditures. Ideally, a 10% or less ratio would reflect a very stable ratio. SD No. 6 has no
debt and, therefore, no debt service.
Capital Improvement Program
SD No. 6 does not maintain a formal capital improvement program. However, recently, two studies
were conducted that outline the infrastructure needed in order to move forward with a range of
options (i.e., future alternatives) as described on pages 10-6 to 10-10 of this MSR. Financing capital
improvements is a challenge for small districts such as SD No. 6. The boundary contains no
disadvantaged communities, so there are no grant opportunities. Alternative financing vehicles
could potentially include raising rates to establish a capital reserve fund, low-interest loans, or
municipal bonds.
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Infrastructure Needs Contra Costa LAFCO
Existing Infrastructure: SD No. 6 currently maintains various equipment, vehicles4, infrastructure,
and associated assets. The current collection and treatment system provides minimum service per
the approved operating permit from the RWQCB.
Since its inception, the SD No. 6 wastewater collection facilities and treatment plant were
considered temporary and never intended to operate in perpetuity. Therefore, as with other
temporary systems, this system has not been maintained to the same standard as a permanent
system. In addition, reserve funds were not set aside for the replacement of capital facilities when
they have reached the end of their useful lives. This “temporary” status has lasted longer than
anticipated and is now reaching its 32nd year of operation. The deferred maintenance and capital
replacement have now resumed. SD No. 6 anticipates increasing operation and maintenance costs
as the system ages. LAFCO’s 2014 MSR identified5 (system deficiencies (LAFCO, 2014). The aging
infrastructure has experienced unreliable operation and a lack of redundancy at times for extended
periods. For example, critical equipment, such as the recirculation pumps, Filter No. 1, and the
alarm system at the pump station, are inoperative (Contra Costa County Public Works, 2014, as
cited in Woodard & Curran, 2021). In another example, debris has clogged the screens of the pumps.
Aging and unreliable infrastructure creates a risk of a sewage spills which can potentially impact the
local environment and invite scrutiny from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Woodard & Curran,
2021). SD No. 6 made improvements to the system in 2023 to address minor issues associated with
coliform contamination due to wildlife and infiltration and inflow (personal communication, R.
Leptien, March 18, 2024).
Rate Structure
SD No. 6 levies an annual service charge to the service area. The SD No. 6 Board of Directors recently
adjusted the service charge to $2,450 annually per parcel, as detailed in Table 10-7. SD No. 6
prepares an annual financial document listing each parcel of real property receiving sewer service
from the district (all parcels are assessed yearly). This is used to establish the annual service charge,
which the County collects through the tax roll. The current rate is shown in Table 10-7.
4
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. However, it is unlikely that S D No. 6 owns or
operates any vehicles. SD No. 6 likely relies upon vehicles utilized by contractors, the City of Martinez, or the
l ocal homeowner’s association. Therefore, this new rule is not directly applicable to SD No. 6.
5
Several pump failures occurred from 2010 through 2012 due to system aging. It is possible that additional
equipment will need to be repaired or replaced. The City has been maintaining the system as an interim system
that was meant to ultimately connect to a larger sanitary system, such as CCCSD. Back in 2014, the County
indicated to LAFCO that the interim status has lasted longer than originally anticipated (LAFCO, 2014). In 2014,
t he County obtained sanitary engineering consulting services to explore several options for the district. The
system evaluation and recommendation report was completed in early 2014 (LAFCO, 2014).
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 10-7: County Sanitation District No. 6, 2024 Wastewater Service Charge Contra Costa LAFCO
Type Residential
Wastewater Service Charge $2,450 / year (equates to $204.17/ month)
Data Source: Martinez, 2023
The District’s Board of Directors establishes sewer service charges for all properties served within
the district each fiscal year. The Contra Costa County Assessor provides a map and a description of
each parcel of real property receiving sewer service from the district. The rates charged for each
parcel are computed in conformity with the charges prescribed under District Ordinances and the
budget report. In FY 2023-24, the district Board found it necessary to increase the sewer service
charge rate on a temporary, interim basis by $500 from $1,950 to $2,450 parcel (or unit) per year for
FY 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26. The rate will revert to $1,950 per year effective July 1, 2026,
subject to the district Board proposing a rate adjustment in compliance with Proposition 218 prior to
July 1, 2026. A mailed notice was sent to each property owner 45 days prior to the public hearing on
this recent rate increase (Martinez, 2023).
10.5: POPULATION
SD No. 6 has 47 wastewater connections (i.e., customers) within its 0.36 square miles/232 acres
boundary area. The Stonehurst subdivision has a total of 48 lots; however, one lot functions as open
space and does not have a wastewater connection. There are approximately 134 residents within the
district boundary as of 2020, as listed in Table 10-8 below.
Table 10-8: Existing Permanent Population, County Sanitation District No. 6
Name of District Population in Number of Registered Population in SOI
Boundary(1) (2022) Voters in Boundary (2)
County Sanitation 134 107 as of January 2023 N/A (the district has
District No.6 zero SOI)
Sources:
1) Note: Contra Costa County has an average of 2.86 persons per household. If one
multiplied the 2.86 average by 47 customers, it would calculate an estimated population
of 134. See also, California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State: January 1, 2021 and 2022. Sacramento, California.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/.
2) Registered Voter data provided by Contra Costa County Elections Office to LAFCO, 2022.
Projected Future Population: Projecting an agency’s future population is complicated due to varying
annexation rates and census tracts that do not match City boundaries. Data from the California
Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth for Contra Costa County, as
shown in Table 10-9 below. Anticipated future population growth of the SD No. 6 neighborhood has
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 10-9: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2045)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2020 to
2020 to 2045 2020 to 2045 2045
County of Contra Costa1
1,149,853 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.1% 174,876 0.61%
CSD No. 6 (no growth
scenario) 2 134 134 134 134 134 134 0 0 0
CSD No. 6 (moderate
growth scenario) 3,4 134 144 149 154 158 160 19.4% 26 0.71%
Notes and Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-
2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/.
2: The “no growth scenario” is based on existing barriers to future growth in the neighborhood, including a lack of a geographic expansion
area, “high” fire risk designation in the LHMP, and constrained capacity in the existing wastewater treatment system (i.e., if no
improvements are made).
3: Population projection for CSD No. 6 calculated as 0.012 percent of The County of Contra Costa population.
4. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) and see also California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for
Cities, Counties, and the State: January 1, 2020 and 2021. Sacramento, California.
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
the potential to influence the demand for the provision of wastewater services anCdo nvitcrea -Cvoesrstaa .L IAnF thCiOs
particular case, future growth appears to be constrained due to numerous factors, including a lack
of geographic expansion area, being located in an area designated as “high” fire risk, and potential
capacity issues with the existing wastewater system. Therefore, the future projected growth shown
in Table 10-9 below depicts a stable population in this area for the next 20 years in the “no growth
scenario”. If the barriers to growth are solved, repaired, or removed, then the community may grow
in population in the future, as listed in Table 10-9.
10.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address
municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in some disadvantaged
communities. Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part of this MSR Update process. Data
query results showed no disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous
to the SOI for SD No. 6.
The northwestern portion of the City of Martinez does contain a low-income neighborhood that
meets the criteria to be classified as disadvantaged as shown in Figure 10-4 below. However, this
neighborhood is not located near SD No. 6. Additionally, most public services, including water,
sewer, and fire protection, are made available to all residents of the City, including the
disadvantaged neighborhoods. No public health and safety issues associated with disadvantaged
neighborhoods were identified.
Figure 10-4: Two
Disadvantaged
Neighborhoods in City
of Martinez
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
10.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
SD No. 6 was formed in 1992 as a County Sanitation District. It serves only the Stonehurst
Subdivision. The District’s principal act is the County Sanitation District Law (Health and Safety Code
§4700 et seq.). The Board Of Directors for SD No. 6 is the City of Martinez City Council6. The City
Council holds regular meetings on the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays at 7:00 PM, City Council Chamber,
525 Henrietta Street. The City Council’s meetings are open to the public. Meeting notices and
agendas are posted at least 96 hours in advance at the City’s offices and on the City’s website
(https://www.cityofmartinez.org/). The website includes financial information on SD No. 6.
Table 10-10: Contact Information for the City of Martinez and SD No. 6
Location of office and mailing address City of Martinez
525 Henrietta Street
Martinez CA 94553
Telephone numbers (925) 372-3505
FAX number (925) 229-5012
Web page www.cityofmartinez.org
E-mail address jenke@cityofmartinez.org
Central San’s Alhambra Valley annexation resulted in their service area being located less than one
mile to the east of SD No. 6. Two government structure options are identified, including 1) maintain
the status quo and 2). connect to a sanitary sewer line (Central San) at the earliest possible time as
described in the following paragraphs.
6
The Stonehurst Subdivision was annexed to the City of Martinez and on March 12, 2015, the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2015/108 designating the Martinez City Council as the
Board of Directors of Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 6 in accordance with Health and Safety Code
Section 4730.
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Maintain the Status Quo Contra Costa LAFCO
SD No. 6 has a zero SOI, signifying the need to dissolve SD No. 6 as soon as sanitary sewer service
becomes available in the area. Maintaining the existing system of septic tanks/on-site treatment and
disposal is not a viable, long-term option (LAFCO, 2008 and 2014). However, Woodard & Curran Inc.,
consulting engineers, prepared studies that indicate that the costs to physically connect the
Stonehurst neighborhood to Central San range from $130,042 to $154,383 per parcel. This high cost
represents a significant financial burden for SD No. 6 customers. Therefore, for the short-term, it is
recommended that LAFCO consider this recommendation to maintain the status quo. SD No. 6 has
operated for 32 years and consistently provided wastewater service. The City of Martinez provides
professional and transparent management and oversight to the SD. No. 6 and helps the district
maintain compliance with water quality regulations from the RWQCB. However, this MSR identified
several infrastructure needs associated with aging infrastructure, and improvements are needed to
address the issues (Woodard & Curran, 2021 and 2022).
Consolidation with Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
LAFCO’s 2008 MSR described this governance structure option as follows: connect to a sanitary
sewer line at the earliest possible time when services are available, and the on-site wastewater
treatment and disposal system should be closed. At that time, SD No. 6 should be dissolved (LAFCO,
2008). This option was also described in LAFCO’s 2014 MSR. Central San facilities are located
approximately 1/5 mile away at the intersection of Alhambra Valley Road and Quail Lane.
Connection to Central San provides a potential solution for long-term sewer service to this
development. This option to consolidate with Central San remains viable as a long-term option for
the Stonehurst neighborhood.
10.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
Table 10-11: MSR Determinations
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected area. Approximately 134 residents live within the
• Is the existing population estimated? community. The parcels are developed as a low-
density residential neighborhood. There is a
• What is the projected future growth
continuing need for a managed wastewater system to
for the district?
serve the area.
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
It is not certain that growth will occur in the
Stonehurst neighborhood in the future due to existing
constraints (i.e. high fire hazard, rural location).
Therefore, a no-growth scenario is analyzed in this
MSR.
Alternatively, if allowed by state and local
regulations, there may be potential future infill or
creation of ADUs in the neighborhood. If the
constraints to future growth can be overcome, then
the MSR’s moderate growth scenario estimates that
by 2045, the population could potentially grow to
160, with an annual average growth rate of 0.71
percent.
Location and characteristics of any There are no DUCs within or contiguous to the SD No.
disadvantaged unincorporated 6 SOI.
communities within or contiguous to the
SOI.
Present and planned capacity of public The SD No. 6 wastewater system includes a
facilities, adequacy of public services, and collection system, treatment facilities with a
recirculating sand filter, and ultraviolet disinfection
infrastructure needs or deficiencies,
treatment process. The system was designed and
including needs or deficiencies related to
constructed to meet the wastewater service needs of
sewers, municipal and industrial water, and
the subdivision. There are no DUCs within or
structural fire protection in any
contiguous to SD No. 6 SOI.
disadvantaged, unincorporated
communities within or contiguous to the Two recently completed reports by Woodard &
sphere of influence. Curran (2021 and 2022) assess the infrastructure,
describe capital replacement needs, and consider a
• Does the Agency have a capital
range of future options. It is recommended that SD
improvement plan?
No. 6 submit a life cycle assessment (consistent with
• Do the query results from the CIWQS
the EPA’s referenced guidelines) to LAFCO prior to
database show an excessive number preparation of the next MSR for the district,
of SSOs? anticipated in five to ten years.
• Are Local Hazards identified?
The state CIWQS database was queried for SSO data
using Place ID#258777 and Place Name: Stonehurst
SD-6 WWTP.
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
Data query results show no SSOs occurred during the
3.3-year timeframe from 1/1/2020 through 3/1/2024
for the County Sanitation District No. 6.
The City of Martinez actively participated in the
development of the 2018HMP by attending the
workshop, completing the template, and reviewing
Chapter 8 of the Plan’s Volume 2. Earthquakes are
the hazard for which the City has the most risk. For
SD No. 6, specifically, flooding is a potential risk as a
small creek drainage and intermittent stream
tributary to Arroyo Del Hambre Creek are located in
the vicinity. The boundary area of SD No. 6 also has a
“High” risk for wildfires.
Financial ability of agencies to provide SD No. 6 levies an annual service charge to the service
services. area. The SD No. 6 Board of Directors recently
adjusted the service charge to $2,450 annually per
• Has the agency prepared a rate
parcel. SD No. 6 prepares an annual financial
study?
document that lists each parcel of real property
• Do revenues exceed expenditures?
receiving sewer service from the district. This is used
• Is the ratio of annual debt service to to establish the annual service charge, which the
total fund annual expenditures 10% or County collects through the tax roll.
less?
The FY 2023-24 Budget projects Total Revenues of
$214,452 and Total Expenditures of $123,279.
Revenues exceeded expenditures in two of the three
study years. SD No. 6 does not have reserves to
address extraordinary or emergency capital needs.
The District should establish reserves.
SD No. 6 has no debt. Therefore, the ratio of annual
debt service to total fund annual expenditures is zero.
This ratio meets the determination indicator since it
is less than 10 percent.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared SD No. 6 is a dependent special district administered
facilities. by the City of Martinez and receives administrative
and contract services from the City. Due to the small
size of the facilities, no additional cooperative
programs appear viable. However, consolidation
with Central San may be feasible in the long term,
resulting in a higher degree of staff expertise and
equipment sharing.
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Accountability for community service needs, SD No. 6 is a dependent speciCaol ndtisrtar iCcot sgtoav LeArnFeCdO by
including government structure and the City of Martinez as described on the City’s
operational facilities. website at:
• Does the Agency have a website? <https://www.cityofmartinez.org/departments/engin
• Does the agency post a public eering/ccc-sanitary-district-no-6>. This website also
outreach tool (such as a calendar or provides financial information for SD No. 6.
newsletter) on its website?
• Recommendation for mergers, The City Council addresses services for SD No. 6 at
consolidations, or other changes to regular meetings which are open to the public.
the governance structure. Meeting notices and agendas are posted in advance
at the City’s offices and on the City’s website at:
<https://www.cityofmartinez.org/government/meeti
ngs-and-agendas >.
SD No. 6 has a zero SOI, signifying the need to
dissolve SD No. 6 as soon as sanitary sewer service
becomes available in the area. LAFCO’s 2008 and
2014 MSRs for SD No. 6 both recommended that that
connection to the Central San should be aggressively
pursued to provide a long-term sewer system
solution for Stonehurst residents. The future
governance structure for SD No. 6 was also carefully
considered in this 2024 MSR.
Woodard & Curran Inc., consulting engineers,
prepared studies that indicate that the costs to
physically connect the Stonehurst neighborhood to
Central San ranges from $130,042 to $154,383 per
parcel. This high cost represents a significant
financial burden for SD No. 6 customers. Therefore,
for the short-term, it is recommended that LAFCO
consider this recommendation to maintain the status
quo. Connection to the Central San remains a viable
long-term option.
Any other matter related to effective or No additional issues were identified.
efficient service delivery, as required by
commission policy.
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
10.9 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Contra Costa LAFCO
Section 10.7, Government Structure Alternatives, describes various issues and options associated
with changing the structure of this local government agency. LAFCO often accomplishes its
government structure issues through changes to boundaries and/or SOIs. It is recommended that
LAFCO reconfirm current determinations and current zero SOI for SD No. 6.
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires that LAFCO
review and update the SOI for each of the special districts and cities within the County (LAFCO,
2008). SD NO. 6 provides wastewater treatment and disposal services for 47 of the 48-parcel
Stonehurst subdivision (one parcel is open space). There is a need for managed wastewater services
in this community. A private contractor is utilized to operate and maintain the system.
The current SOI for SD No. 6 is coterminous with its boundary. With Central San’s Alhambra Valley
annexation, Central San’s service area is now in close proximity to the site. The RWQCB Waste
Discharge Requirements for SD No. 6 mandates the connection of the development to an Alhambra
Valley sanitary sewer and the closure of the development’s on-site wastewater treatment and
disposal system. SD No. 6 and Central San prepared several feasibility studies to consider whether
it is worthwhile for the Stonehurst property owners to connect to the Central San sanitary sewer
system. Therefore, it is recommended that LAFCO retain the existing zero SOI for SD No. 6. This will
allow the district to continue to exist until such time as it is physically and financially feasible to
annex to Central San.
10.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California’s Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) - State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.)
California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS) SSO Public Report - Detail Page.
Query run on August 27, 2023 from <https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/chc_sso.html >.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit California State Data Center.
5/23/2023. Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC)
Data Release. Table 2: Land Area, Population and Population Density for California,
Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP), Census
2020Contributions from U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 1, 2023b.C Roenptroar tC Eo-s1t a& L EA-F1CHO,
Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2022 and
2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population
Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage
2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/>.
California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State:
January 1, 2020 and 2021. Sacramento, California.
<https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/>.
City of Matinez. November 2, 2022. General Plan 2035. Retrieved on March 17, 2024 from:
<https://www.cityofmartinez.org/departments/planning/2035-general-plan/-fsiteid-1#!/ >.
City of Martinez Community Development Department Engineering & Public Works Divisions. May 3,
2023. Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 6, Annual Written Statement of Revenue
and Expense Fiscal Year 2023-24. 7-pages. Retrieved March 1, 2024 from:
<https://www.cityofmartinez.org/departments/engineering/ccc-sanitary-district-no-6 >.
City of Martinez Staff. March 18, 2024. Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. 1-page.
Transmitted by e-mail from Randolph W. Leptien, P.E., City of Martinez Engineering. Available
from LAFCO files upon request.
Contra Costa County Public Works, Design/Construction Division. January 22, 2014. System
Evaluation and Recommended Improvements Report for the Contra Costa County Sanitary
District No. 6. Prepared by Harris & Associates. 62-pages. Available upon request from City
of Martinez or Contra Costa LAFCO.
Contra Costa LAFCO. June 12, 2019. City-wide Services Municipal Service Review Update. Prepared
by Lamphier-Gregory Consultants and Berkson Associates. 793-pages. Retrieved December
2022 from <https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Contra Costa LAFCO. (2008). Section 6.0 County Sanitation District No. 6 Wastewater Service. 11-
pages. Retrieved on October 28, 2022 from:
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/municipal_service_reviews/central_county_water_wa
stewater/6.0%20County%20San%20Dist%206%20Water%20Wastewater%20Final.pdf>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviewsC/o>n. tra Costa LAFCO
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) and Puerto Rico Community Survey
(PRCS), 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved on October 31, 2022 from:
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/contracostacountycalifornia/HSD310220>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2023. Understanding the Environmental Trade-offs of
Wastewater Treatment Options: An Introduction to The Life Cycle Assessment Approach.
EPA Document Number 820-F-23-001. Five-pages. Retrieved March 25, 2024 online from:
<https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-01/understanding-environmental-
tradeoffs-2023.pdf >.
Woodard & Curran Inc. Consulting Engineers. September 10, 2021. SD6 Annexation Alternatives
Evaluation Report,” Revised Final Technical Memorandum addressed to Justin Waples of
Central San. Woodard & Curran authors: Mirko Maher, Martha de Maria y Campos, and
reviewed by Jen Glynn. 59-pages. Available upon request from the City of Martinez or Contra
Costa LAFCO.
Woodard & Curran Inc. Consulting Engineers. December 2022. City of Martinez Stonehurst (SD-6)
Wastewater Alternatives Summary Descriptions. 26-pages. Available upon request to the
City of Martinez or Contra Costa LAFCO.
Chapter 10: SD No. 6 Page 10-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
CHAPTER 11: BYRON SANITARY Contra Costa LAFCO
DISTRICT – WASTEWATER SERVICES
Table of Contents
11.1: OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND SOI ........................................................................................................ 11-4
11.3: DISTRICT OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................... 11-7
11.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 11-11
11.5: POPULATION ................................................................................................................................. 11-14
11.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ................................................................................................. 11-16
11.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................. 11-18
11.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ............................................. 11-19
11.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS ....................................................... 11-22
11.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 11-23
11.1: OVERVIEW
The Byron Sanitary District (BSD) was formed in 1948 and became operational in 1958. It operates
pursuant to the Sanitary District Act of 1923 (Health and Safety Code, Section 6400 et seq.). BSD is
located in the eastern portion of Contra Costa County along the east and west sides of Byron
Highway at Camino Diablo. BSD encompasses the unincorporated community of Byron (LAFCO,
2014). BSD’s boundary and sphere of influence (SOI) are conterminous with the exception of an area
to the northeast along Byer Road and Bixler Road. BSD comprises approximately 0.53 square miles
(LAFCO, 2023). A map of BSD’s current boundary and (SOI) is shown in Figure 11-1 on page 11-4. The
District lies within the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento Delta Estuary watershed. Additional
information about this watershed is provided in Appendix F. BSD is an independent special district
with a five-member Board of Directors. BSD collects, treats, and disposes of municipal wastewater.
The District also contracts with Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery Services for solid waste (garbage)
disposal and recycling services. BSD services 278 connections representing about 378 Equivalent
Dwelling Units (EDUs) (CCSDA, n.d.). The BSD’s Agency Profile is presented in Table 11-1 (next page).
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 11-1: Agency Profile – Byron Sanitary District Contra Costa LAFCO
General Information
Agency Type Independent Special District
Principal Act Sanitary District Act of 1923, Health and Safety Code, §6400 et seq.
Date Formed 1948 (operational in 1958)
Services Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal; solid waste by contract
Service Area
Location Community of Byron
Sq. Miles/Acres Approximately 0.53 square miles; 339.2 acres.
Land Uses Residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses
Dwelling Units 234 (California DOF, 2021)
Population Served Approximately 676 at 3.02 persons per household (California DOF, 2021)
Connections Approximately 278 with a total of 378 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs)
Last SOI Update 5/14/2014
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities BSD Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located at 4200 Camino
Diablo Road Byron, CA; 12,174 lineal feet of sewer collection pipeline
(10,474 feet owned by the District); and 278 connections (CCSDA,
n.d.)
Treatment Average daily dry weather limit = 96,000 gallons per day (GPD) between
Plant Capacity the months April through October, and the average daily flow limit is
100,800 GPD between the months November through March (CA Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R5-2009-0002).
Primary Treatment at BSD WWTP and discharge into adjacent effluent
Disposal disposal ponds.
Budget Info rmation- FY 2023-2024
Revenues Expenditures Net
All Funds $576,000 $636,350 -$60,350
Capital Repayment $130,789
Net Assets (Reserves) $2,032,846 June 30, 2023 Financial Statement- Restricted &
Unrestricted (BSD, 2024b)
Governance
Governing Body Board of Directors (5 members elected at large for four-year terms).
Meetings are held monthly on the 2nd Thursday every other month.
Agency Contact Edwin Pattison, General Manager, (209) 968-4436
Brittany Johnson, Somach, Simmons & Dunn, Legal Counsel
Notes
Net Assets do not include Capital Assets.
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 11-1: Boundary/SOI Map – Byron Sanitary District Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
11.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND SOI Contra Costa LAFCO
BSD’s boundary encompasses 0.53 square miles (339 acres). BSD serves the Byron community
along Byron Highway and residential uses along Camino Diablo, which extends east and west from
Byron Highway, as shown in Figure 11-1. There are also commercial and industrial uses along Main
Street, the Camino Mobile Home Park, and the Byron Unified School District to the north. LAFCO’s
2014 MSR/SOI for BSD described a potential to expand the SOI to address wastewater services
provided to the former Orrin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility.
The former Orrin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility was closed by Contra Costa County in early 2023
due to very low utilization of the facility. Discussions are underway to re-purpose the facility as a
Contra Costa Fire Protection District training center. (Mike Nisen, Board Member; personal
communication). The former Orrin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility is outside the BSD boundary,
but within the SOI. BSD serves a population of approximately 676. County GIS notes that part of the
former Orrin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility is in the District’s SOI. In the future, LAFCO may wish
to consider including the entire youth camp area in the District’s SOI.
Land Use and Planning
Any future development within the District has the potential to influence the demand for the
provision of wastewater services. Therefore, land use and planning issues are relevant. Byron is a
small, unincorporated community located in rural eastern Contra Costa County. The Byron
community contains single-family residential development, commercial and industrial
development, schools, churches, and wineries. Development is primarily centralized along the
Byron Highway, with additional development located along Camino Diablo and Holway Drive. Byron
is surrounded by agricultural lands.
The Byron Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) serves as an advisory committee to the Board of
Supervisors on land use and other issues relating to the Byron community as detailed on the
County’s website at: <https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/6444/Municipal-Advisory-Councils >. BSD
interacts with the MAC as necessary. The Byron MAC and BSD provide comments to the Contra
Costa County Planning Department (and/or Planning Commission) on land use applications.
Two planning documents guide the development and growth of the Byron community:
• The “Byron Township General Plan, 1999-2020” was prepared by the MAC. The Byron
Township General Plan covers a much larger geographic planning area. Although cited
frequently, the Byron Township General Plan is not the official General Plan for the area. It
does not supersede the County’s General Plan, which remains the official land use planning
document for unincorporated territory within Contra Costa County.
• The “Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020” was adopted by the Board of
Supervisors in January 2005. The County General Plan provides for growth and development
within the voter-approved Urban Limit Line (ULL), including only the developed town site of
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Byron and excluding the surrounding open space areas. Contra Costa LAFCO
The County’s General Plan will be updated through a process called “Envision Contra Costa 2040”.
The updated General Plan will respond to current concerns about sustainability, environmental
justice, and affordable housing while carrying forward enduring County values like balancing growth
and conservation, as detailed on <https://envisioncontracosta2040.org/>.
Airport Master Plan
The Byron Airport opened in 1994 and is located south of the Byron community. The Airport currently
utilizes a septic system for wastewater disposal as it is located outside the BSD boundary. Contra
Costa County owns and operates the Byron Airport as a general aviation airport. The Airport Master
Plan guides the continued improvement of Byron Airport to the year 2023 and beyond. The Master
Plan describes estimates of facility requirements and a development plan for Byron to
accommodate the forecasted aviation demand (County Public Works, 2005). A concept potential for
cargo development at the Byron Airport (which could be related to trucking activity) is presented in
the Master Plan. The airport faces several constraints in regard to future development, including
external issues such as the concentration of cargo-generating businesses, population, and business
relevant to general aviation, as well as improvements to the regional road and highway network.
Other constraints include water supply and sewer discharge infrastructure capacity (County Public
Works, 2005). LAFCO approval would be required to define and/or confirm the boundary of any water
and sanitation district in relation to service to the Airport1. Since the aviation industry contributes
approximately 5% to the current anthropogenic climate change via carbon and ozone emissions,
LAFCO would be required to evaluate environmental justice and CEQA issues while considering any
proposal related to the Airport.
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta
Portions of the District boundary and SOI are located within the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta
Estuary watershed (Delta), specifically within the “Secondary Zone”. The Delta is a large inland river
delta geographically connected to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and home to several rare and
endangered fish species. The Delta is also designated a National Heritage Area. The Secondary Zone
is within the “Legal Delta” and is described by various state laws and planning documents (DPC,
2010 and DSC, 2013). For local government planners and administrators, there are three key Delta
planning documents listed below:
• The Delta Plan, by the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updated through 2024.
1
Byron Airport completed a study by Kimley-Horn (Feb 2021) summarizing potable water system, fire
protection system, and wastewater system analysis and evaluation considering buildout conditions. As a
result of this analysis, airport officials and consultants approached BSD regarding potential wastewater
connection to BSD collection system and treatment plant, as well as operating an onsite wastewater package
treatment plant and disposal system. BSD did not receive post-meeting feedback from airport officials and the
effort seems to have paused (personal communication, E Pattison, April 2024).
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 11-2: Byron Proposed Draft Land-Use Map Update as of December 2022 Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
• Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the Primary Zone of theC oDnetlrtaa Cboys tthae L ADFeCltOa
Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010.
• Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by Visser, M.A.;
Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. in 2018.
DPC’s Land Use and Resource Management Plan recognizes that urbanization and other
development projects within the secondary zone have the potential to impact the Primary Zone of
the Delta (DPC, 2010). BSD does not discharge directly to the Delta.
11.3: DISTRICT OPERATIONS
BSD’s wastewater service includes collection, conveyance to the WWTP, and disposal. The District
provides wastewater services to the community of Byron, located in Contra Costa County,
California. BSD serves approximately 278 sewer connections, as shown in Table 11-1 (CCSDA, n.d.).
One BSD connection may serve many individual non-residential customers. BSD operates a
wastewater collection system that includes 12,174 feet of sewer lines (1,700 feet privately owned,
10,474 feet owned by BSD).
BSD operates a WWTP permitted to treat 96,000 GPD and collects effluent through 12,174 linear feet
of sewer mains (LAFCO, 2014). Treated effluent is disposed of using four primary and two reserve
holding ponds (see photo below). Before 2014, BSD upgraded its WWTP (WWTP) in response to
treatment problems and direction from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SRWQCB) (LAFCO, 2014).
The District’s sewer system collects wastewater from approximately 378 equivalent dwelling units
(EDUs), including 224 residences, a 1,364-student elementary-middle-high school complex, School
District offices, and commercial and industrial facilities. The single largest commercial facility is
Marin Food Specialties, Inc., a small health food packaging plant with a bakery that discharges
process and wash water (BSD, 2011). The Camino Mobile Home Park has 66 spaces. The former
Orrin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility once constituted approximately nine percent of total
wastewater volume; however, it has since been closed.
BSD completed a $3.5 million rehabilitation of its wastewater treatment facility, including
improvements to the collection system, the headworks and pump station, sludge removal and
wastewater flow configurations, and the replacement of four monitoring wells prior to 2014 (LAFCO,
2014). Additionally, BSD installed upgrades to a clarifier, security fencing, and the controls building
(LAFCO, 2014).
In 2023, the District completed system-wide upgrades to improve system reliability. Utilizing work
crews from Byron Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) and paid for by BSD, sewer mains were hydro-
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
flushed (cleaned), and video logs were prepared for all sewer collection linCeosn. tWrao Croks wtaa LsA aFlCsOo
conducted to remove bio-solids (sludge) from Pond No. 1 and bring that pond back on line, along
with the installation of a new aerator in Pond No. 1 for mixing to improve primary treatment and
dissolved oxygen levels. This work was accomplished under a $300,000 Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) approved by the Board of Directors.
Figure 11-3: Aerial Photo
Figure 11-3 above is an aerial photo showing the treatment facility in the lower left, aeration ponds
in the center, sludge ponds at the top, and reserve ponds in the upper left. Camino Diablo Road is to
the left.
BSD has a Sewer Use Ordinance, “Ordinance Code No. 1”. Sewer Use Ordinance Code No. 1. was
originally adopted on November 18, 1986, and then updated on January 11, 2010, by the Board of
Directors (BSD, 2010). This Ordinance governs the following:
• Use of Public Sewers Required
• Sewer Installation and Connections
• Fees, Rates, and Charges (Other than Sewer Capacity Charges, Sewer Service Charges,
Trunk Line Fees, and Annexation Fees.)
• Enforcement/Inspection Measures
• Rebates
• Permits
• Provision of Service Outside District Boundaries by Contract
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Local Hazards Contra Costa LAFCO
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Volume 2, dated January 2018, maps critical
infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards (Contra Costa County,
2018). The District did not participate in the County-wide HMP. Therefore, it is recommended that
BSD either 1) contact Contra Costa County directly and request an invitation to participate in the
next update to the Local HMP, or 2) BSD may conduct and provide LAFCO its own detailed spatial
mapping of the District’s wastewater infrastructure in relation to hazards before the next update to
the Wastewater Services MSR/SOI.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted
systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California
Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General
Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. WQ
2022-0103-DWQ (SSS WDRs), on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate a
sanitary sewer system comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a
publicly owned treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A 4-
year term from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2023, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The
database query results showed that no (zero) SSOs were found for the BSD (CA SWRCB, 2023). This
indicates that the wastewater system is well-maintained and can avoid SSOs.
Table 11-2: Byron Sanitary District Contact Information
Location of office and mailing address 7995 Bruns Road, Byron, CA 94514
Telephone numbers 209-835-4850
Web page byronsan.org
E-mail address byronsanitarydistrict@bbid.org
Infrastructure Needs
Existing Infrastructure: BSD maintains various equipment, vehicles2, infrastructure, and associated
assets. BSD completed a Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) in 2011. The SSMP outlines the
BSD’s strategies and procedures to effectively manage its wastewater collection system. The
development of this SSMP was required by the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB)
adoption of the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirement and Monitoring and Reporting
Program in 2006. The Plan covers various aspects of wastewater collection system management,
2 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car sales in
California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric vehicle laws will
apply to the type of trucks utilized by the District, it is likely that sometime in the future, the District may be asked
to consider purchasing or retrofitting vehicles reliant upon an alternative energy source such as electricity, biogas,
hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore, alternative fuel/energy for vehicles
can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
including organization, legal authority, operation and maintenance, designC aonndtr ap Ceorfsotarm LaAnFcCeO,
overflow emergency response, fats-oils-grease (FOG) control, system evaluation and capacity
assurance, monitoring and measurement, program modifications, audits, and communication. The
District is updating its SSMP. A draft SSMP was considered at the regular Board meeting held on April
10, 2024.
BSD is currently identifying needed improvements, which can be implemented as funds become
available. Ideally, any aging sewer mains will be planned for replacement as trouble locations are
identified. BSD recently received an ‘un-used’, new aerator from the Town of Mountain House at no
cost, which was installed in Pond No. 1.
Cooperative Programs
Although BSD is not directly adjacent to other sanitary districts, it is within a 1- or 2-mile proximity of
the Discovery Bay Community Services District (DBCSD), which owns and operates a 6 MGD
wastewater treatment and disposal facility. BSD shares administrative operations with the nearby
BBID through a Joint Powers Agreement (Byron Bethany JPA), which includes administrative offices,
a General Manager, and operations and maintenance staff. Staff operations have been
consolidated, and efficiencies have been achieved over the past ten years. Continuing these efforts
should sustain these cost reductions. Grant funding for capital projects for the jointly managed
districts has also been successful.
After the formation of the Byron Bethany JPA, BSD entered into an agreement for services with the
BBID. BBID provides administrative, operations/maintenance support to BSD. The principal office of
BSD resides at BBID’s headquarters. BSD has no employees other than the five elected Directors,
who are considered employees for purposes of IRS reporting (LAFCO, 2014).
Future challenges
Like many wastewater service providers in California, BSD faces challenges. The most significant
issue is deferred capital replacement to address aging infrastructure. For example, existing vitreous
clay pipelines are over 50 years old, beyond their useful life, and need to be replaced. Replacement
costs could be mitigated somewhat through technology, sliplining, and improving trouble spots as a
short-term strategy to address needs.
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 has several recommended remedies for
California’s aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a WWTP is, what
kind of waste it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the sewer pipes. Continue
educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom to call if such an event
occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water re-use/recycling.
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(Source: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2019) Contra Costa LAFCO
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
BSD has achieved cost savings by participating in the Byron Bethany JPA with BBID and utilizing
contract services for management and operations. BSD plans to continue these efforts and look for
additional cost savings opportunities. BSD’s General Manager also serves as the General Manager
for BBID. The General Manager is a position appointed by the Board of Directors responsible for
implementing policy and for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling the activities and
operations of BSD; developing policy recommendations for Board of Directors action; providing
highly responsible and complex administrative support to the Board of Directors (BSD, 2011).
BSD has contained or reduced operating costs through the WWTP and collection system upgrades
(LAFCo, 2014). Installation of the replacement aerator in Pond No. 1 has resulted in increased
dissolved oxygen levels and allowed the District to install a timer on the aerator to reduce the run
hours, conserve electrical energy, and reduce costs. The next priority for the District will be a new
generator with an automatic transfer switch, perhaps funded by a grant (Ed Pattison, General
Manager; personal communication).
11.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
The District’s Annual Budget and Certified Annual Financial Reports are typically the primary
information source for data related to the financing. These reports are available to the public upon
request. The Board of Directors adopted the current FY 2023-2024 Budget on June 13, 2023. The FY
2022-2023 Independent Auditor’s Report was approved by the Board of Directors on February 8,
2024. However, these financial documents are not on the District Website and should be added.
BSD operates as an enterprise-type activity, with its primary revenue source being service charges
and fees. BSD’s financial status is stable as operations and maintenance expenditures are fully met
by revenues received (LAFCO, 2014). BSD maintains a substantial reserve fund balance, providing
good capability to absorb short-term impacts. However, BSD has a significantly high debt service to
annual expenditure ratio due to the bond funding for the recent rehabilitation of the wastewater
treatment facility, collection system, and associated infrastructure (LAFCO, 2014). Any negative
impact on revenues must be carefully monitored and addressed to meet operational and debt
service requirements. Because BSD is a very small operation, the long-term viability of the District is
questionable. Unless new customers (and revenue) are added to the District, there might come a
time when reserve funds are depleted due to past significant deferred capital improvements associated
with the replacement of aging infrastructure beyond its planned life cycle (Ed Pattison, General
Manager; personal communication).
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Five primary areas of criteria have been utilized to assess the present and futureC ofinntarnac Ciaols ctao nLdAiFtiCoOn
of BSD’s wastewater service operations, as discussed below:
2 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
The wastewater fund overall experienced surplus and deficit spending before 2014. However, this
was attributed primarily to planned capital expenditures. Each fund generally experienced surpluses
in the operating portions of the funds. Rate increases were implemented prior to 2014 to
accommodate the expenditures. BSD overall experienced balanced budgets with annual surpluses
until the current Fiscal Year (FY). Notably, a significant portion of BSD’s annual expenditures were
for debt service activities (LAFCO, 2014). Any negative impact on revenues must be carefully
monitored and addressed to ensure operational, and debt service requirements are met.
For FY 2022-2023, budgeted Revenues exceeded Expenditures by $144,305; with $482,220 in
Revenues and $337,915 in Expenditures. For FY 2023-2024, anticipated Expenditures will exceed
anticipated Revenues by $241,129; with $526,000 in Revenues and $767,139 in Expenditures.
Primary revenue sources are: sewer charges ($420,000;79.8%); property taxes ($49,000;9.3%, and
interest income ($47,000;8.9%). Primary expenditures are: operations and maintenance
($569,700;74.3%); general and administration ($66,650;8.7%); and capital repayment (debt
payment and interest) ($130,789;17.0%). A large portion of the operations and maintenance
expenditures was due to significant capital improvements to ensure BSD is in compliance with its
WDR permit with the regional board. It is recognized that BSD has capital improvement cost as part
of its CIP implementation. This may necessitate the utilization of Reserve Funds to balance this
year’s budget.
Ratios of Revenue Sources
BSD received approximately 79.8 percent of its revenues from charges and fees for services, 9.3
percent of revenue from property taxes, and 10.9 percent from miscellaneous other sources (BSD,
2024a). This ratio reflects an appropriate balance for a typical enterprise-type service and minimizes
negative economic factors’ impact on more elastic revenues such as property tax. As BSD received
a small portion of its revenue from property tax, any impact on this revenue due to any future
economic downturn would have an insignificant impact on the district (LAFCO, 2014).
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited
by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to
the annual fund expenditures. As of June 30, 2023, BSD had unrestricted reserves of $2,052,846.
(BSD, 2024b). This means that the District will need to utilize approximately 11.7 percent of its
unrestricted reserves to balance its budget. Should this trend continue going forward, the long-term
viability of the District will come into question.
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. The ratio of annual debt service to total fund
annual expenditures is an indicator of BSD’s ability to meet debt obligations in relation to service
provision expenditures. Ideally, a ratio of 10 percent or less would reflect a very stable ratio. BSD’s
annual debt service ratio to total expenditures was approximately 17 percent, a fairly high ratio (BSD,
2024b).
BSD, together with BBID, formed the Byron Bethany JPA. The Byron Bethany JPA was formed under
both the JPA law and the Bond Polling Act to facilitate project funding for both agencies. In 2007, the
Byron Bethany JPA issued $2,750,000 in Series 2007A Revenue Bonds for improvements to the
system referenced above. In 2012, the Byron Bethany JPA authorized the issuance of Series 2012
Wastewater Refunding Revenue Bonds for the refunding and defeasance of the Series 2007A
Revenue Bonds. The 2012 Series runs through 2039 with a current liability of $1,746,100 in principal
and $394,529 in interest (BSD, 2024b).
Capital Improvement Program
BSD developed a CIP to make improvements to the collection system in the future.
Before 2014, BSD established a Capital Improvement Reserve (currently
$500,000), and an Operations and Maintenance Reserve (currently $195,000). The
District has also established reserve funds for: Revenue Bonds reserve ($246,000), and Insurance
reserve ($50,000) (BSD, 2024b). BSD also participates with BBID in the Byron Bethany JPA as a
financing mechanism for each district’s capital and infrastructure projects.
Rate Structure
BSD’s service rate structure reflects consumption-based and fixed charges for its customers,
although the last rate adjustment was adopted on July 1, 2009. The District currently charges $87.32
per month for an Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). Non-residential uses are charged equivalent EDUs
based on a fee calculation methodology developed by Nolte Vertical Five (NV5), consulting
engineers. For example, restaurants are charged one EDU per 10 seats, plus one EDU for the
connection. It would be appropriate for the District to update its rate structure, perhaps on an annual
basis, to reflect inflationary costs, especially for materials and replacement equipment.
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
11.5: POPULATION Contra Costa LAFCO
There are approximately 676 residents within the BSD boundaries as of 2022, utilizing the ‘Medium’
estimates as shown in Table 11-3. This table provides additional ‘High’ and ‘Low’ population
scenarios. The “Medium” estimate is based on the County of Contra Costa GIS data showing that
approximately 249 parcels (APNs) are within BSD’s boundaries. Of these 249 parcels, approximately
224 are residential, and 25 are public, commercial, and/or industrial. All of the residential parcels
within the BSD boundaries receive wastewater services. Detailed information regarding population
demographics in Contra Costa County is provided in Appendix A.
Table 11-3: Existing Permanent Population, Byron Sanitary District, 2020 to 2022
Byron Sanitary District Population in Number of Population in
Boundary (1) Registered Voters SOI only (3)
in Boundary (2)
High Population Estimate
(CA DWR estimation)
739 346 0
3.3 residents @ 224 residential sewer
connections
Medium Population Estimate
(Contra Costa County Byron CDP)
676 346 0
3.02 people per household @ 224
dwelling units
Low Population Estimate
(Contra Costa County County-wide)
640 346 0
2.86 people per household @224
dwelling units
Sources:
(1) Assessor Parcel data provided by Contra County GIS.
(2) Household data provided by California Department of Finance
(3) Registered Voter data provided by LAFCO as of January 2023
(4) The Sphere of Influence and Boundary are co-terminus.
Other Recommended Data Sources:
• Contra Costa Special District Association. (n.d.). Byron Sanitary District. Retrieved on
December 27, 2022, from <https://contracostasda.specialdistrict.org/byron-sanitary-
district>.
U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts – Contra Costa County, California. Retrieved on December 27, 2022,
from
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/contracostacountycalifornia/HSD310221#HSD310221>.
Projected Future Population: Projecting a District’s future population is complicated due to varying
annexation rates and census tracts that do not match District boundaries. Data from the California
Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth for Contra Costa County, as
shown in Table 11-4 below.
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 11-4: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2022 – 2045)
2022 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2020 to
2020 to 2045 2020 to 2045 2045
County of Contra
Costa1 1,156,555 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.1% 174,876 0.61%
Byron Sanitary District 2 676 685 694 700 706 712 5.3% 36 n/a
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060
(Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State: January 1, 2021, and 2022. Sacramento,
o
California. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/.
U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts – Contra Costa County, California. Retrieved on December 27, 2022, from
o
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/contracostacountycalifornia/HSD310221#HSD310221>.
2: Population projection for BSD is based on data from the District.
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
The District is located within the Legal Delta Secondary Zone, and a detailed poCpounlatrtaio Cno asntaa lLyAsiFsC oOf
the Delta area has been prepared by state agencies (Visser et al., 2018). Readers are encouraged to
review this information directly on the state website (as updates are expected soon) as follows:
• Visser, M.A.; Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. (2018) Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Sacramento, CA: The Delta Protection Commission. 46-
pages. Available online at: <https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Delta-Socio-
Economic-Indicators-Report-508.pdf>.
11.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address
municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in some disadvantaged
communities. Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part of this MSR Update process. Data
query results showed there are no disadvantaged census tracts within the District’s boundary or its
SOI. The local community of Byron is unincorporated and has a low population density. As a result,
the census tract has a large geographic extent3. The nearest DAC is within the City of Brentwood, as
shown in red in Figure 11-4 below.
Figure 11-4: Disadvantage
Communities Near Byron per CKH
Act Definition
3
BSD staff indicates that significant portions of Byron likely meet the median income thresholds to be classified
as disadvantaged. However, this data gets diluted in the large census tract size. More specific surveys (such as
use of free lunch data at the local elementary school) might be able to identify specific areas of the community
that qualify as DAC/DUC.
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Although the Byron community does not contain DUCs under the CKH Act definiCtioonnt,r ba oCtohs stata LtAe FaCnOd
federal agencies have other definitions of disadvantaged communities. For example, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) manages a database of socioeconomic and health
indicators in disadvantaged communities called the Environmental Justice Explorer Database
(https://onemap.cdc.gov/portal/apps/sites/#/eji-explorer). This database was queried for the Byron
area. Query results indicate that disadvantaged communities within the Byron community may
experience hardships including geographic proximity to several hazards including:
• Ozone air pollution
• Noisy airport
The Byron community also experiences a built environment that lacks community features,
including:
• Lack of Recreational Parks
• Lack of Walkability
• Housing - Group Quarters
• Housing - Mobile Homes
The Byron community also experiences socio-economic conditions, including:
• Unemployment
• Lack of Health Insurance
• High percentage of population Age 65 and Older
• Percentage of population Age 17 and Younger
• Speaks English "Less than Well"
Figure 11-5 : U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Environmental Justice Explorer
Figure 11-5 provided courtesy of US HHS at: https://onemap.cdc.gov/portal/apps/sites/#/eji-
explorer
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
11.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNCAontTraI CVostEa LSA FCO
Based on the information presented in this MSR, several options for BSD’s governance structure
were considered. Over the next year, maintaining the status quo may be the best option as follows:
Maintain the Status Quo:
BSD is currently providing adequate wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services within
its service area. Historically, BSD has been able to utilize its reserve funds to finance needed
maintenance projects and infrastructure improvements. However, BSD is facing financial
challenges associated with deferred capital replacement to address aging infrastructure. As capital
improvement/replacement costs continue to rise, there is no guarantee that adequate funds will be
available in the long term (Ed Pattison, General Manager; personal communication).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
LAFCO anticipates the preparation of a new MSR for the BSD in approximately five to ten years (2028
to 2033). In lieu of a new MSR, it is recommended that LAFCO consider the preparation of a “special
study” for the Byron community. BSD is a very small-sized district. It is possible that longer-term
viability could be achieved by merging or consolidating with a nearby district to achieve economies
of scale. Three options for future study are outlined below.
• Option No.1: Potential merger/consolidation with the BBID for wastewater service deserves
further consideration. BBID currently provides administrative, operations, and maintenance
support to BSD. Currently, BSD has no employees other than the five elected Directors. In
addition, the principal office of BSD resides at BBID’s headquarters. Consolidation of the two
districts may provide additional opportunities for operational efficiency. Because BBID is a
multi-county district (serving Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin counties), San
Joaquin LAFCO (BBID’s principal LAFCO) would be involved in any consolidation effort. In
addition, latent powers would need to be activated to enable BBID to provide sewer service.
An additional complication to this concept is the provision of water service. Currently, BBID
does not provide potable water service to the Byron community. A merger or consolidation
with BBID would not necessarily include water service and could be limited to wastewater
service. These issues would need to be precisely defined and studied as tradeoffs are
associated with this option. Further study is required to ascertain the fiscal/operational
impacts of a consolidation (LAFCO, 2014).
• Option No. 2: The next MSR or special study could analyze the potential for
merger/consolidation with the DBCSD to achieve a regional approach to East Contra Costa
County wastewater services. This feasibility study would consider two government
restructuring options: (1) a service agreement between BSD and DBCSD to treat and dispose
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
of BSD sewage and (2) the dissolution of BSD and concurrent annexatioCno onft ritas Csoesrtvaic LeA aFrCeOa
to DBCSD. However, at this time there is no guarantee that DBCSD has the capability or
capacity to take on additional wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal operations
outside its current boundary (Refer to Chapter 21 – DBCSD).
• Option No.3: In the future, LAFCo and Contra Costa County, together with the Byron
community, could study the feasibility of establishing a community services district (CSD) to
provide basic services to Byron. This community services district could be enlarged to
provide additional services and additional territory, although the County ULL may preclude
this approach. One public issue noted is that the Contra Costa County Fire Protection
District has a fire station that is not actively utilized in the community. Re-use of this fire
station site could be studied concurrently with this idea for a community services district.
Development of a community water system would be desirable for a CSD; however,
groundwater quality in the area is poo4r. Currently, all parcels within the District are served
by individual wells. Trail maintenance is another issue that could be studied with a CSD
proposal.
BSD currently provides out-of-boundary wastewater service to the former Orrin Allen Youth
Rehabilitation Facility site through a contract between BSD and Contra Costa County. County GIS
notes that part of the former Orrin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility is in the District’s SOI. In the
future, LAFCO may wish to consider including the site in the District’s SOI. The 2014 MSR reported
that BSD had no plans to initiate annexation of this facility into BSD’s boundary. However, BSD will
consider service area/SOI expansions as conditions warrant (LAFCO, 2014). It is recommended that
the next MSR/SOI Update include a special study of the financial feasibility of annexing this facility
into BSD’s boundaries and expanding the area between this facility and the current District (south of
Bixler Road).
11.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
4
Groundwater quality and the permeability of deposits are both poor quality in the Byron area. BBID has raw
surface water available of good quality available, but it would require treatment. BBID has been approached by
the City of Brentwood and Discovery Bay with a preliminary concept such that BBID could consider wholesale
raw water deliveries to a new JPA. In theory, a new JPA could have a new water treatment plant located on the
s outh side of the City of Brentwood near Discovery Bay and this concept could possibly include the Community
of Byron, if the state and federal grant funding were available.
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 11-5: MSR Determinations Contra Costa LAFCO
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected area. BSD serves a population of approximately 676.
• What is the existing population Growth within BSD is expected to reach a
(estimated)? population of 712 by 2045.
• What is the projected future growth
(estimated)?
Location and characteristics of any Data query results indicate there are currently
disadvantaged unincorporated communities no disadvantaged communities within or
within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. contiguous to the BSD SOI under the CKH Act
• Based on available data, does the definition. However, BSD staff feels that a more
boundary or SOI contain any detailed socio-economic study could show
disadvantaged communities? nuances in local median income.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities, BSD completed the SSMP in 2011, and is nearing
adequacy of public services, and infrastructure completion of the revised plan. The SSMP
needs or deficiencies, including needs or identifies needed improvements, and these
deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and projects are being implemented as funds
industrial water, and structural fire protection in become available. Aging sewer mains are
any disadvantaged, unincorporated continuing to be replaced as trouble locations
communities within or contiguous to the sphere are identified.
of influence.
• Does the agency have a CIP? The CIWQS-SSO database was queried, and no
• Are SSOs identified? SSOs were identified for BSD.
• Are Local Hazards identified?
BSD did not participate in the county-wide Local
HMP. It is recommended that BSD either 1)
participate in the next County update of the
HMP, or 2) conduct its own detailed spatial
mapping of the District’s wastewater
infrastructure in relation to hazards identified
prior to LAFCO’s next update of the Wastewater
Services MSR/SOI.
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Financial ability of agencies to provide services. BSD operates as an enterpCroisnet-rtay pCeo satcat iLvAitFy,C wOi th
• Has the agency prepared a rate study? its primary revenue source being service charges
• Do revenues exceed expenditures? and fees.
• Is the ratio of annual debt service to total BSD’s current financial status has been
fund annual expenditures 10% or less? historically stable, as operations expenditures
were fully met by revenues received through FY
2022-2023. In FY 2023-2024, expenditures are
expected to exceed revenues primarily due to
capital improvement/replacement expenditures
associated with aging infrastructure.
BSD maintains a substantial reserve fund
balance, providing good capability to absorb
short-term impacts. However, any negative
impact on revenues must be carefully monitored
and addressed to ensure operational and debt
service requirements are met. It is
recommended that the District undertake a rate
study to evaluate anticipated future costs.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared BSD is not directly adjacent to other sanitary
facilities. districts. However, it does share administrative
operations with BBID through the Byron Bethany
• Are cooperative programs and shared JPA, which includes administrative offices, a
facilities utilized as cost savings general manager, and field personnel. Staff
measures? operations were consolidated, and efficiencies
were achieved over the past 10 years.
Continuing these efforts should sustain cost
reductions. Grant funding for capital projects
will also be necessary in order to conserve
reserve funds.
Accountability for community service needs, The District has initiated a website and has begun
including government structure and operational populating its pages with important information
facilities. about BSD and its operations. Board agendas,
meeting minutes, and agenda packets are now
• Does the Agency have a website? part of the website. Additional archived agenda
• Does the Agency post a public outreach packets should be added, as well as financial
tool (such as a calendar or newsletter) on documents.
its website?
• Recommendation for mergers, This MSR lists three potential options for
consolidations, or other changes to improving the governance structure of BSD in the
governance structure. future. It is recommended that LAFCO prepare a
“special study” along with its partners to evaluate
the feasibility of these three options.
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have bCeoenntr iad eCnotsiftiae LdA. FCO
service delivery, as required by commission
policy.
11.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI
determinations, pursuant to Section 56425, are presented below for Commission consideration:
Table 11-6: SOI Determinations
SOI Metric Determination
Present and planned land uses in the area, The Byron community is guided by two inconsistent
including agricultural and open-space planning documents: the “Byron Township General
lands. Plan, 1999-2020” and the County’s General Plan, the
official land use plan for Byron. The County’s ULL
includes only the developed township of Byron (which
is largely built-out) and excludes the surrounding open
space. The township of Byron includes residential,
commercial, and educational facility uses. The former
Orrin Allen Youth Rehabilitation, which is served by the
District, is located outside the District’s boundaries
and the ULL.
Present and probable need for public Growth within BSD is expected to be limited over the
facilities and services in the area. next 10 to 20 years. It is possible that some limited
residential development will occur.
Present capacity of public facilities and BSD completed a SSMP in 2011 and nearing
adequacy of public services that the agency completion of its revised SSMP (2024). BSD is
provides or is authorized to provide. proceeding with needed improvements as funds
become available. Aging sewer mains are also planned
for replacement as trouble locations are identified.
BSD has been able to contain operating costs.
Existence of any social or economic None have been identified.
communities of interest in the area if the
commission determines that they are
relevant to the agency.
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Present and probable need for those public Data query results indicate there aCroen ctruar rCeonsttlay nLoA FCO
facilities and services of any disadvantaged disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the
unincorporated communities with the BSD SOI under the CKH Act definition. However, BSD
existing sphere of influence. staff feels that a more detailed socio-economic study
could show nuances in local median income.
Recommended Sphere of Influence: In the near-term, it is recommended that LAFCO maintain the
existing SOI. BSD is currently providing adequate wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal
services within its service area. Historically, BSD has been able to utilize its reserve funds to finance
needed maintenance projects and infrastructure improvements. Therefore, LAFCO could re-affirm
the existing SOI utilizing the determinations presented in the above table.
In the long-term, LAFCO may wish to adjust the SOI. For example, as costs for operation and
maintenance continue to rise, there is no guarantee that adequate funds will be available long-term,
and changes may become necessary. LAFCO should consider several options:
• Amend the BSD SOI to include the Orrin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility property, which is
currently located outside the BSD service boundary. County GIS notes that part of the former
Orrin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility is in the District’s SOI. In the future, LAFCO may wish
to consider including the entire youth camp area in the District’s SOI.
• Conduct further studies as listed in Option #1, #2, and #3 on pages 11-18 to 11-19.
11.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California’s Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
Byron Sanitary District. (2024a) Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget, Approved by the Board of Directors
on June 13, 2023.
Byron Sanitary District. (2024b) Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Audited Financial Report prepared by
Richardson & Company. Approved by the Board of Directors on February 28, 2024.
Byron Sanitary District. January 19, 2010. Sewer Use Ordinance - Ordinance Code No. 1. 11-pages.
Retrieved from byronsan.org.
Byron Sanitary District. December 2011. Sanitary Sewer Management Plan for the Byron Sanitary
District and the Byron Wastewater Treatment Facility. Contributions from Nolte Vertical Five
(NV5). 137-pages. Retrieved from <byronsan.org>.
California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, August 2021. 2020 Census
Redistricting Data Profile, Byron CDP. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/
California State Water Resources Control Board. March 14, 2023. Query Results from the California
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS) Database. Query Cruonn tbray CSoWstAa LLEA FInCcO.
Retrieved on March 14, 2023 from:
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ciwqs/publicreports.html#sso>.
Contra Costa County Public Works Department. June 2005. Byron Airport Master Plan Final Report.
Prepared in association with Leigh Fisher Associates, The Hoyt Company, T.Y. Lin
International/CCS. Retrieved April 22, 2024 from:
<https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/3958/Byron-Airport-Master-Plan>.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa Special District Association. (n.d.). Byron Sanitary District. Retrieved on December 27,
2022, from <https://contracostasda.specialdistrict.org/byron-sanitary-district>.
U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts – Contra Costa County, California. Retrieved on December 27,
2022, from
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/contracostacountycalifornia/HSD310221#
HSD310221>.
Chapter 11: BSD Page 11-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
CHAPTER 12: CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA
SANITARY DISTRICT – WASTEWATER
SERVICE
Table of Contents
12.1: OVERVIEW/BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 12-1
12.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND SOI ....................................................................................................... 12-4
12.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................... 12-6
12.4: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 12-17
12.5: POPULATION ................................................................................................................................. 12-22
12.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ................................................................................................. 12-28
12.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................. 12-31
12.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ............................................ 12-34
12.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: .................................................................................... 12-38
12.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 12-39
12.1: OVERVIEW/BACKGROUND
In June 1946, local voters approved a sanitary district for areas of the central portion of Contra Costa
County to address a sanitation crisis created by septic system utilization. On July 15, 1946, the
County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution officially creating the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District (Central San) consistent with the Sanitary District Act of 1923.
For the past 75 years, Central San has been responsible for collecting and treating wastewater in the
central area of Contra Costa County. A five-member Board of Directors governs Central San, each
elected to a four-year term. The Board employs a General Manager, the organization’s CEO, who
leads its 293 budgeted full-time employees (Central San, RFI, 2022b). Central San is a special district
with fiscal and administrative autonomy. A profile of Central San is presented in Table 12-1, and a
map of Central San’s boundary and SOI is presented in Figure 12-1.
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 12-1: Agency Profile –Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Contra Costa LAFCO
General Information
Agency Type Independent Special District
Principal Act Sanitary District Act of 1923, Health and Safety Code Section 6400 et
Date Formed 1946
Services Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal. Additionally, recycled
water for landscape use, pollution prevention, permanent household
hazardous waste collection facility
Service Area
Location Cities of Concord, Clayton, Danville, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda,
Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, portions of the cities of Martinez and San
Ramon, and other unincorporated areas within central Contra Costa
County
Sq. Miles/Acres Approx. 145 square miles (Central San, 2022)/ Approx. 92,800 acres
Land Uses Residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional
Population Served 487,329 (Central San, 2022a)
Last SOI May 14, 2014
Update/Amendment
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities Wastewater treatment plant, 1,535 miles of pipelines, 18 pump
stations (Central San, 2022a)
Treatment Plant Capacity • 35 MGD average dry weather flow
(MGD) • 34 MGD average daily flow;
• 13 billion gallons of wastewater treated and cleaned annually.
• 54 MGD is the design capacity of the Treatment Plant.
• The Plant can accommodate 250 MGD of wet weather flow.
• Recycled water: approximately 600 million gallons per year
(MGY) used for irrigation, industrial processes, and plant
operations
Primary Disposal Method Secondary treatment effluent discharged to Suisun Bay; tertiary
treatment effluent recycled for irrigation use
Budget Information- FY 2023-24
Projected Revenues Projected Expenditures Net Surplus/(Deficit)
Operating/General Fund $ $90,946,671 $ $90,946,671 0
Combined Other Funds $ 82,522,142 $ 82,522,142 0
All Funds $ 173,468,813 $ 173,468,813 0
Long-Term Planned Expenditures
Capital Expenditures $ 71.2 million 10 Year Projection $980.21 million (as of 2023)
Net Assets (Reserves) $20,557,487 Each fund type has an associated reserve
contribution to reserves fund. Projected Reserve Fund Total in June
FY 2023-24 2023 was $171,798,899.
Governance
Governing Body Board of Directors (5 members)
Agency Contact (925) 228-9500
Notes: Net Assets do not include Capital Assets
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 12-1: Boundary/SOI Map – Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
12.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND SOI
In the 1940s, Central Contra Costa County was a rural area of farms, orchards, and a few small
towns. With the end of World War II, a building boom began. As the nearby cities of San Francisco,
Oakland, and Berkeley grew, so did the population of the County. A map of Central San’s current
boundary and sphere of influence (SOI) is shown in Figure 12-1. Central San’s Agency Profile is
included in Table 12-1. Today, Central San serves approximately 487,329 residents and 3,000
businesses, covering a 145-square-mile area. Cities and communities served by Central San include
Danville, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek, portions of Martinez and San
Ramon, and other unincorporated areas within the central portion of the County as listed in Table
12-2 below. Central San also receives and treats wastewater from the collection systems of the City
of Concord and the City of Clayton.
Table 12-2: List of Cities and Communities Served Directly by Central San
Alamo Martinez Pleasant Hill
Clyde Moraga San Ramon
Danville Orinda Walnut Creek
Lafayette Pacheco
Data Source: Central San, SSMP, 2020
In 2020, Central San’s Board of Directors transitioned from an “at-large” to an area-based “by-
division” election system under the
California Voting Rights Act. The five-
division boundaries were updated based
on data from the 2020 Census to reflect
how local populations have changed over
the past 10 years. Redistricting
determines which neighborhoods or
communities are grouped into a division
to elect a Board member and ensures that
each Board member represents about the
same number of constituents at roughly
70,000 each. These changes became
effective during the November 2022
election cycle (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
Figure 12-2 shows the election districts
for the Central San.
Figure 12-2: Election Districts for the
Central San.
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Please note that there is a geographic overlap between the boundaries for CentraCl Sonatnr aa Cnods ttha eL ACFitCyO
of Concord. There is no overlap in facilities, just boundary line.
Sphere of Influence
The District’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) was expanded as part of LAFCO’s 2014 MSR/SOI Update for
Wastewater Services.
Service Agreements
Central San does not provide service to any parcels outside its boundaries, except for sewage
treatment services to parcels located in the cities of Concord and Clayton (Central San, RFI, 2022c).
These cities operate and maintain their own collection systems, delivering their sewage to the
Central San Martinez wastewater treatment facility. The interagency service agreement with
Concord stipulates that the City will operate its collection systems in accordance with Central San’s
codes and policies. Wastewater flows from Clayton are treated as a portion of Concord’s flow since
Concord performs the maintenance on Clayton’s collection system. The memorandum of
understanding between Central San and the City of Clayton requires the City to follow the practices
of Central San within the service territory. In accordance with the service agreement and
memorandum of understanding, the City of Concord receives bills from Central San that are based
on the volume received. The City of Concord then shares these costs with the City of Clayton (Central
San, SSMP, 2020).
The Service Agreement with Concord was originally adopted on September 10, 1974, and amended
five times (1976, 1985, 1987, and 2002). The contract renews itself automatically every 25 years on
the same terms unless one party of the contract gives a 5-year notice to the other party, prior to the
expiration of any 25-year term, of its intention to terminate. Concord/Clayton’s sewer system is
connected to the Central San interceptor sewers at three locations. Wastewater flow meters record
the volume discharged at each location. Concord pays the Central San for its share of operation and
maintenance costs and its share of capital costs for commonly used facilities based on the total
volumes and strengths of sewage generated within the service area. The flow proportion for the FY
2017-18 from Concord/Claton was approximately 34% (Jones Hall, et al., 2018)
A 28.7-acre area of Walnut Creek is the topic of a service agreement dated July 22, 1968. This Service
Agreement is between the City of Concord and the Central San, such that Concord provides disposal
and treatment of the sewage from this area. However, Central San is responsible for maintaining and
repairing the sewer pipe (Jones Hall, et. al., 2018).
Annexations
In the past, Central San established a program to clean up its service boundary and address a
backlog of annexation requests. This program was very successful from 2000 to 2014, and Central
San annexed several islands in large groups. As a result of this effort, Central San was awarded the
2011 CALAFCO’s Government Leadership Award (LAFCO, 2014). Since 2014, LAFCO has processed
several annexations related to Central San, as described in Table 12-3.
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 12-3: List of Annexations Since 2014
File Name Description Date
LAFCO 13-07 - Annexation 184 to Central Contra Costa Sanitary January 28, 2014
District
LAFCO 14-04 Reorganization 185: Annexations to Central San March 11, 2015
and EBMUD
LAFCO 14-05 Reorganization 186: Annexations to Central San November 16, 2020
and EBMUD
LAFCO 14-05 Reorganization 187 (Podva): Annexations to January 12, 2015
Central San and EBMUD
LAFCO 18-06 Chang Property Reorganization 190: Annexations (pending)
to Central San and EBMUD
LAFCO 16-11 Reorganization 191 (Faria Preserve West): April 19, 2017
Annexations to Central San and EBMUD
Data Source: Central San, RFI, 2022
SF Bay Land Use
The Bay Area Regional Collaborative includes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. This collaborative multi-agency
regional committee allows for cross-jurisdictional work on projects such as Resilient Bay Area and
Carbon Free Future.
Central San’s boundary/SOI is adjacent to or encompasses a portion of the San Francisco Bay which
is a sensitive environmental resource. The California state planning and regulatory agency with
regional authority over the San Francisco Bay, the Bay’s shoreline band, and the Suisun Marsh is
called the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Its mission is to
protect and enhance San Francisco Bay and to encourage the Bay’s responsible and productive use
for this and future generations. BCDC works to ensure projects are compatible with the conservation
of Bay resources as described on its website at: <https://bcdc.ca.gov/ >.
12.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
The District provides direct retail wastewater collection services to approximately 171,340
residential and business sewer connections (Central San, ACFR, 2021). Please note that one Central
San connection may serve many individual customers. Additionally, Central San provides
conveyance, treatment, and disposal services to several cities, including the cities of Concord,
Clayton, Danville, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, and portions of the cities
of Martinez and San Ramon. Central San directly collects and treats wastewater from about 3,000
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
non-residential businesses and institutions. Their flow is estimated to be less thCaonn tfrivae C opsetrac LeAnFt CoOf
the total flow processed by Central San (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
Existing Infrastructure
Central San’s wastewater service includes collection, conveyance to its Treatment Plant, and
disposal. Central San directly collects and treats wastewater from approximately 135,000
households and about 3,000 non-residential businesses and institutions. Central San also treats
wastewater from about 50,000 households by contract from Clayton and Concord (Central San, RFI,
2022b). Central San’s collection system includes 1,500 miles of sewer lines and 18 pumping
stations, as listed in Table 12-4 (next page). An average of 35.6 million gallons of wastewater per day
flows through the collection system to the treatment plant in Martinez. (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
Table 12-4: Service Account Types
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 12-5: Central San Existing Infrastructure and Assets
Asset Value
Property
420 acres of land $17,320,568
Critical Infrastructure and Equipment
43 process structures $133,730,462
Piping throughout plant $30,345,675
1500 miles of pipe throughout the District $800,240,720
18 pump stations $32,367,643
25 tanks $66,393,796
105 vehicles $7,287,526
Total: $960,366,022
Critical Facilities
16 Process Buildings $215,973,025
12 Power Buildings $33,555,709
9 Other Buildings $41,881,664
Total: $291,410,398
Data Source: Contra Costa County LHMP, 2018.
Central San collects sewage and conveys it through approximately 1,535 miles of pipelines and 16
pump stations for treatment at its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (CCSD, 2022a). The
treatment plant is located in Martinez and has a treatment capacity of 54 million gallons per day
(MGD), and cleans an average of 34 MGD (Central San, n.d.b). Central San has implemented an
aggressive sewer main maintenance and replacement program since 2007 and replaced many of its
problem sewer main pipelines. Central San disposes of its secondary treated effluent into Suisun
Bay.
Gravity Mains: Wastewater is collected and conveyed along pipes and mains to the wastewater
treatment plant by gravity (most commonly). Utilizing gravity, the sewer pipes are sloped towards the
direction of the treatment plant. There are about 1,540 linear miles of gravity sewer mains.
Force Mains: Force mains are pressurized sewer pipes, and Central San maintains 25 linear miles
of force mains. Force mains are scoured daily with high-velocity flow, and occasionally the slime
layer (a precursor to hydrogen sulfide corrosion) is removed with a shock treatment of sodium
hydroxide or other chemical (Central San, SSMP, 2020).
Pumping Stations: Central San owns and operates 16 pumping stations that move wastewater up in
elevation in areas of hilly terrain or low-lying areas. Central San also maintains three additional
privately owned pumping stations, as listed in Table 12-6 below. The pumping stations need
monitoring 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They include a connection to the SCADA system, station
valves, and a power connection (which may allow a generator connection) (Central San, SSMP,
2020).
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 12-6: List of Pumping Stations Contra Costa LAFCO
Wastewater Treatment Plant
The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez, CA. The
treatment plant processes an average daily flow of approximately 35 million gallons per day (MGD)
of ADWF. This totals to more than 13 billion gallons of wastewater treated and cleaned annually. The
design capacity of the Treatment Plant is 54 MGD. The Plant can accommodate 250 MGD of wet
weather flow. In 2017, a peak hourly flow of 181 MGD was reached (Jones Hall, et. al., 2018).
The WWTP operations building contains a control center and a state-of-the-art computerized system
that monitors and controls every phase of the treatment process. The WWTP is staffed 24 hours per
day, every day of the year (Jones Hall, et. al., 2018). Central San operates a water quality laboratory
located at the wastewater treatment plant in Martinez, California. Field staff collect water samples
at various points. The laboratory can analyze the samples for ammonia, total coliform, fecal
coliform, enterococcus, and e-coli. Central San’s laboratory is certified by the California State
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (Central San, SSMP, 2020). By the year 2035, an
expansion of the wastewater treatment plant is expected to allow treatment of up to 41 MGD ADWF.
Disposal: Most of the wastewater is treated to a secondary level, then disinfected by ultraviolet light,
and then discharged into the Suisun Bay (Jones Hall, et. al., 2018). Approximately 200 wet tons of
sludge are incinerated each day. This incineration process reduces the sludge to approximately 10-
14 tons of sterile ash, which is beneficially reused as a fertilizer amendment by a third party. The on-
site incineration process utilizes Multiple Hearth Furnaces (MHFs) where solids are incinerated and
transformed into energy, which is then used by the wastewater treatment plant (Central San, RFI,
2022c).
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 12-7: Wastewater Treatment Plant Summary Data Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 12-3: Google Maps Street View of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Office
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 12-4: Service Area Map
Figure 12-4 provided courtesy of Central San from <https://www.centralsan.org/sewer-system>.
Central San’s sewage sludge incineration is required to comply with the Federal Clean Air Act
Section 129, which went into effect in March 2016. This regulation limits pollutant emissions in order
to protect public health and safety. Central San cooperates with the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) to resolve reportable compliance activity reports. BAAQMD has
issued six notices of violation to Central San. As a result, the District constructed new wet scrubbers
to resolve the issue (Jones Hall, et. al., 2018).
The District operates a cogeneration facility that uses a combination of methane from a landfill and
natural gas to produce electricity and steam for the Plant. On average, approximately 3,200 kilowatts
of power are produced. This provides more than 90% of the Plant’s daily power needs (Jones Hall,
et. al., 2018).
Recycled Water
The wastewater treatment plant generates nearly 600 million gallons of recycled water each year,
which is recycled for plant operations, industrial uses, and landscape irrigation. The recycled water
program sells tertiary treated effluent for landscape irrigation use to the following communities:
Cities of Pleasant Hill, Concord (including areas south of the Buchanan Field Airport), and
unincorporated Martinez (LAFCO, 2014). The recycled landscape irrigation water meets all the
requirements of the CA Department of Health Services and the CA Regional Water Quality Control
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Board for uses at schools, parks, and playgrounds, etc. The recycled water is distCriobnutrtae dC odsitrae LcAtlFyC tOo
users via a pressure distribution system that includes purple pipelines, pumping stations, and meter
box assemblies. Regular inspections are conducted by the Department of Health Services (Jones
Hall, et. al., 2018). The Recycled Water Program is operated by Central San in collaboration with the
Contra Costa Water District. Additionally, Central San is exploring options with EBMUD to expand
the Recycled Water Program by conducting new projects together (Central San, ACFR, Dec 2022).
Sanitary Sewer Management Plan
Central San’s Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) was adopted on June 5, 2020, and serves as
a guide to help staff manage, operate, and maintain the sanitary sewer system to minimize and
mitigate sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). The Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) was most
recently updated and adopted in October 2022. The major topics in the SSMP include: Goals,
Organization, Legal Authority, Operation and Maintenance Program, Design and Performance
Provisions, Overflow Emergency Response Plan, Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Control Program,
System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan, Monitoring, Measurement, and Program
Modifications, SSMP Program Audits, and a Communication Program. These SSMP sections
collectively cover the framework and strategies for managing the sanitary sewer system, ensuring
compliance with environmental regulations, and safeguarding public health. The Plan is a
comprehensive strategy designed to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, protect
public health and the environment, and improve the efficiency and reliability of the sewer system
(Central San, SSMP, 2020).
Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan
In its 2017 Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan (CWMP), Central San conducted an evaluation
of its collection system capacity regarding future growth and service area expansion. A similar effort
was made to provide alternative liquid treatment and solids handling at the treatment plant as part
of Central San’s evolution toward a net-zero greenhouse gas operation. The CWMP also reiterated
that sufficient treatment capacity to accommodate planned growth within its sphere of influence
(SOI) for the next several decades, based on Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) growth
projections (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
NPDES Permit
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is administered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and California’s State Water Board. Under the federal Clean Water
Act, an NPDES permit is required for Central San to legally discharge treated wastewater into Suisun
Bay. Central San’s new NPDES permit was adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board
in June 2022. The new permit will expire on July 31, 2027. The NPDES permit allows Central San to
treat up to 53.8 million gallons per day (Central San, RFI, 2022b). Central San’s staff believes that the
Regional Water Board acknowledged Central San’s exceptional work. The permit sets pollutant
limits, monitoring, and reporting requirements to ensure commitments to protect public health and
the environment are met (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Central San has achieved 24 consecutive years of 100% compliance with its NCoantitoran aClo sPtoa lLluAtFaCnOt
Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) governing wastewater discharge. That is a record
achieved by fewer than 20 of the over 16,000 publicly owned treatment facilities in the United States.
Sanitary sewer overflows were reduced to a record low of 18 in FY 2020-21. The facility used by
customers to drop off their household hazardous waste also offers free recycled water (up to 300
gallons per visit). Central San produces about three million gallons of recycled water per year, which
is used in the community. Approved uses include irrigation at schools, parks, playgrounds, median
strips, and playing fields, as well as dust control and industrial process uses (Central San, RFI,
2022b).
The NPDES effluent limitations guidelines and pre-treatment standards are uniform national
standards developed by EPA for specific industrial categories. These pre-treatment standards can
also be considered pollutant discharge limits that apply to industrial users, commonly referred to as
EPA Categorical Users. Emcore Corporation in Concord is permitted with Environmental
Compliance as a Categorical Industrial User (CIU) and allowed to discharge categorical wastewater
into the Central San sewer system. Emcore is a manufacturing facility, assembly, and testing of
inertial sensors and systems. As a Categorical Industrial User, defined by the EPA, they are in the
Metal Finishing category (chemical etching, electroplating). Emcore’s permit requires annual
inspection, reporting, and sampling by Environmental Compliance (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
Additionally, Central San has 18 Significant Industrial Users (SIU) that are not listed in one of the
EPA’s defined categories of CIUs. SIUs discharge an average of 25,000 or more gallons per day or
are subject to pre-treatment regulations due to the discharge of pollutants of concern that could
adversely impact the sewer and treatment system (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
A separate NPDES Permit CA 0038849 (Order R2-2022-0038) regulates waste discharge
requirements for mercury and PCBs from municipal and industrial wastewater discharges.
EPA Categorical Users
Wastewater systems sometimes have EPA categorical users (i.e., Significant Industrial Users),
which are regulated under a local pre-treatment ordinance. Emcore Corporation in Concord is
permitted with Environmental Compliance as a Categorical Industrial User (CIU) and allowed to
discharge categorical wastewater into the Central San sewer system. Emcore is a manufacturing
facility, assembly, and testing of inertial sensors and systems. As a Categorical Industrial User,
defined by the EPA, they are in the Metal Finishing category (chemical etching, electroplating).
Emcore’s permit requires annual inspection, reporting, and sampling by Environmental Compliance
(Central San, RFI, 2022b).
Additionally, Central San has 18 Significant Industrial Users (SIU) that are not listed in one of the
EPA’s defined categories of CIUs. SIUs discharge an average of 25,000 or more gallons per day or
are subject to pre-treatment regulations due to the discharge of pollutants of concern that could
adversely impact the sewer and treatment system (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Local Hazards
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2 maps critical infrastructure, such as
wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards. Central San participated in this planning
process. In the past, the District has experienced winter storms, severe weather, and landslides. The
Hazard Mitigation Plan’s Chapter 18 shows that Central San’s wastewater treatment plant and some
pump stations are in flood zones/coastal areas. Additionally, the District is exposed to significant
earthquake risk and has facilities, such as the District Building and Treatment Plant, that would
benefit from seismic retrofits. The Walnut Creek/Grayson Creek levee is designed to protect the area
from most floods; however, the levee would benefit from rehabilitation. Central San has critical
facilities and infrastructure that are exposed to impacts from earthquakes, severe weather,
landslide, and flood hazards (Contra Costa County, 2018). Central San staff works towards
incorporating the LHMP information about these hazards into the District’s planning initiatives and
documents (Contra Costa County, 2018).
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted
systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California
Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General
Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. WQ
2022-0103-DWQ (SSS WDRs), on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate a
sanitary sewer system comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a
publicly owned treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A
3.5-year term from January 1, 2019, to August 19, 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database.
During this 3.5-year timeframe, there were 84 Sanitary Sewer Overflow events in the Central San.
Due to space constraints, only the 20 most recent SSOs are listed below in Table 12-8 (next page). In
most cases, the Sanitary Sewer Overflows had point failures at the gravity mainline. Most of the
overflows were less than 1000 gallons of spill material; however, not all material was recovered. The
spill with the greatest volume occurred on March 22, 2022, with a volume of 23,800 gallons.
According to the CIWQS-SSO database, the total spill of 23,800 gallons reached surface water;
however, 19,525 gallons were recovered. The spill was due to the force main being hit by a private
drilling contractor.
From July to October 2022, the San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known
as a red tide, as described in Appendix F. The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma
akashiwo, can cause water to take on a reddish-brown color. The HAB extended throughout the
open-bay regions of the South Bay, the Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths linked to the
red tide were reported to include sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, and anchovy. The
San Francisco Bay Water Board is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay through the Nutrient
Management Strategy, which includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 12-8: Central Contra Costa Sanitation District Sanitary Sewer Overflows (20 of 85 shown) Contra Costa LAFCO
SSO Region Responsible SSO Start Date SSO Volume of Volume of SSO Failure WDID
Event ID Agency Category Volume SSO SSO that Point
Recovered reached
Surface
Water
877094 2 Central San Category 3 10/15/2021 50 49 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
877097 2 Central San Category 3 10/21/2021 250 238 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
877636 2 Central San Category 3 10/28/2021 80 79 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
877639 2 Central San Category 3 10/27/2021 8 7 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
877900 2 Central San Category 3 11/25/2021 15 0 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
877921 2 Central San Category 3 12/1/2021 9 9 0 Maintenance 2SSO10105
hole
878040 2 Central San Category 3 12/4/2021 59 59 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
878229 2 Central San Category 3 12/14/2021 15 0 0 Maintenance 2SSO10105
hole
878836 2 Central San Category 3 1/3/2022 92 92 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
879145 2 Central San Category 3 1/19/2022 160 160 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
879290 2 Central San Category 3 2/3/2022 5 0 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
879555 2 Central San Category 1 2/19/2022 12,150 12,150 12,150 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
879693 2 Central San Category 3 2/16/2022 34 32 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
879694 2 Central San Category 3 2/16/2022 629 600 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
879930 2 Central San Category 2 3/11/2022 3,000 3,000 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
880257 2 Central San Category 1 3/22/2022 23,800 19,525 23,800 Force Main 2SSO10105
880529 2 Central San Category 3 3/31/2022 295 0 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
881788 2 Central San Category 3 6/2/2022 20 0 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
881888 2 Central San Category 3 6/20/2022 25 20 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10105
882605 2 Central San Category 3 7/4/2022 118 118 0 Maintenance 2SSO10105
hole
Data Source: CA EPA, n.d. CIQWS Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
agencies to study potential impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. TheC onDtirsat rCicost tah LaAsF CaOn
opportunity to assist with this effort by continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by
discussing the nutrient problem with other wastewater Districts and the Water Board.
Future Challenges
Wastewater service providers in the Bay Area face several future challenges, including anticipated
Nutrient Management Regulations. The RWQCB is expected to implement interim SF Bay-wide and
individual WWTP effluent limits. This may include aggressive, long-term SF Bay-wide nutrient limits based
on current scientific information with a multi-year compliance schedule.
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 (2019) has several recommended remedies for
California’s aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a wastewater
treatment plant is, what kind of wastes it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the
sewer pipes. Continue educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom
to call if such an event occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling.
Cooperative Programs
Central San works cooperatively with nearby agencies to share facilities and other resources to help
meet regional goals. For example, Central San operates its Household Hazardous Waste Collection
Facility in cooperation with Mt. View Sanitary District, the Cities of Concord and Clayton, and a
portion of the City of San Ramon. Central San also participates in several system maintenance and
operations training programs with other local sewer agencies. Recently, Central San began sharing
wastewater for a limited duration at its San Ramon Pumping Station with the East Bay Municipal
Utility District/Dublin San Ramon Services District (DERWA) Recycled Water Program. This sharing
helps DERWA meet its recycled water supply obligations during its higher-demand dry weather
season when the supply of raw wastewater flowing to DERWA facilities is insufficient. Central San is
also investigating the potential of partnering with golf courses and even neighboring communities to
facilitate the creation of satellite water reclamation facilities (SWRF) or water exchange agreements
(Central San, RFI, 2022b).
Central San and CCWD, in collaboration with other Bay Area water agencies, continue to study a
potential project to serve 13 MGD1 of recycled water produced at Central San’s treatment plant to
the two Martinez area refineries (Shell Martinez Refinery and Marathon) (Central San, RFI,
2022c). The recycled water is hoped to replace CCWD-supplied water from the Central Valley
Project system.
1
This project used to be estimated at 20 MGD, but now with Marathon’s transition to renewable
diesel production, its water demands have dropped significantly (Central San, RFI, 2022c).
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Awards
The District has received several awards and recognitions, as listed below:
• National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) Peak Performance Platinum Award for
• California Water Environment Association (CWEA) awards:
• Large Treatment Plant of the Year (Regional Award in 2016, Statewide Award in 2017)
• Large Treatment Plant of the Year for Safety (Regional Award in 2016, Statewide Award in 2017)
• Statewide awards for Gadget of the Year and Amateur Video Production, both in 2017 (Contra
Costa County 2018)
• GFOA Award for Achievement of Excellence in Financial Reporting (received annually)
• GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award (Received annually since 2018) (Central San,
RFI, 2022b).
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
Central San participates in several regional programs (including those listed above) to achieve
savings through coordination. Pre-planning street maintenance work with the four main cities has
reduced street cuts and repaving costs and allowed for projects to be coordinated for less traffic
impacts (LAFCO, 2014). Additionally, the recycled water program assists in controlling effluent
disposal and generating long-term revenue. In another example, in 2009, Central San completed a
major pipeline replacement with the City of Concord, which eliminated the need for one pump
station (Central San, RFI, 2022c).
12.4: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
Central San operates as an enterprise-type activity, with its primary revenue source being service
charges and fees. Central San also receives property tax revenue. Revenue is also derived from
Central San’s service contracts with the City of Concord and Clayton. The enterprise fund is
comprised of four internal sub-funds:
Running Expense – accounts for the general operations of Central San. Substantially all
operating revenues and expenses are accounted for in this fund (also referred to as
Operations & Maintenance or O&M).
Sewer Construction – accounts for non-operating revenues to be used to acquire or
construct Treatment Plant, property, and equipment (also referred to as the Capital Fund).
Self-Insurance – accounts for interest earnings on cash balances in this sub-fund and cash
allocations from other funds, as well as costs of insurance premiums and claims not covered
by Central San’s insurance policies.
Debt Service Fund – accounts for activity associated with the payment of Central San’s long-
term debt through bonds and loans.
Each year, the Board of Directors adopts the following four budgets: Capital Improvement,
Operations and Maintenance, Self-Insurance, and Debt-Service. Central San publishes a
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that is submitted to the Government Finance Officers
Association for independent review. The District’s Budget and Certified Annual Financial Reports are
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
the primary information source for data for this analysis, and these reports aCroen ptroas Ctoesdt ao LnA FtChOe
District’s website at: <https://www.centralsan.org/financial-information>. This financial analysis
represents a snapshot in time (i.e. a limited time period). However, Central San regularly updates its
financial data and readers may review the new data on Central San’s website.
Central San has maintained a significant commitment to financial efficiency and has, since 2014,
completed the following initiatives:
• Replaced a 25+-year-old enterprise resource planning (ERP) system with a new Oracle Cloud
ERP in 2020. This new ERP is the foundation for financial administration, purchasing, and
human resource administration, providing significant workflow and automation efficiencies.
• Implemented an internal audit function performing reviews of various functions to ensure
efficiency and prudent use of funds and safeguarding of assets.
• Produced annual optimization reports highlighting operational efficiencies implemented
across operational and other systems to reduce cost and improve reliability and service.
• For the past 3 years, benchmarked operations and costs against national and statewide utilities
through participation in the American Water Works Association benchmarking surveys.
• Received “clean” / unmodified audit opinions in the annual independent financial statement
audits.
• Paid off the unfunded pension liability in 2021, decreasing it from $142 million in 2012. Brought
the funded ratio up from 56% in 2012 to 100% in 2021.
• Brought the funded ratio of the Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) obligation from 22% in
2012 to 99% funded in 2021. Source: (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
Five primary areas of criteria have been utilized to assess the present and future financial condition
of Central San’s wastewater service operations, as discussed below:
3 Year Revenue/Expenditure Trends
Central San’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) states that “Total operating revenue
decreased by $48.9 million or 41.2% in FY 2022-23”. This decrease is directly attributable to the
portion of sewer service charges revenue allocated to operations decreasing from 66.9% in the prior
year to 41.1% in FY 2022-23, a decrease of $49.0 million. In the prior year, a significant increase to
the operational share of the sewer service charge allocation was directed by the Board after 2021
Wastewater Certificates of Participation (2021 COPs) were issued, generating $58.0 million in
proceeds to help fund capital projects in lieu of sewer service charges. This decrease is partially
offset by a large increase of $3.4 million in investment earnings when compared to the prior year due
to multiple interest rate hikes from the Federal Reserve throughout 2022 and into 2023” (Central San,
ACFR, 2023).
As shown in Figure 12-5 below, revenues exceeded expenditures in four of the five fiscal years
studied. This indicates that, on average, Central San’s fees and charges are sufficient to pay for the
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
costs of operating the wastewater system. However, for FY2023, total expenditureCso onft r$a1 C1o3s,t3a3 L0A,9FC1O8
were in excess of total revenues of $100,296,021 (Central San, ACFR, 2023).
160,000,000
140,000,000
120,000,000
100,000,000
80,000,000
60,000,000
40,000,000
20,000,000
0
FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
Ratio of Revenue Sources
In FY2023, Central San received both operational and non-operational revenue, including
approximately 50% of its revenues from charges and fees for services; 23% from property taxes; 18%
from cost sharing with the City of Concord, and 4% from investment income (Central San, ACFR,
2023). The remainder of the revenue is derived from permit fees, Misc charges, other income, and
sale of assets, as shown in Figure 12-6 below. In FY2023, Central San did not receive any revenue from
grants; however, in past years, grant funds were received. Overall, this ratio reflects an appropriate
balance for a typical enterprise-type service and minimizes the impact that negative economic
factors will have on more elastic revenues such as property tax. However, any negative economic
impact on Central San’s property tax revenue could have some impact on Central San’s operational
budget and spending plan for capital projects.
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-19
$.S.U
Figure 12-5: Comparison of Revenue to Expenses
Total revenues Total expenses
Data Source: DD Annual Financial Statement 2023 and 2020
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 12-6: Revenue Sources, Ratios
0%
2% 4%1%
Service charge
Cost sharing
Misc charges
23%
Taxes
50%
Permit / fees
2% Investment income
18%
Other income
sale of asset
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited
by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to
the annual fund expenditures. Central San currently has an unrestricted cash $23,058,319 (Central
San, ACFR, 2023). Total expenditures for 2023 were $ 113,330,918. This calculates to a ratio of
reserves or fund balance to annual expenditures approximately 20.35%.
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. The Central San has several types of long-
term debt related to wastewater services. These include:
• 2018 Series A Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds
• 2018 Series B Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds
• 2021 Wastewater Revenue Certificates of Participation
• Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan
The total debt of the Central San is $67,776,014 as of June 30, 2023. This calculates to an increase
of $3.7 million or 5.7% over the debt balance of $64.1 million on June 30, 2022 (Central San, ACFR,
2023). FY 2019-20, which ended June 30, 2020, had the lowest debt at $ 19,447,392, as shown in
Figure 12-7 below.
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
$80,000,000 $75,733,331
$67,776,014
$70,000,000 $64,110,320
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$21,806,631
$19,447,392
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of the ability to meet
debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a ratio of 10%or less would
reflect a very stable ratio. As of June 30, 2023, the annual debt service due was approximately
$7,090,000. Annual expenditures were $113,330,918. This calculates to an annual debt service ratio
to total expenditures is approximately 6.26%. Since this is less than LAFCO’s 10% metric, Central
San has a very good ratio.
Capital Improvement Program
The physical collection system assets are valued at approximately $2.5 billion (Central San, SSMP,
2020). The District currently maintains various equipment, vehicles2, infrastructure, and associated
assets. Therefore, Central San maintains a comprehensive long-term Capital Improvement
Program/Plan (CIPP) addressing many substantial infrastructure improvements. The 10-Year CIPP
is updated annually as part of the budgeting process. The CIPP identifies and prioritizes capital
projects needed to accomplish the District’s Strategic Plan and provides the basis for project
scheduling, staffing, and long-range financial planning. The CIPP also serves as the framework for
rate setting and decisions based on planned expenditures. The current 10-year CIPP is designed to
address infrastructure needs and is funded by revenues from service charges, ad valorem taxes, and
capacity fees. Central San has established a Collection System Program that will address aging and
deteriorating infrastructure. In addition, the program will serve to meet regulatory requirements,
2
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the District, it is likely that sometime in the future, the
District may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting veh icles reliant upon an alternative energy source
such as electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore,
alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-21
$.S.U
Figure 12-7: Central San_Liabilities
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
address capacity issues, and help meet sustainability goals (Central San, n.d.a). ACcocnotrrda iCnogs ttoa LthAeF CFOY
2022-23 Budget, “Central San staff will continue to update the new collection system hydrodynamic
model (InfoWorks®) to confirm the need and timing for future projects required to alleviate capacity
deficiencies and to determine sewer replacement needs (Central San, n.d.a).
The CIPP budget for FY 2023-24 is approximately $71.2 million in capital project expenditures. This
includes $35.7 million for the collection system, $31.3 million for the WWTP, $3.4 million in general
improvements, and $818,000 for the recycled water system. The CIPP has a 10-year planning
horizon, and Central San updates the ten-year planning and budget on an annual basis. The 10 Year
CIP is projected to be $980.21 million (as of 2023), as shown below in Table 12-9.
‐
Table 12-9: CIPP Budget Overview for FY 2023-24
Total Estimated
Budget-to- FY 2023-24 Future FYs FY 2023 Ten
Program Project Budgets
Date (1) (2) (3) Year CIP
(1)+(2)+(3)
Collection
$55,199,150 $35,734,000 $103,645,000 $194,578,150 $309,773,000
System
Treatment
$105,501,332 $31,300,000 $315,450,000 $456,251,332 $612,000,000
Plant
General
$13,199,000 $3,350,000 $7,810,000 $24,359,000 $22,060,000
Improvements
Recycled
$42,869,000 $818,000 $8,366,000 $52,053,000 $36,380,000
Water
Total $220,768,482 $71,202,000 $435,271,000 $727,241,482 $980,213,000
CIB
$5,000,000 - - - -
Contingency
The Budget to Date (1) above includes approximately 80% budget already spent for on-going
projects, not including contingency.
Last year (FY 2022 23), staff completed several CIPP projects, including collection system sewer
replacement such as the replacement rehabilitation of 6.0 miles of sewers, most of which were 6
‐
inch vitrified clay pipes in poor condition. Construction included sewer replacement, new
‐
maintenance access holes, and other infrastructure improvements in public rights of way and
backyard easements. Trenchless technology was utilized where possible for cost-effectiveness and
‐ ‐
to minimize construction impacts.
Rate Structure
Central San’s service rate structure reflects fixed rates for its residential customers and a
combination of fixed-rate and consumption-based rates for commercial customers. Rates are
reviewed annually by Central San, and adjustments are made as appropriate. The current residential
rate for the typical single-family dwelling is $725 per year for FY2024. Commercial consumption
rates are fixed based on each 1,000 gallons of water consumption depending on the type of activity
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
and are subject to minimum annual charges. Central San also collects connectioCno natnrda Cpoesrtma LitA fFeCeOs
and capacity charges.
Central San’s sewer service charge is collected through the County Tax Collector’s Office on the
annual tax roll. This method of fee collection is allowed under the CA Health and Safety Code
(Division 5, Part 3, Chapter 6, Article 4). The first and second installments are due on November 1
and February 1 each year. Table 12-10 shows the Schedule of Sewer Service Charges (effective July
6, 2023), which was established by Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Ordinance No. 330 and
adopted June 21, 2023.
Rate Study
In the spring of 2023, Central San commissioned Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. to prepare a
Wastewater Cost of Service Rate Study Report. The Rate Study was prepared with the objectives to
be equitable and align with Proposition 218 requirements; review the wastewater rate structure,
‐ ‐
including accessory dwelling units; review the customer classifications; and to update the cost of
service analysis for wastewater. Based on this Rate Study, the Board of Directors adopted the rate
‐ ‐
structure shown in Table 12-10 below.
Table 12-10: Schedule of Sewer Service Charges (effective July 6, 2023)
Effective Effective Effective
User Group July 1, July 6, July 1,
2022 2023 2024
Single Family Dwellings $690.00 $697.00 $725.00
Apartments, Condominiums, Duplexes, Second Living Units, $654.00 $622.00 $647.00
Mobile Homes
Accessory Dwelling Units (note 1) $339.00 $353.00
Low (Retail, Office, Churches, Fraternal & Service Organizations,
State and Local Institutions, Tax Exempt, Utilities with Special
Tax Status, Independent Living Facilities, Rest Homes, & $7.20 $7.63 $7.94
Convalescent Hospitals, customers with shared water meters
with less than 50% food service, and other businesses with a
combined BOD + TSS of less than 350 mg/l)
Medium-Low (Delicatessens, Yogurt Shops, Ice Cream Shops, $8.83 $9.32 $9.69
Coffee Shops, Bar, and other businesses with BOD + TSS less
than or equal to 700 mg/l)
Medium (customers with shared water meters with 50% or more $11.07 $10.99 $11.43
food service, other businesses with BOD + TSS less than or
equal to 1,000 mg/l)
Medium-High (Restaurants, Supermarkets, Hotels and Motels,
customers with shared meters which include bakeries, other $12.35 $12.04 $12.52
businesses with BOD + TSS greater than 1,000 mg/l)
High (Bakeries, Restaurants with on-site breweries, Restaurants
with food-waste grinders or emulsifiers, other businesses with $16.37 $14.48 $15.06
BOD + TSS greater than 1,300 mg/l)
Minimum Annual Charge $654.00 $622.00 $647.00
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Schools Contra Costa LAFCO
Schools - Daycare, Preschool, University (per hundred cubic feet) $7.20 $7.63 $7.94
Schools - Elementary $8.58 $8.94 $9.30
per student per student per student
Schools – Intermediate, High School $16.95 $17.89 $18.61
per student per student per student
Permitted Industrial Users (includes food processing, breweries, and wineries)
Wastewater Flow (per hundred cubic feet) $5.57 $7.28 $7.57
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (per 1,000 pounds) $1,473.00 $1,268.00 $1,338.00
Suspended Solids (per 1,000 pounds) $769.00 $644.00 $670.00
Fixed charge $108.20 $248.00 $258.00
Special Discharge Permits & Contractual Agreements: Determined Determined Determined
Individually Individually Individually
Notes:
• BOD – Biochemical Oxygen Demand
• TSS – Total Suspended Solids
• Note 1 – billed as one multi-family residential unit
12.5: POPULATION
Central San serves approximately 487,329 residents and over 3,000 businesses in a 145,000 square
mile service area, which includes the cities of Alamo, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Lafayette, Moraga,
Orinda, Pacheco, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek; portions of Martinez and San Ramon; and
unincorporated communities within the central County area (Central San, RFI, 2022b). The
distribution of the 487,329 residents as of January 1, 2022, in several cities is shown in Table 12-11
below. Detailed information regarding population demographics in Contra Costa County is provided
in Appendix A.
The data listed in Table 12-11 was provided directly from Central San staff. Central San’s base
information is from the California Department of Finance (CDF) Demographic Research Unit’s
annual population and housing estimates for cities, released on May 1 each year. CDF updates this
data on a regular basis, and readers are encouraged to view the most recent data on the CDF website
at <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/ >.
Table 12-11: Existing Permanent Population in 2022 in Central San Boundary
City Population (2022) Totals
City of Danville 43,352
City of Lafayette 25,064
City of Martinez (a) 22,008
City of Moraga 17,105
City of Orinda 19,478
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
City of Pleasant Hill 34,026
City of San Ramon (a) 69,479
City of Walnut Creek 69,891
Unincorporated (a) 52,429
Sub-total within
352,832, plus approximately
Central San
Boundary 3,000 businesses
City of Clayton 10,863
City of Concord 123,634
134,497
TOTAL SERVICE AREA POPULATION 487,329
LAFCO’s Population Estimate (2020) 365,218
(a) For Martinez, San Ramon, and unincorporated Contra Costa County, the population
served is adjusted by deducting the estimated populations of those areas within Mt. View
Sanitary District and Dublin San Ramon Services District. For example, San Ramon is
estimated to have a total population of 83,820 persons. However, only 80% of the
population receives service from Central San. The City of Martinez has a total population
of approximately 36,908; however, only 50% of the City receives service from Central San.
(b) Starting in 2013, septic users are no longer netted out, so that the resulting total represents
the population within the boundaries of Central San, not the served population.
Data Source: All data in this Table was provided by Central San staff. Their base information is as follows:
1: California Department of Finance. (2022). Report E-1: Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the
State January 1, 2021, and 2022. Retrieved on August 11, 2022, from:
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/estimates-e1/>.
2: Central Contra Costa Sanitation District. (2022a). Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. 157-pages.
Retrieved on October 15, 2022 from: <https://www.centralsan.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/2020_ssmp_approved_audit_06.05.2020.pdf?1665594125>.
136,000
135,000
134,000
133,000
132,000
131,000
130,000
129,000
128,000
1/1/22 1/1/21 1/1/20 1/1/2019 1/1/2018
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-25
deipuccO
sdlohsuoH
#
Figure 12-8: Number of Households Occupied in
Central San
Data Source: Central San, RFI, 2022b
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 12-12 provides a geographic summary of Central San’s boundary and SOIC. oTnatbrale C 1o2st-a1 L3A lFisCtOs
calculated population projections through the year 2040.
Table 12-12: Geographic Summary (2022) for CCSD
Boundary Area SOI Total Boundary & SOI
Total Acres 91,897 23,718 115,615
Square Miles 143.6 37.1 180.7
Number of Assessor Parcels 131,982 42,448 174,430
Source:
1: Contra Costa County GIS Data, 2022
2: California Department of Finance. (2022). Report E-1: Population Estimates for Cities, Counties,
and the State January 1, 2021, and 2022. Retrieved on August 11, 2022 from:
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/estimates-e1/>.
3: County of Contra Costa. (2022). Public Parcels. Retrieved on October 26, 2022 from:
<https://gis.cccounty.us/Downloads/Assessor/>.
The number of registered voters in the Central San boundary is 227,765 as of June 12, 2019, as
calculated by the Contra Costa County Elections Office (per LAFCO Directory).
SOI Population: The Central San total SOI, excluding the District boundary, contains 23,718 acres
(Source: County of Contra Costa GIS data, 2022) and 42,448 APNs (County of Contra Costa, 2022).
On average, Contra Costa County has 3.02 people per APN. With 42,448 APNs, CCSD is estimated
to have 71,628 people residing within its SOI.
Projected Future Population: Projecting a district’s future population is complicated due to varying
annexation rates and census tracts that do not match District boundaries. It is anticipated that
population growth will increase in the future as a result of parcel splits, infill development, and
construction of in-law units. Data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to
project population growth for Contra Costa County, as shown in Table 12-13 above. Since the
anticipated future population growth of the City has the potential to influence the demand for the
provision of wastewater services, the projections are shown in Table 12-13.
District’s Ability To Accommodate Future Growth
Future growth and development are planned for the Dougherty Valley, the former Concord Naval
Weapons Station site, and Alhambra Valley. Central San staff indicates that the District has
sufficient treatment capacity to accommodate planned growth within its SOI for the next several
decades. Specifically, Central San’s current discharge permit allows an average dry weather flow
discharge rate of 53.8 million gallons per day (MGD) based on a secondary level of treatment. The
average dry weather flow rate in 2022 was 30.9 MGD (Central San, RFI, 2022c).
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 12-13: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2022 – 2045) in Service Area (Including Concord and Clayton)
2022 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2020 to
2022 to 2045 2022 to 2045 2045
County of Contra Costa1 1,156,555 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.1% 174,876 0.61%
Central San2 487,329 501,686 521,308 537,862 549,953 557,870 15.2% 73,670 0.62%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060
(Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
2: Central Contra Costa Sanitation District. (2022a). Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. 157-pages. Retrieved on October 15, 2022 from:
<https://www.centralsan.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2020_ssmp_approved_audit_06.05.2020.pdf?1665594125>.
3: Population projection for Central San calculated as 41.9% of the County of Contra Costa population.
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
According to Central San’s 2017 Compressive Wastewater Master Plan (CWMP) (page 7), for the
most part, influent flows and loads have increased steadily since Central San’s inception in 1946.
However, in three periods, flows declined from drought and economic conditions, such as during
the late ‘70s and early ‘90s. Starting in 2008, Central San has experienced an unprecedented, long-
term reduction in dry weather flows that lasted through 2015. This reduction was caused by the
recession, a persistent drought, and water conservation measures. In 2016, the flows rebounded
slightly (from 29 MGD to 32 MGD) but not yet to the pre-drought flows of around 35 MGD (Central
San, RFI, 2022c).
Historically, flows have returned to near pre-drought conditions when normal rainfall patterns
resumed, and water usage increased after drought restrictions are lifted. However, a full rebound
may never occur this time because water conservation measures and investments from residences
and businesses may permanently reduce water consumption and wastewater flows. The CWMP
assumed flows would rebound to approximately 34 MGD and would steadily increase at an average
rate less of less than one percent per year for the next 20 years. This is a rate that would
accommodate planned growth within Central San’s SOI for the next several decades (Central San,
RFI, 2022c).
12.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Disadvantaged Communities are census “blocks” where the annual median household income
(MHI) is less than 80% of the statewide MHI. California’s annual median household income (MHI) in
2021 was $84,097 (U.S. Census, 2022). Eighty percent of the statewide MHI (2021) equals
$67,278.00, the threshold used to determine which geographic areas qualify for classification as
disadvantaged communities. Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities,
and counties to address municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in some
disadvantaged communities.
Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part of this MSR Update process. Data query results
showed no disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within the District’s boundary or its
SOI.
Although incorporated cities do not contain DUCs by definition, they may sometimes contain
disadvantaged communities within their municipal borders. Figure 12-9 shows a general picture of
disadvantaged communities within municipal boundaries in the central Contra Costa area.
Specifically, there are disadvantaged communities within the City of Martinez, Pleasant Hill, and
Walnut Creek. For example, within the City of Walnut Creek, there are two census tracts located
along Rossmore Parkway that have senior citizens who may be on a fixed income as shown in Table
12-14 and Table 12-15 below.
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 12- 14: Summary of Disadvantaged Status in Census Tract 3490
Census Tract 3490, Contra Costa
Location
County, California
Total Population 5,554
Household Characteristics 0.78
⚠
Age 65 and Older 0.75
High Pre-existing Chronic Disease Prevalence Sum 1 out of 5
High Estimated Prevalence of Cancer Yes
⚠
Data Source: Department of Health and Human Services Environmental Justice Explorer
Database
Table 12- 15: Summary of Disadvantaged Status in Census Tract 3511.03
Census Tract 3511.03, Contra Costa
Location
County, Calif
Total Population 2,012
Built Environment 0.90
⚠
Lack of Walkability 0.95
⚠
Household Characteristics 0.87
⚠
Age 65 and Older 1.00
⚠
Civilian with a Disability 0.99
⚠
High Pre-existing Chronic Disease Prevalence Sum 3 out of 5
High Estimated Prevalence of Cancer Yes
⚠
High Estimated Prevalence of High Blood Pressure Yes
⚠
High Estimated Prevalence of Diabetes Yes
⚠
Data Source: Department of Health and Human Services Environmental Justice Explorer
Database
Please note that all residents within a city are eligible to receive municipal services, including fire
protection, drinking water, and wastewater services. No public health or safety issues have been
identified. Readers can learn more about disadvantaged communities within Contra Costa County
through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services database of socioeconomic and health
indicators in disadvantaged communities called the Environmental Justice Explorer Database. This
database can be queried at <https://onemap.cdc.gov/portal/apps/sites/#/eji-explorer>.
Please note that If low-income households experience challenges paying their Central San annual
Sewer Service Charge, the Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program (LIHWAP) may be
able to help. LIHWAP is a limited-term, federally funded program that offers low-income households
a one-time payment to help pay their residential water or wastewater bills, as described on the
website: <https://www.centralsan.org/financing-programs>.
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-29
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 12-9: Disadvantaged Communities near Contra Costa LAFCO
Centra Contra Costa Area
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-30
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
12.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
Central San provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services, including recycled
water, within its service area in the central portion of the County. In addition, Central San provides
treatment and disposal services for the Cities of Concord and Clayton. Based on information in
LAFCO’s 2008 and 2014 Wastewater Services MSRs and the Central San staff response to LAFCO’s
Request for Information, the following paragraphs briefly describe several government structure
options for the District.
Central San is an award-winning agency with a long track record of regional leadership. This District
has the existing capacity to provide technical and managerial assistance to neighboring
wastewater service providers. LAFCO encourages Central San’s continued cooperation with other
agencies. In the future, Central San and LAFCO may wish to consider the preparation of a “special
study” as allowed under the CKH Act. This special study could consider the feasibility of improving
regional operational and service efficiencies, by inviting SD6, Mt View San District, and/ or other
entities as described below to consider mergers, consolidations, or other changes to governance
structure in conjunction with Central San. Public outreach would be an important component of
any future special study, and it is recommended that the results of a study be presented to LAFCO
Commissioners, the County Board of Supervisors, and the Boards of each participating agency.
Maintain the Status Quo
LAFCO’s 2014 MSR noted that Central San is currently providing comprehensive wastewater
services within its boundaries. Central San has established a program to clean up its service
boundary and address a backlog of annexation requests. To date, the program has been very
successful. Central San provides adequate service, maintains its infrastructure, is financially sound,
and plans for future growth (LAFCO, 2014).
Additionally, Central San indicated that the District is a fiscally stable, well-planned, well-managed,
and high-performance organization. Its broad customer base and diversity of asset age and
conditions allow the organization an economy-of-scale advantage over smaller public agencies in
its field. This stability and professionalism have allowed for the development of a loyal and dedicated
workforce that is committed to excellence in customer service, communications, and education
(Central San, RFI, 2022b).
Misc. Adjustments to District Boundary or SOI
LAFCO is aware of several pending development projects where an SOI change and/or a boundary
change would be needed for Central San to be the wastewater service provider. These projects in
Orinda, Moraga, and Danville (Tassajara) have been or are involved in legal challenges, so their future
is uncertain (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-31
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Annexation of or Merge or Consolidate with Sanitary District No. 6
There have been discussions in the community about Central San offering organizational support in
Alhambra Valley with County Sanitation District No. 6 (SD6). The Stonehurst subdivision, located in
Alhambra Valley, consists of 47 single-family homes. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal for
this development are provided through septic tank systems and a community disposal system.
Sanitary District No. 6 (SD6) provides management of the septic tank and disposal system. The
NPDES permit was issued in approximately 1992 to operate a small collection system, treatment
plant, and leach field disposal system. The wastewater treatment plant consists of centrally located
recirculating sand filters, an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system, and disposal leach fields. The
wastewater is discharged to the leach fields. The system was designed for subsurface irrigation
during the summer, though that capability was never used (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
As part of the permit process, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste
Discharge Requirements for SD6 mandates the connection of the Stonehurst development to a
sanitary sewer and the closure of the development’s on-site wastewater treatment and disposal
system. Central San is the likely future service provider, given that Central San’s sanitary system is
located about 0.42 miles east of the entrance to the Stonehurst subdivision (Central San, RFI,
2022b). The permit is to expire when Central San’s sanitary sewer service reaches Alhambra Valley
(Central San, RFI, 2022b).
Contra Costa County was originally the administrator of SD6. However, in 2012, the City of Martinez
annexed the Stonehurst area, making the City the governing agency for SD6. In 2014, LAFCO
established a Zero SOI and boundary for SD 6 as an indicator that SD6 would not be allowed to add
new customers. This allowed SD6 to continue to exist until such time as it is physically and
financially feasible to annex to Central San. Since then, technical studies have been prepared to
identify the short- and long-term needs and potential costs to operate and, at some point, to connect
it to Central San’s facilities. Central San continues to have discussions with City of Martinez staff
about the future of SD6 and has expressed a willingness to serve this area when the infrastructure is
upgraded to a more traditional system closer to Central San’s standards (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
The City of Martinez is responsible for planning the future connection with Central San.
It is recommended that the City and Central San work with LAFCO on the potential inclusion of this
area to Central San’s boundary through a mechanism such as annexation, merger, or consolidation
of SD6 with Central San. Annexation of SD6 by Central San would allow for the dissolution of SD6.
This planning process would require the submittal of an application to LAFCO along with relevant
information. LAFCO would be responsible for holding a public hearing on the application. LAFCO has
the ability to require conditions of approval for annexation applications. Additionally, funding issues
would need to be resolved prior to any annexation. One potential option for future consideration is
to allow Central San to annex SD6 as a separate zone, for rate setting purposes.
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-32
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Merge or Consolidate with Mt. View Sanitary District(MVSD)
Established in 1923, MVSD is an “island” within Central San’s service area. Much of the reason for
this island configuration dates back to the late 1960s, when the City of Martinez voters chose to
annex the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system to Central San. MVSD already served
unincorporated Martinez and some parts of the City not served by the City’s system. The result was
the encirclement of MVSD’s service area by Central San (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
MVSD contracts with Central San to share resources and increase cost-effectiveness on certain
services, including laboratory testing, inspection services for MVSD’s commercial accounts, and
implementing the Fats, Oils, and Grease control program. Additionally, Central San assists MVSD in
the preparation of MVSD’s Annual Pollution Prevention Report, and the two agencies are partners in
a permanent household hazardous waste collection facility on the Central San campus (Central San,
RFI, 2022b).
In the early 1990s, the State’s threat of reduced property tax revenues for special districts lead to
considering various special district consolidation options. At the time, Central San’s management
was reluctant to consider consolidating with MVSD due to MVSD’s unique treatment system and
purpose (advanced secondary treatment to allow for shallow effluent discharge to support a nearby
marsh). In contrast, Central San’s facilities allowed it to meet lesser standards of a deep-water
effluent discharge system (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
LAFCO’s 2008 and 2014 MSRs for MVSD noted these facility differences and the potential loss (if
discontinued) of environmental benefits from MVSD providing a water supply and managing the
marsh system. The 2014 MSR specifically identified that MVSD did not support consolidation with
Central San for the following reasons: significant capital investment and real estate acquisition
would be required to pump MVSD effluent to the Central San system; current service boundaries of
MVSD and Central San are largely defined by topography; and that consolidation would not provide
any economic advantage to ratepayers. The MSRs noted that consolidation would require further
study to determine whether there would be real operational efficiencies and potential benefits and
costs (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
Since 2014, both Districts have experienced financial, regulatory, and operational changes.
Although studies of potential merger or consolidation among the two Districts have not yet been
conducted, Central San staff believe the current situation may make such studies worthwhile. For
example, the 2014 MVSD MSR identified that rates were proposed to increase for five consecutive
years based on the CPI. However, in February 2020, a MVSD Proposition 218 newsletter proposed a
five-year, 84% sewer service charge increase (more than a 16% annual increase). This proposal
prompted a letter to the editor of the Martinez News-Gazette suggesting exploration of options other
than “exorbitant fee increases,” noting that Central San’s fee structure “is not rising at a rate nearly
as steep.” Currently, the adopted FY 2022-23 sewer service charge rates for MVSD are
approximately 18% higher than Central San’s rates. Rate discussion for the next five years is quite
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-33
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
different for both agencies as MVSD is considering five years at 9% a year whileC oCnetrnat Craols tSaa LnA FhCaOs
planned five years at 4% a year. This would increase the rate differential to approximately 49% or
$413 per year, as summarized in Table 12-16 (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
Table 12-16: Rates
Agency Type 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2026-27
Single Family
MVSD Residential $814.20 $887.48 $967.35 $1,054.41 $1,149.31 $1,252.75
$ Change $124.20 $169.88 $221.05 $278.26 $342.11 $413.26
% Change 18% 24% 30% 36% 42% 49%
Single Family
Central San Residential $690 $718 $746 $776 $807 $839
Adopted Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.
Data Source: Central San, RFI, 2022b
Central San staff expressed a willingness to study a potential future merger or consolidation with
MVSD, especially as it could benefit ratepayers from both agencies. Central San is willing to work
cooperatively with MVSD to undertake a comprehensive study, as it believes there can be
efficiencies in a consolidation for a more regional approach of service. There is an overlap of many
staff duties, and MVSD employees could consolidate into Central San, as evidenced historically
when Concord’s treatment facility was merged into Central San. There are potential efficiencies,
even if the MVSD advanced secondary treatment facility remains with discharge into the nearby
marsh (Central San, RFI, 2022b).
It is recommended that the Central San and MVSD work together to prepare studies of future options.
Additionally, both Central San and MVSD should coordinate with LAFCO on the potential inclusion
of this area to Central San’s boundary through a mechanism such as annexation, merger, or
consolidation of MVSD with Central San. Annexation of MVSD by Central San would allow for the
dissolution of MVSD. This planning process would require the submittal of an application to LAFCO
along with relevant information. LAFCO would be responsible for scheduling a public hearing on the
application.
CCCSD and MVSD have embarked on a special study to look at governance options.
12.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-34
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 12-17: MSR Determinations for Central San Contra Costa LAFCO
PERFORMANCE MEASURE DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected area Within the Central San boundary, the estimated
population is 487,329 people in 2022. By 2045, it is
Is the existing population estimated? estimated that the population will increase to
Is the projected future growth 557,870. Future growth is expected to be 0.62 percent
estimated? annually.
Location and characteristics of any There are no DUCs within or contiguous to the
disadvantaged unincorporated Central San SOI.
communities within or contiguous to the
sphere of influence. Within the municipal boundaries of Walnut Creek,
Martinez, and Pleasant Hill, there are low-income
neighborhoods. Please note that all residents within a
city are eligible to receive municipal services,
including fire protection, drinking water, and
wastewater services. No public health or safety
issues have been identified.
Present and planned capacity of public Central San maintains a comprehensive long-term
facilities, adequacy of public services, and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) addressing many
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, substantial infrastructure improvements. The current
including needs or deficiencies related to 10-year CIP is designed to address infrastructure
sewers, municipal and industrial water, and needs and is funded by revenues from service
structural fire protection in any charges, ad valorem taxes, and capacity fees. For
disadvantaged, unincorporated example, Central San has established a Collection
communities within or contiguous to the System Program that will address aging and
sphere of influence. deteriorating infrastructure. In addition, the program
Does the agency have a CIP? will serve to meet regulatory requirements, address
Are SSOs identified? capacity issues, and help meet sustainability goals.
The physical collection system assets are valued at
Are local hazards identified?
approximately $2.5 billion.
A 3.5-year term from January 1, 2019, to August 9,
2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The
query resulted in 84 SSOs for Central San.
The 2018 County-wide Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
identified several risks for Central San, including
earthquakes, floods, and storms. Central San staff
work towards incorporating the LHMP information
about these hazards into the District’s planning
initiatives and documents (Contra Costa County,
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-35
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
2018). It is recommended that detailed spatial
mapping of the District’s wastewater infrastructure in
relation to the hazards identified in the Hazard
Mitigation Plan be conducted when LAFCO next
updates its Wastewater Services MSR/SOI.
There are no disadvantaged unincorporated
communities within or contiguous to the Central San
SOI.
Financial ability of agencies to provide In the spring of 2023, Central San commissioned
services. Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. to prepare a
Has the agency prepared a rate Wastewater Cost of Service Rate Study Report. The
study? Rate Study was prepared with the objectives to be
Do revenues exceed expenditures? equitable and ‐ a‐lign with Proposition 218
requirements; review the wastewater rate structure,
Is the ratio of annual debt service to
including accessory dwelling units; review the
total fund annual expenditures 10%
customer classifications; and to update the cost of
or less?
service analysis for wastewater. Based on this Rate
Study, the Board of Directors adopted the r‐ate‐
structure during a public hearing.
Central San’s total revenues exceeded total
expenditures in four of the five fiscal years studied.
For FY2023, total expenditures of 113,330,918 were in
excess of total revenues of 100,296,021.
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual
expenditures is an indicator of the ability to meet debt
obligations in relation to service provision expenditures.
Ideally, a ratio of 10%or less would reflect a very stable
ratio. As of June 30, 2023, the annual debt service due
was approximately $7,090,000. Annual expenditures
were $113,330,918. This calculates to an annual debt
service ratio to total expenditures is approximately
6.26%. Since this is less than LAFCO’s 10% metric,
Central San has a very good ratio.
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-36
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Status of, and opportunities for, shared Central San manages a vast netwoCrokn otrfa i nCforsatsat LruAcFtCuOr e
facilities. assets and is committed to continuous
improvement, leveraging technology and best
practices for sustainable wastewater management.
Central San participates in several cooperative
programs. For example, Central San participates in
several regional programs, including: the Hazardous
Waste Collection Facility; the Urban Pesticide
Committee, working to reduce the use of pesticides;
the Bay Area Air Toxics Group, which coordinates
efforts with the air quality control agencies; and the
Contra Costa Green Business Program which
recognizes efforts to implement environmental
regulations and conserve resources.
Central San and CCWD, in collaboration with other
Bay Area water agencies, continue to study a
potential project to serve 13 MGD of recycled water
produced at Central San’s Treatment Plant, to the
two Martinez area refineries (Shell Martinez Refinery
and Marathon) (Central San, RFI, 2022c). The
recycled water is hoped to replace CCWD-supplied
water from the Central Valley Project system.
Accountability for community service Central San is governed by a five-member Board of
needs, including government structure and Directors, elected by division. District Board meetings
operational facilities. are open to the public. The Central San website
Does the agency have a website? includes comprehensive information on the District
Does the agency post a public budget, public notices, meetings, capital
improvement plans, and community programs.
outreach tool (such as a calendar or
Central San also publishes an informative community
newsletter) on its website?
newsletter (“Pipeline”) two or three times a year.
What is the recommendation for
mergers, consolidations, or other
Central San is an award-winning agency with a long
changes to governance structure?
track record of regional leadership. This District has
the existing capacity to provide technical and
managerial assistance to neighboring wastewater
service providers. LAFCO encourages Central San’s
continued cooperation with other agencies.
Central San has the existing capacity to provide
technical and managerial assistance to neighboring
wastewater service providers. In the future, Central
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-37
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
San and LAFCO may wish to consCidoenrt rpar eCposatraa LtiAoFnC oOf a
“special study” as allowed under the CKH Act. This
special study could consider the feasibility of
improving regional operational and service
efficiencies, by inviting SD6, Mt View San District, or
other entities to consider mergers, consolidations, or
other changes to the governance structure in
conjunction with Central San.
Any other matter related to effective or No additional issues have been identified.
efficient service delivery, as required by
commission policy.
12.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE:
Section 12.7, Government Structure Alternatives, describes various issues and options associated
with changing the structure of this local government agency. LAFCO often accomplishes its
government structure issues through changes to boundaries and/or SOIs. Section 12.7 contains a
detailed analysis of four governance alternatives including the following:
• Maintain the Status Quo
• Misc. Adjustments to District Boundary or SOI
• Annexation of or Merge or Consolidate with Sanitary District No. 6
• Merge or Consolidate with Mt. View Sanitary District (MVSD)
In the short-term, it is recommended that LAFCO reaffirm the Central San’s current SOI
determinations and reaffirm the District’s current SOI. In the long-term, LAFCO may wish to consider
each of the different government service options provided in the preceding pages. LAFCO may wish
to request additional studies be conducted prior to modifying a governance structure or SOI.
Please note that LAFCO’s 2014 MSR recommended that LAFCO reaffirm the Central San’s current
SOI determinations and reaffirm the District’s current SOI. Consideration should be given to the
expansion of Central San’s SOI to include the governance structure options described in the Section
12.7 regarding Mt. View Sanitary District and/or SD No. 6.
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-38
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
12.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California’s Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit California State Data Center.
5/23/2023. Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC)
Data Release. Table 2: Land Area, Population and Population Density for California,
Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP), Census
2020Contributions from U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 1, 2023b. Report E-1 & E-1H,
Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2022 and
2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance. (2021). Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, 2010-2060
California and Counties (2019 Baseline). Retrieved on August 9, 2022 from:
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/>.
California Department of Finance. (2022). Report E-1: Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and
the State January 1, 2021, and 2022. Retrieved on August 11, 2022 from:
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/estimates-e1/>.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) - State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.)
California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS) SSO Public Report - Detail Page.
Query run on August 27, 2023 from
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/chc_sso.html>.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. June 5, 2020. 2020 Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. 157-
pages. Retrieved February 6, 2024 from: <https://www.centralsan.org/post/sewer-system-
management-plan >.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. December 28, 2021c. Annual Comprehensive Financial
Report For the Years Ended June 30, 2021 and 2020. Contributions from independent
auditors, Maze & Associates. 87-pages. Retrieved on October 24, 2022 from:
<https://www.centralsan.org/financial-information>.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. (2022a). Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. 157-pages.
Retrieved on October 15, 2022 from: <https://www.centralsan.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/2020_ssmp_approved_audit_06.05.2020.pdf?1665594125>.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. November 2022b. Staff Response to LAFCO’s Request for
Information. 7-pages. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. December 12, 2022c.Follow-Up Questions For Central San
For 2022 Contra Costa Lafco MSR. 3-pages. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request.
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-39
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Finance Department. December 8C, on2t0ra2 2Cdos. taA LnAnFuCaOl
Comprehensive Financial Report for the year ended June 30, 2022. 87-pages. Contributions
from Maze & Associates, Independent Auditors. Retrieved on February 6, 2024 from
<https://www.centralsan.org/financial-information >.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. (n.d.a). Budget FY 2022-23. 330-pages. Retrieved on October
24, 2022 from: <https://www.centralsan.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/fy2022-
23_budget_-_06-21-22_final.pdf?1658964082>.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. November 29, 2023. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report For The Year Ended June 30, 2023. With
Summarized Comparative Information For The Year Ended June 30, 2022. Contributions from
independent auditors, Maze & Associates. Martinez, California. 92-pages.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. (n.d.b). Treatment Plant. Accessed on October 22, 2022 from:
<https://www.centralsan.org/treatment-plant>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. June 12, 2019. City-wide Services Municipal Service Review Update. Prepared
by Lamphier-Gregory Consultants and Berkson Associates. 793-pages. Retrieved December
2022 from <https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
County of Contra County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner
Annexes. Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16,
2022, from <https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
County of Contra Costa. (2022). Public Parcels. Retrieved on October 26, 2022 from:
<https://gis.cccounty.us/Downloads/Assessor/>.
Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, Bond Counsel and Kutak Rock LLP, Underwriter Counsel
and Piper Jaffray. 2018. Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series A and Series B,
Federally Taxable. 172-pages. Retrieved on February 6, 2024 from:
<https://emma.msrb.org/IssueView/Details/ES389281>.
United States Census, 2021. Quick Facts. Retrieved on December 10, 2022 from
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA,US/PST045221>.
Chapter 12: Central San Page 12-40
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
CHAPTER 13: CROCKETT COMMUCoNntraI CTostYa LA FCO
SERVICES DISTRICT – WASTEWATER
SERVICES
Table of Contents
13.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 13-1
13.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND SOI ........................................................................................................ 13-4
13.3: DISTRICT WASTEWATER OPERATIONS............................................................................................ 13-5
13.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 13-15
13.5: POPULATION ................................................................................................................................. 13-27
13.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ................................................................................................. 13-31
13.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................. 13-33
13.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ............................................. 13-33
13.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS ....................................................... 13-38
13.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 13-40
13.1 OVERVIEW
The unincorporated communities of Crockett and Port Costa, separated by the rolling hills of
regional parks, are located in the northwest corner of Contra Costa County. During the late 19th
century and the turn of the 20th century, wheat production, and later sugar production, dominated
the area. C&H Sugar Company continues to refine sugar in Crockett (LAFCO, 2014). The Crockett
Community Services District (“CCSD”) was formed in 2006 through the reorganization of three
agencies: Crockett-Valona Sanitary District, County Sanitation District No. 5 (Port Costa), and
County Service Area P-1 (LAFCO, 2014). On June 6, 2006, Crockett and Port Costa residents
approved Measure D, which voted the Crockett Community Services District (“District”) into
existence. CCSD serves two separate and distinct communities – Crockett and Port Costa – and is
authorized to provide the following services: wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal;
community recreation services; street lighting; landscape maintenance; and graffiti abatement. In
2009, CCSD also formed a Police Liaison Commission to improve communications between area
residents and law enforcement agencies of the County and State (LAFCO, 2014). This report focuses
on the district’s wastewater services. A map of CCSD’s current boundary and sphere of influence
(SOI) is shown in Figure 13-1. Table 13-1 below presents CCSD’s Agency Profile.
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 13-1: Agency Profile – Crockett Community Services District Contra Costa LAFCO
General Information
Agency Type Community Services District
Principal Act Community Services District Law, Government Code Section 61000 et
seq. & SB 135, Community Services District Law
Date Formed 2006
Services Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal; community recreation
services; decorative streetlights; graffiti abatement; landscape
maintenance
Service Area
Location Communities of Crockett and Port Costa
Sq. Miles/Acres 1.08 square miles/ 690 acres
Land Uses Residential, commercial, public use
Population Served Approx. 3,432 (Crockett: 3,242) (Port Costa: 190)
Last SOI Update 05/14/2014 and 6/12/2019
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities 2 sewage treatment plants:
1) C&H Sugar Company owns, operates, and maintains the C&H
Sugar – Crockett CSD/Philip F. Meads Water Treatment Facility.
2) The district owns the Port Costa Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) and, through contracts with Valley Operators LLC,
operates and maintains the plant.
Additional wastewater infrastructure includes sewer lines, a pump
station, and a storage tank. The district also has recreation facilities.
Sewer Connections Crockett: 1,175 and Port Costa 86 for a total of 1,261 residential and
business sewer connections
Treatment Plant 1) C&H Sugar-Crockett CSD/Philip F. Meads WTP: 1.78 MGD
Capacity (MGD)/Dry (secondary treated wastewater)
Weather Design 2) Port Costa Wastewater Treatment Plant: 0.033 MGD
Capacity
Primary Disposal Both the Crockett and Port Costa treatment plants discharge into the
Method Carquinez Strait
Financial Information- FY 2020-2021 (All Services- Wastewater/Recreation)
Revenues Expenditures Net
Operating/General Fund $ 733,032 $ 1,125,957 $702,424
Combined Other Funds $2,011,455 $1,802,244 $13,663,410
All Funds $ 2,744,487 $ 2,928,201 $14,365,834
FY 2020-2021 Long-Term Planned Expenditures
Capital Expenditures $664,782 Data not readily available
Net Assets $ 17,328,104 June 30, 2021 Financial Statement- Restricted
Governance
Governing Body Board of Directors (5 members)
Agency Contact CCSD Sanitary Dept. (510) 787-2992
Notes:
None
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 13-1, Boundary/SOI Map – Crockett Community Services District
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
13.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND SOI Contra Costa LAFCO
District boundary: CCSD’s boundary encompasses 690 acres (1.08 square miles). The
unincorporated Crockett and Port Costa communities are geographically non-contiguous and have
separate wastewater systems. Land uses within the CCSD boundary are almost entirely residential,
including single-family homes and some multi-family parcels. Commercial and public uses are
intermixed. Parks, recreational facilities, and open space are located within the district Boundary,
and CCSD provides recreation services. Agricultural land uses, as designated in the Contra Costa
County General Plan, are intended for grazing livestock or dry grain farming (LAFCO, 2019).
Development in Crockett and Port Costa is constrained by the Carquinez Strait to the north, hilly
topography, and unstable soils. New development outside the CCSD boundary is not anticipated
due to geographic constraints. However, California’s new housing laws, such as SB 9, could spur
new infill development within CCSD’s boundary. Crockett and Port Costa share a proximity along the
Carquinez Strait and location within the San Francisco Bay / Sacramento Delta Estuary watershed.
Additional information about this watershed is provided in Appendix F.
LAFCO’s 2014 wastewater MSR noted that a single property was receiving District service outside
CCSD’s boundary. This one property (located at 7000 Carquinez Scenic Drive in Port Costa) is
receiving sanitary sewer service through an out-of-agency agreement (CC LAFCO Resolution No. 07-
05). The property owner is reluctant to annex to CCSD, and CCSD has indicated that a resolution to
this issue is not expected in the short term. In October 2023, the CSD’s General Manager (Gaunt
Murdock) reported that this property continues to pay for and receive sewer service. Although this
parcel is not within the district boundary, it is the only such property that receives service (G.
Murdock, personal communication, October 2023).
Please note that LAFCO’s files indicate there may have been one 2007 out-of-agency service (OAS)
pertaining to County Sanitation District No. 5. However, it oddly appears to be in Crockett CSD’s SOI.
However, Crockett CSD was formed in 2006. There was also an OAS in 2000.
SOI: CCSD’s SOI is nearly coterminous with the service area boundary, except for one parcel located
west of Canyon Lake Drive (Port Costa area), as shown in Figure 13-1. The CCSD does not request
any changes to its SOI at this time. CCSD’s SOI was reconfirmed in LAFCO’s MSRs/SOI updates on
05/14/2014 and 6/12/2019.
A private development project has been informally proposed as a potential school or conference
center near Port Costa. The Contra Costa County Planning Dept. will likely evaluate the proposal. If
approved, wastewater collection and treatment services may be needed to serve the development.
Therefore, this privately owned parcel may require annexation to CCSD. Further, the Port Costa
sewer system, including the WWTP, may not be able to handle additional flows resulting from new
development. The Port Costa sewage treatment plant currently operates at or near capacity. Since
the Port Costa WWTP has a small customer base, any additional flow represents a significant
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
increase. Future studies would be needed to determine the wastewater capacitCyo anntrda t Choes ptaro LpAoFsCeOd
flow generation. If an application for boundary and/or SOI expansion were made to LAFCO, then
LAFCO should consult with the CCSD on infrastructure capacity and other issues.
SF Bay Land Use
The Bay Area Regional Collaborative includes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. This collaborative multi-agency
regional committee allows for cross-jurisdictional work on projects such as Resilient Bay Area and
Carbon Free Future.
The CCSD’s boundary/SOI is adjacent to or encompasses a portion of the San Francisco Bay, a
sensitive environmental resource. The California state planning and regulatory agency, which has
regional authority over San Francisco Bay, the Bay’s shoreline band, and the Suisun Marsh, is called
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Its mission is to protect
and enhance San Francisco Bay and to encourage the Bay’s responsible and productive use for this
and future generations. BCDC works to ensure projects are compatible with the conservation of Bay
resources as described on its website at: <https://bcdc.ca.gov/ >.
13.3: DISTRICT WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
CCSD provides a range of services to the local community, including community recreation services;
decorative streetlights; graffiti abatement; landscape maintenance; and wastewater collection,
treatment, and disposal (LAFCO, 2014). the district’s wastewater service includes collection,
conveyance, treatment, and disposal services. The CCSD manages two sewer systems through the
Crockett Sanitary Department and the Port Costa Sanitary Department. Each department serves one
of the two distinct unincorporated areas.
Crockett Community
Crockett Sanitary Department provides sewage collection, treatment, and disposal services to 1,175
properties in the Town of Crockett (CCSD, SSMP, 2020). CCSD flows are conveyed to the C&H Sugar
WWTP. C&H Sugar provides treatment services under a Joint Use Agreement signed in 1976. Under
this agreement, C&H Sugar Company, Inc., and the CCSD jointly own the WWTP, and C&H Sugar
Company is the operator.
Existing Infrastructure
The CCSD currently maintains various equipment, vehicles1, infrastructure, and associated assets.
1
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the district, it is likely that sometime in the future, the
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Specifically, CCSD has two sewage treatment plants: Contra Costa LAFCO
1) C&H Sugar Company owns, operates, and maintains the C&H Sugar – CCSD/Philip F.
Meads Water Treatment Facility.
2) CCSD owns the Port Costa WTP and, through contracts with Valley Operators LLC,
operates and maintains the plant.
Additional wastewater infrastructure includes sewer lines, a pump station, and a storage tank as
follows:
• sewer lines (approx. 88,100 lf);
• pump station (4.0 MGD);
• storage tank (1.0 MG);
• Crockett Sewer pipe (approx. 15.4 miles); and
• Port Costa sewer pipe (approx. 1.3 miles)
• (Data Source: Contra Costa County, 2018).
The Crockett area utilizes a joint C&H Sugar-Crockett Phillip F. Meads WWTP (NPDES Permit
CA0005240) with a capacity of 1.8 MGD, as described in Table 13-2 below. Sewage effluent is
collected through approximately 81,000 lineal feet of sewer main and two pump stations in Crockett
(LAFCO 2014). CCSD received a NPDES permit in November 2012 to treat Crockett area wastewater
at the joint Philip F. Meads WWTP, which was renewed in April 2018. In 2019, the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a notice of water quality violations for cyanide and
copper (SFRWQCB, 2019). Although the WWTP is aged, increased maintenance efforts were made
by C&H at the Crockett Joint Treatment Plant (G. Murdock, personal communication, 2023).
Table 13-2: Philip F. Meads Water Treatment Plant Details
Name of Facility Joint C&H Sugar Company-CCSD Philip F. Meads Water
Treatment Plant and its collection system
WDID 2071006001
CIWQS Place ID 212212
NPDES Permit CA0005240
Discharger C&H Sugar Company, Inc.
CCSD
CIWQS Discharger Party ID 6755
Facility Address 830 Loring Avenue
Crockett, CA 94525
CIWQS Party ID 521474
Mailing Address Crockett Community Services District – P.O. Box 578,
Crockett, CA 94525
Data Source: California Water Board, 2012
district may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting veh icles reliant upon an alternative energy source
such as electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore,
alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
In 2008, CCSD’s Port Costa Sanitary Department took responsibility for the wastewater flows
previously managed by County Sanitation District No. 5. Today, CCSD provides wastewater services
to 86 properties in the Town of Port Costa (CCSD, SSMP, 2020). Wastewater flows are conveyed to
the Port Costa WTP for treatment. The Port Costa area has a small WWTP able to accommodate up
to 0.033 million gallons per day (MGD) average dry weather effluent flow (LAFCO, 2014 and Calif
Water Board, 2018). The Port Costa collection and conveyance system includes 7,100 lineal feet of
sewer main (LAFCO, 2014). The NPDES permit for the Port Costa Service Area and WWTP was issued
in October 2013 and renewed in December 2018. The Port Costa Treatment Plant wastewater is
treated to the “secondary” level, as shown in Figure 13-2 (next page). The WWTP is considered aged.
However, CCSD staff is currently considering a replacement /renovation program (G. Murdock,
personal communication, 2023).
Table 13-3: Port Costa Wastewater Treatment Plant Details
Discharger Crockett Community Services District
Facility Name Port Costa WTP and Wastewater Collection System
Facility Address End of Canyon Lake Drive
Port Costa, CA 94569
Contra Costa County
CIWQS Place Number 248886
NPDES No. CA0037885
RWQCB Order No. R2-2018-0053
Mailing Address 850 Pomona St, Crockett, CA 94525
Type of Facility Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
Major or Minor Facility Minor
Threat to Water Quality 3 (on a scale of?)
Mercury and PCB Requirements NPDES Permit No. CA0038849
Nutrients Requirements NPDES Permit No. CA0038873
Facility Permitted Flow 0.033 million gallons per day (MGD)
Facility Design Flow 0.033 MGD – Average dry weather design flow capacity
Watershed Suisun Basin Watershed
Receiving Water Carquinez Strait
Receiving Water Type Estuarine
Data Source: California Water Board, 2018
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 13-2: Post Costa Wastewater Treatment Process Diagram Contra Costa LAFCO
Data Source for Figure 13-2: California Water Board, 2018
the district provides wastewater services to 1,261 residential and business sewer connections (86+
1,175). One connection may serve many individual customers. Secondary treated effluent is
disposed of into the Carquinez Strait, a tributary to the San Francisco Bay. CCSD’s infrastructure is
currently at capacity on both systems, and there is no significant expansion capacity (Gaunt
Murdock, personal communication, 2023).
CCSD relies upon private contractors (companies) and nearby public agencies for a significant
portion of fieldwork and maintenance, as listed below:
• Operation of the Phillip Mead WWTP is conducted by C&H Sugar.
• CCTV inspection service, emergency response by request, and sewer maintenance and
repair service are provided through a contract with L. R. Paulsell.
• Port Costa SD treatment plant operations and maintenance work is done through a service
agreement with Valley Operators.
• Facilities planning and design are completed by consultant engineers, and construction is
completed by licensed contractors (CCSD, SSMP, 2020).
• WCWD currently provides preventative maintenance of the CSD’s main Crockett Pump
Station, the smaller lift pump at Loring street in Crockett. Additionally, WCWD provides both
sewer cleaning (Rodding) and emergency sewer service. The WCWD does not provide
engineering support or other engineering services. The CCSD is not considering or
anticipating any increase in WCWD services at this time (Murdock, personal
communication, October 2023).
On October 14, 2022, the San Francisco Chronicle published a news article about the “swamp gas”
smell emitting from the CCSD WWTP. According to the article, hydrogen sulfide had been emitted
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
into the air due to an operational dysfunction. The Bay Air Quality Management DCiosntrtircat Choasst rae LcAeiFvCeOd
many notices and public complaints. The community was advised to stay indoors and use air filters
to reduce exposure to the “sewage gas” (Bindman, 2022). Residents with odor complaints are
encouraged to call the Public Access number for BAAQMD (800 334 6367). CCSD staff utilizes direct
phone and email contacts with BAAQMD staff to aid in ongoing communication (Murdock, personal
communication, October 2023).
The timeframe of October 2022 to March 2023 brought extreme weather to California in the form of
atmospheric rivers, resulting in significant rainfall. The Crockett and Port Costa collection systems
and WWTPs were able to handle the rains without spillage. However, both systems reached flow
capacity repeatedly, and there was noticeable inflow and infiltration (I&I) from storm water. The
CCSD will continue to replace sewer mains, encourage private lateral replacement, and to require
lateral replacement on transfer of parcel ownership (Murdock, personal communication, October
2023).
Local Hazards
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2, dated January 2018, maps critical
infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards (Contra Costa County,
2018). The Hazard Mitigation Plan does not include a map of the district’s wastewater infrastructure
in relation to liquefaction, earthquake risk, and potential flood hazards. However, the Hazard
Mitigation Plan does mention that, in general, disruption of wastewater is a secondary impact of a
natural disaster or intentional act. In the surrounding regional area, sewer services are provided by
the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Ironhouse Sanitary District, Delta Diablo Sanitation
District, Mountain View Sanitary District, West County Wastewater District, Dublin San Ramon
Services District, Rodeo Sanitary District, Pinole Sanitary District, Hercules Sanitary District, and
CCSD. Disruption of the planning area’s wastewater collection and treatment plants could result if
the system were to be overwhelmed by a significant storm or discharge of materials in such
quantities that the treatment plant could not adequately treat the waste (Contra Costa County,
2018). Natural hazards such as earthquakes or floods, major power outages, or terrorism directed
at the facilities and systems could disrupt the process of collecting and treating millions of gallons
of sewage. WWTPs may also have emergencies internal to the plant, such as oxygen deficiencies
that render them incapable of treating waste. Service disruption could also have significant
environmental impacts on the waterways adjacent to the treatment plants (Contra Costa County,
2018).
The 2018 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan provides complete risk assessments for each identified
hazard of concern. Noted vulnerabilities within the district include the following:
• Risk of earthquake damage to wastewater and recreation facilities, including the district
office.
• Climate change effect on sea-level rise will likely inundate the Crockett WWTP and primary
pump station, by sea level rise by 2100.
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
• Flooding from extreme or prolonged storm events could overwhelm theC eoxnistrtian gC ocsatpaa LcAitFyC oOf
sewer wastewater collection systems in Crockett or Port Costa.
• Crockett and Port Costa communities could be cut off and isolated as a result of a hazard
event, such as an earthquake or wildfire. (Contra Costa County, 2018).
In addition to the above list, wildfires are a community concern, but traditionally, they have not
impacted wastewater service. For example, a wildfire burned near Crockett on October 29, 2019,
commonly called the “Sky Fire”. The fire began at approximately 9:30 AM and quickly generated so
much dense smoke that Caltrans closed the Carquinez Bridge to traffic in both directions. The CCSD
has implemented hazard mitigation planning within its existing programs and plans (Contra Costa
County, 2018). Specifically, the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan lists 12 action items for CCSD to
complete in future years. For example, one action item is as follows: “CRCSD-1—Where
appropriate, support retrofitting or relocation of structures in high-hazard areas, prioritizing
structures that have experienced repetitive losses.”. To better understand its risk/vulnerability, the
LHMP suggests that CCSD develop a “Capability Assessment Plan” and a study on the effect of
climate change on District sanitary department facilities (including WWTPs, pump stations, and
collection system sewer pipes). The LHMP suggests that CCSD may wish to pursue grant funding or
other alternative funding sources to support the completion of the list of action items.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted
systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California
Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General
Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. WQ
2022-0103-DWQ (SSS WDRs), on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate a
sanitary sewer system comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a
publicly owned treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A
3.5-year term from January 1, 2019, to August 9, 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database.
Database query results regarding the CCSD are listed below in Table 13-4 (next page).
During this 3.5-year timeframe, there were 13 SSO events in the CCSD. In most cases, the SSOs had
failure points at the gravity mainline. The overflows were relatively small, but most spill material was
not recovered. The largest spill within the query results occurred on January 22, 2022, with a volume
of 1,120 gallons. None of the sewage spill was recovered, but none of the material reached surface
water. The spill reached an unpaved surface and was caused due to root intrusion. Another spill
occurred on January 2, 2020, and had a volume of 940 gallons. The spill was caused by debris rags
and did not reach surface water. However, none of the spilled material was recovered.
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 13-4: Crockett Community Service District Sanitary Sewer Overflows Contra Costa LAFCO
EVENT Region Responsible Collection SSO Start Date SSO Vol of SSO Vol of SSO Failure WDID
ID Agency System Category Vol Recovered SSO Point
Reached
Surface
Water
857160 2 CCSD Joint C&H- Category 3 3/24/2019 36 0 0 Pump Station- 2SSO10145
CCSD 10:45 Controls
Biological CS
857712 2 CCS D Joint C&H- Category 3 4/13/2019 18 1 0 Gravity 2SSO10145
CCSD 8:00 Mainline
Biological CS
862444 2 CCSD Joint C&H- Category 1 10/27/2019 278 0 278 Gravity 2SSO10145
CCSD 9:00 Mainline
Biological CS
864253 2 CCSD Joint C&H- Category 3 1/2/2020 940 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10145
CCSD 12:00 Mainline
Biological CS
864368 2 CCSD Joint C&H- Category 1 1/22/2020 450 0 360 Gravity 2SSO10145
CCSD 22:00 Mainline
Biological CS
866651 2 CCSD Joint C&H- Category 1 4/21/2020 180 0 90 Bypass 2SSO10145
CCSD 11:00 discharge hose
Biological CS folded over.
867968 2 CCSD Joint C&H- Category 3 7/14/2020 50 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10145
CCSD 8:00 Mainline
Biological CS
870462 2 CCSD Joint C&H- Category 3 11/4/2020 5 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10145
CCSD 14:00 Mainline
Biological CS
870742 2 CCSD Joint C&H- Category 3 11/26/2020 25 1 0 Gravity 2SSO10145
CCSD 8:00 Mainline
Biological CS
873283 2 CCSD Joint C&H- Category 3 3/13/2021 10 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10145
CCSD 16:45 Mainline
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Biological CS Contra Costa LAFCO
877038 2 CCSD Joint C&H- Category 3 10/8/2021 5 0 0 Upper Lateral 2SSO10145
CCSD 10:30 (Public)
Biological CS
879730 2 CCSD Joint C&H- Category 2 1/22/2022 1,120 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10145
CCSD 2:00 Mainline
Biological CS
881207 2 CCSD Joint C&H- Category 3 5/1/2022 525 5 0 Gravity 2SSO10145
CCSD 15:00 Mainline
Biological CS
Figure 13-3. Google Maps Street View of the Crockett Community Center
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Please note that CCSD has successfully reduced the number of spills occurring oCvoenrt triam Ceo, simtap LrAoFviCnOg
its record. LAFCo’s 2014 MSR noted that the Crockett and Port Costa collection systems had
experienced Sanitary System Overflows (SSOs) since 2008. At that time, there were 29 SSOs on the
Crockett collection system and six on the Port Costa collection system, for a total of 24,921 gallons
spilled. Only seven spills exceeded 1,000 gallons. CCSD continues to adjust maintenance activities
and prioritize capital projects to minimize SSOs.
From July to October 2022, San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known as a
red tide. The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma akashiwo, can cause water to take on
a reddish-brown color. The HAB extended throughout the open-bay regions of the South Bay, the
Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths linked to the red tide were reported to include
sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, and anchovy. The San Francisco Bay Water Board is
working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay through the Nutrient Management Strategy, which
includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other agencies to study potential impacts
of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. The CCSD has an opportunity to assist with this effort by
continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by discussing the nutrient problem with other
wastewater districts and the Water Board.
Infrastructure Needs
CCSD owns and maintains several key assets, as listed below in Table 13-5. The two WWTPs and
associated collection pipelines/pump stations are the primary infrastructure for the district. For the
Crockett area, the joint WWTP is an activated sludge wastewater treatment facility that treats
primary treated sugar refining wastewater and pretreated (comminuted and de-gritted) domestic
wastewater from CCSD. The Sugar Refinery’s sanitary wastes and tank truck washings, which
account for less than 0.01 MGD, are combined with the pretreated sewage from the district. The
average dry weather flow from the district to the Joint Treatment Plant is 0.3 MGD (CA Water Board,
2012). During wet weather, the peak wet weather flow may increase to 3.3 MGD (CA Water Board,
2012). Excess sewage, due to stormwater I&I, is temporarily stored in the CCSD’s stormwater surge
tanks before returning it to the Joint Treatment Plant. During wet weather, peak flows are stored in
the stormwater surge tanks before processing. The secondary-treated wastewater is discharged
through a deep-water Discharge Point 002 to the Carquinez Strait. The design flow for the WWTP is
1.8 MGD for secondary treated wastewater discharged through Outfall 002 (CA Water Board, 2012).
The 1.8 MGD design flow easily accommodates the 0.3 MGD average dry weather flow from the
district. However, the 1.8 MGD design flow is exceeded during peak wet weather flow up to 3.3 MGD.
Wet weather flows that exceed design capacity are managed by the district through the use of the
previously mentioned stormwater surge tanks. To prevent future sanitary sewer overflows, CCSD
has an approved SSMP dated March 2020.
Waste biosolids from the dissolved air clarifiers at the Joint Treatment Plant are dewatered by belt
presses, mixed with lime if stabilization is necessary, and trucked for off-site disposal. Liquor
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
removed from the belt-presses is combined with washings, waste samples, dripCso,n sttroar Cmowstaat eLrA, FaCnOd
other process waters are returned to the treatment process.
Table 13-5: CCSD Key Physical Assets and Associated Value
Data Source: Contra Costa County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2018
CCSD maintains and replaces portions of its collection and treatment facilities as needed. All work
is done on a priority basis by the limited staff of CCSD (LAFCO, 2014). The Crockett Sanitary
Department has developed a capital improvement plan (CIP) for its sewer collection system. The
District considers the age of the sewer collection pipe, current condition, and risk of failure in
prioritizing projects (Contra Costa County, 2018). The hazard mitigation plan may identify potential
funding sources to accelerate sewer pipe replacement, lowering the risk of a sewer spill or
equipment failure. Additionally, C&H Sugar Company, which operates the Joint-Sewer-Treatment
Plant in Crockett, manages the capital improvement plan for the treatment plant (Contra Costa
County, 2018).
CCSD has a CIP as part of its budget. The CIP outlines improvements as associated budget line items
for projects. Each of the WWTP’s are considered as being in an “aged” operating condition and
require ongoing rehabilitation.
Future challenges
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 has several recommended remedies for
California’s aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a WWTP is, what
kind of waste it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the sewer pipes. Continue
educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom to call if such an event
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
occurs. Contra Costa LAFCO
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling.
(Source: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2019)
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
To obtain efficiencies and cost reductions, the district utilizes several cooperative programs to help
reduce costs. With a small operations staff, this is important.
Cooperative Programs
CCSD utilizes cooperative programs and services to carry out several functions as follows:
• C&H Sugar operates the Crockett Joint Treatment Plant through a contract with Inframark
(https://www.inframark.com/ ), an infrastructure management company. Weekly testing of
Port Costa effluent is performed by Valley Operators (https://www.valleyoperators.com), a
water resource operations company located in Northern California (G. Murdock, personal
communication, 2023). C&H Sugar operates and maintains the WWTP (Crockett CSD, 2020).
The C&H Sugar Co. also has the responsibility to perform testing and reporting requirements
(Crockett CSD, 2020).
• The Crockett Sanitary and Port Costa sanitary departments have an Access and Repair
Agreement program whereby low-interest loans are offered to senior citizens if their building
sewer lateral is defective, and it would be a financial hardship to replace it otherwise (LAFCO,
2019).
• West County Wastewater District (WCWD) currently provides preventative maintenance of
the CSD’s main Crockett Pump Station, the smaller lift pump at Loring street in Crockett.
Additionally, WCWD provides both sewer cleaning (Rodding) and emergency sewer service
(Murdock, personal communication, October 2023).
• CCSD utilizes other independent contractors for inspection and repair of the collection
system.
• The CCSD is not a member of any joint powers authorities (LAFCO, 2019).
13.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
CCSD utilizes Enterprise Funds as the financial mechanism to support wastewater services.
Enterprise Funds are used to separately account for self-supporting operations. The CCSD’s
finances were analyzed in detail in LAFCO’s 2019 MSR which also offered several recommendations
to improve financial reporting (LAFCO, 2019). This analysis focuses on funding for wastewater
services. The District’s budget and independent financial audits for fiscal years (FY) 2018-19 through
FY 2020-21 and budgets for FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23 are the primary information sources for data
related to the financial health of the district. These reports are posted on the district’s website at:
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
<https://www.town.crockett.ca.us/district-financial-information (CCSD, 201C9oan; tr2a0 C2o0sbta; L2A0F2C1O;
2022). This financial analysis represents a snapshot in time (i.e., a limited time period). However,
CCSD regularly updates its financial data, and readers can review the new data on its website.
The two Enterprise Funds for wastewater operations are the Port Costa Operating Fund and the
Crockett Operating Fund. The audited financial statement for FY 2020-21, the most recent audit
completed for the district, includes information such as the independent auditor's opinion,
statements of net position, revenues, expenses, changes in net position, cash flows, notes to
financial statements, and required supplementary information. The auditor noted that the CCSD’s
management has omitted management’s discussion and analysis that accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America require to be presented to supplement the basic
financial statements. The auditor is of the opinion that the basic financial statements are not
affected by this missing information (CCSD, 2020b).
The CCSD is primarily funded through sewer use charges, residential recreation assessments, local
property taxes, facility rentals, and grants (Contra Costa County, LHMP, 2018). Regarding
wastewater funds, specifically, CCSD operates its wastewater services as enterprise-type activities,
with its primary revenue sources being service charges and fees. CCSD operates both the Crockett
Sanitary Department and the Port Costa Sanitary Department within its overall operations. The
Crockett Operating Fund, which provides sanitary services, is funded by property tax and sewer use
charges. The Fund receives a base minimum of $239,918 property taxes annually, derived from the
allocation rate of 85.315 percent that was set in FY 2007-08 with 14.684% or $42,293 of property
taxes annually allocated to the Crockett Recreation Department. These base amounts are
guaranteed unless the property taxes received drop below $281,211 at which point the historical Tax
Rate Area (TRA) allocation formulas will be used to determine the taxes due each department.
Property taxes received above $281,211 are allocated to departments that serve the Crockett
community based on budgetary needs identified during the annual budget process, taking into
consideration the historical (TRA) property tax allocation rates but not requiring them to be followed
(CCSD, 2019b). The Port Costa Operating Fund revenues consist only of sewer service charges
(CCSD, 2022).
The FY 2022-23 adopted budget assumes a decrease of approximately $1.02 million annual budget,
from $6.095 million to $5.077 million. This is a decrease of approximately 16.7 percent from FY 2021-
22. The Districts total net position increased by approximately $4.4 million from FY 2019/-20 to FY
2020-21 (CCSD, 2020b; 2021; 2022). There are five primary areas of criteria that have been utilized
to assess the present and future financial condition of the CCSD’s wastewater service operations,
as discussed below.
3 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
The Crockett Enterprise Fund operated with revenues exceeding expenditures for FY 2018-19
through FY 2021-22. The adopted FY 2022-23 budget anticipates expenditures exceeding revenue by
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
$639,163, as shown in Figure 13-4 below2. Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 13-4: Enterprise Funds Total Revenues and
Expenditures
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$-
2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023
Crockett Revenues Crockett Expenditures Port Costa Revenues Port Costa Expenditures
This expenditure increase is due to anticipated capital project expenses and capital replacement
costs budgeted for the year. The Port Costa Enterprise Fund operated with expenses exceeding
revenues for FY 2019-20, FY 2021-22, and FY 2022-23. The fund averaged an approximately $15,000
deficit for FY 2019/-20 and FY 2021-22. The budget for FY 2022-23 anticipates a much larger deficit
of approximately $72,500. This is likely due to $85,000 allocated for capital projects and some small
increases in maintenance and operating costs compared to FY 2021-22 (CCSD, 2019a; 2020b; 2021;
2022). CCSD’s Crockett Sanitary Department completed the last rate study in 2012 and is
implementing rate adjustments as appropriate to meet operational and capital requirements
(CCSD, 2023a).
Ratios of Revenue Sources
CCSD’s operational and non-operational revenue sources for FY 2020-21 are shown in Figure 13-5.
2 The financial data in this MSR focuses on the wastewater enterprise fund. The data does not include
recreation funds or the funds from Measure R, passed In June 2012, approving a 220% increase to the
Recreation Special Tax to support recreational services in Crockett and Port Costa. The text of Measure R
suggests the tax does not expire.
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 13-5: Revenue Sources, FY 2020/2021
1%
1%
20%
3%
3%
0%
1%
60% 11%
Property Taxes Intergovernmental Charges for services
Investment earnings Miscellaneous Port Costa Sewer Use Charges
Crockett Sewer Use Charges Crockett Operating Grants Crockett Mischellaneous
The District receives approximately 71 percent of its wastewater fund revenues from charges and
fees for services for Crockett and Port Costa and 20 percent of revenue from property taxes. Property
taxes are divided between the Crockett Enterprise Fund and Recreation Services. The Port Costa
Enterprise Fund does not receive any property taxes. The remaining revenue sources vary from three
percent to one percent, including permit and inspection fees, franchise and connection fees,
interest income, rents, and leases (CCSD, 2021). This ratio of sources is typical for an enterprise-
type service, such as a wastewater district.
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited
by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to
the annual fund expenditures (LAFCO, 2014). The CCSD maintains a separate Crockett Sanitary
Reserve Fund and Port Costa Fund (LAFCO, 2014). The audited financial report for FY 2020-21 shows
an unrestricted net position of $148,555 for Port Costa and $4,994,747 for Crockett. Based on
expenses for this same fiscal year, the Port Costa fund has a negative ratio of -0.53, and the Crockett
fund has a positive ratio of 0.31 percent (CCSD, 2021a). Figure 13-6 shows the total assets for both
enterprise funds reflecting current assets and noncurrent assets for FY 2020-21. Current assets
include cash and investments; accounts receivable, net; advances to other funds; and prepaid
items. Noncurrent assets include advances to other funds; land; buildings; machinery, equipment,
and vehicles; sewer distribution system; and less accumulated depreciation (CCSD, 2021a).
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 13-6: Enterprise Fund Assets, FY 2020-21
Crockett
$164,731 $4,856,174 $8,148,984
Port Costa
$138,704
$- $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000
Current Assets Non-Current Assets
The FY 2023/2024 Sewer Use Charge Study for the Port Costa Sanitary Department determined that
the budget setting the sewer use charges maintains insufficient capital reserves to respond to
unanticipated system failures or emergencies and has an inadequate contingency fund. When
CCSD took over operations of Port Costa sanitation, Contra Costa County left no inventory of the
system, inspection data, repair records, or condition assessment, and performed no known
preventive maintenance on the system. The District anticipated significant costs to bring the
collection system up to current standards of reliability within as short a timeframe as possible. The
small tax base and constrained revenue stream available for capital expenditures have restricted
the ability of the district to undertake desired projects (CCSD, 2023c).
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. Figure 13-7 shows the liabilities for both
Enterprise funds as of FY 2020-21 (CCSD, 2021b).
Figure 13-7: Enterprise Fund Laibilities/Debts, FY 2020-21
Crockett
$(8,148,984) $(4,856,174)
Port Costa $(138,704)
$(164,731)
$(14,000,000) $(12,000,000) $(10,000,000) $(8,000,000) $(6,000,000) $(4,000,000) $(2,000,000) $-
Current Liabilities Non-Current Liabilities
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of CCSD’s ability to
meet debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a ratio of 10 percent or
less would reflect a very stable ratio (LAFCO, 2014). According to the district’s FY 2020-21 audited
financial statement, the district had $258,587 in notes payable for noncurrent liabilities with the
Crockett Enterprise Fund. This equates to a ratio of 16.9 percent, which suggests that the district
may have trouble meeting debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. In addition,
both funds had a net pension liability with $11,743 for Port Costa and $92,855 for Crockett. For these
funds, expenses for FY 2020-21 did not include any debt payments (CCSD, 2021b).
According to the audited financial statement for FY 2020-21, the district has four long-term loans as
follows:
• $122,291 notes payable issued May 13, 2002, principal payable in various annual
installments through October 17, 2021; interest payable annually at 2.400%.
• $495,153 notes payable issued December 9, 2002, principle payable in various annual
installments through December 18, 2022; interest payable annually at 2.700%.
• $290,844 notes payable issued August 20, 2020, principal payable in various bi-annual
installments through August 11, 2026; interest payable semi-annually at 2.75%.
• $642,500 notes payable issued August 20, 2020, principal payable in various bi-annual
installments through August 11, 2040; interest payable semi-annually at 3.25%
The Crockett Sanitary Department entered into a loan agreement with the Port Costa Sanitary
Department in September 2013 to pay off the remaining balance of a loan owed to Contra Costa
County for treatment plant upgrades. Port Costa Sanitary has agreed to repay the loan in five years,
with the first annual payment made in October 2014. A second inter-agency loan agreement to pay
off the remaining balance of a West America loan for treatment plant upgrades was completed in
March 2016. A third loan was needed in April 2020 for project costs associated with the wastewater
settling tank. This loan is scheduled to start repayment in 2023. The interest rate for each loan is
1.5% over what the district receives on its investments from the Local Agency Investment Fund
(LAIF). Amortized payments through December of 2029 will be paid to the Crockett Sanitary
Department annually. As of April 2023, this asset will be valued at $300,012 (CCSD, 2023a). For FY
2022-23, the district budgeted $39,648 in principle payment as part of the Port Costa Sanitary
Department Budget. This equates to a ratio of 10.6 percent, which suggests that the district can meet
debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures for this fund. The FY 2022-23 budget
also includes an interfund loan to the Maintenance Department from the Crockett Sanitary
Department budget of $100,000. This suggests that the district may be having trouble keeping pace
with the costs associated with maintaining its other services outside of wastewater services for FY
2022-23 (CCSD, 2022a).
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Capital Improvement Program Contra Costa LAFCO
According to the district’s Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), updated May 2023, the district
must establish a short- and long-term CIP to address identified hydraulic deficiencies, including
prioritization, alternatives analysis, and schedules. The CIP may include increases in pipe size, I&I
reduction programs, increases and redundancy in pumping capacity, and storage facilities. The CIP
shall include an implementation schedule and shall identify sources of funding. The District shall
develop a schedule of completion dates for all portions of the CIP. This schedule shall be reviewed
and updated at least every two years (CCSD, 2023b). The District has collected years of flow data
from existing facilities and is planning to utilize this data in a capacity analysis for each of the sanitary
departments. The capacity analysis is planned for completion within five years from the date of the
May 2023 SSMP update (CCSD, 2023b). Although CCSD does not have a detailed CIP which projects
needs for future years, it does have a list of capital improvement projects included within its annual
budget, as shown in Table 13-6 below.
The 2022-23 budget includes sewer collection system projects and treatment plant projects for the
Port Costa Sanitary Department, totaling $96,000. In addition, there is a list of future capital reserved
for large projects, including: sand replacement reserve; sand bed engineering study; RR crossing;
Influent metering MH and flume; and survey and main replacement on Canyon Lake.
The capital improvement projects for the Crockett Sanitary Department include sewer projects and
equipment, pump station improvements, and treatment plant improvements totaling approximately
$886,322 for FY 2022-23 (CCSD, 2022b).
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 13-6: Capital Projects for Crockett Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 13-7: Capital Projects for Port Costa Sanitary Department Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Rate Structure
The district reviews the sewer use charges for the Crockett-Valona Sanitary District and the Port
Costa Sanitary Department. The rate sheet (218 Notice) shows the current single-family residence
(SFR) rates are;
• Crockett: $916/ yr ($76.33/month)
• Port Costa: $2,345/ yr ($195.42/month)
• (Source: G. Murdock, 2023)
Crockett-Valona Sanitary District Sewer Use Charge Study
CCSD’s board reviewed a Sewer Use Charge Study for the Crockett-Valona Sanitary District during
their April 26, 2023 meeting. This study provided a rationale for the determination of the Crockett
Sewer Use Charge for FY 2023/2024 as required by law. Though the district has experienced four
decades of price stability, inflation is expected to factor into increases over the next year.
The sewer services currently provided by the CCSD for Crockett have been determined through a
comprehensive study of properties undertaken in 1992 with continuous updates. The district
currently serves 891 single-family dwellings, 779 apartments, 23 commercial non-residential, 40
mixed-use, and two industrial properties. Calculations for rates conducted by staff can be shown in
Table 13-8 below.
Table 13-8: Crockett-Valona Sanitary District Sewer Use Charge Rates for FY 2023/2024
As part of the Crockett-Valona Sanitary District Sewer Usage Charge Study, staff noted that the
financial outlook for the district remains strong as the district has met the goal of establishing a
reserve fund of $2.5 million. Significant upgrades are anticipated to the Crockett pump station that
are expected to provide a long service life and can be spread over a ten-year period while utilizing
supplemental reserve funds.
Because of pandemic measures that closed commercial venues, sewer use charge revenue from
commercial users was slightly diminished. Water use by apartments, by the same token, increased.
Because of these effects, both apartments and single-family residences have increased burden,
with a greater increase seen in apartments due to their increased usage relative to single-family
residences. The District expects this usage pattern to normalize as business returns to normal. Staff
recommends that the rate stabilization fund be used to augment shortfalls. An estimated transfer of
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
$267,145 from the rate stabilization fund will be required to slow the changeC oofn rtarate Cso. sBtaa sLeAdF CoOn
calculations in the Crockett-Valona Sanitary District Sewer Use Charge Study, staff does not
recommend any rate increases for FY 2023/2024 (CCSD, 2023a).
Port Costa Sanitary Department Sewer Use Charge Study
CCSD’s board reviewed a Sewer Use Charge Study for the Port Costa Sanitary Department during
their May 10, 2023 meeting. This study provided a rationale for the determination of the Port Costa
Sanitary Department Sewer Use Charge for FY 2023/2024 as required by law. CCSD provides service
to 85 properties with one additional property outside of District boundaries through the Port Costa
Sanitary Department. The Sewer Use Charge is the sole source of revenue for the Department except
for rare permit and capacity fees. The Sewer Use Charge is $2345/ yr ($195.42/month) for the typical
single-family home as listed in Table 13-9.
Annual Sewer Use Charge increases are generally recommended to build operating reserves to cover
ongoing and increasing operating expenses. However, for FY 2023/2024, Port Costa Sanitary
Department staff recommends that Port Costa Commission maintains the prior year Sewer Use
Charge as written in existing Resolution 22-3. The sewer services to be provided by Port Costa
Sanitary Department are determined to include 72 single-family residences (SFR), 7
duplex/apartments, four mixed-use properties (containing 26 apartments), and three commercial
customers. The report expects a $207,612 deficit for FY 2023/2024, which continues a trend of
expenditures exceeding revenues for the Port Costa Sanitary Department. This is approximately 11
percent lower than the FY 2022-23 budgeted. Based on the number of existing connections and the
operating deficit, the district has determined the annual Sewer Use Charge, as shown in Table 13-9
below.
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 13-9: Tabulation of Sewer Use Charge for Port Costa Sanitary DepartmentC FoYn 2tr0a2 C3o-2s4ta LAFCO
The Study includes language that the district recognizes that this budget maintains insufficient
capital reserves to respond to unanticipated system failures or emergencies and has an inadequate
contingency fund. The budget is calculated to provide adequately for regular collection system
maintenance, WWTP operation, expected costs due to regulatory permitting, and repayment of
outstanding debt to the Crockett Sanitary Department. Specific collection system repairs or
replacement projects are not anticipated. CCTV inspection has not been authorized, and this
eliminates the possibility of estimating potential project costs. The District recognizes that high
costs to ratepayers are a burden. This burden is a result of the low number of residential and
business customers sharing the costs of an expensive operation. Staff and board members are
researching potential local, state, and federal grants to help fund future capital improvements in
order to protect the ratepayers from excessive Sewer Use Charge rate increases (CCSD, 2023c).
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
13.5: POPULATION Contra Costa LAFCO
As population levels increase, community leaders typically plan for growth and the provision of basic
services and infrastructure. Both Crockett and Port Costa are unincorporated communities and
“Census Designated Place(s)” (CDP). In 2020, the U.S. Census estimated that the Crockett CDP had
a population of 3,242, as shown in Table 13-10. Port Costa CDP had a population of 190 (U.S.
Census, 2023). This sums to a total of 3,432 persons in the combined CDPs.
Detailed information regarding population demographics in Contra Costa County is provided in
Appendix A.
Table 13-10: Crockett CDP Demographics
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 13-11: Existing Permanent Population, Crockett Community Service District, 2022
Crockett Community Population in Number of Registered Voters Population in SOI
Service District Boundary in Boundary (3) only
3,432 approximately 2,000 voters N/A
U.S Census Data (1) (2018)
Higher Population 4,527b
Scenario (2)
Sources:
(1): Data from U.S. Census for Crockett and Port Costa CDP and from Contra Costa Department
of Conservation & Development.
(2): County of Contra Costa. (2022), GIS Data, Public Parcels. Retrieved on October 26, 2022
from: <https://gis.cccounty.us/Downloads/Assessor/>. To verify the US Census Data, a new
estimated population within the district boundary was calculated by multiplying the average
number of people per parcel within the County of Contra Costa by the number of parcels in the
CCSD. County GIS data shows there are 1,499 parcels within the CCSD boundary. Since the
County has an average of 3.02 people per parcel, these numbers were multiplied to calculate a
population of 4,527 persons within the CCSD boundary. This estimate can be used for
comparison purposes.
(3): Registered Voter data provided by Contra Costa County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018)
Table 13-12: Geographic Summary (2022) of Crockett Community Services
District
Geographic Feature Boundary Area
(All Services)
Total Acres 690
Square Miles 1.08
Number of Assessor Parcels 1,499
Source:
(1): County of Contra Costa GIS Data, 2022
unty of Contra Costa. (2022). Public Parcels. Retrieved on October 26, 2022 from
<https://gis.cccounty.us/Downloads/Assessor/>.
Projected Future Population: Projecting a community’s future population is complicated due to
varying annexation rates and census tracts that do not match District boundaries. CCSD is not a land-
use authority. However, anticipated future population growth has the potential to influence the
demand for the provision of wastewater services. Since CCSD serves an unincorporated community,
the adopted Contra Costa County General Plan (2000) and its associated Housing Element guide
future growth and development. Data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to
project population growth for Contra Costa County, as shown in Table 13-13 below. By the year 2045,
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
it is estimated that approximately 5,193 persons will reside within the district’sC boonutrnad Caorisetsa. LTAhFisC iOs a
14.7 percent increase above today’s levels, indicating a positive rate of future growth. However, the
CSD is surrounded by dedicated parks. Therefore, it is unlikely that expansion of the CSD boundary or
SOI would be sought or approved to accommodate future population growth. Additionally, there is no
significant amount of vacant land to accommodate future growth within the CCSD boundary.
However, several new housing laws in the State, such as SB9, allow the construction of accessory
dwelling units. It is theoretically possible that new housing and population growth could potentially
occur within the CSD’s current boundaries through increases in housing density. CCSD’s
infrastructure is currently at capacity on both systems, and there is no significant expansion capacity
(Gaunt Murdock, personal communication, 2023).
Figure 13-8: View of Port Costa
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-29
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 13-13: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2022 – 2045)
2022 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2020 to
2020 to 2045 2020 to 2045 2045
County of Contra
Costa1 1,156,555 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.1% 174,876 0.61%
Crockett Community
Service District 2 3,432 4,670 4,852 5,006 5,119 5,193 14.7% 666 0.6%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060
(Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
2: County of Contra Costa. (2022). Public Parcels. Retrieved on October 26, 2022 from: <https://gis.cccounty.us/Downloads/Assessor/>.
3: County of Contra Costa GIS Data, 2022
4: Population projection for the Crockett Community Service District calculated as 0.39 percent of the County of Contra Costa population.
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-30
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
13.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES Contra Costa LAFCO
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address
potential municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies. A disadvantaged community is defined
as a community with a median household income (MHI) of 80% or less than the statewide MHI. The
MHI for California in 2020 was $83,056 (ACS, 2021). 80 percent of the MHI ($66,445) is the income
threshold used to identify disadvantaged status. 2020 is the base year because data from the US
2020 Census is readily available. In 2011, SB 244 began requiring cities and counties to address the
infrastructure needs of unincorporated disadvantaged communities in city and county general
plans, MSRs, and annexation decisions. Therefore, this MSR update identifies disadvantaged
communities within relevant jurisdictions’ SOI.
Data from the U.S. Census was queried to determine the location of any disadvantaged communities
within the CCSD’s boundary and SOI. Query results shown in Table 13-14 and Figure 13- 8 (next page)
show an identified DUC within the western portion of Crockett, a CDP. DUCs are inhabited
communities containing 12 or more registered voters that constitutes all or a portion of a
“disadvantaged community.” This determination assesses the prospect of including a DUC(s) when
an agency’s SOI is updated or expanded.
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of an SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates (2016), the
Contra Costa City Services Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round)
(2019), and the Contra Costa County-wide Water Service Municipal Service Review and Sphere of
Influence Study (2nd Round) (2014). These services have remained relatively unchanged since
publication. Communities within the existing district boundary and SOI do not lack public services
because they either receive services from a municipal provider or the properties are self-sufficient,
relying on groundwater wells and septic tanks. No health or safety issues have been identified. As
shown in Appendix B, Disadvantaged Communities (DACs), there are no other DACs within a
municipal boundary in proximity to CCSD.
Table 13-14: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities in Crockett Community Services
District
Unincorporated Census Tract Geo ID Census Block Median Household
Community Number Income in 2020
Crockett CDP 060133580005 5 $38,865
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-31
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 13-8: DUC Map – Rodeo/Crockett Area Block Group Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-32
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Readers can learn more about disadvantaged communities within the CCSDC oanntdr aC Coonsttraa LCAoFsCtOa
County through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services database of socioeconomic and
health indicators in disadvantaged communities called the Environmental Justice Explorer
Database. This database can be queried at <https://onemap.cdc.gov/portal/apps/sites/#/eji-
explorer>.
13.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
One property (7000 Carquinez Scenic Drive in Port Costa) receives sanitary sewer service through an
out-of-agency agreement (CC LAFCO Resolution No. 07-05). The property owner is reluctant to
annex to CCSD, and CCSD has indicated that resolution of this issue is not expected in the short
term. Two government structure options are identified as described below:
Maintain the Status Quo:
CCSD currently provides wastewater services for its residents and businesses in Crockett and Port
Costa. CCSD provides adequate service, maintains its infrastructure, and is financially sound.
Annex area outside District boundaries receiving service:
One property owner outside the district is receiving service through an out-of-agency agreement.
Although the property owner is reluctant to annex in the short term, consideration should be given to
expanding CCSD’s SOI to include this property.
13.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
Table 13-15: MSR Determinations
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MSR DETERMINATION
MEASURES
Growth and Population for the affected CCSD currently serves a population of 3,242 in
area. Crockett and 190 in Port Costa. Development in
• Is the existing population Crockett and Port Costa is geographically
estimated? constrained by the Carquinez Strait to the north. To
the south and east is the hilly topography managed by
• Is the projected future growth
the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and/or
estimated?
the Port Costa Conservation Society. Infill
development may occur within the CCSD boundary in
the future, given California’s new housing laws,
including SB 9.
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-33
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
By the year 2045, it is estimated that approximately
5,193 persons will reside within CCSD’s boundary.
Source? This is a 14.7 percent increase above today’s
levels, indicating a positive rate of future growth.
Location and characteristics of any A DUC was identified in the west Crockett CDP area.
disadvantaged unincorporated Census Tract Geo ID 060133580005 had a median
communities within or contiguous to the
household income in 2020 of $38,865. Public services
sphere of influence.
have been recently reviewed under the 2nd Round
EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere
of Influence Updates (2016), the Contra Costa City
Services Municipal Service Review and Sphere of
Influence Study (2nd Round) (2019), and the Contra
Costa County-wide Water Service Municipal Service
Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round)
(2014). These services have remained relatively
unchanged since publication. Communities within
the existing District boundary and SOI do not lack
public services because they either receive services
from a municipal provider or the properties are self-
sufficient, relying upon groundwater wells and septic
tanks. No health or safety issues were identified.
Present and planned capacity of public C&H Sugar owns, operates, and maintains the C&H
facilities, adequacy of public services, Sugar-Crockett CSD/Philip F. Meads Treatment
and infrastructure needs or deficiencies
Facility. CCSD subleases a 17.14 % undivided
including needs or deficiencies related
interest in the Phillip F. Mead WWTP in Crockett.
to sewers, municipal and industrial
CCSD owns the Port Costa WWTP and, through a
water, and structural fire protection in
any disadvantaged, unincorporated service agreement with Valley Operators LLC,
communities within or contiguous to operates and maintains the plant (CCSD, 2020).
the sphere of influence.
CCSD maintains and replaces portions of its
• Does the agency have a CIP? collection and treatment facilities as needed. Repair
• Are SSOs identified? and upgrades to infrastructure are done on a priority
basis by a contractor coordinated by the limited staff
• Are local hazards identified?
of CCSD.
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-34
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
Each of the WWTP’s are considered to be in an “aged”
operating condition and requires ongoing repair
rehabilitation. CCSD expects to invest funds in capital
improvements in the next five years.
A 3.5-year term from January 1, 2019, to August 9,
2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. It
revealed that there were 13 SSOs. CCSD has an SSMP
to guide its continued work to reduce the number of
SSOs in the future. However, a “swamp gas” smell
emitting from the CCSD WWTP was reported in the
Fall of 2022 by the San Francisco Chronicle on
October 14, 2022. Hydrogen sulfide emitted into the
air due to an operational dysfunction created
complaints to the Bay Air Quality Management
District.
The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018) shows that
the district’s wastewater infrastructure has
earthquake and flooding risks. Specifically,
• Climate change effect on sea-level rise will
likely inundate Crockett WWTP and primary
pump station, by sea level rise by 2100.
• Flooding from extreme or prolonged storm
events could overwhelm the existing capacity of
sewer wastewater collection systems in
Crockett or Port Costa.
Therefore, information about these hazards should
be incorporated into the district’s next Sanitary Sewer
Management Plan update as the Hazard Mitigation
Plan recommends. Additionally, the CCSD may wish
to apply for grants to support the implementation of
the LHMP’s action items.
A DUC was identified in the west Crockett area. Future
consideration of any SOI change or service expansion
in this area would first require a detailed evaluation of
CCSD’s capability to serve this territory adequately.
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-35
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Financial ability of agencies to provide LAFCO’s 2019 MSR ofCfeornetdra Cosstae vLeArFaCl O
services. recommendations to improve CCSD’s financial
• Has the agency prepared a rate reporting. Consideration of whether the CCSD
study? implemented these recommendations was beyond
the scope of this MSR.
• Do revenues exceed
expenditures?
CCSD’s Crockett Sanitary Department completed the
• Is the ratio of annual debt service last rate study in 2023 for FY 2023/2024. The financial
to total fund annual expenditures outlook for the Crockett Sanitary Department
10% or less? remains strong as the district met the goal of
establishing a reserve fund of $2.5 million. CCSD’s
board reviewed a Sewer Use Charge Study for the Port
Costa Sanitary Department during their May 10, 2023
meeting. The FY 2023/2024 budget maintains
insufficient capital reserves to respond to
unanticipated system failures or emergencies and
has an inadequate contingency fund. Specific
collection system repairs or replacement projects are
not anticipated, CCTV inspection has not been
authorized, this eliminates the possibility of
estimating potential project costs. The District
recognizes that high costs to ratepayers are a burden.
This burden is a result of the low number of residential
and business customers sharing the costs of an
expensive operation. Staff and commissioners are
researching potential local, state, and federal grants
to contribute to future capital improvements in order
to protect the ratepayers from excessive Sewer Use
Charge rate increases.
The Crockett Enterprise Fund operated with revenues
exceeding expenditures for FY 2018-19 through FY
2021-22. This increase in expenditures is due to
anticipated capital project expenses and capital
replacement costs budgeted for the year. The Port
Costa Enterprise Fund operated with expenses
exceeding revenues for FY 2019/-20, FY 2021-22, and
FY 2022-23. The fund averaged an approximate
$15,000 deficit for FY 2019/-20 and FY 2021-22. The
budget for FY 2022-23 anticipates a much larger
deficit of approximately $72,500. This is likely due to
$85,000 allocated for capital projects and some
small increases in maintenance and operating costs
compared to FY 2021-22.
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-36
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
According to the district’s FY 2020-21 audited
financial statement, the district had $258,587 in
notes payable for noncurrent liabilities with the
Crockett Enterprise Fund. This equates to a ratio of 17
percent which suggests the district may have trouble
meeting debt obligations in relation to service
provision expenditures for this fund. For FY 2022-23,
the district budgeted $39,648 in principle payment as
part of the Port Costa Sanitary Department Budget.
This equates to a ratio of 10.6 percent which suggests
the district can meet debt obligations in relation to
service provision expenditures for this fund.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared CCSD utilizes cooperative programs and services to
facilities. carry out several functions. Collection system
preventive maintenance, emergency response, and
engineering are contracted with the WCWD. CCSD
utilizes other independent contractors for the
inspection and repair of the collection system. C&H
Sugar operates the Crockett Joint Treatment Plant
through a contract with Seven Trent. Weekly testing of
Port Costa effluent is performed by the Cal Science
Environmental Company.
Accountability for community service • CCSD has a fully functional website at:
needs, including government structure <https://crockettcsd.specialdistrict.org/crockett
and operational facilities. -sanitary-department>. CCSD’s website provides
• Does the agency have a meeting agendas, minutes, financial information
website? and reports, and a Sanitary Sewer Management
Plan.
• Does the agency post a public
• The District website functions as a public
outreach tool (such as a
outreach tool by sharing a calendar.
calendar or newsletter) on its • The CCSD directors are elected at large by voters
website? within the district. CCSD meetings are open and
• What is the recommendation accessible to the public.
for mergers, consolidations, or
other changes to governance Two alternative governance structures have been
structure? identified: (1) maintain the status quo; and (2) expand
the CCSD SOI to include the one property currently
served through an out-of-agency agreement.
Additionally, CCSD should consider preparing a
focused study evaluating the feasibility/cost-
effectiveness of merging its wastewater operations
with neighboring service providers as a potential long-
term governance alternative.
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-37
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Any other matter related to effective or No additional issues were identifiedC.o ntra Costa LAFCO
efficient service delivery, as required by
commission policy.
13.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
DETERMINATIONS
Section 13.7, Government Structure Alternatives, describes various issues and options associated
with changing the structure of this local government agency. LAFCO often accomplishes its
government structure issues through changes to boundaries and/or SOIs. Based on the information,
issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Section
56425, are presented below for Commission consideration:
Table 13-16: SOI Determinations
SOI TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE SOI DETERMINATION
MEASURES
Present and planned land uses in the The Crockett and Port Costa communities are
area, including agricultural and open- geographically separated by land managed by the
space lands. EBRPD. These two unincorporated communities are
geographically small in size. CCSD currently serves
approximately 3,432 residents (Crockett: 3,242)
(Port Costa: 190). Land uses in the local area include
residential, commercial, recreation, and open
space. Infill development is expected in the future,
given California’s new housing laws, such as SB 9.
Present and probable need for public Limited growth is expected within the CCSD
facilities and services in the area. boundary area. However, future growth rates are
uncertain given California’s new housing laws, such
as SB 9, which allow construction of accessory
dwelling units. The District’s physical capacity
appears adequate for the near term. However,
complaints about a “swamp gas” smell have been
noted in the San Francisco Chronicle. One parcel
served by CCSD through an out-of-area agreement is
located outside CCSD’s SOI. As the logical long-
term service provider for this property, expanding
CCSD’s current SOI to include this property is an
option that would require additional study.
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-38
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Present capacity of public facilities and CCSD utilizes two WWTPs, includiCnog:n tra Costa LAFCO
adequacy of public services that the • In the Crockett area, the C&H Sugar Company
agency provides or is authorized to and the CCSD jointly own the Philip F. Meads
provide.
Water Treatment Plant and its collection
system (WDID 2071006001).
• In the Port Costa area, the CCSD owns and
maintains the WWTP and Wastewater
Collection System (CIWQS # 248886).
• CCSD maintains and replaces portions of its
collection and treatment facilities as needed.
Repair and upgrades to infrastructure are done
on a priority basis by a contractor coordinated
by the limited staff of CCSD.
Existence of any social or economic The CSD’s boundaries contain DUCs. No other
communities of interest in the area if the communities of interest have been identified.
commission determines that they are
Present an d p robable need for those Future consideration of any SOI change or service
public facilities and services of any expansion in this area would first require a detailed
disadvantaged unincorporated evaluation of CCSD’s capability to adequately serve
communities with the existing sphere of this territory.
influence.
A DUC was identified in the west Crockett CDP area.
Census Tract Geo ID 060133580005 had a median
household income in 2020 of $38,865. Public
services were previously reviewed in the 2nd Round
EMS/Fire Services MSR/SOI Updates (2016), the
Contra Costa City Services MSR and SOI MSR (2nd
Round) (2019), and the Contra Costa County-wide
Water Service MSR and SOI MSR (2nd Round) (2014).
These services have remained relatively unchanged
since publication. Communities within the existing
District boundary and SOI do not lack public services
because they either receive services from a
municipal provider or the properties are self-
sufficient, relying upon groundwater wells and septic
tanks. No health or safety issues have been
identified.
Recommended Sphere of Influence: The 2014 MSR/SOI recommended that LAFCO consider
expanding the CCSD’s SOI to include the property located at 7000 Carquinez Scenic Drive in Port
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-39
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Costa. However, this recommendation was never implemented. Therefore, bCaosnetrda oCno stthae L AnFeCwO
information presented in this MSR/SOI analysis, it is recommended that LAFCO retain the existing
SOI for Crockett CSD. If an application to expand the boundary/SOI to include the property located
at 7000 Carquinez Scenic Drive in Port Costa is received, LAFCO should evaluate the application
based on the full range of services to be provided to the site. Future consideration of any SOI change
or service expansion in this area would first require a detailed evaluation of CCSD’s capability to
adequately serve this territory.
13.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California’s Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
Bindman, A. (2022). ‘Unprecedented’: Tiny Bay area town plagued by pungent smell. SFGATE.
Retrieved November 5, 2022, from: <https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/crockett-
residents-smell-swamp-gas-17509982.php>.
California Water Board. 2012. Tentative Order No. R2-2012-00XX, NPDES NO. CA0005240 for C&H
Sugar Company, Inc., and Crockett Community Services District. 157-pages. Retrieved on
April 8, 2023 from
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_info/agendas/2012/September/
CH/TO.pdf >.
California Water Board. 2018. Order No. R2-2018-0053 and NPDES No. CA0037885 for the Port
Costa Wastewater Treatment Plant. 87-pages. Retrieved on April 8, 2023 from:
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_info/agendas/2018/December/
6a_final_to.pdf>.
Contra Costa LAFCO (LAFCO). Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and
Wastewater Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study
(2nd Round). Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from:
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. June 12, 2019. City-wide Services Municipal Service Review Update. Prepared
by Lamphier-Gregory Consultants and Berkson Associates. 793-pages. Retrieved December
2022 from < https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
County of Contra Costa. (2022). Public Parcels. Retrieved on October 26, 2022, from:
<https://gis.cccounty.us/Downloads/Assessor/>.
County of Contra Costa. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Crockett Community Service District. (June 30, 2019a). Resolution No. 18/19-25 Allocation of Ad
Valorem Property Taxes. Retrieved on August 15, 2023, from:
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-40
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
<https://www.town.crockett.ca.us/files/f356e5c95/CCSD+Agenda+PacCkoent.t6r-a2 C6o-1s9ta.p LdAf>F C O
Crockett Community Service District. (June 2019b). Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year
Ended June 30, 2019. Retrieved on August 15, 2023, from:
<https://www.town.crockett.ca.us/files/770b436bc/Annual+Audit+FY+2018-19.pdf>
Crockett Community Service District. (February 2019c). Board Personnel Committee Meeting,
Personnel Committee Agenda Packet 2-6-19. Retrieved on August 15, 2023, from:
<https://www.town.crockett.ca.us/files/24e5c8058/Personnel+Committee+Agenda+Packe
t.2-6-19.pdf>.
Crockett Community Service District. (March, 2020a). Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. 700-pages.
Retrieved on November 11, 2022, from:
<https://www.town.crockett.ca.us/files/e35939859/Crockett+Community+Services+Distri
ct+SSMP+March+2020+COMPLETE.pdf>.
Crockett Community Service District. (June 30, 2020b). Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year
Ended June 30, 2020. Retrieved on August 15, 2023, from:
<https://www.town.crockett.ca.us/files/e1cece195/CCSD+Audit+2019-20.pdf>.
Crockett Community Service District. (June 30, 2021a). Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year
Ended June 30, 2021. Retrieved on August 15, 2023, from:
<https://www.town.crockett.ca.us/files/ad3513aa2/CCSD+Audit+2020-21.pdf >.
Crockett Community Service District. (July 28, 2021b). Crockett Community Services District FY
2021/22 Budget. Retrieved on August 15, 2023, from:
<https://www.town.crockett.ca.us/files/6eff0cf1e/Budget+Fiscal+Year+2021-22.pdf >.
Crockett Community Service District. (November 16, 2022a). Crockett Community Services District
FY 2022/23 Budget. Retrieved on August 15, 2023, from:
<https://www.town.crockett.ca.us/files/aef5522cb/Budget+Fiscal+Year+2022-23.pdf >.
Crockett Community Service District. (April 26, 2023a). Sewer Use Charge Study Crockett
Community Services District, Fiscal Year 2022/23. Retrieved on August 15, 2023, from:
<https://www.town.crockett.ca.us/files/6d9236714/Agenda+Packett_CCSD_4-26-
2023.pdf>.
Crockett Community Service District. (May, 2023b). Sanitary Sewer Management Plan Updated May
2023. Retrieved on August 15, 2023, from:
<https://www.town.crockett.ca.us/files/af110a6ac/Crockett+CSD+SSMP+SERP+Update+F
INAL.pdf>.
Crockett Community Service District. (May 16, 2023c). Port Costa Sewer Use Charge (SUC) Study FY
2022/2023. Retrieved on August 15, 2023, from: <https://www.town.crockett.ca.us/2023-
05-10-port-costa-sanitary-commission-meeting>.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. November 25, 2019. Letter to C&H Sugar
Company, Inc. and Crockett Community Services District regarding Conditional Offer to
Settle Violations of NPDES Permit CA0005240 C&H Sugar Company Refinery, Joint Use C&H
Sugar Company-Crockett Community Services District Philip F. Meads Water Treatment
Plant, Crockett, Contra Costa County. 11- pages. Retrieved on April 6, 2023 from:
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-41
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_info/agendaCs/o2n0t2ra0 /CJaonstuaa LryA/FCC&O
HSugar/C&H%20MMP%20(signed).pdf >.
United States Census. 2023. Data Profile based on 2020 Census. Retrieved on April 9, 2023 from:
<https://data.census.gov/all?q=Port+Costa+CDP,+California>.
Chapter 13: CCSD Page 13-42
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
14. DELTA DIABLO – WASTEWATER
SERVICES
Table of Contents
14.1: OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................................1 4-1
14.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY & SOI ............................................................................................1 4-4
14.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS ...........................................................................................1 4-6
14.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................... 14-15
14.5: POPULATION ............................................................................................................... 14-23
14.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ................................................................................. 14-25
14.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES .................................................................. 14-27
14.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ................................ 14-28
14.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ..................................................................... 14-33
14.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 14-34
14.1: OVERVIEW
Formed in 1955 as County Sanitation District 7-A, Delta Diablo (DD) is a special district that provides
wastewater resource recovery services in the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg and the unincorporated
Bay Point community in east Contra Costa County. These services include wastewater collection,
conveyance, and treatment; recycled water production and distribution; renewable energy
production; beneficial biosolids reuse; pretreatment and pollution prevention; street sweeping; and
household hazardous waste collection.
In 2001, County Sanitation District 7-B, which served the United States Naval Facility at Port
Chicago, was dissolved by CC LAFCO and annexed to DD. Wastewater treatment for the three
communities began in 1982 (LAFCO, 2014). DD now serves an estimated population of over 218,000
residents in a service area of approximately 54 square miles. DD also operates the Delta Household
Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Facility for residents in the eastern portion of the County. DD
also produces and distributes recycled water, which is used for cooling water at two power plants in
Pittsburg and for industrial, commercial, and landscape irrigation purposes. The profile for DD is
presented in Table 14-1. The boundary and SOI for DD are presented in Figure 14-1.
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 14-1: Agency Profile – Delta Diablo Contra Costa LAFCO
General Information
Agency Type Dependent Special District
Principal Act County Sanitation District Act, Health & Safety Code Section 4700 et seq.
Date Formed 1955 (originally County Sanitation District 7A)
Water/Sewer Services Wastewater collection and conveyance, treatment, and disposal; recycled
water treatment and distribution; household hazardous waste collection and
reuse/disposal; street sweeping
Service Area
Location Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg, the unincorporated community of Bay Point
Sq. Miles/Acres 54 square miles (approx. 34,560 acres)
Land Uses Residential, commercial, industrial, open space
Population Served 201,000 (in 2020) and 218,000 (in 2024)
Last SOI Update 05/14/2014
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Facility; 75.5 linear miles
total of sanitary sewer pipe (DD, ACFP 2022-23); 5 wastewater pump
stations (DD, ACFP 2022-23); 16.2 miles of recycled pipeline (DD, ACFP
2022-23)
Connections Sewer System (Total) – 72,066
Recycled Water sent to - 28 sites
Treatment Plant Wastewater– 19.5 million gallons per day (MGD) (average dry weather flow)
Capacity (MGD) (DD, n.d.b)
Recycled Water – 12.8 MGD (DD, n.d.b)
Primary On an annual average basis, 50% of the influent flow is further treated
Reuse/Disposa for reuse; the remaining 50% discharged to New York Slough through a
l Method deep-water outfall
Budget Information- FY 2022-23
Source of Funds Expenditures Net
Operations & Maintenance $ 21,941,851 $ 25,818,943 ($ 3,877,092)
Capital Asset $ 9,607 $ 200,190 ($ 190,582)
Advanced Treatment $ 46,119 $ - $ 46,119
Capital Asset Replacement $ 17,714,698 $ 11,198,169 $ 6,516,530
Wastewater Expansion $ 1,840,206 $ 127,632 $1,712,575
Recycled Water $ 3,784,886 $ 3,484,269 $ 300,617
Hazardous Waste $ 956,803 $ 1,062,967 ($106,164)
Street Sweeping $ 652,771 $ 756,525 ($103,754)
Bay Point $ 1,115,259 $ 1,119,293 ($ 4,034)
Total All Funds $ 48,062,202 $ 43,767,987 $ 4,294,214
FY 2022-23 Long-Term Planned Expenditures
Capital Expenditures $ 12,082,535 $ 135.9 million (FY 2022-23 – 2026-27)
Total Assets $ 269,848,463 June 30, 2022 Financial Statement – Total Assets
Governance
Governing Body Board of Directors (3 members by appointment - City of Antioch, City of
Pittsburg, and County Supervisor – 5th District)
Agency Contact Vince De Lange (General Manager) / 925-756-1920
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 14-1: Boundary/SOI Map – Delta Diablo Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
14.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY & SOI Contra Costa LAFCO
DD was formed in 1955 (originally County Sanitation District 7A). DD is a dependent special district
established under Health and Safety Code Section 4700 governed by a three-member Board of
Directors. DD provides wastewater services for over 218,000 customers in the cities of Antioch and
Pittsburg, as well as the unincorporated Bay Point community in east Contra Costa County. These services
include wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment; recycled water production and distribution;
renewable energy production; beneficial biosolids reuse; pretreatment and pollution prevention; street
sweeping; and household hazardous waste collection. The district’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) was
modified (reduced) in 2014 as part of LAFCO’s 2014 MSR/SOI Update for Wastewater Services. The
SOI was reduced to remove four areas designated as permanent open spaces near the City of
Antioch. DD is governed by a three-member Board of Directors: one member is appointed by the City
of Antioch, one member is appointed by the City of Pittsburg, and one member is appointed by the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (5th District) (LAFCO, 2014). The Board meets on the 2nd
Wednesday of each month at 4:30 PM. The DD Agency Profile is included in Table 14-1 (previous
page). A geographic summary of the acreage within the boundary and SOI is shown below in Table
14-2. DD contains a total of 60,929 Assessor Parcels, as shown in Table 14-3 below.
Table 14-2: Geographic Summary (2024) of Delta Diablo
Boundary Area SOI Total Boundary
(all Services (all Services except & SOI
except HHW) HHW)
Total Acres 67,957 2,054 70,011
Square Miles 106.18 3.21 109.39
Number of Assessor 61,249 89 61,338
Parcels
Source:
(1): County of Contra Costa GIS Data, 2022
(2): County of Contra Costa. (2022). Public Parcels. Retrieved on October 26, 2022 from:
<https://gis.cccounty.us/Downloads/Assessor/>.
Table 14-3: Number of APNs in Delta Diablo Zones
Area # of Assessor Parcels
Zone 1 6,014
Zone 2 (Pittsburg) 20,050
Zone 3 (Antioch) 34,865
Total 60,929
Data Source:
(1): County GIS data shared via .png files
(2): County of Contra Costa. (2022). Public Parcels. Retrieved on
October 26, 2022 from:
<https://gis.cccounty.us/Downloads/Assessor/>.
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
LAFCO’s previous MSR (2014) noted that in July 2009, an SOI expansion incCloundterad C3o,1st6a1 L aAcFrCeOs
(including areas within Pittsburg’s ULL). Additionally, LAFCO’s previous MSR (2014) briefly noted
plans to annex properties currently served by DD, but outside the DD boundary. Specifically, the
Mirant Power Plant Reorganization (2008) and the Northeast Area Reorganization Annexation (2010)
included annexation of properties formerly receiving service outside District boundaries. The City of
Antioch submitted three Northeast Antioch Reorganization proposals to CC LAFCO; two have been
approved (Areas 1 and 2B), and the third area (Area 2A) was considered by the Commission in March
2014 and was terminated.
More recently, LAFCO approved Application #23-08, Annexation to DD for Loreto Bay Estates located
on a 2.88± acre site at the northeast corner of Pullman Avenue and Fairview Avenue, Bay Point,
Contra Costa County (APN 096-050-016). The Contra Costa County Planning Commission approved
a tentative subdivision map to subdivide the 2.88± acre project site into 15 residential lots and four
common area parcels for bioretention basins and a park.
Over the years, there have been numerous annexations to DD, including Bay Point Regional
Shoreline and Mirant Power Plant (2017), Montreux Subdivision (2016), and Northeast Antioch
(2012).
Regional Plans
San Francisco Bay Land Use: The Bay Area Regional Collaborative includes the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and Bay Area Air Quality Management
District. This collaborative multi-agency regional committee allows for cross-jurisdictional work on
projects such as Resilient Bay Area and Carbon Free Future. Part of DD’s boundary/SOI is adjacent
to or encompasses a portion of the San Francisco Bay, which is a sensitive environmental resource.
The California state planning and regulatory agency, which has regional authority over San Francisco
Bay, the Bay’s shoreline band, and the Suisun Marsh, is called the San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC). Its mission is to protect and enhance San Francisco Bay and
to encourage the Bay’s responsible and productive use for this and future generations. BCDC
ensures projects are compatible with the conservation of Bay resources as described on its website
at: <https://bcdc.ca.gov/ >.
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta: Portions of DD’s boundary and SOI near Pittsburg and Antioch are
within the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Estuary watershed (Delta), specifically within the
“Secondary Zone.” The Delta is a large inland river delta geographically connected to the San
Francisco Bay Estuary and home to several rare and endangered fish species. The Delta is also
designated a National Heritage Area. The Secondary Zone is within the “Legal Delta” and is described
by various state laws and planning documents (DPC, 2010 and DSC, 2013). For local government
planners and administrators, there are three key Delta planning documents listed below:
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
• The Delta Plan, by the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updateCdo tnhtrroau Cgohs 2ta0 2L4A.F CO
• Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta by the Delta
Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010.
• Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by Visser, M.A.;
Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. in 2018.
DPC’s Land Use and Resource Management Plan recognizes that urbanization and other
development projects within the secondary zone have the potential to impact the Primary Zone of
the Delta (DPC, 2010). These planning documents are important because the district’s discharge of
treated wastewater to the San Joaquin River has the potential to influence water quality and
endangered species within the Delta. A detailed population analysis of the Delta area, including the
Legal Delta Secondary Zone, has been prepared by state agencies (Visser et al., 2018). Readers are
encouraged to review this information directly on the state website (as updates are expected soon)
as follows:
• Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updated through 2024. The Delta Plan. Available
online at: <https://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan/ >.
• Delta Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010. Land Use and Resource
Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta. 42-pages. Retrieved on April 8, 2024 from
<https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Land-Use-and-Resource-
Management-Plan-2.25.10_-m508.pdf >.
• Visser, M.A.; Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. (2018) Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Sacramento, CA: The Delta Protection Commission. 46-
pages. Available online at: <https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Delta-Socio-
Economic-Indicators-Report-508.pdf>.
14.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
DD’s wastewater service includes collection and conveyance to its Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP), wastewater treatment, and disposal. DD provides wastewater conveyance and treatment
services to approximately 72,066 sewer service connections (total), including 2,403 commercial,
400 industrial, and 185 institutional. The remainder is residential (personal communications, T. Vo
and team, 2024). One DD connection may serve many individual customers. DD only provides
wastewater collections services to the unincorporated area of Bay Point, where DD owns and
maintains the sewer collection system. The cities of Antioch and Pittsburg own and maintain their
own sewer collection systems.
DD serves a 54-square-mile area, including the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg and a portion of the
unincorporated area of Bay Point. DD operates a WWTP with a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitted average dry weather flow capacity of 19.5 million gallons per
day (MGD) (DD, NPDES Permit), five pump stations, and a collection and conveyance system of 75.5
miles of sewer pipeline (DD, ACFP 2023). Through 72,066 sewer connections, over 201,000 (in 2020)
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
residential and business customers1 receive service. DD also provides househoCldo nhtarzaa Crdosotuas L wAaFsCtOe
collection, recycled water, and street sweeping to a portion of the service area. Treated wastewater
is either recycled or discharged through a deep-water outfall to New York Slough (within the
Sacramento Delta).
In 2023, DD collected 5,216 million gallons of wastewater (2023 Flows). The DD collection and
treatment system includes the following components:
Wastewater Collection: The District owns, operates, and maintains 43 miles of collection system
sewer lines in the Bay Point community. The cities of Antioch and Pittsburg own and operate
approximately 130 miles and 300 miles, respectively, of their own satellite systems that feed into
DD. Portions of the collection system were constructed in the 1970s and earlier, making aging
infrastructure one of the challenges DD faces. Please refer to the Capital Improvement Program
described on page 14-19 for additional details.
Wastewater Conveyance: DD owns, operates, and maintains 14 miles of gravity sewer
interceptors (12- to 42-inch diameter), 18.5 miles of force mains (4- to 24-inch diameter), flow
equalization/diversion facilities, and five wastewater pumping stations. Five equalization
storage facilities provide four million gallons (MG) of storage. The majority of the system was
constructed in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Wastewater Treatment: The WWTP was placed in service in 1982. DD’s WWTP has a permitted
average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of 19.5 MGD and a peak wet weather design flow
capacity of 31.1 MGD. In 2023, the annual average daily flow at the WWTP was 14.3 MGD, with a
maximum wet weather daily flow of 28.0 MGD. Flows vary annually, depending on weather and
other variables.
Recycled Water: The District’s Recycled Water Facility (RWF) began operation in 2001 and has a
permitted capacity of 12.8 MGD with 2023 annual average daily flow and maximum daily flows
of 6.5 MGD and 12.3 MGD, respectively (personal communications, Amanda Roa, et al., 2024).
WWTP
The DD WWTP originally opened on May 13, 1982. The WWTP is located north of Pittsburg-Antioch
Highway, just east of Pittsburg City limits. The WWTP has a 54-square-mile service area with a 2023
average annual wastewater flow of 14.3 MGD and an average dry weather flow (ADWF) of 13.5 MGD
(2023 Flows). The conventional treatment process consists of screening, grit removal, primary
clarification, biological treatment by trickling towers and aeration basins, secondary clarification,
chlorination, and de-chlorination. The DD WWTP has an average dry weather flow permitted capacity
of 19.5 MGD, equating to 7,117.5 million gallons in a year. Treatment infrastructure also includes a
2.2 MG flow equalization basin, a 14.9 MG emergency retention basin, and a 1.0 MG emergency
storage basin. Treated wastewater is either recycled or discharged through a deep-water outfall to
New York Slough (within the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta).
1
Population does not necessarily equal residential and commercial customers, since some commercial
customers may live outside the service area.
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
The WWTP’s solids are anaerobically digested, centrifuged, and beneficially reused as fertilizer,
primarily through land application (Pittsburg, Housing Element, 2023). Additionally, the district
generates 54% of the WWTP’s electricity demand by fueling the district’s 800-kW cogeneration
(cogen) engine with biogas produced from anaerobic digestion. Benefits of the district’s biosolids
reuse program include reducing waste, producing renewable energy, and supporting sustainable
agriculture (Delta Diablo, 2022).
Projected Future Demand for Services
The WWTP serves the cities of Pittsburg and Antioch and the unincorporated Bay Point community.
Therefore, it is important to consider future potential growth in all three communities2. Pittsburg and
Antioch have a combined RHNA (6th Cycle) of 5,068. Like many other wastewater districts, DD uses
an average wastewater flow of 200 gallons per day (gpd) per residential connection to estimate
wastewater flows. Future flows to the WWTP are expected to increase by 1.01 MGD (5,068 x 200 gpd
/ 1,000,000). The 1.01 MGD increase is within the remaining capacity of the WWTP, approximately 5
MGD for average dry weather flows (Pittsburg, Housing Element, 2023). Please note that this
calculated remaining capacity is based on average dry weather flow and does not consider peak
wastewater flows. During rainy periods, peak flows increase, and the ability (capacity) of the WWTP
to accommodate peak flows is an important factor. The DD Resource Recovery Facility 2022 Master
Plan includes phased treatment plant expansion to increase the plant’s solid loading capacity
beyond the current capacity of 58,000 lbs BOD/day in order to accommodate the anticipated
General Plan buildout for the communities of Pittsburg, Antioch, and unincorporated Bay Point
(Pittsburg, Housing Element, 2023). The Master Plan3 projects that the current solids loading capacity
will be exceeded sometime between 2030 and 2037.
Sanitary Sewer Management Plan
DD adopted its Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) in 2018 and updated it in 2021. The SSMP
outlines the goals, organization, and regulatory requirements for the sanitary sewer system. The
SSMP describes how DD plans, operates, and maintains its sanitary sewer system to reliably convey
flows, reduce sanitary sewer overflows, and mitigate the impact of overflows. It also includes
procedures for responding to sewer backups and managing risks associated with the system.
2
The 2007 CC LAFCO MSR and the 2014 CC LAFCO MSR identified an issue regarding DD plans to accommodate
increased growth (e.g., pending reorganization proposals, including Northeast Antioch). At that time (2014) DD
had wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities planned and under construction to increase system
capacity. DD collected Capital Facilities Capacity Charges (CFCCs) to build capacity as it is consumed by new
connections. The Conveyance and Treatment Plant Master Plans utilized City planning data for the communities
in the DD service area.
33
The District's BOD load capacity is 58,000 lbs/day. That translates into different equivalent flow (ADWF)
depending on the assumed concentration of the wastewater (see Table 3-7 in the Master Plan). The Plan
assumes a concentration of 376 mg/L BOD, equivalent to 18.4 MGD. See the Master Plan for a more in-depth
discussion of the decoupling of flows and solids loading.
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Recycled Water Contra Costa LAFCO
DD’s recycled water facility (RWF) began operations in 2001. DD’s Recycled Water program currently
produces approximately 6.5 MGD of recycled water on average (DD, 2023 Flows). The recycled water
facility is permitted to produce 12.8 MGD of recycled water. Prior to disinfection and according to
demand, secondary effluent is diverted from the WWTP to the RWF, where it undergoes treatment
through flocculating clarifiers, tertiary filtration, and disinfection prior to distribution for cooling
tower make up water at two local Calpine power plants (~93% of the water) or landscape irrigation
and other uses within the community. The portion of the recycled water that is used in the power
plant cooling towers (blowdown) is returned to the WWTP and combined with secondary effluent just
upstream of the disinfection process (personal communications, T. Vo, et. al., 2024) and discharged
to New York Slough through DD’s outfall.
The majority of the recycled water is distributed to two Calpine power plants, Delta Energy Center
(DEC) and Los Medanos Energy Center (LMEC), collectively Energy Centers (Delta Diablo, 2022). DD
also sends recycled water to the cities of Pittsburg and Antioch for irrigation of public parks, median
landscapes, and a golf course (LAFCO, 2014). DD coordinates with both cities, and the cities
contribute funding to pay for recycled water facilities within their boundaries. The cities maintain
agreements with the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) and DD for water and recycled water,
respectively.
DD is developing a new recycled water master plan to assess capital improvements needed to keep
the RWF running for another 25 years and reassess the market for new customer uses for recycled
water. The master plan is scheduled to be complete in 2025.
Resource Recovery Facility 2022 Master Plan
The DD Resource Recovery Facility 2022 Master Plan outlines the DD’s wastewater treatment and
resource recovery services, including biosolids reuse, recycled water production, and renewable
energy generation. The Plan covers a 20-year planning horizon from 2020 to 2040 and includes 10
major tasks. The plan is organized into six focus areas: planning and regulatory, infrastructure
renewal and compliance vulnerability, nutrient management, advanced treatment, biosolids reuse
and renewable energy, recycled water management, and energy management. The Master Plan
includes a capacity analysis, process modeling, and nutrient removal alternatives to optimize the
DD’s wastewater treatment and resource recovery services (Delta Diablo, 2022).
Antioch’s Brackish Water Desalination Facility
The City of Antioch has favorable water rights to the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. However, the
Delta experiences high salinity and total dissolved solids (TDS) during certain time periods (i.e.,
summer). This means Antioch cannot utilize Delta water year-round. To mitigate this issue, the City
applied for grants and loans to design and construct a brackish water desalination facility that
utilizes a reverse osmosis process that removes the TDS, allowing them to take water year-round.
The $110 million project is nearing completion. As part of that process, Antioch’s desalination facility
will generate a reverse osmosis (RO) concentrate that will be conveyed to the DD WWTP for disposal
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
through DD’s existing outfall. DD and Antioch have entered into an agreemeCnotn ttora aCloloswta fLoAr FtChOe
acceptance of the RO concentrate and recovery of all costs associated with operating and
maintaining the RO concentrate discharge facilities and use of DD’s outfall.
Local Hazards
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Volume 2, dated January 2018, maps critical
infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards (Contra Costa County,
2018). The Mitigation plan notes that a small portion of the district’s service area is located in a
hazardous flooding zone, including the treatment plant (Contra Costa County, 2018). In addition, it
states that a flooding event could potentially overwhelm the collection system and impact service
for an extended period (Contra Costa County, 2018). DD is also at high risk during an earthquake
event. It is recommended that DD integrate the results of the Contra Costa HMP into its future
planning efforts with the aim of reducing the risks from floods and earthquakes.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted
systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California
Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General
Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. Order
No. 2022-0103-DWQ (SSS WDRs), on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate a
sanitary sewer system comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a
publicly owned treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements.
A time period of 3.5 years, from January 1, 2019, to August 9, 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO
database. The results of the database queries regarding DD are listed below in Table 14-4 (next page).
During this 3.5-year timeframe, there were two Sanitary Sewer Overflow events in DD (District). The
overflows were relatively small, and the spill material was fully recovered for the larger spill event.
The larger spill within the query results took place on November 26, 2019, with a volume of 60
gallons. This sewage spill was fully recovered, and none of the material reached surface water. The
spill reached a paved surface and was caused due to an Air Relief Valve (ARV) and Blow-Off Valve
(BOV) failure. The other spill took place on December 14, 2021, with a volume of 15 gallons. The spill
was caused by corrosion at the flange that supports the ARV, but it did not reach surface water. None
of the spill material was recovered.
During July to October 2022, San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known as
a red tide, as described in Appendix F. The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma
akashiwo, can cause water to turn reddish-brown. The HAB extended throughout the open-bay
regions of the South Bay, the Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths linked to the red tide
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 14-4: Delta Diablo Sanitary Sewer Overflows Contra Costa LAFCO
EVENT Region Responsible Collection SSO Start Date SSO Vol of Vol of SSO SSO Failure WDID
ID Agency System Category Vol SSO Reached Point
Recovered Surface
Water
863739 2 DD Delta Category 11/26/2019 60 60 0 Air Relief Valve 2SSO1012
Diablo SD 3 (ARV)/Blow-Off 7
Valve (BOV)
878812 2 DD Delta Category 12/14/2021 15 0 0 Flange 2SSO1012
Diablo SD 3 supporting the 7
ARV
Data Source: CIQWS Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
Figure 14-2: Google Maps Street View of the Delta Diablo Plant Operations Center
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
were reported to include sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, andC oanntcrha oCvoys.t aT hLeA FSCaOn
Francisco Bay Water Board is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay through the Nutrient
Management Strategy, which includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other
agencies to study the potential impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. DD has an opportunity to
assist with this effort by continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by discussing the
nutrient problem with other wastewater Districts and the Water Board.
Future Challenges: Many wastewater service providers in California may face challenges in the
future. DD, in particular, faces challenges related to: 1) aging infrastructure, 2) more stringent
regulatory requirements, 3) workforce development, and 4) the cost of infrastructure to provide
adequate nutrient management. For example, the RWQCB is expected to implement interim SF Bay-
wide and individual WWTP effluent limits related to nutrients. This includes aggressive, long-term SF
Bay-wide nutrient limits based on current scientific information with a multi-year compliance
schedule. Effluent limits requiring nutrient reductions will require physical infrastructure along with
the associated financing for the infrastructure cost. DD staff are working to address these challenges
through participation in regional industry efforts (Bay Area Clean Water Agencies). DD staff attends
meetings with RWQCB and other stakeholders to negotiate alternative options, such as a phased
approach that would allow additional time to fund improvements.
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 (2019) has several recommended remedies for
California’s aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a wastewater
treatment plant is, what kind of wastes it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the
sewer pipes. Continue educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom
to call if such an event occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling.
Cooperative Programs
DD has several ongoing efforts to develop sustainable resource management approaches. The DD’s
mission focuses on seeking and developing regional solutions to challenges by collaborating with
the community and industry. DD has engaged in the following groups and projects that promote the
development of long-term sustainable resources and further DD’s commitment to progressive
environmental stewardship:
• Western Recycled Water Coalition – Formerly known as the Bay Area Recycled Water
Coalition, the Western Recycled Water Coalition (WRWC) has successfully sought federal
legislation to fund recycled water projects, resulting in over $38 million in federal funding to
date. Currently, 18 WRWC member agencies are seeking to implement recycled projects to
reduce the pumping of fresh water from the Delta and local sources, providing sustainable,
drought-resistant water supplies for industrial, agricultural, and municipal uses. The District
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
has served as the lead agency for WRWC since its inception. Contra Costa LAFCO
• Bay Area Biosolids Coalition – The Bay Area Biosolids Coalition (BABC) was formed to
develop sustainable biosolids management alternatives for Bay Area agencies. DD actively
participates in monthly strategic planning workshops and steering committee meetings to
guide alternatives evaluation, investigate potential site locations, and support research and
product market assessments that highlight the environmental benefits of biosolids.
• Regional Wipes Campaign – The district led a public outreach campaign with five East Contra
Costa County public wastewater processing agencies (Byron Sanitary District, City of
Brentwood, Delta Diablo, Ironhouse Sanitary District, and the Town of Discovery Bay)
focused on creating an engaging and informative campaign to alert customers to the issues
that wastewater agencies face when items labelled “flushable” are disposed of in toilets.
The campaign helps customers understand how personal hygiene and household
cleaning/disinfecting wipes marked “flushable” or “flush friendly” are often not readily
biodegradable. Titled “No Wipes in the Pipes,” a range of communication tools, targeted
messaging, and media outlets are being used to show how disposing of wipes in toilets can
clog collection system pipes and equipment, resulting in sanitary sewer overflows or
expensive repairs to equipment at their local treatment plant (personal communication, A.
Roa, 2024).
The District’s commitment to regional partnerships and environmental stewardship is further
demonstrated through its Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) program4. Since 1995, the district
has been working closely with the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg, Ironhouse Sanitary
District, and Contra Costa County to serve the household hazardous waste (HHW) needs of East
Contra Costa County. The District entered into a contract with the aforementioned jurisdictions to
provide HHW services for the community and has been managing the HHW program since 1996. The
contract was amended in 2011 to remove the Ironhouse Sanitary District and include the City of
Oakley (personal communication, A. Roa, 2024).
DD was recognized for outstanding industry leadership and a progressive commitment to innovation
and advancing resource efficiency and recovery with the prestigious “Utility of the Future Today”
4
In 2003, DD constructed the Delta Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility (DHHWCF) which was
partially funded through a regional HHW grant from CalRecycle. The DHHWCF is open three days per week
(Mondays, Fridays and Saturdays) from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and serves both residents and small businesses
in the area. The existing HHW program consists of the DHHWCF and the management of three temporary
collection events per fiscal year in areas furthest away from the permanent facility.
The purpose of the HHW Program is to prevent hazardous pollutants from reaching waterways, landfills, and
the wastewater system in support of the district’s Pollution Prevention Program, and meeting state and federal
solid waste requirements for our HHW partners. Use of the district’s DHHWCF is free of charge for residents
and small businesses in East Contra Costa County (Antioch, Bay Point, Bethel Island, Brentwood, Byron,
Discovery Bay, Knightsen, Oakley, and Pittsburg). This facility accepts medications, used oil and filters,
antifreeze, paints and stains, batteries, fluorescent and high-intensity lamps, cosmetics, pesticides, pool
chemicals, household cleaners, cooking oils and grease, and electronic waste.
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
national industry association award received at the 2019 and 2018 Water EnvirCoonnmtrean Ct oFsetda eLrAaFtiCoOn
(WEF) annual conferences. This utility recognition program recognizes the achievements of
innovative water utilities that provide resilient, value-added community services with a focus on
community engagement, watershed stewardship, and recovery of resources such as water, energy,
and nutrients. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies sponsors this award.
LAFCO’s 2014 MSR noted that DD initiated several cooperative programs that served to contain
costs and promote collaboration. For example, in 2007-2008, DD served as the lead agency in
obtaining funding and facilitating a group of East County cities, water and wastewater agencies, and
active power companies to explore the potential for sharing facilities, pooling recycled water, and
using existing infrastructure to distribute recycled water to prospective power plant sites. In 2012,
DD launched a comprehensive recycled water master planning effort that engaged the cities of
Antioch and Pittsburg, local power companies, and local industries to project future recycled water
demands and evaluate how best DD can optimize facilities to meet those demands. In 2008, DD
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with eight Bay Area agencies (since expanded to 18
agencies) to secure federal funding for recycled water projects. DD also participates in the Bay Area
Biosolids Coalition (BABC), a group of cities and wastewater agencies exploring the potential of
converting biosolids into energy commodities.
DD hosts periodic coordination meetings with Contra Costa County and the cities of Antioch and
Pittsburg regarding permitting and development and other coordination matters. One aspect of this
coordination is the exchange of utility GIS information, including location data for sewer, water,
recycled water, and stormwater systems. The local stormwater systems, managed by the Contra
Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Antioch and Pittsburg, respectively, are
separate from the cities’ and DD’s sewer systems, i.e., not combined systems. However, DD’s
Environmental Compliance division provides stormwater inspections by contract through the
Contra Costa Clean Water Program.
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
DD utilizes cost-avoidance strategies to address increased costs for personnel, contract services,
and chemicals, as was also noted in LAFCO’s 2014 MSR. DD uses a multi-year rate model to project
costs and revenue requirements, including cost of living increases. Other cost containment
strategies include operational changes to reduce chemical use, implementation of energy-efficient
initiatives, including a new solar energy project, and strategic use of contractual services for peak
workloads and specialized services. The sale of recycled water generates some revenues to offset
costs and reduce the discharge volume through the treatment plant outfall.
DD also participates in multiple cost-sharing programs, as was also documented in LAFCO’s 2014
MSR. DD manages the Delta Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility, a joint project of the
County, the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch, and Oakley, and DD. Additionally, DD provides street
sweeping services within its service area.
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
14.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
DD operates as an enterprise-type activity, with its primary revenue source being sewer service
charges (SSCs) and permits (CFCCs). The District charges rates and fees to users to cover the costs
of operations and capital improvements. Economic factors that may affect the district include:
• The economic cycle, which impacts Capital Facility Capacity Charges (CFCCs) as new
development projects are highly sensitive to the economic cycle;
• Interest rate and/or investment return, which directly impact investment earnings, borrowing
costs, and pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust Fund contribution
rates;
• Consumer price index (CPI), which is a measure of inflation. San Francisco/Bay Area Wage
earners directly impacts Costs of Living Adjustments (COLAs) provided in the employee
Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) and costs for supplies and expenses;
• Crude oil prices impact the energy market for electricity and gas prices and the chemicals
used for wastewater treatment. The District’s chemical and utility expenses ranged from
$4.2 million to $3.1. Million in the three-year period ending FY 2021-22; and
The District produces an Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) each fiscal year in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). In addition, the district’s
finances are the subject of annual independent financial audits. The ACFRs for FY’s 2018-19, 2019-
20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, as well as the budget for FY 2022-23, were the primary sources of
information for data related to the financial health of the district (DD, 2019b; 2020; 2021; 2022b;
2022c). These reports are posted on the district’s website at: https://www.deltadiablo.org/financial-
information. The financial analysis presented in this Chapter represents a snapshot in time (i.e. a
limited time period). However, DD regularly updates its financial data, and readers may review the
new data on its website.
Please note that recently, the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) awarded DD the
Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year 2023-24 and the Certificate of Recognition
for Budget Preparation for FY 2023-24. GFOA’s Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Program
(Budget Award Program) is the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting.
Five primary criteria were utilized to assess the present and future financial condition of DD’s
wastewater service operations, as discussed below:
5 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
The 2007 CC LAFCO MSR and the 2014 CC LAFCO MSR identified an issue regarding DD Net
operating expenses vs. net operating revenues. During the timeframe 2007 to 2014, DD experienced
net operating expenses exceeding net operating revenues. This was the result of planned, systematic
drawdown of operating revenues over time to meet DD’s policy target of 40 percent of annual
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
operating revenue. At the time, DD used a multi-year rate model to project revCeonnutera r eCqoustiare LmAeFnCtOs
(LAFCO, 2014). Since then, regular rate adjustments were implemented to ensure sufficient
revenues to fund ongoing operations and capital requirements while maintaining prudent levels of
reserves. The District has financial policies and best practices that set forth guidelines to maintain
accountability and control over operating revenue and expenses, ensure proper appropriation of
reserves and restricted funds, and proactively address the rising costs of pension and other post-
employment benefits.
DD has revenues exceeding expenditures for all of the fiscal years studied, as shown in Figure 14-3
below. This key performance measure indicates that DD is solvent and has the capacity to cover its
costs. DD has been experiencing balanced budgets with annual surpluses overall. Expenditures
have fluctuated, with decreases from FY 2018-19 to FY 2020-21 and increases from FY 2020-21
through FY 2022-23. Revenues have slowly increased over the five years studied, as shown in Figure
14-3 below. The majority of revenue comes from wastewater service charges at approximately
$41.45 million in FY 2021-22, with all other revenue making up approximately $1.14 million.
Figure 14-3: Operating Revenues Compared to Expenditures
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$-
2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023
Revenues Expenditures
The adopted total operating and capital budget for FY 2021-22 was $43.6 million compared to $47.1
million for FY 2020-21. SSCs increased by 6.5 percent and 5.9 percent for customers in
Pittsburg/Antioch and Bay Point, respectively, in FY 2021-22, compared to 3.5 percent for
Pittsburg/Antioch and 3.0 percent for Bay Point the previous year due to updated capital planning
needs and implementation of 2022 Cost of Service Study findings. The District began proposing and
adopting a single-year budget in FY 2018-19 instead of the previous approach of proposing a three-
year operating budget and planning cycle. The District’s intent is to transition to a budget cycle that
better aligns the rate-setting and capital improvement program development process (Delta Diablo,
2022c).
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Ratios of Revenue Sources
In FY 2021-22, DD received approximately 97.3 percent of its revenues from service charges and the
remaining 2.7 percent from discharge permits, household hazardous waste permits, work for others,
and miscellaneous, as shown in Figure 14-4 below. This ratio reflects an appropriate balance for a
typical enterprise-type service and minimizes the impact that negative economic factors could have
on more elastic revenues.
Figure 14-4: Ratio of Revenue Sources, FY 2021-22
0.91%
1.28% 0.20%
0.29%
Service charges
Discharge Permits
Household hazardouse waste
permits
Miscellaneous
97.32%
Work for others
Service charges made up approximately $41.5 million, with the next highest revenue source being
contributions to the household hazardous waste program at approximately $544,000.
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
Figure 14-5 below shows the total assets for wastewater operations by current assets and
noncurrent assets for FY 2021-22. An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue
in a given fiscal year is exhibited by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the
service fund maintains in relation to the annual fund expenditures.
Figure 14-5: Assets FY 2021/2022
Non-Current Assets
Current Assets
$- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000
Data Source: DD ACFR FY 2021/2022
DD’s most recent audit, completed in FY 2021-22, shows an unrestricted net position of
$75,447,219. Operating expenses for the same fiscal year were $35,649,486 (DD, 2022c). This
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
equates to a ratio of 212 percent. Contra Costa LAFCO
According to the ACFR for FY 2021-22, the district has two types of reserves: economic reserves and
advanced treatment reserves. Economic reserves are essential to the district’s operating
requirements and ensure the continued ability to provide services during budget shortfalls or
unforeseen circumstances. This reserve aims to provide adequate funding to mitigate overall rate
volatility resulting from economic changes or events that significantly decrease the district’s
revenues or increase the district’s operating costs. The District continues to modify its original
approach to collecting revenues for the Advanced Treatment Fund, which was proactively
established in 2011 to avoid sharp rate increases to customers due to the implementation of nutrient
removal upgrades at the district’s WWTP. The District has successfully collaborated with regulators,
the scientific community, and other Bay Area Clean Water Agencies members to focus on nutrient
impact analyses and water quality modeling in San Francisco Bay rather than the future imposition
of regional nutrient removal permit limits. The outcome of this effort is an approximate 15-year
extension in the implementation timeline. Based on this new information and extended timeline for
use of these funds, staff continued to suspend collection of the Advanced Treatment Fund Sewer
Service Changes (SSC) component for FY 2020-21 (DD, 2022b).
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. Specifically, DD has several types of
liabilities related to wastewater services, including accounts payable, accrued payroll and benefits,
deposits payable, unearned revenue, compensated absences, lease liability, long-term debt, state
revolving fund loans, California energy commission loans, net pension liability, net OPEB liability,
and installment sales agreement. Figure 14-6 shows the total liabilities for DD organized by current
liabilities and noncurrent liabilities for FY 2021-22.
Figure 14-6: Liabilities FY 2021-22
Non-Current Liabilities
Current Liabilities
$(50,000,000) $(40,000,000) $(30,000,000) $(20,000,000) $(10,000,000) $-
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of DD’s ability to
meet debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a ratio of 10 percent or
less would reflect a very stable ratio. In FY 2022, DD’s annual debt service5 was $1,668,250. DD’s
5
Annual debt service included $1,178,878 (principal) and $ 489,372 (interest) in FY 2022 (Source DD ACFR,
2021).
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
annual debt service ratio for current liabilities to total expenditures is approximaCteolnyt 3ra.8 C poesrtca eLnAtF6 CfoOr
FY 2021-22 (DD, 2022b). This is lower than the ten percent metric, suggesting DD will likely be able
to continue meeting its debt obligations concerning service provision expenditures.
For FY 2022-23, the district’s budget included approximately $1.3 million in debt service expenses
allocated as follows: $150,190 capital asset fund, $763,169 capital asset replacement fund,
$127,632 wastewater expansion fund, and $281,545 Bay Point collections fund. According to the FY
2022-23 budget, the debt service coverage ratio for the district was significantly lower before FY
2017-18. This is because the DD Integrated Finance Corporation (IFC) 1991 Certificates of
Participation expired in FY 2016-17, which caused a reduction in the district’s annual debt service.
The most updated debt service coverage ratio was presented to the district’s Integrated
Financing Corporation (IFC) in January 2024:
<https://www.deltadiablo.org/files/f1e248b20/G2.+IFC+Debt+Financing+Presentation+011024.pdf >.
Table 14-5 below shows the district’s Debt Service Coverage Ratio based on the audited financial
statements (ACFR) for the past few fiscal years.
Table 14-5: Delta Diablo Debt Service Coverage Ratio
FY22/23 FY21/22 FY20/21
Debt Service
(Principal/Interest) 1,641,367 1,688,249 1,494,499
Operating Net Income 9,057,489 6,942,380 9,522,580
Debt Service Coverage to
“Revenue” Ratio 5.52 4.11 6.37
The District currently has a solid financial position as the debt service to “revenue” coverage ratio
indicates the district has sufficient cash flows to pay debt obligations. The current ratio of 5.52
means that DD has 5.52 times enough net revenue to cover its debt service. Additionally, the district
is making significant efforts to increase reserves to fund anticipated future major capital projects
(personal communications, A. Lyons et al., 2024). The District anticipates annual debt service
requirements to continue to increase, with peak costs occurring from FY 2027-28 through FY 2031-
32. Table 14-6 below shows all principal, interest, and annual debt service payments by fiscal year
to FY 2052-53 for all existing debt (DD, 2022c).
6
Expenditures were $43,767,987 for FY 2022. This calculates as $43,767,987/ $ 1,668,250 equals 0.03811.
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 14-6: Debt Service Requirements Contra Costa LAFCO
Capital Improvement Program
Infrastructure Needs: DD currently maintains various equipment, vehicles7, infrastructure, and
associated assets. DD has completed various master planning efforts, most recently the 2022
Resource Recovery Facility Master Plan (RRFMP), which identified a series of improvements required
over the next 10 years. The DD’s Board of Directors adopted the current Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) in June 2023. The CIP lists WWTP improvements, pump station
upgrades, and other system improvements as described in the following paragraphs.
Table 14-7: Planning for Future Infrastructure
Description Cost ($M) Schedule
Electrical System Master Plan 0.3 FY 2025-26
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 0.5 FY 2026-27
(SCADA) Master Plan
Biosolids Management Master Plan 0.4 FY 2024-25
Recycled Water Master Plan Update 0.3 FY 2023-24
Source: Delta Diablo,06/25/20. FY21-25 CIP Presentation, Retrieved on November 9, 2023, from
<https://www.deltadiablo.org/current-cip>.
7
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. DD staff has indicated that the district is subject
to electric fleet requirements. Therefore, in the future, the district may be asked to consider purchasing or
retrofitting vehicles reliant upon an alternative energy source such as electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other
source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen and alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be
cheaper.
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
DD adopted its Five-Year CIP 8 covering FY 2023-24 – 2027-28 in June 2023. CThoen tCraIP C ofosctau sLeAsF CoOn
infrastructure and capital asset rehabilitation initiatives for wastewater and recycled water. The
funding for the program comes from various sources, such as grants, loans, and revenue bonds. The
CIP provides detailed information on the various projects, timelines, and budgets. The District’s CIP
is updated annually to reflect current priorities, address new project needs, and adjust estimated
project costs and implementation schedules. The Planned Expenditures by Major Area of the CIP is
shown below in Figure 14-7.
Figure 14-7: CIP Overview – Planned Expenditures by Major Area
The CIP describes several types of funds as listed below:
• Wastewater Capital Asset Fund
• Wastewater Capital Asset Replacement Fund
• Wastewater Capital Expansion Fund
• Advanced Treatment Fund
• Recycled Water Fund
• Bay Point Capital Asset Rehabilitation Fund
• (Source: Delta Diablo, CIP, 2019)
8
LAFCO’s previous MSR (2014) noted that several construction projects were completed: Bridgehead Pump
Station expansion; WWTP expansion/improvements including updates to the secondary clarifier mechanisms
and aeration rehabilitations; recycled water pipeline extensions in Antioch and Pittsburg; and digester
rehabilitations (LAFCO, 2014). Other major projects expected to be completed soon after 2014 included the
Triangle Pump Station rehabilitation and the Pittsburg Pump Station capacity improvements (LAFCO, 2014).
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
For example, the Wastewater Capital Expansion Fund is utilized to deveCloopn traan Cdo sctoa nLsAtFruCcOt
wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment facilities for future growth and expansion of the
service area. The facilities are to be paid for from revenues and fees from new development in the
various zones within the district boundary. In the past, the Fund has issued several offerings and
refinancing of Certificates of Participation (COPs) to fund many of the improvements. The Fund pays
the annual debt service associated with these items and serves as a financial plan to match
revenues and appropriations so that necessary facilities and equipment match the growth
projections within the service boundary of the district (Delta Diablo, CIP, 2019). Due to ageing
infrastructure and pending regulations, the upcoming CIP costs could increase significantly in order
to fund needed projects (personal communications, T. Vo and team, 2024).
The Bay Point Capital Asset Rehabilitation Program focuses on rehabilitating and replacing
wastewater collection system facilities in Zone 1 (Bay Point). The program aims to improve the Bay
Point community’s infrastructure and enhance its residents’ quality of life (Delta Diablo, CIP, 2019).
Rate Structure
DD collects SSCs from its customers as the primary revenue source to fund capital infrastructure
improvements, labor, energy, and other operational expenses. As shown in Table 14-8, DD raised
SSCs for FY 2021-22 by 6.5 percent (i.e., +$26.32 per year) for residential customers in Antioch and
Pittsburg. Bay Point residential customers saw their charge increase by 5.9 percent (+$32.78). The
increase in rates was properly noticed as required by Proposition 218, and a public hearing was held
on June 9, 2021. A “Cost of Service Study” noted that fee adjustments were necessary to allow the
district to continue to maintain effective and reliable wastewater conveyance and treatment.
Residential customers receive their SSC bill on their annual property tax bill.
Table 14-8: DD Typical Annual Residential SSC on Property Tax Bill
Residential Service FY20/21 FY21/22 Annual Change
Customer
Antioch/Pittsburg $403.10 $429.42 +$26.32
Bay Point $556.47 $589.25 +$32.78
Data Source: Delta Diablo. FY 2021-22 Sewer Service Charges Prop 218 Notice. Retrieved from
<https://www.deltadiablo.org/financial-information >.
Multi-unit residential customers (i.e., apartments, etc.) calculate their SSC by multiplying the per-
unit charge by the number of total units.
Non-residential customers (i.e., commercial and industrial) pay their SSC based on their annual
potable water consumption data (i.e., per one hundred cubic feet per year of potable water
consumption), as shown in Table 14-9 below.
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 14-9: Non-Residential User Charges, SSC ($) per Hundred Cubic Feet per CYoenatrr a Costa LAFCO
14.5: POPULATION
There were approximately 201,000 residents within the district boundary as of 2020. This includes
approximately 76,416 residents in Pittsburg, 115,291 in Antioch, and 9,293 in Bay Point. Note: DD
provides a slightly higher population estimate on its ACFR 2022-23, as shown in Table 14-10 below.
In the SOI, the current population is estimated to be approximately 269 persons. Detailed
information regarding population demographics in Contra Costa County is provided in Appendix A.
Table 14-10: Existing Permanent Population, Delta Diablo, 2018 to 2022
Population in Population in SOI only
Boundary (3)
High Population Scenario from DD (2024) (1) 218,281 269
Population (2020) Estimate based on Contra
Costa Dept of Conservation (2) 201,000 269
Sources:
(1): Delta Diablo. ACFR 2022-23
(2): County of Contra Costa. (2022). Department of Conservation. Population Estimate for 2020.
(3) Based on County GIS Data and an average estimate of 3.02 persons per parcel.
Projected Future Population
Projecting an agency’s future population is complicated by varying annexation rates and census
tracts that do not match boundaries. Data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was
used to project population growth for Contra Costa County, as shown in Table 14-11 below. The
anticipated future population growth within the county will likely influence the demand for the
provision of wastewater services. As shown in Table 14-11 below, it is estimated that by the year
2045, DD will serve a residential population of approximately 231,115 people.
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 14-11: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2022 – 2045)
Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Increase 2020 to
2020 to
2020 to 2045 2045
2045
County of Contra Costa1 1,156,555 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.10% 174,876 0.56%
Delta Diablo2 201,000 219,473 228,057 235,299 240,588 244,051 21.41% 43,051 0.78%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060
(Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
2: Population projection for Delta Diablo calculated at 18.33 percent of the County of Contra Costa population.
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
14.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES Contra Costa LAFCO
This section assesses disadvantaged communities so Contra Costa LAFCo may utilize the
information when an agency’s SOI is updated or expanded. Identifying disadvantaged communities
allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address municipal service and infrastructure
deficiencies that may exist in some disadvantaged communities.
In unincorporated areas, the CKH Act defines disadvantaged communities as inhabited
communities containing 12 or more registered voters that constitute all or a portion of a
“disadvantaged community.” A disadvantaged community is defined as a community in which the
median household income is 80% or less than the statewide median household income. In 2011,
Senate Bill (SB) 244 began requiring cities and counties to address the infrastructure needs of
unincorporated disadvantaged communities in city and county general plans, MSRs, and annexation
decisions. Therefore, this MSR Update identified disadvantaged communities within relevant
jurisdictions’ SOI.
The Median Household Income (MHI) for California in the year 2020 was $83,056 (ACS, 2021). 80
percent of the MHI ($66,445) is the income threshold used to identify DUC status. 2020 is used as
the base year because data from the US 2020 Census is readily available. Table 14- 12 and Figure
14- 8 below identify disadvantaged communities within the unincorporated community in Bay Point,
which is a Census Designated Place (CDP). LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer,
municipal, and industrial water, or structural fire protection services within identified disadvantaged
communities as part of a SOI update for cities and special districts that provide such services. These
services were recently reviewed in the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service
Review/Sphere of Influence Updates (2016), the Contra Costa City Services Municipal Service
Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round) (2019), Contra Costa County-wide Water Service
Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round) (2014). These services have
remained relatively unchanged since publication. Communities within the existing District boundary
or SOI do not lack public services because they either receive services from a municipal provider or
the properties are self-sufficient, relying upon groundwater wells and septic tanks. No health or
safety issues were identified.
Table 14-12: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities in Delta Diablo Sanitation District Zone
1
Unincorporated Census Tract Geo Census Block Median Household Income in
Community ID Number 2020
Bay Point CDP 060133141031 1 $46,509
Bay Point CDP 060133141051 1 $51,250
Bay Point CDP 060133142001 1 $60,395
Bay Point CDP 060133142002 2 $44,091
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 14-8: DUC Map – Bay Point CDP – Wastewater Service Contra Costa LAFCO
DD annexed the Bay Point community in the 1970s; however, the infrastructure was already installed
concurrent with the original housing construction. Bay Point contains aging infrastructure, which
should be addressed through forthcoming CIPs. DD does not have a program to assist low-income
customers with the bill for services (personal communications, T. Vo, et. al., 2024). Readers can
learn more about disadvantaged communities within the DD and Contra Costa County through the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services database of socioeconomic and health indicators
in disadvantaged communities called the Environmental Justice Explorer Database. This database
can be queried at <https://onemap.cdc.gov/portal/apps/sites/#/eji-explorer>. Query results
indicate that disadvantaged communities near the Bay Point community may experience hardships,
including:
• Exposure to Risk Management Plan Sites
• Minority Status
• Poverty
• No High School Diploma
• Unemployment
• Housing Tenure
• Housing Burdened, Lower-Income Households
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
• Households with Age 17 and Younger Contra Costa LAFCO
• Speaks English "Less than Well"
• High Estimated Prevalence of Asthma
• High Estimated Prevalence of Poor Mental Health
In addition to studying unincorporated areas, LAFCO also considers low-income areas located
within a municipality. DD provides service to two cities (Pittsburg and Antioch), and both cities
contain low-income areas that meet the financial threshold to be classified as disadvantaged. Figure
14-9 shows the location of disadvantaged communities in Pittsburg and Antioch. The red areas in
Figure 14-9 indicate severely disadvantaged communities with an MHI of less than $47,203 in 2020.
The orange areas depict disadvantaged communities with an MHI greater than $47,203 but less than
$62,937. Future consideration of any SOI change or change in service area for DD would first require
a detailed evaluation of DD’s capability to adequately provide wastewater service to these
disadvantaged communities, consistent with the requirements of the CKH Act.
Figure 14-9: Disadvantaged Communities within Pittsburg and Antioch
14.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
LAFCO’s previous MSR (2014) identified three government structure alternatives: (1) maintain the
status quo, (2) consolidate sewer collection service with the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg, and (3)
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
reduce the DD SOI to remove areas designated as permanent open space andC oonuttrsaid Ceo sthtae LUArFbCaOn
Limit Line (ULL). In 2014, alternative #3 was implemented, and DD’s SOI was reduced to remove the
areas protected as open space located outside Antioch’s ULL. Alternative #1 (maintain the status
quo) and Alternative #2 (consolidate sewer collection services with the cities of Antioch and
Pittsburg) remain valid for future study as described in the following paragraphs.
Maintain the Status Quo
DD is currently providing wastewater services for residents and businesses within its boundary. This
includes the provision of collection services to the Bay Point community. The District also provides
approximately 7.5 MGD (average) of recycled water for use in regional power plants and the irrigation
of golf courses and municipal parks. DD is providing adequate wastewater service and is financially
stable.
Consolidate sewer collection service with the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg
The Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg provide wastewater collection services, while DD provides
conveyance, treatment, and disposal services. Additionally, DD provides collection services for the
Bay Point community. LAFCO’s 2014 MSR noted that consolidation could provide potential
opportunities for economies of scale and other efficiencies. Further study is needed to determine
the merits of this option and the benefits/costs that would affect ratepayers for DD and both cities.
For example, the cities have their own collection systems, and they are responsible for the
maintenance and operations. DD currently has size constraints (financial and staffing) that would
make it challenging to assume responsibility for additional collection systems. Antioch and Pittsburg
have much larger collection systems, so it would be challenging for DD to take over that
responsibility (personal communications, T. Vo, et. al., 2024). An alternative option could be for the
City of Pittsburg to potentially assume responsibility for the Bay Point collection system in the future,
which is briefly described in Chapter 8.
14.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
Table 14-13: MSR Determinations – Delta Diablo
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected area. • DD serves an existing population of 201,000
• Is the existing population estimated? (in 2020).
• Is the projected future growth estimated?
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
• In the future, the population of DD is
expected to grow, consistent with the
General Plans for the cities of Antioch and
Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County. In
2045, the calculated (projected) population
may reach 244,051 persons at a growth rate
of 21.4 percent.
Location and characteristics of any Several disadvantaged unincorporated communities
disadvantaged unincorporated communities were identified within the unincorporated
community in Bay Point, a Census Designated Place.
within or contiguous to the sphere of influence.
Additionally, the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg also
contain low-income areas that meet the income
threshold to be classified as disadvantaged. LAFCO is
required to consider the need for sewer, municipal,
and industrial water, or structural fire protection
services within identified disadvantaged
communities as part of an SOI update for cities and
special districts that provide such services. These
services were recently reviewed in the 2nd Round
EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere
of Influence Updates (2016), the Contra Costa City
Services Municipal Service Review and Sphere of
Influence Study (2nd Round) (2019), Contra Costa
County-wide Water Service Municipal Service Review
and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round) (2014).
These services have remained relatively unchanged
since publication.
Communities within the district’s boundary or SOI
do not lack public services because they either
receive services from a municipal provider or the
properties are self-sufficient, relying upon
groundwater wells and septic tanks. No health or
safety issues were identified. However, future
consideration of a SOI change or change in
service area for DD would require a detailed
evaluation of DD’s capability to adequately serve
these disadvantaged communities.
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-29
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Present and planned capacity of public facilities, DD adopted its Five-Year CConatpriata Cl oIsmtap LroAvFeCmOe nt
adequacy of public services, and infrastructure Program covering FYs 2023-24 through 2027-28 in
June 2023. The CIP focuses on infrastructure and
needs or deficiencies, including needs or
capital asset rehabilitation initiatives for DD. The
deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and
funding for the program comes from various
industrial water, and structural fire protection in
sources, such as Capital Facilities Capacity
any disadvantaged, unincorporated
Charges, sewer service charges, grants, loans,
communities within or contiguous to the sphere and revenue bonds. The CIP provides detailed
of influence. information on the various projects, their
• Does the agency have a CIP? timelines, and budgets. DD’s CIP is updated
annually to reflect current priorities, address new
• Are SSOs identified?
project needs, and adjust estimated project costs
• Are local hazards identified?
and implementation schedules.
SSOs were queried in the CIWQS-SSO database
for a 3.5-year term from January 1, 2019, to August
9, 2022. During this 3.5-year timeframe, there
were two SSO events in DD.
Local hazards are identified in the Contra Costa
HMP, and DD was an active participant in this
Plan. The Plan notes that a small portion of DD
service area is located in a hazardous flooding
zone, including the treatment plant. In addition,
it states that a flooding event could potentially
overwhelm the collection system and impact
service for an extended period. DD is also at high
risk during an earthquake event.
It is recommended that DD integrate the results
of the Contra Costa HMP into its future planning
efforts with the aim to reduce the risks from
floods and earthquakes.
Financial ability of agencies to provide services. The district prepared a wastewater rate study in
• Has the agency prepared a rate study? 2021. Revenues exceed expenditures in all of the
• Do revenues exceed expenditures? five years studied. This key performance
• Is the ratio of annual debt service to total measure indicates that DD is solvent and has the
fund annual expenditures 10% or less? capacity to cover its costs. The district has
experienced balanced budgets with annual
surpluses.
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-30
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
In FY 2022, DD’s annual debt service was
$1,668,250. DD’s annual debt service ratio for
current liabilities to total expenditures is
approximately 3.8 percent for FY 2021-22 (DD,
2022b). This is lower than the ten percent metric,
suggesting DD will likely be able to continue
meeting its debt obligations in relation to service
provision expenditures. The District anticipates
annual debt services requirements to continue to
increase due to necessary capital improvement
expenditures. However, DD staff submitted
additional information demonstrating that its
annual revenues are sufficient to cover debt
service.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. DD participates in several regional partnerships,
including Household Hazardous Waste, Western
Recycled Water Coalition, Bay Area Biosolids
Coalition, and the East County Water Management
Association. One of DD’s goals is to “build and
sustain effective, positive partnerships within our
community to provide valuable services to our
customers and promote environmental
stewardship.”
DD has won several awards. DD was recognized
for outstanding industry leadership and a
progressive commitment to innovation and
advancing resource efficiency and recovery with
the prestigious “Utility of the Future Today”
national industry association award received at
the 2019 and the 2018 Water Environment
Federation (WEF) annual conferences.
The street sweeping and hazardous materials
collection programs are supported by the
County and the cities of Pittsburg and Antioch to
reduce pollution to the watershed and meet
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-31
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
RWQCB standards. DD continues to manage
the Delta Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Facility, a joint project of the County,
the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch, and Oakley, and
DD.
Accountability for community service needs, DD demonstrates accountability for community
including government structure and operational service needs through its governance and public
facilities. transparency. DD has a comprehensive website
• Does the agency have a website? that provides the public with internet access to
• Does the agency post a public outreach Board agendas and minutes, public notices,
tool (such as a calendar or newsletter) on budgets, CIP programs, and water quality-
its website? related reports. A calendar listing Board
• What is the recommendation for meetings and public hearings is available at
mergers, consolidations, or other <https://www.deltadiablo.org/calendar >. The
changes to governance structure? DD website includes comprehensive information
on the DD sewer service charges, CIP, and
community programs.
DD is governed by a Board of Directors that
includes three voting members. The Directors
are the presiding officers, or their designees, of
the elected bodies of the communities served by
DD: the City of Antioch, the City of Pittsburg, and
the Contra Costa County Supervisor for District
5. District Board meetings are open to the public.
Regular Board Meeting agendas are posted at
least 72 hours prior to the meeting date on DD’s
website.
LAFCO’s previous MSR (2014) identified
government structure alternatives: (1) maintain
the status quo, and (2) consolidate sewer
collection service with the cities of Antioch and
Pittsburg. Both of these alternatives remain valid
for future study. In the future, DD should pursue
the preparation of a focused study evaluating the
feasibility/cost-effectiveness of merging its
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-32
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
wastewater operations with Antioch and/or
Pittsburg as a potential long-term governance
alternative. Further analysis is needed to
determine the operational merits of the
consolidation option and the benefits/costs that
would affect DD ratepayers and both cities.
Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified.
service delivery, as required by commission
policy.
14.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
It is recommended that LAFCO reconfirm the current SOI configuration to maintain the status quo
for the near term.
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires that LAFCO
review and update the sphere of influence (SOI) for each of the special districts and cities within the
County (LAFCO, 2008). DD provides public services including wastewater collection, conveyance,
and treatment; recycled water production and distribution; renewable energy production; beneficial
biosolids reuse; pretreatment and pollution prevention; street sweeping; and household hazardous
waste collection.
DD only provides wastewater collection services to the unincorporated area of Bay Point, where DD
owns and maintains the sewer collection system. The cities of Antioch and Pittsburg own and
maintain their own sewer collection systems. Given current urban land uses, an aging wastewater
collection system, and increasingly stringent water quality standards, there will be an increased
need for cost-effective wastewater services within the DD service area. The district has planned for
service needs through its CIP and fee structure. DD’s SOI is 3.21 sq. mi. in size and contains 89 APNs.
Section 14.7, Government Structure Alternatives (see page 14-27), analyzes two different options to
change the DD governance structure. When LAFCO reviews or modifies an SOI for a district, it
typically considers all of its options to change the governance structure. For DD, two alternative
options were considered as listed:
1) Maintain the status quo
2) Consolidate sewer collection service with the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg.
It is recommended that LAFCO reconfirm the current SOI configuration to maintain the status quo
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-33
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
for the near term. Over the medium- to long-term, LAFCO may wish to study altCeornnatrtaiv Ceo osptati oLnAsF CfoOr
DD’s SOI.
14.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California’s Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
CA Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) - State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.)
California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS) SSO Public Report - Detail Page.
Query run on August 27, 2023 from <https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/chc_sso.html >.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit California State Data Center.
5/23/2023. Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC)
Data Release. Table 2: Land Area, Population and Population Density for California,
Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP), Census
2020Contributions from U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 1, 2023b. Report E-1 & E-1H,
Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2022 and
2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
City of Pittsburg. May 2023. 6th Cycle Housing Element: Housing Plan Background Report. HCD
Review Draft. Prepared By: De Novo Planning Group of El Dorado Hills, CA. 289-pages.
Retrieved on November 3, 2023 from
<https://www.pittsburgca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/15073/638188952137530000>.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. HMP Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes. Contributions from
Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
County of Contra Costa. (2022). Public Parcels. Retrieved on October 26, 2022, from:
<https://gis.cccounty.us/Downloads/Assessor/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. June 12, 2019. City-wide Services Municipal Service Review Update. Prepared
by Lamphier-Gregory Consultants and Berkson Associates. 793-pages. Retrieved December
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-34
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
2022 from <https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-servCicoen-trreav iCeowssta/> L. A FCO
Delta Diablo. (2018). Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. 123-pages. Retrieved November 11,
2022, from: <https://www.deltadiablo.org/files/242fbceb9/Delta+Diablo+SSMP+2018+-
+Revised+August+2021.pdf>.
Delta Diablo. 2019a. Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. 120-pages. Retrieved on
November 12, 2022, from: <https://www.deltadiablo.org/files/178ab8de5/2019+CIP.pdf>.
_____. November 27, 2019b. Delta Diablo Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Available online
at:< https://www.deltadiablo.org/financial-information>.
_____. December 10, 2020. Delta Diablo Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. Available online
at: < https://www.deltadiablo.org/financial-information>.
_____. December 20, 2021. Delta Diablo Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Available online
at: <https://www.deltadiablo.org/financial-information>.
Delta Diablo. (n.d.a). About Us. Retrieved November 14, 2022, from:
<https://deltadiablo.specialdistrict.org/about-us>.
Delta Diablo. 2022a. Resource Recovery Facility Master Plan. 386-pages. Prepared by Hazen and
Sawyer Consultants. Retrieved on November 9, 2023 from
<https://www.deltadiablo.org/key-capital-projects >.
_____. December 21, 2022b. Delta Diablo Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Available online
at: https://www.deltadiablo.org/financial-information.
_____. June 22, 2022c. Delta Diablo Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Budget. Available online at:
https://www.deltadiablo.org/financial-information.
Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updated through 2024. The Delta Plan. Available online
at: <https://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan/ >.
Delta Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010. Land Use and Resource Management Plan
for the Primary Zone of the Delta. 42-pages. Retrieved on April 8, 2024 from
<https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Land-Use-and-Resource-
Management-Plan-2.25.10_-m508.pdf >.
U.S. Census Bureau. November 2, 2021. 2020 American Community Survey 1-Year Experimental
Estimates. Table ID: XK201902. Table Title: Median Household Income In The Past 12 Months
(In 2020 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars). Retrieved July 7, 2021 from
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/experimental-data/1-year.html.
Vo, Thanh, Anika Lyons, Celia Kitchell, and Nitish Sharma. Tuesday, February 20, 2024 @ 9:00 AM.
Personal Communications via Zoom Call Regarding Delta Diablo MSR for Wastewater
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-35
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Services. Contra Costa LAFCO
Visser, M.A.; Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. (2018) Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta. Sacramento, CA: The Delta Protection Commission. 46-pages. Available
online at: <https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Delta-Socio-Economic-
Indicators-Report-508.pdf>.
Chapter 14: DD Page 14-36
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 15: DUBLIN SAN RAMON
SERVICES DISTRICT –WASTEWATER
SERVICES
Table of Contents
15.1: OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 15-1
15.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY & SOI ............................................................................................................ 15-3
15.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................... 15-5
15.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 15-15
15.5: POPULATION ................................................................................................................................. 15-24
15.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ................................................................................................. 15-27
15.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................. 15-27
15.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ............................................. 15-28
15.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS ....................................................... 15-28
15.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 15-28
15.1: OVERVIEW
The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) was formed in 1953. Originally named the Parks
Community Services District, the name was changed to Valley Community Services District in 1963
and Dublin San Ramon Services District in 1977. DSRSD’s Agency Profile is included in Table 15-1.
DSRSD provides water, wastewater collection, wastewater treatment, and recycled water services
in Dublin and a portion of San Ramon. DSRSD provides wastewater treatment services for
Pleasanton by contract. In addition to its wastewater services, DSRSD also provides potable water
and recycled water service to customers within its boundaries. Water services were described in a
previous MSR. The District lies within the San Francisco Bay / Sacramento Delta Estuary
watershed. Additional information about this watershed is provided in Appendix F. A map of
DSRSD’s current boundary and sphere of influence (SOI) is shown in Figure 15-1.
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 15-1: Agency Profile – Dublin San Ramon Services District
General Information
Agency Type Community Services District
Principal Act Community Services District Law, Gov’t Code 61000 et seq. and SB 135
Date Formed 1953
Water/Sewer Services sewer collection, treatment, and disposal; recycled water; and potable water supply
within Contra Costa County. DSRSD provides wastewater collection/treatment to the
southern portion of San Ramon and water/recycled water services to the Dougherty
Valley area.
Service Area
Location Multi-county District serving Alameda and Contra Costa counties, including Dublin,
San Ramon, U.S. Army Reserves Forces Training Area (Camp Parks), Federal
Correctional Institution at Dublin, Alameda County’s Santa Rita Jail, and Pleasanton
by contract.
Square 26.92 square miles/ 17,230 acres
Land Uses Residential, commercial, industrial, open space/public use
Population Served Approx. 199,952 people (see Table 15-8)
Last SOI Update • November 2021 (Alameda LAFCO, 2021)
• May 14, 2014 (Contra Costa LAFCO, 2014)
Sewer Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities Dublin-San Ramon Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), District’s share in the
Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA), dechlorination
facility, one pump station.
Treatment Plant 17 MG D Tre at ed Was tewa ter ( D S RSD, 201 7).
Capacity (MGD) 5.16 million gallons per day recycled water (Tetra Tech 2023)
Primary Disposal Method DSRSD Treatment Plant (secondary treatment); majority of effluent transported
to LAVWMA for dechlorination and disposal; approximately 25% of water sales is
recycled (used for landscape irrigation purposes).
Budget Information- F.Y. 2023-2024
Revenues Expenditures Net Surplus/(Deficit)
Operating/General Fund $94,903,670 $ 81,100,887 $ 13,802,783
Combined Other Included Above Included Above N/A
F.Y. 2024 Long-Term Planned Expenditures
Capital Expenditures $25,373,000 $ 327,330 million- 10 Year Projection
Net Assets (Reserves) $607,276,718 June 30, 2023 Financial Statement- Restricted &
Unrestricted
Governance
Governing Body Board of Directors (5 members)
Agency Contact • General Manager, Jan Lee
• Jason Ching P.E., Senior Engineer, 7051 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin,
CA, 94568. Phone: 925.875.2263. Email: ching@dsrsd.com
Notes None
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
15.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY & SOI
DSRSD provides wastewater collection and treatment services for the City of Dublin, the southern
portion of San Ramon, the U.S. Army Reserve’s Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, and the Alameda
County Santa Rita Jail. DSRSD also provides wastewater treatment outside its jurisdictional
boundaries to the City of Pleasanton under contract. Additionally, wastewater from Castlewood
County Service Area’s collection system utilizes the City of Pleasanton’s collection system to reach
the treatment plant operated by DSRSD (Alameda LAFCO, 2021). DSRSD’s service area extends into
two counties – Alameda County and Contra Costa County. DSRSD’s “principal” county for LAFCO
purposes is Alameda County. The District’s service area is approximately 26 square miles (Tetra
Tech, 2023). The District is an independent district governed by an elected board of directors.
Throughout its two-county boundary area, there are 25,301 single-family residential wastewater tax
roll assessments (excludes commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi-family accounts).
Additionally, there are approximately 473 recycled water accounts.
DSRSD does not have direct land use authority. Therefore, its facilities and services are based on the
existing development patterns. Future growth within the District is anticipated to occur according to
ABAG projections, which correspond to the policies of the cities’ general plans. DSRSD provides
wastewater service in the southern portion of San Ramon in Contra Costa County. Limited growth is
projected for this area, as no significant new development projects are anticipated 1 (personal
communication, S. Delight, January 2024).
Sphere of influence
The District’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) is nearly coterminous with its boundary. Anticipated growth
within the boundary (and the Pleasanton service area) is considered and accommodated with the
District’s management planning documents as described in the following pages. DSRSD provides
wastewater service directly or indirectly outside its boundaries to the City of Pleasanton via contract
(Alameda LAFCO, 2021). DSRSD partially overlaps the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
service area for potable water services. The cities of Dublin and Pleasanton are located in Alameda
County. The District’s SOI was reconfirmed in 2014 as part of Contra Costa LAFCO’s 2014 MSR/SOI
Update for Wastewater Services. Additionally, Alameda LAFCo’s 2021 Countywide Water and
Wastewater Services MSR recommended that Alameda LAFCO maintain and reaffirm the existing
SOI for DSRSD. In summary, Alameda LAFCO’s 2021 MSR found that there are no anticipated
changes in the type of public services and facilities required within the SOI for DSRSD. The level of
demand for these services and facilities was reviewed and accommodated within the master
infrastructure planning documents of the District (Alameda LAFCO, 2021).
1 In their Alameda County area, future growth within the City of Pleasanton is estimated, and DSRSD reserves
capacity in the WWTP for Pleasanton. The District also anticipates increased demand for recycled water and
increased flows of wastewater to be treated as additional development occurs in eastern Dublin (Tetra Tech,
2023).
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 15-1: Boundary/SOI Map – Dublin San Ramon Services District (2014 -remains accurate)
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
SF Bay Land Use
The Bay Area Regional Collaborative includes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. This collaborative multi-agency
regional committee allows for cross-jurisdictional work on projects such as Resilient Bay Area and
Carbon Free Future.
DSRSD’s discharge location can potentially influence a portion of the San Francisco Bay, which is a
sensitive environmental resource. The California state planning and regulatory agency, which has
regional authority over San Francisco Bay, the Bay’s shoreline band, and the Suisun Marsh, is called
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Its mission is to protect
and enhance San Francisco Bay and to encourage the Bay’s responsible and productive use for this
and future generations. BCDC ensures projects are compatible with the conservation of Bay
resources as described on its website at: <https://bcdc.ca.gov/ >.
15.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
DSRSD is a multi-county agency serving portions of Alameda County and southern Contra Costa
County. In the Contra Costa County portion of their boundary area, the District provides service to
5,049 sewer connections. DSRSD provides wastewater service to approximately 30 commercial and
industrial customer accounts. However, none of these commercial and industrial customers are
classified as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) categorical users (DSRSD, RFI, 2022).
Therefore, pre-treatment is not required.
DSRSD’s wastewater infrastructure includes 223 linear miles of wastewater pipes, two sanitary
sewer lift stations, and a WWTP capable of processing 17 million gallons per day (MGD). A recycled
water treatment facility capable of producing 16.2 MGD is co-located at the WWTP in Pleasanton
(Tetra Tech, 2023).
The collection system includes a series of pipelines ranging from six to 42 inches in diameter that
are from five to over 60 years old (Alameda LAFCO, 2021). The collection system includes four
inverted siphons. DSRSD’s collection system is in good condition, and relatively few needed repairs
were identified through previous CCTV inspections (Alameda LAFCO, 2021). Wastewater collected
travels by gravity and lift stations to the DSRSD WWTP located in the City of Pleasanton (DSRSD,
2012).
Disposal of treated effluent from the WWTP is the responsibility of LAVWMA, which exports
secondary treated wastewater to the East Bay Dischargers Authority interceptor pipeline for
discharge to the San Francisco Bay via a deep-water outfall (Alameda LAFCO, 2021). LAVWMA2
2 The LAVWMA JPA agreement may contain text that prevents DSRSD from geographic expansion of their
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
exports wastewater from the City of Dublin, the City of Pleasanton, the City of Livermore, and the
southern portion of San Ramon.
Wastewater Treatment Plant
DSRSD WWTP was initially constructed in 1961. Wastewater is treated at the Dublin-San Ramon
WWTP located in the City of Pleasanton (in Alameda County). The district treats an average of 11.23
MGD of wastewater (Tetra Tech, 2023), as shown in Figure 15-4 (see page 15-9). The total design
capacity for the WWTP (ADWF capacity) is 20.2 MGD (Alameda LAFCO, 2021). This design capacity
is split between an average daily dry weather design flow capacity of 17.0 MGD, and 3.2 MGD of
reverse osmosis reject water from Zone 7 (Alameda LAFCO, 2021).
Disposal of treated effluent from the Treatment Plant in Pleasanton is the responsibility of LAVWMA,
which exports secondary treated wastewater to the EBDA interceptor pipeline for ultimate discharge
to Marina Dechlorination Facility, then San Francisco Bay via a deep-water outfall located near San
Lorenzo Creek (DSRSD, 2012). During wet weather events, the permit allows discharge to the Alamo
Canal, although this discharge option has not been utilized. This allows the District to adequately
serve its boundary and account for growth. Expansion may be required after the projected buildout
date (Alameda LAFCO, 2021). The District provides wastewater collection and conveyance services
to approximately 5,049 sewer connections in Contra Costa County (DSRSD, 2022). One DSRSD
connection may serve many individual customers. (Please note that CA DWR estimates 3.3
residents per sewer connection).
Figure 15-2: Satellite
View of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
at 7399 Johnson Drive
in Pleasanton
boundaries in that direction (personal communication, S. Delight, January 2024). LAFCO may wish to
research this issue in the future.
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Recycled Water
Due to ongoing droughts and aridification, California’s water resource managers and planners are
encouraging water reclamation, recycling3, and reuse. Districts, including DSRSD, are working
together to initiate recycled water services within their communities and reduce the impacts of
droughts and aridification. Since 1999, the District produced and distributed recycled water for
landscape irrigation and construction. The District distributes 5.16 MGD of recycled water (Tetra
Tech, 2023). The District’s primary recycled water source is wastewater recovered at the District’s
WWTP in Pleasanton, California, and a small supply of wastewater from Central Contra Costa
Sanitation District (CCCSD) customers (via diversion structure) in San Ramon, California (Tetra
Tech, 2023).
DSRSD owns and operates a recycled water treatment facility (RWTF) at its WWTP and participates
with EBMUD in a joint power authority DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA), which
operates the San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program (SRVRWP) (DSRSD, 2017). DERWA
provides recycled water to the agencies for service to each of the agencies’ customers (Alameda
LAFCO, 2021). Additionally, DERWA provides recycled water on a wholesale/contract basis to the
City of Pleasanton. DERWA runs the San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program (SRVRWP), which
consists of treating, storing, and using recycled water for landscape irrigation in parts of Blackhawk,
Danville, Dublin, and San Ramon. Future phases of the program will extend recycled water into other
parts of the San Ramon Valley (Alameda LAFCO, 2021). Figure 15-4 is regularly updated by DSRSD
staff, and updated chart and data can now be obtained from the FYE 23 ACFR - page 93 on the DSRSD
website.
3
The Western Recycled Water Coalition (WRWC), formerly the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition (BARWC),
is an independent group of cities and public agencies in the Western United States working together to advocate
federal funding for water reuse projects. There are currently 19 member agencies in the WRWC, which include
five agencies that provide water within Alameda County: Cal Water, Hayward, Pleasanton, DSRSD, and Zone 7
(Western Recycled Water Coalition, 2017). Current WRWC projects will provide a sustainable and reliable
w ater supply to meet the household water needs of 875,000 people (Western Recycled Water Coalition, 2017).
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 15-4:
Wastewater Average
Flows, Trends
Data Source: DSRSD
Comprehensive
Annual Financial
Report, F.Y. 2022
Local Hazards
Although DSRSD did not participate in the Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan, they did
participate in the Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) dated June 2023 and authored by Tetra
Tech Consultants. The HMP notes that in the past, the DSRSD geographic area experienced severe
weather and flooding (2022), COVID-19 Pandemic (2020), severe winter storm (2017), severe
drought (2014-2016 and 2007), and more severe winter storms4 (2015, 2014, 2009, 2008). The HMP
also notes that the area is at high risk for earthquakes (Tetra Tech, 2023). The HMP contains several
action items which DSRSD is working to implement. Action Item #2 is “Integrate the hazard
mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances, and programs within the District.” This
recommendation would assist the district in protecting its infrastructure, and it is pertinent to this
MSR.
4 Stormwater is managed by the cities of Dublin and San Ramon. Stormwater is directed to local
creeks and drainages in pipes that are completely separate from the wastewater systems. Storm
drains do not connect with the sewer system (personal communication, S. Delight, January
2024).
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Additionally, the District has an Emergency Response Plan adopted in 2020 as policy P300-20-3, and
it designates the District Emergency Manager and authorizes that person to manage emergency
operations.
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
The Wastewater Collection System Master Plan was approved in 2017 and remains valid for
approximately 15 years. The Master Plan addresses existing and future challenges in wastewater
collection and provides specific recommendations for improving the District’s wastewater
infrastructure. These recommendations include the construction of a parallel relief gravity main for
the existing 42-inch trunk from Stoneridge Drive downstream to the WWTP influent line in 2025. The
report also provides a preliminary layout and
sizing plan for future infrastructure to aid in the
orderly extension of the collection system in the
future. The recommended future system
improvements will likely be implemented when
flows approach those projected for 2035. The
report is a valuable resource for the District as it
plans for the future of its wastewater collection
system.
Sewer System Management Plan
The DSRSD Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) serves as its wastewater strategic planning
document that outlines the management of the sewer system facilities. The SSMP was initially released
in March 2007 and was updated in November 2018. The SSMP covers a range of topics, including system
maintenance, emergency response procedures, and information on the different components of the
sewer system, such as gravity mains, lift stations, and treatment plants. Finally, the Plan outlines the goals
and objectives of the District in managing the sewer system facilities.
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Other DSRSD Planning Documents include the Wastewater Treatment and Biosolids Facilities
Master Plan, Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, DSRSD Strategic Plan, Odor Control Study,
and Emergency Response Plan.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted
systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California
Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General
Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. W.Q.
2022-0103-DWQ (SSS WDRs), on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate a sanitary
sewer system comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a publicly
owned treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A 3.5-year
term from January 1, 2019, to August 9, 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The results
of the database queries regarding DSRSD are listed below in Table 15-2 (next page).
During July to October 2022, San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known as
a red tide, as described in Appendix F The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma
akashiwo, can cause water to turn reddish-brown. The HAB extended throughout the open-bay
regions of the South Bay, the Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths linked to the red tide
were reported to include sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, and anchovy. The San
Francisco Bay Water Board is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay through the Nutrient
Management Strategy, which includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other
agencies to study the potential impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. The DSRSD has an
opportunity to assist with this effort by continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by
discussing the nutrient problem with other wastewater Districts and the Water Board.
During this 3.5-year timeframe, there was one Sanitary Sewer Overflow event in the
DSRSD. According to the CIWQS database, SSO failure occurred in a residential lateral
and was not associated with a storm event. The entire spill volume reached surface water,
and the final spill destination was a separate storm drain. Factors influencing the
District’s ability to collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater and provide public service to
customers were considered. DSRSD staff indicates that factors, such as the availability
of various materials, influence their ability to collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater
(DSRSD, 2022).
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 15-2: DSRSD Sanitary Sewer Overflows
EVENT Responsible Agency Collection SSO Start SSO Vol of SSO Vol of SSO WDID
ID System Category Date Vol Recovered SSO Failure
Reached Point
Surface
Water
877939 DSRSD (WWTP NPDES Dublin San Category 1 12/2/2021 300 0 300 Residential 2SSO10128
& SSO) Ramon Serv lateral
Dst C.S.
Figure 15-5: Google Maps Street View of the DSRSD, 7399 Johnson Ave., Pleasanton
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Infrastructure Needs
The District currently maintains various equipment, vehicles5, infrastructure, and associated assets.
A summary of the District’s existing physical assets and infrastructure is listed in Tables 15-3 and
15-4 below. For the collection system, DSRSD has a robust pipeline maintenance system to dislodge
roots and clean the system (personal communication, S. Delight, January 2024).
Table 15-3: List of DSRSD Assets
Asset Value
Property
203 acres of land $71,000,000
Critical Infrastructure and Equipment
359 miles of potable water pipe and 3610 hydrants $853,841,000
17 potable water pump stations $19,808,000
72 miles of recycled water pipe and 24 hydrants $144,251,000
5 recycled water pump stations $4,044,000
223 miles of wastewater pipes $588,540,000
2 sanitary sewer lift stations $2,028,000
14 potable water reservoirs capable of storing 25 million gallons $39,276,000
4 recycled water reservoirs capable of storing 11 million gallons $23,623,075
Wastewater Treatment Plant capable of processing 17 million gallons per $157,059,000
day
Recycled Water Plant capable of producing 16.2 million gallons per day $19,398,430
4 Operational Potable Water Turnout Delivery Facilities (Intertied with $2,033,000
Zone 7 Water Agency) – Turnouts 2, 4 and 5 are in-service, Turnout 1 is
out-of-service, Turnout 3 is decommissioned, and Turnout 6 is planned.
6 Emergency Interconnect Facilities (3 interties with EBMUD, 2 interties $631,000
with City of Pleasanton, 1 intertie with City of Livermore)
Total: $202,944,505
Data Source for Table 15-3: Tetra Tech, 2023
Table 15-4: Administrative Facilities
Asset Value
Critical Facilities
Administrative Building – District Office (Headquarters) $8,635,000
Administrative Building – Field Operations Facility $5,994,000
Total: $14,629,000
Data Source for Table 15-4: Tetra Tech, 2023
5
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the District, it is likely that sometime in the future, the
District may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting vehicles reliant upon an alternative energy source
such as electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore,
alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Future Challenges: The MSR authors asked DSRSD staff to describe the factors that may affect the
ability to serve wastewater customers in the future. DSRSD staff indicated that over the past five
years, DSRSD has not experienced major changes that affect operations (DSRSD, 2022). District
staff noted that there are new regulatory requirements that increase the workload and may
eventually cause the need for additional staffing or consultants (DSRSD, 2022). DSRSD has a Fiscal
Year Ending (FYE) 2024 – 2028 Strategic Plan. Implementing this Plan will aid the District in preparing for
future challenges.
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 (2019) has several recommended remedies for
California’s aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a WWTP is, what
kind of wastes it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the sewer pipes. Continue
educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom to call if such an event
occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling.
Cooperative Programs
DSRSD covers a wide area in both Contra Costa and Alameda counties and actively engages in
several cooperative programs. DSRSD coordinates cooperative programs with EBMUD on recycled
water development and LAVWMA to treat and recycle water in the overall service area. DSRSD has
also participated in the regional recycling water program grant funding development, including the
California DWR and Bureau of Reclamation grants and loans. Additionally, DSRSD staff participates
with other agencies in the Tri-Valley to pool resources when possible (DSRSD, 2022). In this Tri-Valley
cooperation, agencies share procurement for various items to reduce costs (DSRSD, 2022).
Additionally, Alameda LAFCO’s recent MSR for DSRSD notes the following cooperative programs:
• DSRSD, Livermore, and Pleasanton share a wastewater conveyance pipeline through
LAVWMA’s export pipeline.
• DSRSD operates and maintains the LAVWMA effluent export pipeline by contract.
• LAVWMA contracts with EBDA for disposal services.
• DSRSD provides treatment services to the City of Pleasanton by contract.
• Pleasanton conveys Castlewood CSA wastewater to the DSRSD Treatment Plant by contract.
• The San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program (SRVRWP) is a partnership between EBMUD
and DSRSD to provide recycled water to both agencies’ customers.
• DSRSD cooperates with Livermore, Pleasanton, and other parties in the Tri-Valley
Intergovernmental Reciprocal Services Agreement, which allows for the sharing of resources
(and contracting between the agencies) as agreed to by Task Orders.
• DSRSD collaborates with the Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group. This Group developed
and implemented pollution prevention strategies and exchanged information to coordinate
pollution prevention efforts. The Group is composed of many agencies that provide services
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
in Alameda County (including the CCCSD, DSRSD, EBMUD, Hayward, Livermore, and San
Leandro).
• (Source: Alameda LAFCO, 2021)
Joint Powers Authority
DSRSD participates in a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) called the Livermore-Amador Valley Water
Management Agency (LAVWMA) regarding wastewater transport out of the area. The JPA is
composed of DSRSD, the City of Livermore, and the City of Pleasanton. Since 1979, LAVWMA has
owned the conveyance facilities that transport treated wastewater from the Livermore Water
Reclamation Plant over the Dublin grade and eventually to the East Bay Dischargers Authority, which
dechlorinates the effluent and discharges it through a deep-water pipeline into the San Francisco
Bay (Alameda LAFCO, 2021).
DSRSD also participates in the DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA), a JPA formed in
1995 between DSRSD and EBMUD. DERWA’s mission is to provide a safe, reliable, and consistent
supply of recycled water and to maximize the amount of recycled water delivered. The Authority has
four board members, including two from DSRSD and two from EBMUD, as described on the
Authority’s website at: <http://www.derwa.org/>. DERWA runs the San Ramon Valley Recycled
Water Program (SRVRWP), which consists of treating, storing, and using recycled water for
landscape irrigation. Future phases of the program will extend recycled water into other parts of the
San Ramon Valley (Alameda LAFCO, 2021).
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
DSRSD has implemented several projects that aim to avoid future cost increases over the long term.
For example, DSRSD initiated an in-house Biosolids Harvesting Program, saving the cost of
continuing to use outside contractor resources. In another example, in 2021/22, DSRSD began a
$4.66 million project to upgrade the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to improve
a set of industrial computers and a monitoring system DSRSD staff use to operate the Regional
Wastewater Treatment Facility. The project can issue commands and report data at the facility, such as
flow readings, temperatures, and tank levels. The SCADA provides improved operations and reduces
the risk of system overflows and stoppages, as well as the security of the infrastructure. In 2014,
DSRSD conducted a biannual assessment of facilities and CIP projects to select the most needed
and cost-effective projects for implementation. By constructing facilities on an as-needed basis,
funds are maintained for longer terms in the event of immediate or unforeseen infrastructure needs.
Additionally, DSRSD staff noted that the District participates with other agencies in the Tri-Valley to pool
resources when needed. For example, sharing procurement for various items helps to reduce costs for
participating agencies (DSRSD, RFI, 2022).
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
15.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
DSRSD funds sewer facilities from its enterprise funds derived from capacity reserve charges,
service rates, and charges. Enterprise Funds are used to separately account for self-supporting
operations. DSRSD has three separate enterprises:
1. Water – distributes potable and recycled water to Dublin and the Dougherty Valley area of
San Ramon.
2. Local Sewer – collects wastewater through underground sewer systems in Dublin and
southern San Ramon.
3. Regional Sewer – treats wastewater from Dublin, southern San Ramon, and Pleasanton to
recover water and energy and prepare effluent for safe disposal in the San Francisco Bay.
In this MSR, the analysis focuses on the Local Sewer (#2) and the Regional Sewer (#3) Enterprise
Funds. To ensure customers pay only for services they receive, DSRSD manages the revenues and
expenses for each enterprise separately. The District produces an Annual Comprehensive Financial
Report (ACFR) each fiscal year in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP). In addition, the District’s finances are the subject of annual independent financial audits.
The ACFR for FY’s 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23, as well as the adopted operation budget
for FY 2024/2025, will be the primary sources of information for data related to the financial health
of the District (DSRSD, 2020; 2021; 2022; 2023; 2024). These reports are posted on the District’s
website at: <https://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/financial-information>. This financial
analysis represents a snapshot in time (i.e., a limited time period). However, DSRSD regularly
updates its financial data and readers may review the new data on its website.
DSRSD also has a financing corporation that provides financial assistance to the DSRSD by
financing, refinancing, acquiring, constructing, improving, leasing, and selling of buildings, building
improvements, equipment, and other public improvements, lands, and any other real or personal
property for the benefit of customers or the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD, 2019; 2020;
2021a; 2021b; 2022b; 2023c). Recommendation: When LAFCO next updates the MSR for DSRSD,
additional information about the finance corporation should be included.
DSRSD operates its wastewater services as enterprise-type activities, with its primary revenue
sources being service charges and capacity reserve charges. The most recent ACFR for FY 2022-23
includes an audited report that features the Management’s Discussion and Analysis. The most
recent audit noted that the financial statements presented by the District were presented fairly and
in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The primary
revenue resources of the District totaled $103,648,331 in the FY 2022-23, compared to $88,055,389
in FY 2021-22. The 17.7 percent increase was primarily the result of an increase in capacity reserve
fees and increased water sales post-drought (DSRSD, 2021a). Five primary areas of criteria are
utilized to assess the present and future financial condition of DSRSD’s wastewater service
operations, as discussed below:
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
5 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
The DSRSD has two separate enterprise funds for sewer: Local Sewer and Regional Sewer. Each fund
generates the revenue needed to build, operate, and maintain its systems and prudent reserves and
is part of a larger combination of funds used for wastewater operations. Each ACFR includes a
breakdown in funds for Regional Wastewater Operations and Local Wastewater Operations,
including the Enterprise Fund for each area, a Rate Stabilization Fund, a Replacement Fund, and an
Expansion Fund. This document will reference these combined funds using the terminology outlined
in the ACFRs as Regional Wastewater Operations and Local Wastewater Operations (DSRSD,
2023c). The last three funds mentioned are described below:
• Rate Stabilization Fund: Each enterprise fund is paired with a rate stabilization fund (RSF)
to support the District’s strategic goal of managing public funds to assure financial stability,
including stability of revenues and related rates and charges. In some years, there may be a
surplus above the working capital target in one or more of the District’s enterprise funds; in
other years, unexpected events may cause a fund balance to fall below the target. Rate
stabilization funds allow the District to properly manage these different circumstances to
achieve the desired stability; avoiding wide fluctuations in rates to fund operations (DSRSD,
2023c).
• Replacement Funds: Replacement funds receive non-operating revenue from developer
capacity reserve fees (“buy-in” component) and replacement allocation transfers from
enterprise funds. Replacement allocations are based upon funding requirements identified
in the District’s updated Asset Replacement Planning Model. The buy-in component
represents the benefit developers receive from connecting to existing infrastructure that is
maintained primarily by ratepayers. This long-term planning model ensures that sufficient
funds will be available when capital assets need refurbishment or replacement (DSRSD,
2023c).
• Expansion Funds: Expansion funds receive revenue from developer capacity reserve fees.
These fees are designed to cover the cost of building expanded facilities for new
development, including debt service for assets built to serve new development. Capacity
reserve fees, which are considered “non-operating” revenue, are recognized upon receipt,
but may not be used for many years until the need arises. Costs for growth-related capital
projects, including direct staff time and overhead, are charged to expansion funds (DSRSD,
2023c).
In addition to these funds, the District uses the Administrative Cost Center to capture costs not
specifically identifiable to any one of its enterprises. Costs for all the District’s administrative
divisions are included in this fund. General Administrative costs for services provided to two JPAs
(DERWA and LAVWMA) are also recorded in this fund. Net fund costs are allocated based upon
proportionate personnel costs across enterprise funds (DSRSD, 2023c). These are broken into the
combining statement of net position for each fund and are not included in the revenue/expenditure
discussion in this section.
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
The Regional Sewer Enterprise Fund had operating expenditures exceeding revenues for the four
ACFRs studied and operating revenues exceeding expenditures for the FY 2023-24 budget, as shown
in Figure 15-6 below (DSRSD, 2021b). Expenditures reached a high of approximately $32.1 million in
FY 2019-20 and have continued to trend downward since. Revenues have slowly increased since FY
2020-21. For FYE 2022-23, the majority of revenues come from wastewater service charges at
approximately $23.7 million, with other revenues making up $7.4 million. This same fiscal year, non-
operating revenues for the fund, which includes investment income; state grants; gain on sale of
assets; and gain on investment in JPA, ended the year at $2.2 million (DSRSD, 2019; 2020; 2021a;
2021b; 2022b). The district regularly updates its budget numbers, and these are available on their
website.
Figure 15-6: Regional Sewer Enterprise Fund Operating
Revenues Compared to Expenditures
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$-
2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023
Revenues Expenditures
The Local Sewer Enterprise Fund had operating expenditures exceeding revenues for three of the
four ACFRs studied and revenues exceeding expenditures for the FY 2021-22 ACFR and FY 2022-23
and 2023-24 budget, as shown in Figure 15-7 below (DSRSD, 2019; 2020; 2021a; 2021b; 2022b).
Figure 15-7: Local Sewer Enterprise Fund Operating
Revenues Compared to Expenditures
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$-
2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023
Revenues Expenditures
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Expenditures reached a high of approximately $4.8 million in FY 2019-20 and have continued to trend
downward since. Revenues have slowly increased since FY 2018/2019. The majority of revenues
come from wastewater service charges at approximately $4.6 million, with other revenues making
up approximately $122 thousand in FY 2022-23. This same fiscal year, non-operating revenues for
the fund, which includes investment income; state grants; and gain on sale of assets, ended the year
at $221 thousand (DSRSD, 2019; 2020; 2021a; 2021b; 2022b).
Though expenses have exceeded revenues for both the Regional and Local Funds for the majority of
the fiscal years studied, both have seen increases in the net position year over year due to capital
contributions capacity reserve fees as described in the Replacement and Expansion funds above.
The Operating Budget for FY 2022-23 stated the following for the Local Sewer Enterprise Fund:
“In 2017, the Board received a report on some systemic financial challenges facing the Local
WW Enterprise Fund, primarily due to a substantial reduction of the rates back in 2004. To
stabilize the Fund, the Board approved a significant rate adjustment in FYE 2017 that would
increase the local annual charge for residential users by over 94% over five years and
deferred transfers to the Local Wastewater Replacement Fund. In addition, vacancies and
expenditure reductions over the past four years have resulted in the working capital balance
to rebound to minimum reserve policy levels faster than anticipated. Finally, a
comprehensive review of the allocation of administrative overhead costs has been
completed, resulting in some transfer of costs from the Local WW Fund. As a result of all of
the above actions, the Local WW Enterprise Fund currently shows a sustainable financial
position” (DSRSD, 2021b).
This same report stated the following for the Regional Sewer Enterprise Fund:
“The Regional Enterprise Fund continues to be in good financial condition with no rate
increases implemented in FYE 2017 and FYE 2018 and inflationary adjustments from FYE
2018 through FYE 2022. A 1.6% rate adjustment (February 2021 Consumer Price Index) is
reflected for FYE 2022, and a 3.0% rate adjustment is assumed for FYE 2023. The next
Regional Rate Study is anticipated for Spring 2022” (DSRSD, 2021b).
Though the District is currently operating in the black for both wastewater operations, it appears that
developer fees are crucial to keeping both funds solvent. When looking purely at operating revenues
versus operating expenditures, both wastewater operations may not be sustainable over the long
term. However, DSRSD appears to be proactive in managing both funds through comprehensive
financial policies based on industry best practices, 5-year rate studies, long-term approaches to
financial planning spanning 10 years, and ensuring 4 months of working capital for each fund
(DSRSD, 2023c).
The Regional Sewer Fund ended the fiscal year June 30, 2023 with a net position of $230,655,470,
and the Local Sewer Fund with a net position of $62,922,648; both significant amounts of reserve
fund balance (DSRSD, 2022b). This appears to be more than sufficient to absorb short-term and
minor long-term downturn in revenues.
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Ratios of Revenue Sources
Regional Wastewater Operations received revenues from a variety of sources over the four funds.
Those revenues are shown in Figure 15-8 below. Approximately 59 percent of revenues originated
from Wastewater Service Charges, with the next largest revenue source being Capital Contributions
– Capacity Reserve Fees at approximately 21 percent for FY 2021-22. The third largest revenue
source was Transfers In, making up approximately eight percent or $2.13 million, made up of
approximately $335k from the Rate Stabilization Fund and $1.8 million from the Replacement Fund.
The remaining revenue sources are from Other Revenues, State Grants, Gain on Sale of Assets, and
Gain on Investment in the JPA (DSRSD, 2022b). The district regularly updates its revenue data and its
new FY 2022023 ACFR contains updated information and is available on the DSRSD website.
Figure 15-8: Regional Enterprise Fund Revenue Sources, FY
2021-22
5.37% Wastewater Service Charges
Other revenues
State Grants
21.05%
Gain on Sale of Assets
3.54%
58.90%
0.05% Gain on Investment in JPA
3.15%
Capital Contributions - Capacity
7.95% Reserve Fees
Transfers In
Local Wastewater Operations received revenues from a variety of sources over the four funds
included in local wastewater operations. Those revenues are shown in Figure 15-9 below.
Approximately 57 percent of revenues come from Wastewater Service Charges, with the next largest
revenue source being Non-cash Contributions at approximately 18 percent (DSRSD, 2022b).
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 15-9: Local Enterprise Fund Revenue Sources, FY
2021-22
Wastewater Service Charges
0.11%
Other revenues
14.82%
Gain on Sale of Assets
State Grant
17.84%
57.14%
Non-cash Contirubtions
2.49%
Capital Contributions -
0.16%
Capacity Reserve Fees
7.44%
Transfers In
The third largest revenue source was Capital Contributions – Capacity Reserve Fees, making up
approximately 15 percent or $1,137,246 combined from the Replacement Fund at $1,103,584 and
the Expansion Fund at $33,662. The remaining revenue sources are from Other Revenues, State
Grant, Gain on Sale of Assets, and Transfers In (DSRSD, 2022b).
Though over half of each operations revenue come from a stabilize revenue source (wastewater
service charges), the 21 percent for the Regional Wastewater Operations and 15 percent for the
Local Wastewater Operations portion of revenues that come from capital contributions. These
revenues could be impacted by negative economic factors such as a development downturn and are
considered a less stable source of revenue.
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
Figure 15-10 below shows the total assets for Local and Regional Wastewater Operations broken up
by current and noncurrent assets for FY 2021-2022. An indicator of the ability to absorb an
unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited by the amount of unrestricted cash
reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to the annual fund expenditures.
Please note that updated financial data regarding expenditures and reserves can be found in the
current budget available on the agency’s website.
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 15-10: Assets by Fund, FY 2021-22
Non-Current Assets
Current Assets
$- $40,000,000 $80,000,000 $120,000,000 $160,000,000
Local Wastewater Operations Regional Wastewater Operations
For Regional Wastewater Operations, the most recent audit completed in FY 2022-23 shows an
unrestricted amount of $57,467,195. Operating expenses for the same fiscal year totaled
$34,747,941. This equates to a positive ratio of 165 percent, a very good ratio (DSRSD, 2022). For
Local Wastewater Operations, the most recent audit completed in FY 2022-23 shows an unrestricted
amount of $9,989,267 Operating expenses for the same fiscal year totaled $5,293,984. This equates
to a positive ratio of 189 percent, a very good ratio (DSRSD, 2022b).
According to the FY 2022-23 Operating budget, staff undertook the first comprehensive update of
staffing allocations across the three enterprises since the Great Recession. In many cases,
individual staff provide support to more than one of the three enterprises, and the cost of this shared
staff effort is allocated by formula to the three enterprises. This new reallocation of staff effort
towards the enterprises has resulted in savings for the local wastewater enterprise’s financial
condition. Thus, the Local Wastewater Enterprise has recovered sooner than expected. This
enterprise will meet reserve policy goals for the enterprise fund in both budget years, and the rate
stabilization fund will meet the target reserve level in the second year. Lastly, the suspension of
capital rehabilitation funding can be reversed and funding partially reinstated in FYE 2023, with the
transfer of $800,000 from the enterprise fund to the capital replacement fund (DSRSD, 2021b).
The Operating Budget also states that the Regional Wastewater program is extraordinarily well
funded, with working capital levels at or near maximum reserve levels throughout both years of the
operating budget cycle. Combined Regional enterprise and rate stabilization fund working capital
levels will exceed $27.6 million throughout the two-year budget cycle (DSRSD, 2021b).
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. Specifically, the DSRSD has several types of
liabilities related to wastewater operations across both local and regional including accounts
payable, contractor bonds and deposits, compensated absences, unearned revenue, net pension
liability, DLD remediation reserve, and Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) liability (DSRSD,
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
2022a). Figure 15-11 shows total liabilities for Local and Regional Wastewater Operations delineated
by current liabilities and noncurrent liabilities for FY 2022-23 (DSRSD, 2022b). The district regularly
updates its financial data and new information about liabilities can be found in the most recent
annual report available on the DSRSD website.
Figure 15-11: Liabilities by Fund, FY 2021-22
Non-Current Liabilities
Current Liabilities
$(8,000,000) $(6,000,000) $(4,000,000) $(2,000,000) $-
Local Wastewater Operations Regional Wastewater Operations
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of DSRSD’s ability
to meet debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a ratio of 10 percent or
less would reflect a very stable ratio. DSRSD’s annual debt service ratio for Regional Wastewater
Operations to total expenditures is approximately 21 percent for FYE 2022 (DSRSD, 2021b). There is
no debt service expenditure for Local Wastewater Operations. The District debt in the regional fund
is its proportionate share of the 2021 LAVWMA Pledge Obligation through a contribution to JPA
expense. As a member of LAVWMA, the District has pledged its regional service charges to a portion
of these bonds. We refunded this debt in 21/22 with a net present value savings of $9.6M for the three
LAVWMA partners. This has resulted in a savings of $980K/yr in interest expense for the DSRSD and
Pleasanton obligation. Debt will be fully paid off in 2031 (personal conversation, C. Atwood 2023).
Capital Improvement Program
DSRSD conducts capital improvement planning over a 10-year planning horizon but is updated bi-
annually during the budgeting cycle. The most recent Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was adopted
by Board Resolution No. 26-23 on June 20, 2023, and is posted online at:
<https://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/financial-information>. The CIP aims to support the
District’s mission and strategic Plan. In fiscal years 2024 and 2025, DSRSD is investing $71.4 million
in replacement and expansion projects. The CIP describes four wastewater funds as listed below:
• Local Wastewater Replacement (Fund 210) – The funding source to replace and improve
local sewer facilities to handle existing wastewater flows. Facilities include trunk sewer
lines, lift stations, and related appurtenances that transfer wastewater from the point of
origin to the regional WWTP.
• Local Wastewater Expansion (Fund 220) – The funding source to expand or add local sewer
facilities to accommodate increased wastewater flows from new development.
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
• Regional Wastewater Replacement (Fund 310) – The funding source to replace and improve
the regional WWTP to process existing wastewater flows before further treatment for
recycled water or transit through the LAVWMA pipeline to the San Francisco Bay for disposal.
• Regional Wastewater Expansion (Fund 320) – The funding source to expand or add to the
regional WWTP and related appurtenances that process future wastewater flows.
Proposed expenditures for two fiscal years are shown in Table 15-6 below for each of the four funds
described in the preceding paragraph.
Table 15-6: CIP Expenditures by Fund ($ 1,000’s)
Fund 2024 2025
Local Replacement 939 2,129
Local Expansion 156 171
Regional Replacement 11,267 15,298
Regional Expansion 418 1,343
Data Source for Table 15-6: DSRSD, 2023b
The cost of replacing existing assets is built into the charges current customers pay for water and
sewer services. Developers pay for expanding water and wastewater systems on behalf of future
customers. Developer fees also purchase capacity in the community’s existing infrastructure.
Alameda LAFCO’s 2021 MSR on DSRSD noted that the Capital Improvement Program adopted during
fiscal year budget hearings and the Sewer System Management Plan accommodates District-wide
needed improvements for the existing SOI (Alameda LAFCO, 2021).
Rate Structure
Alameda LAFCO’s 2021 MSR found that the present capacity of public facilities in DSRSD appears
adequate. The District anticipates it will continue to provide adequate levels of services based on
existing financing resources, which includes a specific rate based on service levels. If the District
continuously updates rates accordingly with appropriate inflation and/or construction cost indices,
service levels will remain adequate (Alameda LAFCO, 2021).
In May 2023, DSRSD adopted the new Sewer Cost of Service Study, as prepared by HDR Consultants
(DSRSD, 2023a). The Sewer Cost of Service Study provides a financial plan that meets the operating
and capital needs of the wastewater system. The Study describes the basis for developing and
implementing regional and local sewer rates that are cost-based and proportional to both regional
and local customers. Customers receive sewer bills on a bi-monthly basis. The local sewer service
rates relate to the collection system and are listed in Table 15-7 below.
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 15-7: Local Sewer Service Rates
Data Source: DSRSD, Rate Study, 2023a
In addition to the local sewer rate shown above, DSRSD also charges a regional fee, which relates to
wastewater treatment costs. DSRSD calculates the fee (local and regional) separately because they
are two distinct enterprises. The local and regional fees are collected on the County property tax roll
every six months. The average single-family home pays $82.58 bimonthly, which is charged six times
per year. The total annual charge for a typical single-family home calculates to approximately
$495.48.
Commercial customers are billed in a slightly different manner. The County does not handle
commercial fees. Rather, the fees for commercial customers are based on water usage, and the fee
is routed through EBMUD. EBMUD bills the customers (on behalf of DSRSD). There are very few
commercial customers in San Ramon (approximately 30). For example, commercial customers
include one golf course and a linear street mall with a grocery store (personal communication, S.
Delight, January 2024).
DSRSD also charges various permit fees and capacity reserve fees to fund infrastructure
improvements. Additional charges, such as a base rate, may be applicable. DSRSD maintains rate
stabilization funds for local sewers to minimize rate increase impacts on customers.
15.5: POPULATION
DSRSD serves a total population of approximately 199,952 people, as listed in Table 15-8 below. In
the Contra Costa County portion of the DSRSD, there are 27,220 registered voters as of January 2023.
Detailed information regarding population demographics in Contra Costa County is provided in
Appendix A.
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 15-8: Existing Permanent Population, DSRSD, 2020
Dublin San Ramon Population in Boundary 1
City of Dublin2 74,211
City of San Ramon 3 46,000
unincorporated Contra Costa area (i.e., n/d
Federal Correctional Institution, Camp
Parks)
Subtotal (In Boundary) 120,211
City of Pleasanton 4 79,741
Grand Total for Service Area 199,952
Sources:
1) California Department of Finance. May 2023. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for
Cities, Counties, and the State: January 2021-2023 with 2020 Benchmark. Sacramento,
California. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/ .
2) The City of Dublin is located in Alameda County, and DSRSD serves the entire City.
3) (3): DSRSD serves only a portion (74%) of the City of San Ramon. San Ramon lies entirely
within Contra Costa County. CCCSD provides wastewater service to the remaining portion
of San Ramon. San Ramon’s total population is 84,605 (2020 Census).
4) (4) The City of Pleasanton is located in Alameda County and has a contract with DSRSD.
Projected Future Population
Projecting a district’s future population is complicated due to varying annexation rates and census
tracts that do not match district boundaries. Data from the California Department of Finance (DOF)
was used to project population growth for Contra Costa County, as shown in Table 15-10 below.
Since the anticipated future population growth of the City has the potential to influence the demand
for the provision of wastewater services, the projections are shown in Table 15-10 below.
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 15-10: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2045)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2020 to
2020 to 2045 2020 to 2045 2045
County of Contra
Costa1 1,149,800 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.8% 181,631 0.59%
Dublin San Ramon
Services District
(Contra Costa Portion
Only 2, 3, 4) 46,000 47,475 49,331 50,898 52,042 52,791 14.70% 6,791 0.55%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060
(Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
2: 46,000 residents in Contra Costa portion of the boundary. Data provided by Contra Costa LAFCO.
3. See also California Department of Finance. (2021). E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State: January 1, 2020 and 2021.
Sacramento, California.
4: Population projection for the San Ramon portion calculated as 3.97 percent of the County of Contra Costa population.
See also Alameda LAFCO. Approved November 2021. County-wide Municipal Services Review on Water, Wastewater, Flood Control, and Stormwater
Services. Contributions from Q.K. 300-pages. (Available via Alameda LAFCO request).
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
15.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address
municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in some disadvantaged
communities. Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part of this MSR Update process. Data
query results showed no disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within the District’s
boundary or its SOI. Low-income areas within the city limits were also queried. There are no
disadvantaged areas within the cities of Dublin and San Ramon boundaries.
15.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
Alameda County LAFCO is the principal LAFCO for DSRSD and is legally responsible for determining
DSRSD SOI in both Alameda and Contra Costa counties. However, both LAFCOs work cooperatively
in evaluating the future service needs of the DSRSD’s entire service population and in evaluating
DSRSD’s SOI. Within Contra Costa County, DSRSD’s boundary is currently coterminous with its SOI.
According to the DSRSD staff, the District does not anticipate any consolidations or adjustments to
the boundary in the next five years (DSRSD, 2022). No modifications to the District’s current SOI
within Contra Costa County are recommended at this time. In addition, no alternative governance
structure options have been identified for DSRSD for CC LAFCO within Contra Costa County.
However, it should be noted that DSRSD, EBMUD, and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District appear
to have overlapping boundaries in an area located in the southern part of the County and identified
in Figure 15-8 below. This may be a drawing error since there is not any infrastructure in this area.
Further study by the affected districts, CC LAFCO, and Alameda LAFCO may be warranted to identify
opportunities to simplify water and wastewater service delivery in this location.
Figure 15-8:
Overlapping
Boundary –
EBMUD,
CCCSD &
DSRSD
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Regarding the geographic overlap, DSRSD staff has noted that the District has a strong relationship
with EBMUD, and they jointly participate in one (or more) JPA. Although there are a few situations
where pipelines for EBMUD, DSRSD, and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District overlap, the field
staff from each agency work together to resolve any pipe issues. One benefit in the overlap area is
that a few physical interconnections can be opened in the event of an extreme emergency. Standard
operating procedures and agreements describe the process to open pipe interconnections.
15.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
DETERMINATIONS
DSRSD’s “principal” county for LAFCO purposes is Alameda County. No Municipal Service Review
determinations are included in this report.
15.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
DETERMINATIONS
DSRSD’s “principal” county for LAFCO purposes is Alameda County. No SOI determinations are
included in this report.
15.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alameda LAFCO. Approved November 202 1. County-wide Municipal Services Review on Water,
Wastewater, Flood Control, and Stormwater Services. Contributions from Q.K. 300-pages.
(Available via Alameda LAFCO request).
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California’s Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit California State Data Center.
5/23/2023. Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC)
Data Release. Table 2: Land Area, Population and Population Density for California,
Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP), Census
2020Contributions from U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 1, 2023b. Report E-1 & E-1H,
Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2022 and
2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) - State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.)
California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS) SSO Public Report - Detail Page.
Query run on August 27, 2023 from <https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/chc_sso.html
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
>.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. June 12, 2019. City-wide Services Municipal Service Review Update. Prepared
by Lamphier-Gregory Consultants and Berkson Associates. 793-pages. Retrieved December
2022 from <https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Dublin San Ramon Services District. (n.d.). Dublin San Ramon Services District Biennial Report. 34-
pages. Retrieved on November 19, 2022, from
<https://www.dsrsd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/7913/637709371041600000>.
_____. (2017). Your Dollars at Work: Clean Water Permit Renewed for Safe Wastewater Disposal.
Retrieved on November 21, 2022, from
<https://www.dsrsd.com/Home/Components/News/News/1414/496>.
_____. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Contributions from West Yost Associates. 283
pages.
_____. (2018). Sewer System Management Plan. 272-pages. Retrieved on November 22, 2022, from
<https://www.dsrsd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/7311/637456064998400000>.
_____. June 30, 2019. 2019 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal year ending June 30, 2019.
Available online at: https://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/financial-information.
_____. June 30, 2020. 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal year ending June 30, 2020.
Available online at: https://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/financial-information.
_____. June 30, 2021a. 2021 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report Fiscal year ending June 30,
2021. Available online at: https://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/financial-information.
_____. June 1, 2021b. Adopted Operating Budget for Fiscal Years Ending 2022 and 2023. Available
online at: https://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/financial-information.
_____. September 19, 2022a. Staff Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information via ESRI’s 123 On-
line Survey. 2-pages. Available in LAFCO’s office upon request.
_____. June 30, 2022b. 2022 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report Fiscal year ending June 30,
2022. Available online at: https://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/financial-information.
_____. May 2023a. Sewer Cost of Service Study. Contributions from HDR Consultants. 117-pages.
Retrieved on November 21, 2023 from <https://www.dsrsd.com/your-account/rates-fees>.
_____. June 20, 2023b. Capital Improvement Program Ten Year Plan For Fiscal Years Ending 2024
through 2033 AND Two Year Budget For Fiscal Years Ending 2024 and 2025. Adopted by
‐
‐
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-29
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Board Resolution No. 26-23 on June 20, 2023. 175-pages. Retrieved on November 21, 2023
from <https://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/financial-information>.
_____. June 20, 2023c. Adopted Operating Budget for Fiscal Years Ending 2024 and 2025. Available
online at: https://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/financial-information.
Tetra Tech. June 2023. Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Volume 2, Planning Partner Annexes.
Agency Review Draft. Prepared for City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton, City of Dublin, and
the Dublin San Ramon Services District.
Western Recycled Water Coalition. (2017). Members. Retrieved from Western Recycled Water
Coalition: http://www.westernrwc.org/members.php
Western Recycled Water Coalition. (2017). Projects. Retrieved from Western Recycled Water
Coalition: http://www.westernrwc.org/Fprojects.php
Chapter 15: DSRSD Page 15-30
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
CHAPTER 16: EAST BAY MUNICICPonAtra LCos ta LAFCO
UTILITY DISTRICT –WASTEWATER
SERVICES
Table of Contents
16.1: OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................................1 6-1
16.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY & SOI ............................................................................................1 6-4
16.3: DISTRICT WASTEWATER OPERATIONS ............................................................................1 6-5
16.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................... 16-11
16.5: POPULATION ............................................................................................................... 16-16
16.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ................................................................................. 16-17
16.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES .................................................................. 16-17
16.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW (MSR) DETERMINATIONS ...................... 16-18
16.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ..................................................................... 16-18
16.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 16-19
16.1: OVERVIEW
The East Bay Municipal Utility District’s (EBMUD) “principal county” for purposes of LAFCO is
Alameda County. EBMUD was recently reviewed in the Alameda Lafco Countywide Municipal
Services Review On Water, Wastewater, Flood Control, And Stormwater Services, adopted in
November 2021. Information regarding EBMUD is included in this 2024 MSR for discussion purposes
only. No MSR determinations for EBMUD are included in this report. A map of EBMUD’s current
boundary and sphere of influence (SOI) is shown in Figure 16-1 and is courtesy of Alameda LAFCO.
EBMUD provides wholesale water, retail water, wastewater collection, and wastewater treatment
services for an area of approximately 332 square miles in Contra Costa and Alameda counties. In
Contra Costa County, EBMUD also provides wastewater treatment and disposal services to the
Stege Sanitary District (SSD). SSD operates a wastewater collection system and relies on EBMUD for
wastewater treatment and disposal. SSD’s wastewater service area comprises approximately
13,123 service connections located in the City of El Cerrito, the unincorporated community of
Kensington, and a portion of the City of Richmond. EBMUD’s Agency Profile is shown in Table 16-1.
EBMUD lies within the San Francisco Bay / Sacramento Delta Estuary watershed. Additional
information about this watershed is provided in Appendix F.
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 16-1: Agency Profile – East Bay Municipal Utility District Contra Costa LAFCO
General Information
Agency Type Municipal Utility District
Principal Act Municipal Utility District Act, Public Utilities Code Section 11501 et.
Date Formed 1923
Sewer Services recycled water and wastewater treatment
Service Area
Location Parts of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties
Acres • 88 square miles of wastewater service area (Contra Costa and
Alameda Counties) (EBMUD, n.d.a)
• 5.3 square miles (Stege Sanitary District, Contra Costa County
only) (SSD, 2022a)
Land Uses Residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, agricultural/irrigation
Population Served • Wastewater: 740,000 (Contra Costa and Alameda Counties)
(EBMUD, n.d.a).
• Approx. 38,270 (Stege Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa)
(SSD, 2022a)
Last SOI Update Alameda County LAFCO (District’s principal LAFCO) reaffirmed
EBMUD’s SOI in 2021.
Sewer Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities Regional wastewater treatment facility; three wet weather
facilities; 15 pumping plants; 37 miles of large pipelines (EBMUD,
n.d.a)
Treatment Plant Dry weather- 120 MGD permitted capacity. Wet weather- 320 MGD
Capacity (MGD) (maximum)
• Primary Treatment Capacity-320 MGD;
• Secondary Treatment Capacity-168 MGD;
• Average Treatment- 54 MGD (EBMUD, 2021a)
Primary Disposal EBMUD Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (primary and
Method secondary treatment); treated effluent discharged through an
outfall into San Francisco Bay.
ACFR Information- FY 2023
Revenues Expenditures Net Surplus/(Deficit)
Operating/General Fund $780,427,000 $599,186,000 $181,241,000
Combined Other Funds $86,591,000 $119,5 78,00 $148,254,000
All Funds $867,018,000 $718,76 4,000 $222,199,000
FY 2024/2025 Long Term Planned Expenditures
Capital Expenditures $ 2.8 billion 5 Year Projection (FY 2024-2028)
Total Assets $ 6.91 billion June 30, 2023 Financial Statement- Restricted &
Unrestricted
Governance
Governing Body Board of Directors (7 members elected by ward)
Agency Contact Clifford C. Chan, General Manager, Clifford.chan@ebmud.com
Notes
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 16-1: Boundary/SOI Map – East Bay Municipal Utility District Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
16.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY & SOI Contra Costa LAFCO
EBMUD originated as a private water company that was formed to provide water to the newly
incorporated City of Oakland in 1866. In 1916, the Contra Costa Water Company was incorporated
into the East Bay Water Company. Following World War I, several laws were enacted regarding
providing municipal services to California’s growing population, including the Municipal Utility
District Act passed in 1921. In 1923, EBMUD was formed. In 1944, EBMUD added wastewater
collection to its services by forming Special District No. 1 (SD-1). SD-1 operates as a subsidiary
district within EBMUD and is administered by EBMUD’s Wastewater Department. SD-1 is governed
by the same EBMUD Board of Directors, who meet in the Administrative Building shown in Figure 16-
2 (LAFCO, 2008). Wastewater treatment services were added in 1951 with the opening of the regional
wastewater treatment facility. SD-1 serves approximately an 88-square-mile area of Alameda and
Contra Costa counties along the east shore of the San Francisco Bay.
The District’s SOI was reconfirmed as part of LAFCO’s 2014 MSR/SOI Update for Wastewater
Services. Most recent annexations to EBMUD included one annexation in unincorporated Alamo
(2021) and one in 2020 (unincorporated Diablo).
In 2021, Alameda LAFCO approved a MSR which included EBMUD’s water and wastewater services
as shown in Figure 16-1.
Figure 16-2: EBMUD Administration, 375 11th Street, Oakland, CA 94607-4240
Courtesy of Google Maps
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
SF Bay Land Use Contra Costa LAFCO
The Bay Area Regional Collaborative includes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. This collaborative multi-agency
regional committee allows for cross-jurisdictional work on projects such as Resilient Bay Area and
Carbon Free Future.
EBMUD’s boundary/SOI is adjacent to a portion of the San Francisco Bay which is a sensitive
environmental resource. The California state planning and regulatory agency with regional authority
over the San Francisco Bay, the Bay’s shoreline band, and the Suisun Marsh is called the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Its mission is to protect and
enhance San Francisco Bay and to encourage the Bay’s responsible and productive use for this and
future generations. BCDC works to ensure projects are compatible with the conservation of Bay
resources as described on its website at: <https://bcdc.ca.gov/ >.
16.3: DISTRICT WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
EBMUD treats domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater within the 88-square-mile service
area of SD-1 (EBMUD, n.d.a.). In Contra Costa County, SD-1 accepts wastewater for treatment from
Stege Sanitary District (SSD) (see Chapter 20), which services the City of El Cerrito, the community
of Kensington, and a portion of the City of Richmond. SSD’s wastewater is conveyed to the EBMUD
Main Wastewater Treatment Plant. EBMUD provides wastewater treatment to approximately 13,123
SSD sewer connections (SSD, 2022b).
Infrastructure
EBMUD routes wastewater through 29 miles of interceptor sewer pipe, 15 pump stations, three wet
weather facilities, and five overflow structures (EBMUD, LHMP, 2022a). The seven satellite collection
systems are owned and operated by separate service providers and are discharged into EBMUD’s
interceptor system. The wastewater is then sent to EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant in
Oakland, near the entrance to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The average annual daily flow
is approximately 50 MGD. A portion of the treated effluent is also utilized for recycled water supply
within EBMUD and other water agencies’ recycled water programs. EBMUD maintains an aggressive
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to expand and rehabilitate its infrastructure with a planned $2.5
billion budget for FY 2020-2024 (EBMUD, n.d.b). Table 16-2 provides a brief list of EBMUD’s
wastewater infrastructure.
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 16-2: List of System-wide Infrastructure Contra Costa LAFCO
Type of Facility # of Units in Total Service Area Notes
Main Wastewater 1 • Design capacity 120 MGD
Treatment Plant • Average annual flow 70 (2010
MGD)
• Peak wet weather flow 320 MGD
Pump Stations 15
Intercepting sewer 29 linear miles
pipelines
sewer force mains 8 linear miles
Resource Recovery Includes receiving tanks,
PGS Turbine, blend tanks
etc.
Misc. Facilities • Three wet weather facilities,
• two dichlorination facilities,
• one discharge transition
structure,
• four overflow structures
• one laboratory
Data Source: EBMUD, 2022, SSMP
Although portions of the wastewater infrastructure are aging and deteriorating, EBMUD remains
committed to maintaining and rehabilitating infrastructure. Implementing the Integrated Master Plan
is a core component of this work.
Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located at Bay Bridge Trail, Oakland, CA 94607. The
WWTP is designed to provide primary treatment for a flow of up to 320 MGD and secondary treatment
for a maximum flow of 168 MGD. The average daily flow is 60 MGD (EBMUD, 2022, SSMP). EBMUD
has an approximate nine MGD capacity of recycled water production (Alameda LAFCO, 2021).
Primary treatment removes floating materials, oils and greases, sand and silt, and organic solids
heavy enough to settle in water. Secondary treatment biologically removes most suspended and
dissolved organic and chemical impurities. Storage basins provide a short-term plant capacity of
415 MGD during peak wet weather events.
Disposal and Biosolids
The treated effluent is disinfected, dechlorinated, and discharged through a deep-water outfall into
the San Francisco Bay. The remaining dried sludge is directed to the Biosolid Program, where seven
percent is composted, 36 percent is sent to local landfills for use as cover-material, and 57 percent
is applied to farmland as fertilizer. Please note that in 2022, Senate Bill 1383 added requirements to
the Biosolid Program.
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 16-3: EBMUD Wastewater Service Area Contra Costa LAFCO
Wet Weather Facility – Point Isabel
EBMUD owns and operates the Point Isabel Wet Weather Facility (Facility) at 2755 Isabel Street, in
Richmond, within Contra Costa County. This facility provides storage and treatment for peak wet
weather flows diverted from an interceptor system. If influent flows exceed the on-site storage
capacity, the facility provides treatment consisting of coarse screens, bar screens, grit chambers,
and sedimentation/disinfection basins. The facility discharges from Discharger Point 001 into the
Richmond Inner Harbor in San Francisco Bay. The facility is required to comply with effluent
limitations for discharges for pH, total, and chlorine residues. On October 24, 2021, the facility
experienced an accident where it discharged highly chlorinated wastewater, approximately
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
3,795,500 gallons, into the San Francisco Bay. This discharge violated water quCaolnittyr ap eCromstiats L OArFdCeOr
R2-2020-0003 and NPDES Permit CA0038440. Therefore, the RWQCB assessed fines and penalties.
Sewer System Management Plan
EBMUD’s Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) was initially approved in 2009 and updated in
2022. The SSMP is a planning document that helps EBMUD staff effectively manage, operate, and
maintain the wastewater collection system. The plan seeks to provide adequate capacity for
conveying flows, minimize sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and mitigate their impacts. It includes a
Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) control program, legal authority, resources and budgeting for system
maintenance, and preventive measures. The SSMP also covers capacity management, monitoring,
audits, and a communication plan, emphasizing community outreach and environmental
compliance. Regular updates to the SSMP and staff training support the wastewater system’s
efficiency and reliability (EBMUD, 2022b, SSMP).
Integrated Master Plan
The Main WWTP is the focus of the Integrated Master Plan, which provides a 30-year roadmap for
capital improvement, focusing on managing aging infrastructure, enhancing capacity, adapting to
new regulations, and building climate change resiliency. The Master Plan integrates various aspects
of wastewater management, including environmental, financial, social, and technical elements, to
ensure sustainable and cost-effective solutions. Implementing the projects described in the Master
Plan will involve significant investment in infrastructure renewal, including seismic retrofit projects
and the development of new treatment facilities, while also considering future uncertainties and
potential technological advancements. The plan is a dynamic, adaptive strategy designed to meet
the evolving needs of the wastewater service area and environmental regulations (EBMUD, n.d.a.).
Water Recycling
The treated wastewater is utilized for recycling and production of renewable energy. EBMUD
transforms sewage and other organic wastes into green energy, nutrient-rich soil conditioner, and
recycled water. The innovative green energy program produces more than enough renewable energy
to meet the power demands on-site at the WWTP. Alameda LAFCO’s 2021 MSR notes the following:
The four recommended non-potable reuse projects in the updated Recycled Water
Master Plan include continued expansion and implementation of the DSRSD-
EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA)/San Ramon Valley Recycled Water
Project (pending adequate supply), the East Bayshore Recycled Water Project,
development of a new recycled water supply for the Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo
using effluent from the Pinole-Hercules and Rodeo Wastewater Treatment Plants,
and expansion of the recycled water supply to the Chevron refinery in Richmond,
potentially using the City of Richmond’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. Most of the
capital cost for construction for these projects is planned to occur after 2030
(Alameda LAFCO, 2021).
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Local Hazards
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2, dated January 2018, maps critical
infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards (Contra Costa County,
2018). EBMUD did not participate in the Contra Costa County-wide Hazard Mitigation Plan. However,
the district developed its own Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in 2023. The LHMP is an update
of its previous plans, focusing on reducing risks from natural hazards to its water and wastewater
facilities. It identifies and assesses hazards such as earthquakes, floods, wildfires, droughts, and
climate change. The LHMP outlines strategies for reducing potential damages and service
disruptions caused by these hazards. It emphasizes the integration of regional and local mitigation
efforts, public involvement, and coordination with state and federal agencies. The plan includes a
detailed vulnerability assessment of EBMUD’s facilities and prioritizes mitigation goals and actions
for implementation over the next five years (EBMUD, 2022a). Additionally, the district’s Integrated
Master Plan recognizes risks associated with rising sea levels and other hazards.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted
systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California
Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). Since EBMUD’s wastewater treatment plant is located in
Alameda County, SSOs are not analyzed herein. The State Water Board’s SSO database lists SSO
events that occurred in relation to EBMUD facilities, most of the SSO events occurred in Alameda
County.
During heavy storms, inflow and infiltration (I&I) into private
sewer laterals and subsequently into the wastewater system,
may occur. I&I may cause overflows throughout the system.
In 1979, EBMUD entered into a JPA powers agreement with the
communities in its sewer service area to develop a regional
solution for rehabilitating city and community-owned and
operated wastewater collection systems (and private sewer
laterals). Anytime ownership of property changes, owners are
encouraged to seek improvement to their lateral. EBMUD
coordinates the private sewer lateral program on a regional
level. This is a service that EBMUD provides in partnership with
its satellite collection districts (except for the City of Berkeley
which has its own program). The program website is:
<Eastbaypsl.com>. EBMUD also has robust replacement of
older infrastructure, such as inceptor lines. Similar to any
agency dealing with storm water, when storms come in,
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
EBMUD sees more water (personal communication, J. Flynn EBMUD, March 20,C 2o0n2t4r)a. C osta LAFCO
EBMUD is under a consent decree with the CA Water Board and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to repair leaky pipes throughout the East Bay, which should help prevent SSOs in the
future. The legal document associated with this consent decree was filed in 2014 with the United
States District Court, Northern District Of California (U.S.D.C, 2014). Additionally, atmospheric river
events, which occurred in January 2023, can result in infiltration and inflow to local sewer pipes as
described in Appendix F, Watersheds. Please refer to Chapter 19 for information on SSOs in relation
to the Stege Sanitary District.
From July to October 2022, San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known as a
red tide, as described in Appendix F. The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma akashiwo,
can cause water to take on a reddish-brown color. The HAB extended throughout the open-bay
regions of the South Bay, the Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths linked to the red tide
were reported to include sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, and anchovy. The San
Francisco Bay Water Board is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay through the Nutrient
Management Strategy, which includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other
agencies to study the potential impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. EBMUD has an
opportunity to assist with this effort by continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by
discussing the nutrient problem with other wastewater districts and the Water Board.
Cooperative Programs
EBMUD and SSD share a wastewater service area in Contra Costa County and have a good working
relationship. Both agencies continue to share information. EBMUD aims to work well with its sister
agencies within its entire service area (personal communication, J. Flynn, March 20, 2024). For
example, EBMUD collaborates with the Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group. This group developed
and implemented pollution prevention strategies and exchanged information to coordinate pollution
prevention efforts. The group is composed of many agencies that provide services in Alameda
County, including the Central Contra Costa Sanitation District, Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD), EBMUD, and the cities of Hayward, Livermore, and San Leandro (Source: Alameda LAFCO,
2021)
EBMUD participates in wastewater programs, including water recycling projects, in the Contra Costa
and Alameda County regions. Specifically, EBMUD is a partner in the DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled
Water Authority. DERWA is a joint powers authority (JPA) formed by DSRSD and EBMUD to increase
the amount of recycled water delivered in Dublin and the San Ramon Valley. The City of Pleasanton
also participates in the service on a wholesale/contract basis. (Alameda LAFCO, 2021). Formed in
1995, this JPA encourages recycled water development in the San Ramon Valley. DERWA is directed
by four board members, two from DSRSD and two from EBMUD. DERWA runs the San Ramon Valley
Recycled Water Program, which consists of treating, storing, and using recycled water for landscape
irrigation in portions of the Blackhawk, Danville, Dublin, and San Ramon areas. In the future, it is
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
hoped the program will extend recycled water into other parts of the San RamCoonn Vtraal lCeoy s(tAal aLmAFeCdOa
LAFCO, 2021).
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
EBMUD participates in regional purchasing programs for treatment chemicals and equipment and
provides specialized maintenance and inspection services for several agencies. These programs
assist in reducing overhead costs and provide staff efficiencies to all utilizing agencies. EBMUD has
also developed several jointly funded recycled water projects (supplemented through grant funding
from state and federal agencies) with other agencies.
Future challenges
In the future, EBMUD will likely face several key challenges in providing wastewater treatment and
disposal services:
• Aging Infrastructure
• Seismic Safety
• Nutrient Management
• Dewatering
• Biosolid utilization
To address these challenges, EBMUD has a 10-year CIP (EBMUD, 2020a).
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9, has several recommended remedies for
California’s aging wastewater infrastructure, as outlined in Appendix J and summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a WWTP is, what kind
of waste it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the sewer pipes. Continue educational
programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom to call if such an event occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling.
4. (Source: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2019)
16.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
The main focus of this analysis is the Sewer Enterprise Fund. Enterprise funds are used to account
separately for self-supporting operations. EBMUD’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports
(ACFRs) are the primary information source for data related to the Sewer Enterprise Fund. The
District offers the public a robust financial report accounting on their webpage for financial reports.
Documents available to the public include annual audited basic financial statements (last five
years), the district’s ACFRs (last five years), single audits, annual unaudited continuing disclosure
information statements (last five years), quarterly unaudited financial statements, unaudited
investment reports, annual audited employees' retirement system financial statements (last five
years), and annual audited joint power authorities financial statements (1 year). These reports are
posted on the district’s website at: https://www.ebmud.com/about-us/financial-
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
information/financial-reports. This financial analysis represents a snapshot inC otinmtrea ( Ci.eo.s taa lLimAFitCeOd
time period). However, EBMUD regularly updates its financial data and readers may review the new
data on its website.
The District produces an Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFP) each fiscal year (FY) in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). In addition, the district’s
finances are the subject of independent financial audits each year. The ACFRs for FY’s 2018-19,
2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 will be the primary sources of information for data related
to the financial health of the district (EBMUD, 2019; 2020b; 2021b; 2022b; 2023). One of the district’s
goals is to manage EMBUD’s finances to meet funding needs and maintain fair and reasonable water
and wastewater rates.
EBMUD adopted a biennial budget for FY 2024 and 2025. Total Wastewater System Board-adopted
appropriation is $222.3 million in FY 2024, and $230.5 million in FY 2025. Over the five-year period
(FY 2024 to 2028), major capital work includes anticipated spending of $140 million to rehabilitate
and improve the infrastructure at the wastewater treatment plant including seismic retrofits; $58
million to rehabilitate sewer interceptors and pump stations; $40 million to make improvements to
various treatment processes including the oxygen production plant, sedimentation tanks, and
clarifiers; and, $27 million to improve the dewatering building and equipment that produce beneficial
biosolids.
EBMUD operates its wastewater services as an enterprise-type activity, with its primary revenue
sources being service charges and fees. Overall, EBMUD’s financial status is very stable. EBMUD
maintains a long-term CIP and maintains sufficient revenue generation for funding projects. EBMUD
maintains a very good reserve fund balance, providing good capability to absorb short-term impacts.
Although its debt service to annual expenditure ratio is moderately high, its significant reserve
balances alleviate any concern regarding debt service obligations. EBMUD recently adopted rate
increases on July 1, 2023.
Five primary areas of criteria have been utilized to assess the present and future financial condition
of EBMUD’s wastewater service operations, as discussed below:
5 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
The District’s Wastewater Enterprise Fund has revenues exceeding expenditures for all fiscal years
studied as shown in Figure 16-4 below. Wastewater Fund expenses for FY 2022-23 were
approximately $117.028 million, which was $19.06 million less than Total Revenue that same FY
($136,095,000). This key performance measure indicates the Wastewater Fund is solvent and has
the capacity to cover its costs. The Fund has been experiencing surplus spending over the last five
years. Rate increases have been implemented over the last several years to accommodate the
expenditures.
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 16-4: Operating Revenues Compared to Expenditures
$160,000,000
$140,000,000
$120,000,000
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
$-
2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023
Revenues Expenditures
EBMUD’s Wastewater Fund has experienced balanced budgets overall with significant annual
surpluses. EBMUD maintains significant amounts of reserve fund balances, more than sufficient to
absorb short-term and minor long-term downturn in revenues.
Ratios of Revenue Sources
In FY 2022-23, EBMUD received approximately 74 percent of its revenues for wastewater services
from charges and fees for services, five percent from property taxes, 10 percent from resource
recovery sources, and 11 percent from other sources including power, investments, and capital
contributions as shown in Figure 16-5 below. This ratio reflects an appropriate balance for a typical
enterprise-type service and minimizes the impact that negative economic factors will have on more
elastic revenues such as property tax.
Figure 16-5: Ratio of Revenue Sources
4% 4%
2% Wastewater revenue
5%
1% Wet weather faciliies charges
Resource recovery
10% Power
55% Taxes
Investment
Capital contributions
19%
Other
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Wastewater revenue made up $87.7 million followed by Wet Weather Facilities CCohnatrrgae Cso (sWtaW LFACF)C aOt
$30.8 million. The WWFC was established in 1987 (Resolution No. 31890) to recover the ongoing
capital costs of implementing the district’s wet weather program. The program provides storage,
conveyance, and treatment facilities for the excess wastewater flows that enter the sewer collection
system during wet weather in order to prevent the release of untreated wastewater to San Francisco
Bay.
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
Figure 16-6 below shows the total assets for wastewater operations by current assets and
noncurrent assets for FY 2022-23. An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue
in a given fiscal year is exhibited by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the
service fund maintains in relation to the annual fund expenditures.
Figure 16-6: Assets FY 2022/2023
Noncurrent Assets
Current Assets
$- $200,000,000 $400,000,000 $600,000,000 $800,000,000 $1,000,000,000
EBMUD’s most recent audit completed in FY 2022-23, shows an unrestricted amount of
$11,773,000. Operating expenses for the same FY were $117,028,000. This reflects a positive ratio
of approximately 10 percent of annual expenditures.
In addition to the district’s unrestricted reserves, EBMUD maintains a Contingency and Rate
Stabilization Reserve in accordance with District’s Fiscal Policy 4.02. The purpose of this fund is to
provide an adequate reserve to mitigate overall rate volatility resulting from climatic or economic
changes that significantly decrease the district’s revenues or increase the district’s operating costs.
Under this policy the district maintains at least five percent of annual operating and maintenance
expenses for wastewater services.
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. Specifically, EBMUD has several types of
debt related to wastewater services including pension obligation bonds, revenue bonds, USDA COP
loan, PG&E retrofit loan, equipment lease, net pension liability, total Other Post Employment
Liability (OPEB), and compensated absences. Figure 16-7 shows total liabilities for EBMUD by
current liabilities and noncurrent liabilities for FY 2022-23. For this FY, the wastewater system had
authorized but unissued revenue bonds at $167,885,000 and outstanding short-term debt (due
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
within one year) at $14,310,000. Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 16-7: Liabilities FY 2022-23
Noncurrent Liabilities
Current Liabilities
$(600,000,000) $(400,000,000) $(200,000,000) $-
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of EBMUD’s ability
to meet debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a ratio of 10 percent or
less would reflect a very stable ratio. According to the FY 2022-23 ACFR 10-Year Summary of Net
Revenue and Debt Service Coverage on page 120, the district had approximately $149.1 million in
total revenue and approximately $94.1 million in operations and maintenance expense. This lends
approximately $55 million available for debt services. Therefore, EBMUD’s annual debt service ratio
to total expenditures for wastewater in 2023 is approximately 28.5 percent, a moderately high ratio.
As of the end of FY 2023, the Wastewater System had total long-term revenue bonds outstanding of
$357.8 million. Prudent financial management and strong financial performance have resulted in
high long-term bond ratings. The Wastewater System’s long-term bond ratings are AAA from
Standard & Poor’s, Aa1 from Moody’s, and AA+ from Fitch. The District did not issue any Wastewater
System revenue bonds in FY 2023. Total wastewater debt outstanding was approximately $338.3
million for FY 2022-23. This debt outstanding figure does not include State low interest loans,
commercial paper, or outstanding refunded but not yet called debt.
Capital Improvement Program
EBMUD has developed and implemented a comprehensive CIP for its wastewater infrastructure
improvements. The 10-year CIP and an annual operating budget are prepared as part of the district’s
biennial budget process. The document(s) are available at http://www.ebmud.com on the menu bar
under “About Us →Bond Investors → Budget and Rates.” The largest wastewater system capital
projects funded as part of EBMUD’s FY2022-26 CIP include:
• New Dewatering Building, $90M
• IPS Resiliency Project, $45M
• Secondary Clarifier Rehabilitation (multiple phases), $44M
• Secondary Reactor Rehabilitation (multiple phases), $35M
• Seismic Retrofit Projects, $67M
• South Interceptor Rehabilitation Projects, $40M
• North Interceptor Rehabilitation Projects, $24M
• Alameda Interceptor Rehabilitation Projects, $11M
• MWWTP Utilities Improvements, $16M
• Grit Dewatering Improvements, $15M
• (data source: EBMUD, LHMP, 2022a)
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Infrastructure Needs: The District currently maintains various equipment, vehicles1, infrastructure,
and associated assets. EBMUD has a comprehensive asset management plan that provides
information on repair and rehabilitation needs on an ongoing basis based on age and condition. The
CIP consists of a $2.5 billion budget that includes upgrades and replacement projects for
wastewater facilities (EBMUD, n.d.b). Specifically, the CIP indicates that $92 million will be spent on
wastewater treatment plant infrastructure (EBMUD, n.d.b). The CIP plans to improve concrete
structures, upgrade digesters, replace capital equipment, and make other necessary
improvements.
Rate Structure
EBMUD’s wastewater service rate structure reflects a fixed rate for residential customers and
combined fixed rate and consumption-based rates for non-residential customers. The current
residential rate is $31.63 per month for single-family residences and $27.90 – $100.84 for multi-family
residential units, depending on the size of units. Non-residential rates are $8.56 per month plus
consumption-based rates that vary from $1.60 – $21.98 per month for every 100 cubic feet of flow.
All residential customers in EBMUD's Wastewater System, including are billed a monthly SF Bay
Residential Pollution Prevention fee to fund programs to reduce residential pollutant loadings to the
treatment plant and San Francisco Bay. The monthly fee is $0.20/month per dwelling unit up to five
dwelling units.
EBMUD reports that new rate increases were approved on July 1, 2023. Wastewater rates were
increased by four percent in 2021 and an additional four percent in 2022. This allowed the district to
adopt a two-year, $2.25 billion budget to pay for critical improvements to the wastewater and water
systems essential to supporting the community (EBMUD, 2021). The new biennial budget for FY 2024
and FY 2025 includes an 8.5 percent wastewater system increase for FY 2024, and an 8.5 percent
increase for FY 2025 (EBMUD, 2023).
16.5: POPULATION
EBMUD provides wastewater treatment to the area covered by the Stege Sanitary District (SSD). As
described in Chapter 20, SSD’s boundaries contain approximately 38,270 residents as of 2020.
Additionally, EBMUD provides recycled water to the Richmond area in the County of Contra Costa
(EBMUD, 2021a). Please see Chapter 9 for additional details about the population within the City of
Richmond.
1
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the district, it is likely that sometime in the future, the
district may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting veh icles reliant upon an alternative energy source
such as electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore,
alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
EBMUD provides water service to additional areas located in Alameda and CoCnotrnat rCao Csotsat ac oLuAnFtCieOs.
The population within EBMUD’s boundary is described in Alameda LAFCO’s 2021 MSR (Alameda
LAFCO, 2021).
16.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address
municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in some disadvantaged
communities. Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part of this MSR Update process.
EBMUD’s wastewater treatment area is covered by the Stege Sanitary District, analyzed in Chapter
20. The data query results for the SSD showed no disadvantaged unincorporated communities
(DUCs) within the wastewater treatment service area within Contra Costa County.
However, EBMUD’s water service area in both Alameda and Contra Costa counties does contain
disadvantaged communities, as described in Alameda LAFCO’s 2021 MSR (Alameda LAFCO, 2021).
Additionally, SSD’s boundaries include the City of El Cerrito, a portion of the City of Richmond, and
the unincorporated community of Kensington. El Cerrito and Richmond areas contain
disadvantaged communities within their boundary, as described in Chapter 20. The residents of the
El Cerrito DAC and other nearby DACs have access to municipal services including fire prevention,
water, and wastewater. No health and safety issues have been identified.
Readers can learn more about disadvantaged communities within the EBMUD service area and
Contra Costa County through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services database of
socioeconomic and health indicators in disadvantaged communities called the Environmental
Justice Explorer Database. This database can be queried at
<https://onemap.cdc.gov/portal/apps/sites/#/eji-explorer>.
EBMUD offers a customer assistance program called “CAP” as described on the program website at
<https://www.ebmud.com/customers/customer-assistance-program>. Although CAP primarily
relates to water service, there is also a sewer bill component (personal communication, J. Flynn,
March 20, 2024). For specific satellite agencies, the program is designed for those in the most need.
Customers of EBMUD who may have low incomes are encouraged to view the EBMUD website and
contact EBMUD directly.
16.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
EBMUD’s SOI (on the Contra Costa County side) is currently coterminous with EBMUD’s boundary.
No alternative government structure alternatives were identified for EBMUD. However, the 2014 MSR
noted that EBMUD, the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), and the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District (CCCSD) appear to have overlapping boundaries in an area located in the southern
portion of the County. Further study by the affected districts, CC LAFCO, and Alameda LAFCO may
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
be warranted to identify opportunities to simplify water and wastewater servCiocnet rdae Clivoestrya LinA FthCiOs
location (LAFCO, 2014).
16.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
(MSR) DETERMINATIONS
Alameda County is considered the principal LAFCO for EBMUD and provided written MSR
determinations and recommendations as part of the Alameda LAFCO MSR (2021) for County-wide
Municipal Service Review on Water, Wastewater, Flood Control, and Stormwater Services. (Alameda
LAFCO, 2021). MSR determinations are not part of this MSR.
16.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Alameda LAFCO is the principal LAFCO for EBMUD and provided written SOI determinations and
recommendations as part of the Alameda LAFCO MSR (2021) for County-wide Municipal Service
Review on Water, Wastewater, Flood Control, and Stormwater Services (Alameda LAFCO, 2021).
Contra Costa LAFCO is not providing MSR determinations as part of this report.
Figure 16-8: Overlapping Boundary – EBMUD, CCCSD & DSRSD
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
16.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY Contra Costa LAFCO
Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission. (2021). County-wide Municipal Service Review on
Water, Wastewater, Flood Control, and Stormwater Services. 300-pages. Available upon
request from LAFCO files.
CA Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) - State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.)
California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS) SSO Public Report - Detail Page.
Query run on August 27, 2023 from <https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/chc_sso.html>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit California State Data Center.
5/23/2023. Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC)
Data Release. Table 2: Land Area, Population and Population Density for California,
Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP), Census
2020Contributions from U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 1, 2023b. Report E-1 & E-1H,
Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2022 and
2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Contra Costa LAFCO. August 13, 2008. Final Water and Wastewater Municipal Services Review for
West Contra Costa County. Chapter 9, EBMUD. 8-pages. Martinez, CA. Contributions from
Dudek Consultants. Retrieved on January 9, 2024 from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. June 12, 2019. City-wide Services Municipal Service Review Update. Prepared
by Lamphier-Gregory Consultants and Berkson Associates. 793-pages. Retrieved December
2022 from <https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
East Bay Municipal Utility District. (2015). Pump Station Master Plan.
_____. (2019). Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the years ended June 30, 2019. Available
online at: https://www.ebmud.com/about-us/financial-information/financial-reports.
East Bay Municipal Utility District. November 10, 2020a. Long-Term Infrastructure Investment
Workshop Board of Directors. Retrieved on January 10, 2024 from:
<https://www.ebmud.com/application/files/1816/0530/6327/111020_LT_Infrastructure_In
vestment_Wrksp_Presentation.pdf>.
_____. (2020b). Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the years ended June 30, 2020. Available
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
online at: https://www.ebmud.com/about-us/financial-information/finaCncoinatlr-are Cpoosrttas L AFCO
East Bay Municipal Utility District. (2021a). Urban Water Management Plan. 316-pages. Retrieved on
December 22, 2022, from <https://www.ebmud.com/water/about-your-water/water-
supply/urban-water-management-plan>.
_____. (2021b). Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the years ended June 30, 2021. Available
online at: https://www.ebmud.com/about-us/financial-information/financial-reports.
_____. (2021c). EBMUD Board approves rate increases vital to water and wastewater system
improvements. Available online at: https://www.ebmud.com/about-us/news/press-
releases/ebmud-board-approves-rate-increases-vital-water-and-wastewater-system-
improvements.
East Bay Municipal Utility District. (n.d.a) Integrated Master Plan Brief for the Main Wastewater
Treatment Plant. 9-pages. Retrieved on December 20, 2022, from
<https://www.ebmud.com/wastewater/collection-treatment/integrated-master-plan>.
East Bay Municipal Utility District. (n.d.b). Capital Improvement Program. Retrieved on December
22, 2022, from <https://www.ebmud.com/about-us/construction-and-
maintenance/capital-improvement-program-cip>.
EBMUD. November 23, 2022a. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan EBMUD – 2023. (Prepared for
submission to The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and FEMA) 122-
pages. Oakland, CA. Retrieved on January 27, 2024 from: <https://ebmud.com/lhmp>.
_____. (2022b). Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the years ended June 30, 2022. Available
online at: https://www.ebmud.com/about-us/financial-information/financial-reports
_____. (2023). Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the years ended June 30, 2023. Available
online at: https://www.ebmud.com/about-us/financial-information/financial-reports
EBMUD Wastewater Department. April 14, 2009 as updated March 3, 2022. Sewer System
Management Plan. 32-pages. Retrieved on 4January2024 from
<https://www.ebmud.com/wastewater/collection-treatment/sewers >.
Stege Sanitary District. (2022a). Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). 38-pages. Retrieved on
December 22, 2022, from <https://www.stegesan.org/files/e7bde1d51/2022+SSMP+3-
2022.pdf>.
Stege Sanitary District. September 29, 2022b. Staff Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information
via ESRI’s 123 On-line Survey. 2-pages. Available in LAFCO’s office upon request.
United States District Court, Northern District Of California (U.S.D.C.). September 8, 2014.
Consolidated Case Nos. C 09-00186-RS and C 09-05684-RS Final Consent Decree. United
States Of America And People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. California State Water
Resources Control Board And California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Francisco Bay Region, Plaintiffs, San Francisco Baykeeper And Our Children’s Earth
Foundation, Intervenor-Plaintiffs, V. East Bay Municipal Utility District, Defendant. 217-
pages. Retrieved on January 12, 2023, from: <https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-
10/documents/ebmud-cd14.pdf >.
Chapter 16: EBMUD Page 16-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Chapter 17: IRONHOUSE SANITACRontYra C osta LAFCO
DISTRICT – WASTEWATER SERVICES
Table of Contents
17.1: OVERVIEW/BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 17-1
17.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND SOI ........................................................................................................ 17-4
17.3: DISTRICT WASTEWATER OPERATIONS............................................................................................ 17-6
17.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 17-13
17.5: POPULATION ................................................................................................................................. 17-20
17.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ................................................................................................. 17-21
17.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................. 17-26
17.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ............................................. 17-26
17.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE...................................................................................... 17-30
17.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 17-33
17.1: OVERVIEW/BACKGROUND
The Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD) provides sewage collection, treatment, disposal, and recycling
services to the City of Oakley, the unincorporated area of Bethel Island, and other unincorporated
areas of the County of Contra Costa including Holland Tract and Jersey Island. The San Joaquin River
bounds ISD to the north, the Delta Diablo Sanitation District to the west, the City of Brentwood to the
south, and the unincorporated area in the Holland Tract to the east. ISD has approximately 12,778
wastewater service connections (equivalent service units-ESUs) and provides service to
approximately 46,391 community residents. A map of ISD’s current boundary and sphere of
influence (SOI) is shown in Figure 17-1 (next page).
ISD originated with the Oakley Sanitary District (OSD) formation in 1945. In the mid-1960s, a Joint
Powers Authority (JPA) was established between the OSD and County Sanitation District No. 15 to
address septic system issues in the Hotchkiss Tract. In 1977, a JPA was signed between OSD and
Bethel Island to establish the Oakley-Bethel Island Wastewater Management Authority. In January
1992, OSD annexed Bethel Island, the JPA was dissolved, and OSD merged with Oakley-Bethel Island
Wastewater Management Authority and County Sanitation District No. 15. The newly formed district
was renamed the Ironhouse Sanitary District. ISD’s unique name originated from the Ironhouse
School, which served much of the territory now served by the ISD (LAFCO, 2014). ISD’s Agency Profile
is shown in Table 17-1 (next page).
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 17-1: Agency Profile – Ironhouse Sanitary District Contra Costa LAFCO
General Information
Agency Type Independent Special District
Principal Act Sanitary District Act of 1923, Health & Safety Code, Section 6400 et seq.
Date Formed August 21, 1945
Services Collection, treatment, and disposal/reuse of wastewater. Wastewater
recycling.
Service Area
Location City of Oakley and unincorporated areas of Bethel Island, Holland
Tract, Hotchkiss Tract, Dutch Slough, Taylor Slough, and Sand
Mound Slough
Sq. Miles/Acres 36.4 square miles/23,285 acres
Land Uses Residential, commercial, industrial, open space
Population Served 46,391
Last SOI Update May 2014 (Contra Costa LAFCO, 2014)
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities Water Recycling Facility (WRF); 125 miles of gravity sewer main; 15.9
miles of force main (pressure pipe); 32 lift stations (ISD, 2017)
Treatment The facility design capacity is 4.3 million gallons per day (MGD) average
Plant Capacity daily flow (ADF). The WRF has 8.6 MGD maximum wet weather flow.
(MGD) Current ADF is 2.52 MGD.
Primary Effluent from the Water Recycling Facility is: (1) stored in an on-site
Disposal pond for later use as irrigation water and (2) discharged into San
Method Joaquin River through a 550-foot outfall with 16 diffusers (RWQCB,
n.d.).
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report - FY 2021-2022
Revenues Expenditures Net
Operating $ 21,168,469 $ 13,031,259 $ 8,137,210
Combined Other Funds $ 2,500,969 $ 0 $ 1,871 ,969
All Funds $ 23,669,438 $ 13,031,259 $10,638,179
FY 2021-2022 Long-Term Planned Expenditures
Capital Expenditures $ 657,433 Determined annually.
Net Assets (Reserves) $ 134,714,446 June 30, 2022, Financial Statement- Total Assets
Governance
Governing Body Board of Directors (5 members)
Agency Contact President, Susan Morgan, smorgan@isd.us.com
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 17-1: Boundary/SOI Map – Ironhouse Sanitary District Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
17.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND SOI Contra Costa LAFCO
ISD’s boundary includes the City of Oakley, Bethel Island, and unincorporated areas within eastern
Contra Costa County. The District lies within the San Francisco Bay / Sacramento Delta Estuary
watershed and has a service area of approximately 36.4 square miles. Additional information about
this watershed is provided in Appendix F. ISD’s boundary encompasses approximately 36.4 square
miles. Most residents within the District receive wastewater services from ISD. However, some older
properties are on septic systems. ISD anticipates that these properties will be connected to the
collection system in the future (personal communication, Zimmerman, 2024).
City of Oakley: The City of Oakley provides a wide range of municipal services as described in
LAFCO’s 2019 MSR. The SOI for the City of Oakley is mostly coterminous with the municipal
boundary, with the exception of an extension to the east (Sandmound Slough area). The City adopted
the county-wide Urban Limit Line in 2008. Land uses in the City include a mix of industrial,
residential, office, commercial, institutional, retail, agricultural, and open space. Agricultural uses
include vineyards, orchards, row crops, animal husbandry, active cultivation of crops, or some other
type of use that is substantially agricultural (LAFCO, 2019).
Significant new development is expected to occur within the City of Oakley, consistent with the City’s
General Plan and its Housing Element (Oakley, 2022 and Oakley, 2023). ISD is responsible for
responding to new development projects by providing adequate infrastructure for collection,
conveyance, treatment, and recycling. This will require that the District phase in improvements to its
infrastructure, including its treatment and recycling facilities, pump stations, force mains, and other
pipelines. The City and ISD indicate that the District has the ability to meet the projected housing
needs. The Housing Element includes a site inventory, and those sites identified for potential new
housing appear to have adequate sewer access or planned access (Oakley, 2023).
Bethel Island: Bethel Island is the” heart” of the Sacramento Delta and is mostly below sea level.
Bethel Island is protected with a 14.9-mile perimeter levee and is surrounded by Delta sloughs. The
Island is home to approximately 3,700 people, with 1,300 residential units. Many of the residential
units are waterfront vacation homes. Additionally, the island contains 13 commercial marinas, a
commercial business area, and agricultural land.
Brentwood Area: Since the 2014 MSR, the City of Brentwood has extended sewer on Sellers adjacent
to the treatment plant (personal communication, Zimmerman, 2024). Although ISD does not serve
Brentwood, it is located adjacent to the City. Chapter 4 of this MSR provides additional details about
wastewater service in the City of Brentwood.
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta: Portions of the ISD boundary and SOI are located within the
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta (Delta), specifically within the “Secondary Zone”. The Delta is a large
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
inland river delta geographically connected to the San Francisco Bay Estuary aCnodn htroam Ceo sttoa sLeAvFeCraOl
rare and endangered fish species. The Delta is also designated a National Heritage Area. The
Secondary Zone is within the “Legal Delta” and is described by various state laws and planning
documents (DPC, 2010 and DSC, 2013). For local government planners and administrators, there
are three key Delta planning documents listed below:
• The Delta Plan, by the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updated through 2024.
• Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta by the Delta
Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010.
• Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by Visser, M.A.;
Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. 2018.
DPC’s Land Use and Resource Management Plan recognizes that urbanization and other
development projects within the secondary zone have the potential to impact the Primary Zone of
the Delta (DPC, 2010). These planning documents are important because ISD’s discharge of treated
wastewater to the San Joaquin River has the potential to influence water quality within the Delta.
Will Serve Letters to Schools: Prior to 2014, ISD issued the Liberty Union High School District a Will
Serve letter, which indicated that ISD was willing and able to accept wastewater from the proposed
fourth high school site1 (LAFCO, 2014). However, since 2014, the situation has changed. ISD staff
indicates that the provision of service to additional school sites is not anticipated at this time
(personal communication, Zimmerman, 2024).
Boundary History: In 2007, CC LAFCO reduced ISD’s SOI by: (1) eliminating ISD’s overlap with the
City of Brentwood SOI and (2) removing the Veale Tract from the ISD SOI. The most recent MSR/SOI
Update for the ISD was the May 14, 2014, Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round) written by
GST Consulting. ISD’s SOI was expanded as part of the 2014 Update. ISD’s SOI is currently 0.8 sq.
mi. in size.
In the future, there might be other sites that could be considered for annexation to the SOI and/or
the ISD boundaries. For example, a site at Knightsen, north of Delta Road from Sellers east to Delta
Road, might request sewer service (personal communication, Zimmerman, 2024).
1
The fourth high school site was located southwest of the intersection of Delta Road and Sellers
Avenue. To serve the high school, the school district would need to construct a pump station and
force main that conveys wastewater from the school to an existing sewer. The high school property
also had the option to be placed into the ISD SOI and potentially annexed to ISD. Also, prior to 2014,
the Liberty Union High School District proposed a fifth high school site (located east of Bixler Road,
north of Kellogg Creek Road, and south of Highway 4 and the Town of Discovery Bay). However, the
proposa l for a fifth high school site has not transpired. ISD staff indicates it is unlikely that ISD would
be asked to provide service to these proposed school sites (personal communication, Zimmerman,
2024).
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
17.3: DISTRICT WASTEWATER OPERATIOCoNntrSa Costa LAFCO
The District’s wastewater service includes collection, conveyance to the wastewater treatment
plant, and disposal. The District provides wastewater collection and conveyance services to
approximately 12,778 sewer connections. One ISD connection may serve many individual
customers.
The collection system has 125 miles of pipelines, 15.9 miles of force main, and 34 pump stations
and is extensively laid out in the residential and commercial areas of the City of Oakley and
communities to the north (ISD, 2017).
Disposal: The majority of ISD’s recycled water is discharged into the San Joaquin River. ISD is
permitted to land apply biosolids from the Water Recycling Facility (WRF) on Jersey Island2 (personal
communication, Zimmerman, 2024).
Water Recycling Facility (WRF): ISD’s WRF is its primary infrastructure, providing wastewater
treatment and recycling services. The WRF was constructed in 2011 and is located in northern
Oakley3. Specifically, the WRF is located on 285 acres adjacent to the south side of Big Break and
the San Joaquin River (Oakley, 2023). The WRF was designed for an average dry weather flow (ADWF)
of 4.3 MGD with a peak wet weather flow (PWWF) of 8.6 MGD, with expansion capability to 6.8 MGD
ADWF / 13.6 MGD PWWF in the future (personal communication, Zimmerman, 2024). Currently, the
WRF is receiving an average annual flow of approximately 2.6 MGD. Highly treated effluent is
discharged into the San Joaquin River through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit (CA0085260 / Order No: R5-2013-0157) issued by the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (personal communication, Zimmerman, 2024).
The WRF is an advanced treatment Membrane Bioreactor process unit. Wastewater is preliminarily
treated through mechanical screens and vortex grit removal. The wastewater undergoes a secondary
process through biological treatment. Tertiary treatment is achieved through ultraviolet (UV)
disinfection. The District operates the WRF in compliance with the Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDR R5-2018-0050) issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. In
addition, the District has obtained a NPDES permit (Order R5-2018-0090, NPDES CA0085260) to
2
Jersey Island is owned by ISD. In the past, reclaimed water was used to irrigate 3,500 acres of agricultural
lands on Jersey Island, approximately 155 acres on its Oakley property (Contra Costa County, 2018). Hay was
grown by ISD and was used to feed cattle. As of 2024, The farming and grazing fields are irrigated using water
from sloughs and rivers surrounding Jersey Island through ISD’s riparian water rights. ISD’s cattle and farming
in house operations ceased in 2022. The entire ISD cattle herd was liquidated through video auctions and
f3a Trhmei nWgR eFq bueipcmamenet owpaesr astoioldn athl irno u2g0h1 1a nto o rnelpinlaec aeu acnti eoxni.s Ati nggr awzainsgte awnadt efar rtmreiantgm leensst efae cwilaitsy sthelaetc hteadd trheraocuhgehd a
citosm cappetaictiivtye abniddd ainlsgo p crooucleds sn o(pt ecrosmonpalyl cwoimthm nuenwiecar tmioonr,e Z simtrimngeernmt adnis, 2ch0a2r4g)e. limits (personal communication,
Zimmerman, 2024).
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
regulate discharges of tertiary disinfected effluent to the San Joaquin River (ISD,C AoCntFrRa, C2o0s2t2ab L)A. FCO
Sewer Master Plan: A Sewer Master Plan (SMP) was originally adopted by ISD’s Board on January 30,
2004, and updated in February 2007. The SMP evaluates the capacity needs of the sewer collection
system and guides capital improvement projects. It identified collection system improvements
necessary to accommodate future development in ISD’s service area at ultimate build-out
conditions. A computer model called “H20MAP Sewer” was utilized as the hydraulic modeling
software to develop the sewer collection system assessment (ISD, 2007). ISD performed an interim
update to the SMP in 2018. Staff is currently working on a full update to the SMP, which is anticipated
to be completed by March 2025 (personal communication, Zimmerman, 2024).
Sewer System Management Plan: The ISD 2015 Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) outlines the
procedures and standards for managing and maintaining the sewer system. The SSMP complies with
the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order No. 2006-003 and
Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC to properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the ISD
sanitary sewer system. The SSMP helps the ISD prevent sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and mitigate
any SSOs that occur. The SSMP includes an Overflow Emergency Response Plan, a Fog Control
Program, and a System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan. The certified SSMP is available to
personnel operating and maintaining the ISD sanitary sewer system, the general public at ISD’s main
office, and on the ISD website (ISD, 2015).
Strategic Plan
Wastewater operations are guided by the Board’s adopted Strategic Plan for 2022-2027+, which
outlines services, environmental initiatives, and community advocacy efforts. IDS’s goals include
excellence, diversity, community, trust, equity, and partnership. Based on these goals, the Strategic
Plan includes priority objectives that will be measured, evaluated, and recalibrated bi-annually. The
Plan emphasizes collaboration with valued stakeholders to formulate plans for a collective future,
including staff working within the framework of executing the Board’s direction and collaboratively
working together to minimize the District’s risk and optimize opportunities (ISD, 2021).
Local Hazards
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Volume 2, dated January 2018, maps critical
infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards (Contra Costa County,
2018). ISD participated in this plan, and its potential hazards are described in Annex 27. According
to the Hazard Mitigation Plan, the District headquarters and Water Recovery Facility are near the San
Joaquin River, making them susceptible to potential flood hazards and liquefaction (Contra Costa
County, 2018). Another jurisdictional vulnerability is that Bethel Island is at high risk of potential
flooding (Contra Costa County, 2018). Lastly, the District service area has the potential to experience
strong shaking from a Calaveras M7.0 earthquake (Contra Costa County, 2018). The Contra Costa
County HMP identified several action items for ISD, including the following:
• Installation of redundant force main from Bethel Island as a future project.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
• Installation of East Cypress corridor redundant collection system as a fuCtounretr par Coojesctta. L AFCO
• Continue to support implementing, monitoring, and updating the Contra Costa County HMP.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The SWRCB maintains an SSO database from public/permitted systems and private lateral sewage
discharges. This database is a specific module in the California Integrated Water Quality System
(CIWQS). The SWRCB formalized the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary
Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. WQ 2022-0103-DWQ (SSS WDRs), December 6, 2022.
All public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer system comprised of more than one mile of
sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility must be covered under the
SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A 3.6-year term from January 1, 2019, to August 9, 2022, was
queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The results of the database queries regarding ISD are listed
below in Table 17-2.
During this 3.6-year timeframe, there were four SSOs in the ISD. Most of the sewer overflows had
failure points at the gravity mainline. The largest spill within the CIWQS-SSO database query
occurred on June 15, 2022, with a spill volume of 3,900 gallons. The spill was caused by a contractor
that hit the force main while installing a storm culvert for the County of Contra Costa. None of the
spill material was recovered, nor did it reach surface water.
ISD has a SSMP that requires the District to track SSOs and to record volume, location, frequency,
and cause. Adjustments are made to prevent further SSOs (ISD, SSMP, 2015).
From July to October 2022, San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known as a
red tide, as described in Appendix F. The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma akashiwo,
can cause water to take on a reddish-brown color. The HAB extended throughout the open-bay
regions of the South Bay, the Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths, linked to the red tide,
were reported to include sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, and anchovy. The San
Francisco Bay Water Board is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay through the Nutrient
Management Strategy, which includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other
agencies to study the potential impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. ISD has an opportunity to
assist with this effort by continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by discussing the
nutrient problem with other wastewater Districts and the Water Board.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 17-2: Ironhouse Sanitary District Sanitary Sewer Overflows
EVENT Region Responsible Collection System SSO Start Date SSO Vol Vol of SSO Vol of SSO SSO WDID
ID Agency Category Recovered Reached Failure
Surface Water Point
882088 5S Ironhouse Ironhouse Sanitary Category 3 6/30/2022 317 317 0 Gravity 5SSO10970
Sanitary District District CS 9:15 Mainline
874789 5S Ironhouse Ironhouse Sanitary Category 2 6/15/2021 3,900 0 0 Force Main 5SSO10970
Sanitary District District CS 10:32
870874 5S Ironhouse Ironhouse Sanitary Category 3 11/25/2020 49 49 0 Gravity 5SSO10970
Sanitary District District CS 21:00 Mainline
870867 5S Ironhouse Ironhouse Sanitary Category 3 11/25/2020 49 49 0 Gravity 5SSO10970
Sanitary District District CS 21:00 Mainline
Data Source: CIQWS Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
Figure 17-2. Google Maps Street View of Ironhouse Sanitary District
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Infrastructure Needs
ISD currently maintains various equipment, vehicles4, infrastructure, and associated assets.
Wastewater infrastructure includes property, pipelines, a sewage treatment plant, and ponds, as
listed below in Table 17-3.
Table 17-3: ISD Existing Assets
Asset Value
Property
265 acres in Oakley $8,912,467
Total: $8,912,467
Critical Infrastructure and Equipment
125 miles of sewer collection main, plus related easements $236,559,469
34 pump stations $8,000,000
Rolling stock, 37 vehicles $1,114,500
86 pieces of heavy equipment and farm tractors $1,654,500
Total: $247,328,469
Critical Facilities
2.7 MGD sewer treatment plant $2,542,788
Ongoing construction of 4.3 MGD treatment plant $59,040,728
350 acre feet, or 114 million gallon storage ponds for treated $908,232
wastewater
Main office compound and shop with vehicle and parts $4,141,140
storage facilities
Jersey Island facilities $1,682,521
Total: $67,775,459
Data Source for Table 17-3 above: Contra Costa County, 2018
ISD’s sewer treatment plant currently has a capacity of 2.7 MGD (Contra Costa County, 2018). Prior
to 2014, the district completed the construction of Phase 1 of a new $55 million Water Recycling
Facility (WRF) and completed the Ironwood Force Main extension, which provided an alternate flow
route near the old wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). ISD maintains three larger sized pump
stations (Ironwood, Quail Valley, and Marsh Creek). At the time of the 2014 MSR, no upgrades were
necessary.
Jersey Island is listed as an asset in Table 17-3 above. Jersey Island is a 3,500-acre property owned
by ISD located between Oakley and Bethel Island. In May 2019, ISD entered into a partnership
agreement with Montezuma Water LLC to address future uses for Jersey Island. The partnership
agreement describes terms regarding how ISD and Montezuma Water will study, approve, and
implement specific new uses or business opportunities on Jersey Island. Reclamation District 830
4
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the District, it is likely that sometime in the future, the
District may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting veh icles reliant upon an alternative energy source
such as electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore,
alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
maintains and repairs the Jersey Island levees.
ISD’s Strategic Plan states, “Our assets are under threat from aging infrastructure, environmental
and natural disaster factors, and increasing regulatory requirements, and as such are in the
forefront of the district’s focus to repair, replace, and maintain to their full life cycle. We recognize
that we have an obligation to meet regulatory standards and to maximize the fullest potential to
realize the public’s investment while creating a resilient community and environment” (ISD,
2021).
Cooperative Programs
ISD’s Strategic Plan outlines its many cooperative efforts to consider regional solutions and
maximize federal and state funding opportunities. For example, to understand regional water needs
and seek common interests, ISD actively participates in three regional organizations:
• East County Water Managers Association,
• East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Managers, and
• Western Recycled Water
Coalition
ISD is an active member of the Western ISD Mission Statement
Recycled Water Coalition (WRWC). The "Ironhouse Sanitary District protects public
WRWC developed regional recycled health, resources, and the environment
through dependable, efficient, and innovative
water program facilities through a
collection, treatment, and multi-benefit reuse
federal and state grant program.
of our community’s wastewater for a resilient
Cooperative programs were developed
future."
with Delta Diablo (DD), Contra Costa
(Per ISD Strategic Plan)
Water District (CCWD), Central Contra
Costa Sanitation District (CCCSD), and
the cities of Antioch, Oakley, and Pittsburg. Additionally, ISD is currently working collaboratively with
Diablo Water District to develop a water reuse project that will use ISD’s highly treated recycled
water (personal communication, Zimmerman, 2024). Readers are encouraged to read ISD’s
Strategic Plan for additional information on cooperative programs.
Awards: ISD has received several good government awards in recent years as listed in Table 17-4
below. For example, the Government Finance Officers Association awarded ISD a Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented to Ironhouse Sanitary District
California For its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 17-4: Awards and Certifications - ISD
Awards (2022)
California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA)
• Organizational Excellence: Strategic Plan 2022-27+
California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
• Staff Member of the Year Award: Cecilia Goff
Awards (2021)
California Water Environment Association (CWEA)
• Plant of the Year (SFBS)
• Community Engagement Project of the Year (SFBS)
Awards (2020)
California Water Environment Association (CWEA)
• Collection Person of the Year (State and SFBS): Leon Lauciirica
• Mechanical Technician of the Year (State and SFBS) - John Abdilla
Awards (2019)
California Water Environment Association (CWEA)
• Plant of the Year Award (SFBS) - Small Agency
• Collection System of the Year Award (SFBS) - Small Agency
• Supervisor of the Year Award (SFBS and State): Collections System
Supervisor Louis Solana
• Collection Person of the Year (SFBS): Ian Robertson
• Operator of the Year Award (SFBS): Adrian Vazquez
• Community Engagement and Outreach: Project of the Year Award (SFBS and
State): East County Regional Coalition's 'No Wipes In The Pipes' campaign
Accreditations and Certifications
Government Finance Officers Association
• Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting
(2017, 2018, 2019, 2021)
Special District Leadership Foundation
• District of Distinction Accreditation (2016 to 2025)
• District Transparency Certificate of Excellence (2014 to 2024)
Future Challenges
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 has several recommended remedies for
California’s aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a wastewater
treatment plant is, what kind of waste it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the sewer
pipes. Continue educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom to call
if such an event occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling.
(Source: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2019)
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The WRF utilizes a significant amount of electricity in its routine operations. To offset this cost, the
district leases a 1.1 megawatt (MW) solar power system. This is an innovative cost-recovery
measure. Additionally, ISD has participated in regional wastewater and recycled water program
planning and grant funding proposals. In the past (i.e., prior to 2014), their participation resulted in
obtaining grant money to fund the development of a Recycled Water Master Plan and Recycled Water
Feasibility Study. Additionally, ISD developed a coordinated program with local developers and
implemented an incentive program that reduced connection fees, resulting in an additional 234
Equivalent Residential Units (EDUs) being issued from September 12, 2011, to September 30, 2013,
increasing revenues and efficiencies in implementing capital projects. ISD continues to manage a
solar energy project at the Administration/Maintenance Buildings and Wastewater Recycling
Facility, resulting in approximately $100,000 in savings per year (LAFCO, 2014).
17.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
ISD produces an annual comprehensive financial report (ACFP) each fiscal year in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). In addition, IDS’s finances are the subject of
annual independent financial audits. The ACFP for FY’s 2020-2021 and FY 2021-2022, as well as the
audits for FY’s 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, will be the primary sources of information for data
related to the financial health of the district (ISD, 2018a; 2019; 2020b; 2021a; 2022b). ISD operates
as an enterprise-type activity with primary sources of funding from service charges, service
connection fees, and capacity fees from users of the services provided by the district. The most
recent ACFP for FY 2021-22 includes an audited report that features the Management’s Discussion
and Analysis, the Statement of Net Assets, the Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in
Net Assets, the Statement of Cash Flows, and the Notes to Financial Statements. The most recent
audit noted that the financial statements presented by the district were presented fairly and in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.
The primary revenue resources of the district totaled $20,852,065 in FY 2021-22, compared to
$18,241,563 in FY 2020-21. The 14.3 percent increase was primarily the result of an additional 159
new connections into the system for FY 2021-22. The increase in new connections resulted in a
significant increase in service connection and capacity-related fees. In addition, there was an overall
3 percent increase in the service fee per equivalent service units (ESUs) during that same year (ISD,
2022b). There are five primary areas of criteria that have been utilized to assess the present and
future financial condition of ISD’s wastewater service operations, as discussed below:
3 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
The Enterprise Fund operating revenues exceeded operating expenditures for all years studied, as
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
shown in Figure 17-3 below. The ACFP for FY 2021-22 showed an operating income increase of 57.3
percent from FY 2020-21. Because revenues exceed expenditures, the Enterprise fund appears to
have the capacity to cover its costs year over year. Expenditures for the fund fluctuated over the last
five fiscal years studied, with a small decrease in expenses from FY 2017-18 to FY 2018-19; increases
from FY 2018-19 to FY 2019-20 and FY 2019-20 to FY 2020-21; and a small decrease between FY
2020-21 and FY 2021-22. The largest increase occurred between FY 2018-19 and 2019-20 with an
eight percent increase in expenses that fiscal year. This was due to an increase in salaries, benefits,
payroll taxes; utilities; and insurance. Insurance costs went up 20 percent in FY 2019-20 compared
to FY 2018-19. The district completed a rate and capacity fee study in March 2020 that sets sewer
service charges for FY’s 2020-21 through 2024-25. Prior to this study, the last sewer rate increase
study occurred in 2015.
Figure 17-3: Enterprise Funds Operating Revenues Compared
to Expenditures and Non-Operating Revenues
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$-
2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022
Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures Non-Operating Revenues
Non-operating revenues for ISD include taxes; cattle income, net of expenses; hay sales; mineral
rights; investment income; a grazing lease; gain on sale and disposal of assets; and capital
contributions (ISD, 2018a; 2019; 2020b; 2021a; 2022b). Non-operating revenues saw a large
increase in FY 2019-20 due to $4.95 million in capital contributions from developers for the
installation of sewer system infrastructure.
Ratios of Revenue Sources
ISD’s operational and non-operation revenue sources for FY 2021-22 are shown in Figure 17-4
below. ISD received approximately 55 percent of its funds from service charges and 30 percent from
capacity fees. The next greatest income source for this fiscal year was cattle income, net of
expenses. According to the auditor’s notes, during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1997, the district
acquired several herds of cattle. These cattle were purchased primarily to maintain the grass levels
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
of the ISD-owned Jersey Island land. In accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 905-10
Accounting by Agricultural Producers and Agricultural Cooperatives, the cost of purchasing and
raising these cattle is capitalized. Mature cattle are depreciated over their useful lives, which is
considered to be eight years. Immature cattle are capitalized and are charged to cattle operations
expense when sold. During 2022, ISD dissolved its cattle operations and sold all its cattle. The
district sold approximately $3.09 million in cattle, which offset cattle operational expenses and
acquisitions that year, resulting in a net income of approximately $1.34 million. The grass levels of
Jersey Island are now being maintained by an agreement with a third party.
Figure 17-4: Revenue Sources, FY 2021/2022
1.8% 0.0% 1.3% 2.6%
1.6%
Service Charges
5.5%
1.3% Service connection and fees
Capacity fees
Miscellaneous & Other Fees
Taxes
55.4%
30.0% Cattle income, net of expenses
Hay sales & Grazing lease
Mineral rights
Gain on sale/disposal of assets
0.5%
Taxes make up a small percentage of total revenue year over year, comprising 1.6 percent of revenue
in FY 2021-22. Service charges and capacity fees made up an average of 96 percent of revenue in
the enterprise fund for the years studied. When compared to all revenue, these two sources of
income equated to 85 percent in FY 2021-22 (ISD, 2022b).
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
Figure 17-5 shows the total assets for ISD with current assets and noncurrent assets for FY 2021-22.
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited
by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to
the annual fund expenditures (LAFCO, 2014).
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 17-5: District Assets, FY 2021/2022
Current Assets $41,851,861
Non-current Assets $92,862,585
$- $20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000
The audited financial report for FY 2021-22 shows an unrestricted net position of $17,652,992.
Based on expenses for this same fiscal year, ISD has a positive ratio of 131 percent, a very good ratio
(ISD, 2022). Current assets include cash and investments; accounts receivable; related party
receivables; interest receivables; supply inventory; prepaid expenses; and prepaid interest.
Noncurrent assets include prepaid interest; deposit for sales agreement; capital assets (net of
accumulated depreciation) (ISD, 2022b).
According to the Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the FY 2021-22 audited financial
statement, the increase in Unrestricted Designated Net Position primarily reflects a transfer of
$5,016,949 from Unrestricted Undesignated Net Position to the Capital Expenditure Reserve and an
allocation of $367,005 of Ad Valorem taxes received in accordance with reserve policies. These
increases were offset by purchases of capital assets of $1,424,746 and the payment of a capital
asset deposit of $2,327,563 to be used for the future replacement of wastewater membranes. In
addition, ISD had Operating Revenues of $21,168,469 for the fiscal year 2022 versus $18,514,287 for
2021 (a 14.3% increase) and Operating Expenses of $13,031,259 for fiscal year 2022 versus
$13,340,625 fiscal year 2021 (a 2.3% decrease) (ISD, 2022b).
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. Figure 17-6 shows the liabilities for the
district as of FY 2021-22 (ISD, 2022).
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 17-6: District Liabilities/Debts, FY 2021/2022
Long-Term Liabilities
Current Liabilities
$(40,000,000) $(30,000,000) $(20,000,000) $(10,000,000) $-
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of ISD’s ability to
meet debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a ratio of 10 percent or
less would reflect a very stable ratio (LAFCO, 2014). According to the district’s FY 2021-22 audited
financial statement, ISD had $2,937,701 in debt service as part of the restricted net position. This
equates to a ratio of 22 percent which exceeds LAFCO’s 10 percent guideline, suggesting the district
may have trouble meeting debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. In addition,
ISD had a net pension liability of $2,475,709 for FY 2021-2022 (ISD, 2022b).
ISD entered into a project financing agreement with the SWRCB under their Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Program. This program provides low-interest loan funding for construction of
publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities. ISD was approved for funding for its Wastewater
Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Project. The cost for the project was $58,754,020. The loan
was disbursed as costs were incurred. Repayment of the loan is paid in annual installments which
began October 2012. Full repayment of the loan will be made by October of 2031. The loan bears no
interest however; in order to participate in the zero-interest loan program, ISD was required to
provide 16.667% of the total loan amount. This portion of the loan represents interest costs and is
reported on the Statement of Net Position as prepaid interest. Interest expense is amortized over the
life of the loan at an effective interest rate of 1.8%. Approximately $421,000 of the prepaid balance
was amortized in the current year, resulting in a remaining balance of $2,106,263 as of June 30, 2022,
of which $382,957 is current. In the event of termination, upon written notice at the option of the
SWRCB or upon violation of any material provisions of the project financing agreement, ISD has
agreed to, upon demand, repay the Board all unpaid installment payments in full. In the event of
termination, interest shall accrue on all amounts due at the highest legal rate of interest from the
date of notice to the date of full repayment (ISD, 2022b). Debt service requirements for the State
Revolving Fund Loan are shown in Table 17-5 below.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 17-5: Debt Service Requirements for the State Revolving Fund Loan
Capital Improvement Program
Since 2011, ISD has operated a wastewater recycling facility 24/7. Periodic equipment replacement
and reliability improvements are necessary to adequately serve the community’s ongoing needs. ISD
operates and maintains roughly 125 miles of sewer pipelines and 32 lift stations. Some of these
pipelines are undersized and/or over 60 years old. Lift stations and other infrastructure require
regular updates and periodic replacement. Therefore, a capital improvement plan (CIP) or an
equivalent planning document is helpful to the ISD.
The ISD produced a Water Recycling Facility Reliability Study for the Water Recycling Facility (June
2018) and a Risk Model for the Collection System in 2019. Both plans identify long-term plans for
replacements, refurbishment, and upgrades. Staff prepares a short-term plan each fiscal year to
address near-term needs. These plans summarize capital improvement projects through 2025 for
the district’s Water Recycling Facility. By proactively identifying the projects needed over a 25-year
planning horizon, the district can structure revenues and manage expenses to ensure that these
projects can be completed fiscally (ISD, 2018b). ISD also has a Sewer Master Plan (January 30, 2004)
that identifies Capital Improvement Projects anticipated to be timed to accept flows from future
developments as they occur.
The district’s five-year rate plan provides additional service fees for an estimated $25.4 million of
capital improvements for ISD’s sewer system and water recycling facility infrastructure beginning
fiscal year 2020-21 through fiscal year 2025-26. The estimated capital improvements are partially
based on a third-party comprehensive reliability study of its water recycling facility, which includes
recommendations for various facility operating improvements. The study was conducted by an
engineering firm specializing in facility reliability studies (ISD, 2022b).
The most recent rate study, completed in 2020, states: “The District needs to complete
approximately $29.7 million in improvement projects over the next five years to keep the sewer
system and Water Recycling Facility (WRF) operating reliably and in compliance with regulatory
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
requirements. This includes the replacement of aging sewer pipelines and equipment. The sewer
system includes all the pipelines, maintenance holes, and sewer pumping stations throughout
Oakley and Bethel Island, which collect sewage from homes and businesses. The WRF treats an
average of 2.5 million gallons of wastewater each day. The District operates these facilities 24 hours
a day, 365 days a year” (ISD, 2020b).
Rate Structure
On June 16, 2020, ISD adopted a new rate structure. The rate structure adjusts the fees for existing
user classes and establishes new user classes. These new fees will be assessed over five years, with
rate increases imposed during the first three years.
• The adjustment ensures that ISD correctly assesses sewer customers’ proper share based on the
amount and type of wastewater they discharge.
• Proposed fees are adjusted for each user class to ensure they are equitable and appropriate.
• Sewer fees for some user classes will be reduced.
Details are provided on this webpage: https://www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com/294/Prop-218-
Sewer-Rate-Changes-2020. In Fiscal Year 2020-21, two things occurred: a reallocation and a rate
increase. A “Cost of Service” reallocation changed the fees within each customer category to reflect
the actual cost of providing sewer service to a particular customer type. Because costs needed to
be reallocated to single-family residential customers, the district proposed to increase the fee for
single-family homes beyond the nine percent increase for all customer types. This adjustment was
made in Fiscal Year 2020-21 to ensure no ratepayers were being overcharged. Table 17-6 below
shows the proposed reallocation adjustments and rate increases for all customer classes (ISD,
2021b).
Table 17-6: Proposed Reallocation Adjustment and Rate Increases for All Customer Classes,
FY 2020-2021
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
New Development Capacity Fee: New development is charged a one-time capacity fee for
customers connecting to or upsizing their connection to ISD’s sewer system. The Capacity Fee was
adopted via Ordinance 72 by the Board in July 2020. Ordinance 27 replaced three past sewer
connection fees. The purpose of the capacity fee is to provide revenue to recover costs for existing
and future facilities that benefit new development. The new capacity fee schedule was determined
by a consultant and complies with California law (ISD, 2020).
17.5: POPULATION
There are approximately 46,391 residents within ISD’s boundary based on data from the Contra
Costa Department of Conservation & Development. Two other lower population estimates from
different data sources are similar, as shown below in Table 17-7. Detailed information regarding
population demographics in Contra Costa County is provided in Appendix A. ISD is located within
the Legal Delta Secondary Zone, and a detailed population analysis of the Delta area was prepared
by state agencies (Visser et al., 2018). Readers are encouraged to review this information as follows:
• Visser, M.A.; Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. (2018) Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Sacramento, CA: The Delta Protection Commission. 46-
pages. Available online at: <https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Delta-Socio-
Economic-Indicators-Report-508.pdf>.
Table 17-7: Existing Permanent Population, Ironhouse Sanitary District, 2020/2022
Scenario Population Notes and Data Source
Low Population 45,488 • Calculated as City of Oakley 43,357 residents plus
Scenario Bethel Island with 2,131 residents
• U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.a). Explore Census Data.
Retrieved on December 19, 2022, from
<https://data.census.gov/table?
q=oakley&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P1>.
• U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.b). Explore Census Data.
Retrieved on December 19, 2022, from
<https://data.census.gov/table?q=Bethel+
Island+CDP,+California&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P1>.
Medium 45,800 Source: ISD’s Annual Financial Report (Audit) (2022)
Population
Scenario
High Population 46,391 Contra Costa Department of Conservation
Scenario
Number of 28,260 as of June 12, 2019
Registered Voters Source: Registered Voter data provided by Contra Costa
in Boundary LAFCO, District Profile, 2019.
Population in SOI 378 (2022 Approx.) Calculated based on GIS and APN data, the
only
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
estimated average is 3.02 persons per parcel in Contra Costa
County.
Projected Future Population: Projecting a district’s future population is complicated due to varying
annexation rates and census tracts that do not match district boundaries. Data from the California
Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth for Contra Costa County, as
shown in Table 17-8 below. Since anticipated future population growth within the ISD’s boundaries
has the potential to influence the demand for wastewater services, the projections are shown in
Table 17-8 below.
17.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address
municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in disadvantaged communities.
Specifically, disadvantaged communities are inhabited communities containing 12 or more
registered voters that constitute all or a portion of a “disadvantaged community.” A disadvantaged
community is defined as a community with a median household income of 80% or less than the
statewide median household income. In 2011, SB 244 began requiring cities and counties to address
the infrastructure needs of unincorporated disadvantaged communities in city and county general
plans, MSRs, and annexation decisions. Therefore, this MSR update identifies disadvantaged
communities within relevant jurisdictions’ SOI. Figure 1-4 in Chapter 1 shows the location of all
disadvantaged communities in Contra Costa County. The MHI for California in 2020 was $83,056
(ACS, 2021). 80 percent of the MHI ($66,445) is the income threshold used to identify DUC status.
2020 is used as the base year because data from the US 2020 Census is readily available.
U.S. Census data was queried as part of this MSR update. Data query results, shown in Table 17-9
and Figure 17-5 below, identify the disadvantaged community of Bethel Island (unincorporated)
within the ISD boundary area. Immediately adjacent to the ISD boundary and partly within its SOI is
a disadvantaged community encompassing approximately half of Knightsen, a Census Designated
Place (CDP). Knightsen is located in unincorporated Contra Costa County.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 17-8: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2045)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2020 to
2020 to 2045 2020 to 2045 2045
County of Contra
Costa1 1,149,800 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.80% 181,631 0.59%
Ironhouse Sanitary
District2 46,391 47,415 49,269 50,834 51,976 52,725 15.91% 7,237 0.59%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060
(Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
2: U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.a). Explore Census Data. Retrieved on December 19, 2022, from
<https://data.census.gov/table?q=oakley&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P1>.
3: U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.b). Explore Census Data. Retrieved on December 19, 2022, from
<https://data.census.gov/table?q=Bethel+Island+CDP,+California&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P1>.
4: Population projection for Ironhouse Sanitation District calculated as 3.96 percent of the County of Contra Costa population.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal, and industrial water, or structural fire
protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update for cities
and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently reviewed under
the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates (2016), the
Contra Costa City Services Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round)
(2019), and Contra Costa County-wide Water Service Municipal Service Review and Sphere of
Influence Study (2nd Round) (2014). These services remain relatively unchanged since publication.
A portion of the community of Knightsen is a disadvantaged community and is within the ISD SOI, as
shown in Figure 17-7. This determination assesses the prospect of including a disadvantaged
community when an agency’s SOI is updated or expanded. No health or safety issues have been
identified. ISD currently provides sewage collection infrastructure/service to portions of Bethel
Island. The expansion of infrastructure on the island would require detailed future study as the island
is mostly below sea level, with a 14.9-mile perimeter levee, and is surrounded by Delta sloughs. In
the future, ISD and LAFCO may wish to study further the feasibility of expanding ISD’s SOI to
encompass the entire Knightsen disadvantaged community.
Table 17-9: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities In and Near Ironhouse Sanitary District
Unincorporated Census Tract Geo ID Census Block Median Household
Community Group Number Income in 2020
Bethel Island CDP 060133010002 2 $35,721
Knightsen CDP 060133020112 2 $50,912
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau. November 2, 2021. 2020 American Community Survey 1-Year
Experimental Estimates. Table ID: XK201902. Table Title: Median Household Income In The Past
12 Months (In 2020 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars). Retrieved July 7, 2021 from
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/experimental-data/1-year.html.
Additionally, within the part of the ISD’s boundary/SOI that overlaps with the City of Oakley,
disadvantaged communities receive municipal services from the City, as shown in Figure 17-8.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 17-7: Disadvantaged Communities Near ISD and in the Unincorporated Area
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 17-8: Disadvantaged Communities near ISD and Oakley
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
17.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
Two government structure options were identified as part of this MSR process: 1) maintain the status
quo and 2) future partnerships with nearby agencies. Each of these alternatives is described in more
detail in the following paragraphs.
Option #1: Maintain the status quo
ISD provides wastewater services for the City of Oakley, Bethel Island, and unincorporated areas
within eastern Contra Costa County. Due to projected growth in the area, there will be an increased
need for district services in the future, and ISD has planned for service needs through master plans
and upgrades of its sewer and wastewater facilities. ISD is financially sound and has invested
considerable revenue in developing new and upgraded facilities to accommodate projected growth
in service demands and to meet increased regulatory requirements. The MSR authors recommend
retaining the status quo, with no changes to boundaries or the SOI in the near-term.
Option #2: Future Partnership with Nearby Agencies
ISD is located in geographic proximity to several service providers. Additionally, ISD has a good track
record of positive collaborative relationships with regional organizations, local municipalities, and
other service providers. ISD’s boundaries overlap with several of these agencies. For example, ISD’s
western boundary is contiguous to the boundary for the DD, and a portion of its southern boundary
is contiguous to the boundary of the City of Brentwood. ISD and LAFCO may wish to explore the
potential for more in-depth partnerships with these organizations. In the future, ISD and LAFCO may
wish to study further the feasibility of expanding ISD’s SOI to encompass the entire Knightsen
disadvantaged community. Overall, no specific opportunities for changes to the governance
structure in relation to other service providers and partners were identified as part of this MSR.
17.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 17-10: MSR Determinations for ISD
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES MSR DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected area. ISD’s service area is expected to experience
• Is existing population estimated? steady growth over the next 25 years. The current
• Is projected future growth estimated? population is estimated at 46,391. By 2045, it is
estimated at 52,725. The percent increase from
2020 to 2045 is 15.91.
Location and characteristics of any U.S. Census data was queried as part of this
disadvantaged unincorporated communities MSR update process. 80 percent of the MHI
within or contiguous to the SOI. ($66,445) is the income threshold for identifying
DUC status in 2020. The disadvantaged
community of Bethel Island (unincorporated) is
within the ISD boundary area. Immediately
adjacent to the ISD boundary and partly within
its SOI is a disadvantaged community
encompassing approximately half of Knightsen,
a CDP. Additionally, disadvantaged
communities are located within the City of
Oakley. No public health and safety issues were
identified.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities, A CIP helps agencies describe the planned
adequacy of public services, and infrastructure capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public
needs or deficiencies, including needs or services, and infrastructure needs or
deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and deficiencies. The ISD produced a Water Recycling
industrial water, and structural fire protection in Facility Reliability Study and CIP in June 2018,
any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities summarizing capital improvement projects
within or contiguous to the SOI. through 2025 for the district’s Water Recycling
• Does the Agency have a CIP? Facility. By proactively identifying the projects
• Are SSOs identified? needed over a 25-year planning horizon, ISD can
• Are Local Hazards identified? structure revenues and manage expenses to
ensure that these projects can be completed
fiscally. ISD also has a Sewer Master Plan (January
30, 2004) identifying Capital Improvement
Projects. The ISD 2015 Sewer System
Management Plan (SSMP) outlines the
procedures and standards for managing and
maintaining the sewer system.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
(continued)
SSOs were identified by querying a 3.6-year term
from January 1, 2019, to August 9, 2022, in the
CIWQS-SSO database. Based on the query, there
were four SSOs during this timeframe.
The 2018 Contra Costa County HMP identified
several action items for ISD, including:
1) Installation of redundant force main from
Bethel island as a future project.
2) Installation of East Cypress corridor
redundant collection system as a future
project.
3) Continue to support implementing,
monitoring, and updating the Contra Costa
County HMP.
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9
generally recommends:
1) Implement an education program at the state
and local levels about what a wastewater
treatment plant is, what kind of waste it can
treat, and what impact wastes have on the
sewer pipes. Continue educational programs
about identifying a sewer overflow and whom
to call if such an event occurs.
2) Make risk-based decisions on capital
improvements, maintenance, and
operations.
3) Continue advancements in water
reuse/recycling.
Financial ability of agencies to provide services. ISD completed the last rate study in 2021 for FY
2024/2025. The financial outlook for ISD remains
• Has the Agency prepared a rate study? strong as it continued to increase its net position
• Do revenues exceed expenditures? year over year for the fiscal years studied. The
• Is the ratio of annual debt service to total district’s operating revenues exceeded
fund annual expenditures 10% or less? operational expenditures for all fiscal years
studied. Because revenues exceed expenditures,
the Enterprise fund appears to have the capacity
to cover its costs year over year.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
(continued)
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund
annual expenditures is 22 percent which
suggests ISD may have trouble meeting debt
obligations in relation to service provision
expenditures. In addition, ISD had a net pension
liability of $2,475,709 for FY 2021-2022. The
district entered into a project financing
agreement with the California SWRCB under their
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program.
Approximately $421,000 of the prepaid balance
was amortized in the current year, resulting in a
remaining balance of $2,106,263 as of June 30,
2022, of which $382,957 is current.
The Sewer Master Plan was updated on an interim
basis in 2018. Staff is currently working on a full
update to the Sewer Master Plan, which is
anticipated to be completed by March 2025.
When complete, this updated Master Plan will
help ISD assess capital facility needs and budget
accordingly.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. ISD staff did not specifically mention any shared
facilities. However, ISD is located in close
proximity to the City of Oakley and Delta Diablo.
Therefore, it is recommended that ISD continue
to pursue informal arrangements to share
facilities with nearby agencies as needed. In
addition, ISD’s Strategic Plan also outlines its
many cooperative efforts to consider regional
solutions and maximize federal and state funding
opportunities. For example, to understand
regional water needs and seek common
interests, ISD actively participates in two regional
organizations:
• East County Water Managers Association
and
• East Contra Costa County Integrated
Regional Water Managers.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-29
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Accountability for community service needs, ISD’s website provides the public with internet
including government structure and operational access to Board agendas and minutes, public
facilities. notices, ISD budgets, and audits.
• Does the Agency have a website?
• Does the Agency post a public outreach “The Ironhouse Insider” newsletter is published
tool (such as a calendar or newsletter) multiple times per year (also available online)
on its website? and is provided free of charge to ISD customers.
• Recommendation for mergers, It provides the public with updates on ISD
consolidations, or other changes to activities and projects.
governance structure. This MSR/SOI considered potential future
options for mergers, consolidations, contracted
services, and other arrangements. Two options
were identified for ISD as follows:
• Option #1: Maintain the status quo
• Option #2: Future Partnership with Nearby
Agencies
Based on the information in this MSR, the
authors recommend retaining the status quo,
with no changes to boundaries or the SOI in the
near-term.
Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified.
service delivery, as required by commission
policy.
17.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Section 17.7, Government Structure Alternatives, describes various issues and options
associated with changing the structure of this local government agency. LAFCO often
accomplishes its government structure issues through changes to boundaries and/or SOIs. After
consideration of potential future options for mergers, consolidations, contracted services, and
other arrangements, two governance structure options were identified for ISD as follows:
• Option #1: Maintain the status quo
• Option #2: Future Partnership with Nearby Agencies
In regards to the SOI, based on the information in this MSR, the authors recommend retaining the
status quo, with no changes to boundaries or the SOI in the near-term. Based on the information,
issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed SOI determinations, pursuant to Section
56425, are presented below for Commission consideration:
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-30
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 17-11: SOI Determinations for ISD
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES SOI DETERMINATION
Present and planned land uses in the area, The major portion of ISD’s service area is
including agricultural and open-space lands. comprised of the City of Oakley and the
unincorporated community of Bethel Island. The
City of Oakley’s General Plan includes a broad
mix of land uses, including residential,
commercial, industrial, recreational, and public
land uses. Bethel Island, a residential/vacation
area, is expected to remain largely residential.
The City of Oakley’s General Plan (2022) and
Housing Element (2023) anticipate significant
new development. ISD will need to continue to
upgrade its infrastructure to accommodate this
anticipated future development.
Present and probable need for public facilities and ISD’s existing facilities are necessary to provide
services in the area. service within its boundary. Significant new
development is expected to occur within the City
of Oakley, consistent with the City’s General
Plan and its Housing Element (Oakley, 2022 and
Oakley, 2023). ISD is responsible for responding
to new development projects by providing
adequate infrastructure for collection,
conveyance, treatment, and recycling. This will
require that ISD phase-in improvements to its
infrastructure, including its treatment and
recycling facilities, pump stations, force mains,
and other pipelines.
Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy The district’s collection system comprises 125
of public services that the agency provides or is miles of gravity sewer main, 15.9 miles of force
authorized to provide. main, and 32 lift stations. The collection system
is extensively laid out in the residential and
commercial areas of the City of Oakley and
communities to the north. The ISD Water
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-31
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
(continued)
Recycling Facility has a design capacity of 4.3
MGD average dry weather flow. The WRF has 8.6
MGD maximum wet weather flow. Current ADF
2.52 MGD.
Prior to 2014, ISD completed construction of
Phase 1 of a $55 million project for the ISD Water
Recycling Facility to accommodate growth and
meet future regulatory requirements. Recently,
ISD plans to undergo an Old Pipeline
Improvement project. The updated
infrastructure will improve the demand capacity
of the wastewater system.
Existence of any social or economic None have been identified.
communities of interest in the area if the
commission determines that they are relevant to
the agency.
Present and probable need for those public U.S. Census data was queried as part of this
facilities and services of any disadvantaged MSR Update process. 80 percent of the MHI
communities with the existing SOI. ($66,445) is the income threshold for identifying
DUC status in 2020. The disadvantaged
community of Bethel Island (unincorporated) is
within the ISD boundary area. Immediately
adjacent to the ISD boundary and partly within
its SOI is a disadvantaged community
encompassing approximately half of Knightsen,
a CDP. Additionally, disadvantaged
communities are located within the City of
Oakley. No public health and safety issues have
been identified.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-32
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
17.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California’s Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. (n.d.). Waste Discharge Requirements. Retrieved
on December 20, 22, from
<https://www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com/DocumentCenter/View/128/Water-
Discharge-Requirements-WDR-Permit-PDF?bidId=>.
City of Oakley. MAY 9, 2023 (Adopted) and MAY 24, 2023 (Certified). 2023–2031 Housing Element
Update. 388-pages. Available online at: <https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/general-plan/>.
City of Oakley. January 11, 2022 (Adopted). Focused General Plan Update. Prepared by De Novo
Planning Group. 286-pages. Available online at: <https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/general-
plan/>.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022 from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission. June 12, 2019. Municipal Service Review
Update for Municipal Services. 793-pages. Martinez, CA. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updated through 2024. The Delta Plan. Available online
at: <https://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan/ >.
Delta Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010. Land Use and Resource Management Plan
for the Primary Zone of the Delta. 42-pages. Retrieved on April 8, 2024 from
<https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Land-Use-and-Resource-
Management-Plan-2.25.10_-m508.pdf >.
ISD. January 30, 2004 and updated February 2007. Sewer Master Plan. Contributions from RMC
Consultants. 139-pages. Retrieved on August 22, 2023 from
<https://www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com/>.
ISD. October 9, 2015. Ironhouse Sanitary District 2015 Sewer System Management Plan. 35-pages.
Retrieved on August 22, 2023 from <https://www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com/>.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-33
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Ironhouse Sanitary District. (2017). Sewer System Management Plan. 230-pages. Retrieved on
December 12, 2022, from
<https://www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com/DocumentCenter/View/744/Ironhouse-
Sanitary-District---Sewer-System-Management-Plan_041817complete>.
ISD. June 2018a. Ironhouse Sanitary District Annual Financial Report with Independent Auditors
Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2018. Retrieved August 28, 2023 from
<https://www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com/DocumentCenter/View/1407/Ironhouse-
Sanitary-District-Financials---2018>.
ISD. June 2018b. FINAL Reliability Study and Capital Improvement Plan. Retrieved August 28, 2023
from <https://www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com/documentcenter/view/1117>.
ISD. June 2019. Ironhouse Sanitary District Annual Financial Report with Independent Auditors
Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2019. Retrieved August 28, 2023 from
<https://www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com/DocumentCenter/View/1404/2019-
Ironhouse-Sanitary-District-Financial-Statements-FINAL_>.
ISD. July 2020a. Ordinance No. 72 - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 25, Repealing The
Connection, Trunkline, And Plant Capacity Fees, And Adopting A New Consolidated Capacity
Fee. 4-pages. Retrieved August 22, 2023 from
<https://www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com/294/Prop-218-Sewer-Rate-Changes-2020 >.
ISD. June 2020b. Ironhouse Sanitary District Annual Financial Report with Independent Auditors
Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2020. Retrieved August 28, 2023 from
https://www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com/DocumentCenter/View/1484/Audit-FY-2019-
20-.
ISD. June 16, 2020c. Frequently Asked Questions about the Proposed Sewer Rate Changes for Fiscal
Years 20/21-24/25. Retrieved August 28, 2023 from
https://www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com/documentcenter/view/1435.
ISD. 2021b. Ironhouse Sanitary District’s Strategic Plan for 2022-2027+. 24-pages. Retrieved on
August 22, 2023 from <https://www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com/>.
ISD. June 30, 2021a. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021.
Retrieved from
https://www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com/DocumentCenter/View/1677/Annual-
Comprehensive-Financial-Report-2020-2021.
Ironhouse Sanitary District. (n.d.) Jersey Island. Retrieved on December 20, 2022a, from
<https://www.ironhousesanitarydistrict.com/199/Jersey-Island>.
ISD. December 30, 2022b. Ironhouse Sanitary District Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Fiscal year ending June 30, 2022. 96-pages.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-34
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.a). Explore Census Data. Retrieved on December 19, 2022, from
<https://data.census.gov/table?q=oakley&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P1>.
U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.b). Explore Census Data. Retrieved on December 19, 2022, from
<https://data.census.gov/table?q=Bethel+Island+CDP,+California&tid=DECENNIALPL2020
.P1>
U.S. Census Bureau. November 2, 2021. 2020 American Community Survey 1-Year Experimental
Estimates. Table ID: XK201902. Table Title: Median Household Income In The Past 12 Months
(In 2020 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars). Retrieved July 7, 2021 from
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/experimental-data/1-year.html.
Visser, M.A.; Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. (2018) Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta. Sacramento, CA: The Delta Protection Commission. 46-pages. Available
online at: <https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Delta-Socio-Economic-
Indicators-Report-508.pdf>.
Zimmerman, Tyson, MBA, CSDM, Acting General Manager, Ironhouse. April 1, 2024. Email personal
communication to Kateri Harrison, SWALE Inc. 1-page. Available in LAFCO files upon
request.
Chapter 17: ISD Page 17-35
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Chapter 18: MT. VIEW SANITARYCo ntra Costa LAFCO
DISTRICT – WASTEWATER SERVICES
Table of Contents
18.1: Overview ........................................................................................................................ 18-1
18.2: District Boundary & SOI .................................................................................................. 18-4
18.3: District Wastewater Operations ...................................................................................... 18-6
18.4: District Financial Overview............................................................................................ 18-12
18.5: Population ................................................................................................................... 18-19
18.6: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ............................................................... 18-20
18.7: Government Structure Alternatives ............................................................................... 18-22
18.8: Recommended Municipal Service Review Determinations ............................................. 18-23
18-9: Recommended Sphere of Influence ............................................................................. 18-26
18.10: Bibliography............................................................................................................... 18-27
18.1: OVERVIEW
The Mt. View Sanitary District (MVSD) provides three related municipal services, as follows:
• Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for the northeasterly portion of the
City of Martinez and adjacent unincorporated lands to the northeast.
• The household hazardous waste program is provided by MVSD through a contract with
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) (Corona, 2023). The services include a
Household Hazardous Waste Collection facility and disposal services. In addition, MVSD
collaborates with CCCSD to provide a permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection
facility and disposal services for the central portion of the County (LAFCO, 2014).
• Trash hauling, recycling, and disposal services are provided by MVSD through a franchise
agreement with Republic Services (formerly Allied Waste) to the unincorporated areas of the
District. The contract with Republic Services has been extended to December 31, 2031
(Corona, 2023).
This MSR focuses on MVSD's wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services. A map of
MVSD's current boundary and sphere of influence (SOI) is shown in Figure 18-1. A Profile of MVSD’s
services is provided in Table 18-1 (next page).
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 18-1: Agency Profile – Mt. View Sanitary District Contra Costa LAFCO
General Information
Agency Type Independent Special District
Principal Act Sanitary District Act of 1923, Health & Safety Code Section 6400 et seq.
Date Formed 1923
Services Collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater
Service Area
Location City of Martinez (portion) and adjacent unincorporated areas
Sq. Miles/Acres 4.71 square miles/ 3,012 acres
Land Uses Residential, commercial, industrial, public use
Sewer Connections 9,489 connections (MVSD, 2022d); 280 commercial customers and 1
industrial customer (MVSD, 2022d)
Population Served Population estimated to range from 20,770 to 25,620
Last SOI Update 05/14/2014, retained existing SOI
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities Wastewater Treatment Plant, 73 miles of sewer pipelines (MVSD, n.d.a),
approximately two (2) miles of force main, and 4 pump stations (Corona
and Elliott, 2023).
Treatment 3.2 MGD (design capacity) (MVSD, n.d.)
Plant Capacity 1.04 MGD (average dry weather flow) (MVSD, 2022d)
Primar y Tertiary treatment and discharge into a series of wetlands and marshlands
Disposal
Financial I nformation- FY 2021-2022
Revenues Expenditures Net
Surplus/(Deficit)
Operating/General Fund $ 7,919,784 $7,570,607 $ 349,177
All Funds $ 7,919,784 $ 8,603,378
FY 2021-2022 Long-Term Planned Expenditures
Capital Expenditures $ 3,207,125 $51.3 million - 10-year Projection
Reserves Fund $ 13,223,114 Source: MVSD Annual Budget FY 20212022 (last
Balance complete fiscal year audit)
Governance
Governing Body Board of Directors (5 members)
Agency Contact Lilia Corona, General Manager, lcorona@mvsd.org
Notes
District's SOI was reduced by LAFCO in July 2013.
Financial data provided by MVSD staff, personal communication, 2023
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 18-1: Boundary/SOI Map – Mt. View Sanitary District –
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Established in 1923, MVSD's initial sewer system fed into a large community sCeopntitcr at aCnoks.t aIn L 1A9F5C1O,
MVSD installed primary treatment units to meet the needs of the growing local population.
Secondary treatment began in 1968. In 1974, to meet effluent disposal limits outlined by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, MVSD reclaimed wetland areas rather than incur the higher cost of
constructing a deep-water outfall line. The acreage of the wetlands increased from 21 acres to over
86 acres. Additional acreage was acquired through joint management with East Bay Regional Park
District for a total of 151 acres of wetlands. The increase was a proactive effort based on projected
increases in flow which never manifested. Flow has in fact decreased to an average dry weather flow
of 1 MGD1.
In 1988, MVSD added an ammonia removal unit. In 1994, MVSD added filtration and ultraviolet
disinfection systems – the first full-scale operation in Northern California (LAFCO, 2014). Today,
MVSD serves approximately 25,620 residents, treating an average daily dry weather flow of 1.04
million gallons of wastewater per day (MVSD, 2022d). The MVSD service area comprises
approximately 4.71 square miles and is contiguous on all sides with the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District (CCSD). MVSD is an "island" within CCCSD's service area. The District lies within
the San Francisco Bay / Sacramento Delta Estuary watershed. Additional information about this
watershed is provided in Appendix F. The MVSD's Agency Profile is in Table 18-1 on Page 2.
18.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY & SOI
The MVSD's Sphere of Influence (SOI) was reduced in July 2013 following the review of a proposal by
CCCSD to annex 99.7 acres located in Lafayette and Martinez. It was discovered that approximately
18.2 acres of the proposed annexation territory were located within the MVSD's sphere of influence.
CC LAFCO and both agencies agreed that CCCSD was the most logical service provider for the area
and supported concurrent sphere adjustments to both agencies (LAFCO, 2014).
The 2014 MSR noted that MVSD served one parcel outside its current boundary. The parcel houses
the Household Waste Collection Facility (HHWCF-jointly sponsored by MVSD and CCCSD) and a
commercial building owned by CCCSD. A reorganization to detach the parcel from MVSD and
annex it to CCCSD was considered in 2010 but was not supported by both districts. District staff
indicates this parcel containing the HHWCF is not considered out of agency since there is an
agency-to-agency agreement for the HHWCF dated 9/24/1997, which established that MVSD
would treat the wastewater from the HHWCF (Corona, 2023).
1
For example, during a drought, customers tend to conserve potable water and this results in less generation
of wastewater. Many wastewater service providers in California have experienced this.
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 18-2: MVSD Service Area Map - Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
18.3: DISTRICT WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
The District's wastewater service includes collection, conveyance to the wastewater treatment
plant, and disposal. The District provides wastewater collection and conveyance services to
approximately 9,489 sewer connections, as shown in Table 18-1 above (MVSD, 2022d). Of those, 280
are Commercial customers, and only one is industrial. Please note that, upon occasion, one MVSD
sewer connection may serve many individual customers.
MVSD operates a 3.2 million-gallon per day (MGD) dry weather designed flow wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP). The WWTP averages 1.04 MGD for dry weather flow, according to the District website:
https://www.mvsd.org/. MVSD's collection system consists of 73 miles of sewer pipelines and four
(4) pump stations (MVSD, n.d.a). Treated effluent is discharged to the Moorhen Marsh constructed
wetland (MVSD, 2021a). From Moorhen Marsh, effluent is discharged to Peyton Slough and then into
McNabney Marsh and Suisun Bay (MVSD, 2021a). Dried biosolids are distributed to a couple of
locations. The District sends some to Lystek2 in Fairfield, where the biosolids are treated and turned
into a high-grade fertilizer that can be customized to meet the needs of farmers. A portion of the
biosolid waste is sent to the landfill (Corona, 2023).
MVSD maintains approximately 2 miles of force main as listed below:
• Pump station 4 – 0.85 miles
• Pump station 3 – 0.80 miles
• Pump station 2 – 0.20 miles
• Pump station 1 – 0.16 miles
• (Data Source: Corona and Elliott, 2023)
Local Hazards
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2 (HMP), dated January 2018, maps critical
infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards (Contra Costa County,
2018). The Mt View Sanitary District did not participate in the county-wide Hazard Mitigation Plan.
However, several neighboring jurisdictions participated in the HMP, including the City of Martinez
and the CCCSD. It is recommended that MVSD participate in the next update to the HMP.
Alternatively, MVSD could provide a detailed spatial mapping of the District's wastewater
infrastructure in relation to hazards identified to LAFCO before the next update of its Wastewater
Services MSR/SOI.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted
systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California
Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General
2 https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano- news/fairfield/fairfield-
operation-lifts-veil-on-first-of-its-kind-sewage-to-fertilizer-process/
(Information on Lystek: <
>.)
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water QualCitoyn Otrrad Cero sNtao .L OArFdCeOr
No. WQ 2022-0103-DWQ (SSS WDRs), on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate
a sanitary sewer system comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to
a publicly owned treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A
3.6-year term from January 1, 2019, to August 9, 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The
results of the database queries regarding MVSD are listed in Table 18-2.
During this 3.6-year timeframe, the Mt View Sanitary District had 17 SSO events. In most cases, the
SSOs had failure points at the gravity mainline. Most of the SSOs were greater than 1,000 gallons,
thus making them relatively large. According to the CIWQS-SSO database query, the largest spill
occurred on August 23, 2021, with a volume of 9,209 gallons. The spill was caused by pipe structural
failure, and the wastewater moved from the mainline void into the drainage canal. Of the 9,209
gallons of sewage, 8,218 gallons were recovered from the drainage channel. Factors influencing the
District's ability to collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater and provide public service to customers
were considered. District staff mentioned that the daily average dry weather flow of 1.04 is less than
32% of the MVSD dry weather capacity (MVSD, 2022d). To help improve its ability to collect, treat,
and dispose of wastewater, MVSD worked toward awarding a contract for a Master Plan Study
(MVSD, 2022d). The Master Plan Study will ensure all infrastructure and equipment condition
assessments are completed, planned rehabilitation is scheduled, and that replacement is
scheduled (MVSD, 2022d). Plans for a Merger Feasibility Study with CCCSD have postponed the
award of the Master Plan Study.
Infrastructure Needs
The 2014 MSR identified several infrastructure needs at MVSD, including:
• Wet weather storage reservoir
• Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) monitoring system upgrades to track flows
and monitor pump stations to prevent overflow events.
MVSD implements smoke testing and TV monitoring to identify high-priority pipe repair locations
on an ongoing basis (LAFCO, 2014). These routine pipe repairs are typically addressed through
the annual upgrade or replacement program, which is budgeted at $280,000 for FY 2023-24
In recent years MVSD has made several improvements to infrastructure, including:
• Completed Capital Projects: Moorhen Marsh Rehabilitation and Habitat Enhancement, Biotower
& Biofilter Rehabilitation, Biotower Pumps & Discharge Pipes Replacement, SCADA System
Upgrades, Manhole Repair/Replacement, and the UV Disinfection Replacement Project is nearly
complete.
• The Collection System Cleaning & CCTV Project is ongoing.
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 18-2: Mt View Sanitary District Sanitary Sewer Overflows Contra Costa LAFCO
EVENT Region Collection SSO Start Date SSO Vol of SSO Vol of SSO SSO Failure WDID
ID System Category Vol Recovered Reached Surface Point
Water
856196 2 MVSD Category 1 2/14/2019 22 8 22 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10158
CS 12:30
859644 2 MVSD Category 3 7/5/2019 217 217 0 Maintenance 2SSO10158
CS 8:32 hole
860960 2 MVSD Category 1 8/30/2019 4,317 370 3,947 Maintenance 2SSO10158
CS 7:39 hole
860975 2 MVSD Category 1 9/1/2019 4,504 418 4,086 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10158
CS 8:10
862380 2 MVSD Category 1 10/22/2019 1,760 1,699 61 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10158
CS 6:45
865046 2 MVSD Category 1 2/20/2020 3,620 8 3,612 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10158
CS 7:10
865091 2 MVSD Category 1 2/20/2020 3,620 28 3,592 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10158
CS 19:55
865181 2 MVSD Category 1 2/22/2020 184 0 184 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10158
CS 12:20
867198 2 MVSD Category 3 5/3/2020 20 1 0 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10158
CS 17:47
868898 2 MVSD Category 1 9/5/2020 181 7 174 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10158
CS 8:26
870989 2 MVSD Category 1 12/12/2020 2,493 14 2,479 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10158
CS 10:30
872141 2 MVSD Category 1 2/2/2021 59 0 59 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10158
CS 12:27
872242 2 MVSD Category 1 2/11/2021 1,325 0 1,325 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10158
CS 10:21
875986 2 MVSD Category 1 8/23/2021 9,209 8,218 9,209 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10158
CS 7:30
877121 2 MVSD Category 1 10/24/2021 282 0 282 Large 6" hose was 2SSO10158
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
CS 17:25 dragged to load Contra Costa LAFCO
and then unloaded
and gained a hole
at some point,
which leaked. We
used towels and
duct tape to slow
the leak. Not using
the pump would
have caused
multiple upstream
maintenance holes
to overflow.
877204 2 MVSD Category 1 10/24/2021 3,526 0 3,526 No failure. Severe 2SSO10158
CS 21:10 storms and severe
flooding in the
neighborhood
created too much
flow, and we
eventually could
not handle the
flow.
877431 2 MVSD Category 1 11/2/2021 2,357 400 1,957 Gravity Mainline 2SSO10158
CS 9:40
Data Source: CIQWS Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
• Engineering studies were completed: Disinfection Study, the Co-digestions CSotundtrya, tChoes Btaio LsAoFliCdOs
Dryer, Heat Use Study, Electrical & SCADA Systems Study Update, Collection System Capacity
Assessment Update, Collection System Condition Assessment Program, Plant Improvements
Preliminary Design, and Pump Stations Condition Assessment
• (Data Source: MVSD, Response to RFI, 2022d and personal communication, MVSD staff, 2023).
With a daily average dry weather flow of 1.04, MVSD uses less than 32% of its dry weather capacity.
MVSD plans to conduct a Master Plan Study to ensure all infrastructure/equipment condition
assessments are completed and planned rehabilitation and replacement are scheduled (Data
Source: MVSD, Response to RFI, 2022d)
The MSR Authors consulted with MVSD staff about improvements that could be potentially made in
the future to improve the efficiency and affordability of infrastructure and service delivery sharing of
resources and facilities. MVSD staff indicates that several ideas are being considered for future long-
term improvements to the system, including:
• MVSD is currently working with the County to transfer its Solid Waste Franchise to Contra
Costa County to adapt to the regulatory burden of SB 1383.
• Board of Directors recently updated its Strategic Plan with various goals to improve
compliance, develop customer service, expand cooperative programs, keep district policies
updated, and pursue efficiency improvements through documenting procedures and
expanding record keeping and staff training and development (MVSD, Response to RFI,
2022d).
Cooperative Programs
MVSD has several joint programs with CCCSD, including source control management and the
Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility. MVSD participates in educational programs with
local colleges and schools on open space and habitat management. The education programs are
coordinated with local schools to encourage environmental management and education. MVSD has
minimal opportunities for shared facilities as it is essentially surrounded by the CCCSD service area
(LAFCO, 2014).
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
MVSD has actively implemented several projects which serve to reduce long-term costs as follows:
• MVSD has a Solid Waste Franchise Agreement with Republic Services (formerly Allied Waste) to
provide trash hauling, recycling, and disposal services for the unincorporated areas of the
District. The District is currently working with the County to consolidate with County's agreement
with Republic Services as soon as it can be accomplished (Corona, 2023). The garbage franchise
does not serve the entire District, only the unincorporated areas. The rates are higher than the
City of Martinez’s service due to economy of scale. Recent discussion with the County resulted in
the agreement to move forward with the consolidation now (Corona, 2023). This consolidation
will serve to contain costs for resources both personnel and financial.
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
• Several cell phone site leases and billboard leases have been renegotiated tCo oinnctrrea aCsoes trea vLeAnFuCeOs
(MVSD, Response to RFI, 2022d).
• Close cooperation with CCCSD helps to avoid costs. For example, MVSD contracts with CCCSD
to share resources and increase cost-effectiveness on source control management, including
inspection services for MVSD's commercial accounts, and the implementation of the Fats, Oils,
and Grease control program. Additionally, CCCSD has assisted MVSD in preparing MVSD's
Annual Pollution Prevention Report, but due to a reduction in their resources no longer provides
that service since 2020.
• Administrative improvements that support cost avoidance have recently been made, including:
New Public Outreach Coordinator supports transparency and cultivates a Social Media
o
presence on Facebook and Instagram and initiated a Community Advisory Group that
advises the Board of Directors regarding rates,
Strategic Planning: New Strategic Plan was approved by Board on 4/18/21. The Strategic
o
Plan includes goals to enhance customer service, expand cooperative programs,
implement computerized maintenance management, update district-wide policies, and
pursue district-wide improvements through staff training and development.
An Affordability Study was completed in 2023.
o
There are no other cost avoidance or facility-sharing opportunities apart from those found in the
previous MSRs (Corona, 2023).
Figure 18-3: Mt View Sanitary District, 3800 Arthur Rd, Martinez, CA 94553, Aerial image courtesy of
Google Maps
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
18.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW Contra Costa LAFCO
MVSD is a public entity using an enterprise fund format to report its activities for financial statement
purposes2, with its primary revenue source being service charges and fees. MVSD develops annual
financial statements, which are audited and posted on the District website. The Financial Statement
for FY2022 includes the independent auditor's opinion, management's discussion and analysis,
statements of net position, revenues, expenses, changes in net position, cash flows, notes to
financial statements, and required supplementary information. For FY2022, the auditor issued an
opinion that "the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
respective financial position of the business-type activities of the Mt. View Sanitary District, as of
June 30, 2022, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows
thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America" (MVSD, 2022e).
MVSD has taken specific actions to control costs, including freezing hiring for non-critical positions,
cancelling the 100th Anniversary Celebration, and taking capital projects through a rigorous
multistep vetting process to ensure that planned projects are essential. The projected 2022-2023
annual budget is $12 million, which decreased by 1.15% from the FY22 adopted budget (MVSD,
2022b). Additionally, the District's total capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation, increased
by $976,586 or 3.7% in FY2022 (MVSD, personal communication, 2023). The District's total net
position increased by $403,373 or 1.7% in FY2022 from the previous year. Five primary areas have
been utilized to assess the present and future financial condition of MVSD's wastewater service
operations, as discussed below:
3 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
The Mt. View Sanitary District's operational revenues for the year ended June 30, 2022, increased by
$641,305, or 8.8% from the previous year. These revenues are generated from providing services in
connection with an enterprise fund's principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues
of the District are charges to customers for services (MVSD, 2022e). Three new subdivisions are
being built within the MVSD boundary, including Traditions at the Meadows, Civic Heritage View, and
Bay's Edge. This subdivision activity has increased revenue from permit and inspection fees
increased by $152,583 or 379% in FY2022 (MVSD, 2022e and personal communication, 2023).
The Mt. View Sanitary District's expenditures for the year ended June 30, 2022, include operating
expenses, capital outlay, and debt service. Operating expenses include salaries and benefits,
professional services, materials and supplies, and other general and administrative expenses.
Capital outlay includes the construction and acquisition of capital improvements by the District.
Debt service includes principal and interest payments on the District's outstanding debt (MVSD,
2022e). In FY2022, the District's operating expenses increased by $363,981 or 4.7% from the
previous year (MVSD, personal communication, 2023).
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 18-4 below shows that total revenue exceeded total expenditures in twCoo onft rtha eC othsrteae L AfisFcCaOl
years studied. In FY2022, total revenue exceeded total expenditures by over $1 million. However, in
FY2020, total expenditures exceeded total revenues. This pattern indicates some variability in the
trends associated with revenues vs. expenditures.
Figure 18-4: Three-Year Comparison of
Revenue to Expenses
$9,000,000
$8,719,588
$8,800,000
$8,600,000
$8,400,000
$8,171,318
$8,200,000 $8,094,803
$8,000,000
$7,800,000 $7,651,295 $7,623,204
$7,505,098
$7,600,000
$7,400,000
$7,200,000
$7,000,000
$6,800,000
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022
Total Revenues Total Expenses
Ratios of Revenue Sources
MVSD's operational and non-operational revenue sources for FY2022 are shown in Figure 18-5
below. The District receives approximately 89% of its wastewater fund revenues from charges and
fees for services and 5% of revenue from property taxes. The remaining revenue sources vary from
1% to 2%, including permit and inspection fees, franchise and connection fees, interest income,
rents, and leases. This ratio of sources is typical for an enterprise-type service, such as a wastewater
district. LAFCO's 2014 MSR noted that any negative economic impact on MVSD's property tax could
have some impact on MVSD's operational budget and spending plan for capital projects. LAFCO
should continue to monitor property tax as a component of MVSD's revenue stream.
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 18-5: Revenue Sources, FY2022
Service charges Permit and inspection fees
Franchise and connection fees Taxes
Interest income Rents and leases
2%
1%
5%
1%
2%
89%
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
MVSD has reserve funds that include (not limited to) LAIF Investments of $12 million in FY2022, as
shown in Table 18-3 below.
Table 18-3: Cash and Equivalents
The total reserve fund balance for FY2022 was $ 15,281,958, per the Budget Book (cash was
$13,223,114). An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year
is exhibited by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains
in relation to the annual fund expenditures (LAFCO, 2014). The Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to
Annual Expenditures is considered herein. Calculating a reserve fund balance of $ 15,281,958
divided by annual expenditures of $7,623,204 yields a ratio of 2.00 (or 200 percent)3. This is a positive
ratio.
3
District staff notes that FY22 audit FS shows reserve fund balance was $13,223,114 and total expenditures
were $8,603,378, for a ratio of 1.54%. Without depreciation expense, total expenditures are $7,133,807, for a
ratio of 1.85%.
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual ExpendituresC ontra Costa LAFCO
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. One specific long-term debt item is the
agreement with Municipal Finance Corporation (MFC), dated October 1, 2018, to finance the
acquisition, construction, and installation of certain additions, betterments, extensions, or
improvements to the District sewer system. The agreement is fully funded and matures in October
2038, with MFC providing an advance payment of $6,000,000.00 to the District in exchange for a
series of twenty annual principal and interest installment payments. Interest accrues annually at a
fixed rate of 4.2% on the unpaid principal. City staff has clarified that the agreement requires the
District to irrevocably pledge Revenues in excess of Operation and Maintenance costs for any fiscal
year. for any fiscal year ("net revenues") to the payment of the 2018 Project installment payments
{MVSD, 2022e}. Another long-term debt agreement with MFC is dated June 1, 2021, with MFC
providing an advance payment of $6,000,000 to the District in exchange for a series of twenty (40)
semi-annual principal and interest installment payments, maturing in June 2041. Interest accrues
annually at a fixed rate of 2.9% of the unpaid principal. The agreement requires the District to
irrevocably pledge Revenues in excess of Operation and Maintenance costs for any fiscal year (“net
revenues”) to the payment of the 2021 Project installment payments.
Other long-term liabilities include accrued vacation, long-term debt, pension liability, and other
post-employment benefits (OPEB). Through the California Employers' Retiree Benefits Fund
(CERBT), the District pre-funds the District's OPEB obligation (MVSD, 2022e). The District's
noncurrent liabilities decreased by $3,178,746 or 19.2% in FY2022 (MVSD, personal
communication, 2023).
$20,000,000
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022
Series1 $12,167,287 $18,084,663 $15,709,221
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-15
eltiT
sixA
Figure 18.6 : MVSD Total Liabilities
Data Source: MVSD Annual Financial Statement FY2022 and FY2020
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
A ratio of the Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures is considered herein.
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of MVSD's ability
to meet debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a ratio of 10% or less
would reflect a very stable ratio (LAFCO, 2014). MVSD's annual debt service in FY2022 was
calculated as shown below in Table 18-4.
Table 18-4: Annual Debt Service Calculation
FY 2021 FY 2022
Principal paid $205,633 $439,360
Interest payments $243,712 $407,443
Total $449,345 $846,803
Data Source: MVSD staff, personal communication,
2023
In FY 2022, the $846,803 is the annual principal and
interest debt service payments (personal
communication, MVSD staff [Corona], 2023).
Dividing the Annual Debt Service Expenditures ($846,803) by Total Annual Expenditures ($,603,378,)
yields a ratio of approximately 9.8%4, which represents a stable ratio. MVSD relies solely on service
charges, fees, and property tax to fund capital improvements and operational expenditures. Debt
financing is utilized to fund capital improvement projects.
In summary, MVSD staff indicates that FY22 reserve fund balance was $13,223,114 and total
expenditures were $8,603,378, for a ratio of 1.54%. Without depreciation expense, total
expenditures are $7,133,807 without depreciation expense for a ratio of 1.85%
Capital Improvement Program
MVSD has a 10-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), FY 2022-23 Update adopted on June 9,
2022. This CIP provides an overview of the District's infrastructure needs, upcoming projects, and
proposed capital expenditures. The CIP also includes a list of projects grouped by Treatment Plant,
Collection System, Marsh, and Strategic Initiatives, along with a timeline and estimated project
costs. The CIP also includes project summary sheets that provide further detail about each project,
including its scope, justification, cost, and schedule. In addition to the project-specific information,
the CIP update includes strategic initiatives related to emergency and cybersecurity resiliency,
climate resiliency, and other operational improvements. Specific CIP projects include plant
improvements, headworks improvements, automatic screening replacements, and collection
system improvements (MVSD, 2022a). The document provides a comprehensive overview of the
District's infrastructure needs and plans for the next 10 years.
4
Debt Service Expenditures 846,803 / Annual Expenditures 8,603,378 (see FS p11) = 9.8% with depreciation
expense included (MVSD staff, personal communication, 2023).
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
MVSD's projected annual CIP expenditures are shown in Figure 18-7 below. The 10-year CIP is
renewed annually. The current year (2023) CIP budget is slightly over $4.3 million. This most
recent CIP has a total project cost of $51.3 million (Corona and Elliott, 2023).
Figure 18-7: Ten-Year CIP Projected Expenditures
Rate Structure
MVSD is an enterprise district. Similar to many wastewater districts in California, rates and fees for
service comprise a majority of the District's revenue. The District's service rate structure reflects
fixed rates for residential connections and flow rates for commercial/industrial connections5
(LAFCO, 2014). Connection and other permit fees are fixed or variable dependent on the permit. The
FY22-23 Sewer Service Charge for MVSD customers is $814.20 for Residential units per household
per year and Multi-Residential units (Apartments and Mobile Homes) is $652.20 per year. Other
approved charges and fees can be found on the District Code page in its Chapter 7: Fees, Rates, and
Charges. The District offers a Sewer Service Charge Assistance Program for low-income families,
including a 20% discount. The discount may be received in the form of a rebate check after all
property taxes for the subject parcel have been paid and after the customers have fulfilled other
conditions as described on the MVSD website at: < https://www.mvsd.org/sewer-service-charge-
rebate-assistance-program >.
5
History about MVSD rates includes: The 2006 Proposition 218 rate increase was approximately 11% per year
in 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. In 2009-10 and 2010-11, rates adjusted per the CPI (LAFCO, 2014). Rates
were not increased in 2011-12 and 2012-13. Rates in FY 2013-14 were $42.06 per month (residential) and
$6.03 per hundred cubic feet (general commercial) (LAFCO, 2014).
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Rates were recently studied in the District's March 2023 Final Sewer Service Charges Study,
prepared by consultants called Municipal Financial Services. This 2023 Service Charges Study
provides a comprehensive analysis of the District's projected cash flow and customer wastewater
discharge characteristics. The Service Charges Study includes detailed data for each fund, including
beginning and ending fund balances, expenditures, and revenues for FY22-FY28. The report
recommends sewer service charges based on the projected cash flow and customer wastewater
discharge characteristics. The recommended charges are designed to ensure the District has
sufficient funds to maintain and operate its wastewater management system while providing
affordable rates for its customers. The report also provides an overview of the rate-setting process,
regulatory requirements, and financial and parcel data.
In April 2023, MVSD approved an Affordability Assessment (MVSD, 2023b). The Affordability
Assessment is posted to the District website. The Affordability Assessment considered several
factors in its evaluation, including the percentage of median household income (MHI) spent
annually on utility services (water and wastewater). Households paying an amount for water and
wastewater services that exceeds the affordability threshold are considered to be paying an
unaffordable cost. Specifically, a combined water-related bill greater than 5% of household
income (or individually, 2.0% for water, 2.5% for sewer, and 0.5% for stormwater) is considered
unaffordable. The Affordability Assessment reaches the following conclusions:
1. For the City of Martinez, the MHI at 80 percent of the State's MHI is approximately
$64,400.
2. Monthly water utility bills for the City of Martinez are approximately 1.88% of $64,400
MHI which is lower than the 2% State of California affordability threshold;
3. Monthly wastewater utility bills for the Mt. View Sanitary District are approximately
1.37% of $64,400 MHI which is lower than the 2.5% Fitch Ratings affordability
threshold; and
4. Combined monthly water and wastewater utility bills are approximately 3.25% of
$64,400 MHI which is lower than the 5.0% Fitch Ratings affordability threshold.
5. Evaluations for the projected years are based on an estimated MHI value of $64,400,
which is, for the City of Martinez, approximately 77 percent of the State MHI of $84,100
(rounded) (MVSD, 2023b).
LAFCO received a public comment letter on approximately April 11, 2023, from six MVSD customers
available in LAFCO files. The letter expresses concern about existing and projected expenses, long-
term debt from two $6M loans in recent years, and the salary rate for the General Manager.
Additionally, the public comment letter indicates that several community members are struggling to
make ends meet and are very concerned about rate increases.
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
18.5: POPULATION Contra Costa LAFCO
The population within the MVSD boundaries is estimated to range from 20,770 to 25,620 residents,
as shown in Table 18-5 below. MVSD updates its population estimate on an annual basis. In general,
all properties located within the District boundaries receive wastewater services from MVSD, with
few exceptions. Specifically, a location on Upton St. in the southwest boundary of the District may
have a few properties on septic (Corona and Elliott, 2023). There are no out-of-agency boundary
services.
The District is considered built out. Occasional small-scale infill development has increased the
population by about 700 during the last few years. Additionally, there has been a steady stream of
second dwellings added. Within the boundaries, a few vacant parcels could potentially be developed
in the future and would add to the District population (Corona and Elliott, 2023). Occasionally there
are properties added to the District through LAFCO annexations. Parcels located in the SOI may be
annexed into the District in the future. Once properties are annexed into the District, they are
required to tie into District sewer services (Corona and Elliott, 2023). Currently, properties located
in the District's SOI utilize septic systems as their wastewater system. Detailed information
regarding population demographics in Contra Costa County is provided in Appendix A.
Table 18-5: Existing Permanent Population, Mt View Sanitary District, 2021-2022
Population in Number of Registered Population in
Boundary Voters in Boundary (5) SOI only (6)
(1,2,3,4)
Mt View Sanitary District –
13,221
High Population Estimate 25,620 (1,4) 172
(as of June 12, 2019)
(2022)
Mt View Sanitary District –
13,221
SSMP Low Population 20,770 (2) 172
(as of June 12, 2019)
Estimate (2022)
Sources:
(1) California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State: January
1, 2021, and 2022. Sacramento, California.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/.
(2) (Corona, 2023) and see also Mt View Sanitary District. October 12, 2022d. Staff Response to LAFCO's
Request for Information via ESRI's 123 Online Survey. 2-pages. Available in LAFCO's office upon request.
(3) U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts - Contra Costa County, California: Housing. Retrieved on December
5, 2022, from
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/contracostacountycalifornia/HSG010221#HSG010221>.
(4) Mt View Sanitary District. (2021). Sewer System Management Plan. 46-pages. Retrieved on December 3,
2022, from <https://www.mvsd.org/files/bc9311c12/2019+SSMP+%2B+2021+Audit+Changes.pdf>.
(5) Registered Voter data provided by Contra Costa County Elections Office, as shown in the LAFCO
provider Directory of 2019.
(6) Calculated estimate based on an average of 3.02 people per parcel in Contra Costa County.
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
The "high" population estimation was calculated using a specific methodology. This calculation
began with the number of people per household in the County of Contra Costa. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, the number of household units in 2021 was 426,356 in the County of Contra Costa.
The Department of Finance E-1 estimate provided the 2022 population estimate for the County of
Contra Costa, which was 1,156,555. The population estimate was divided by the number of
households in the County of Contra Costa, resulting in approximately 2.7 people per household. The
2.7 people per household number was multiplied by the 9,489 sewer connections. The resulting
approximation for the current population within the MVSD boundary is 25,620.
Projected Future Population: Projecting a district's future population is complicated due to varying
annexation rates and census tracts that do not match district boundaries. Data from the California
Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth for Contra Costa County, as
shown in Table 18-6 below. Anticipated future population growth within the District boundaries has
the potential to influence the demand for the provision of wastewater services. The population
projections are shown in Table 18-6 below. MVSD’s annual population estimates indicate a
progressive slow reduction in population. However, data from the CA The Department of Finance
indicates population in Contra Costa County will continue to increase.
18.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address
municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in some disadvantaged
communities. Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part of this MSR Update process. Data
query results showed no disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within the District's
boundary or its SOI6. However, two low-income areas are located north of the District and within the
City of Martinez.
6
LAFCO’s previous 2014 MSR identified the Vine Hill Census Designated Place as a disadvantaged community.
However, since then, socio-economic conditions have changed. Based on 2020 U.S. Census plus more recent
American Community Survey data, the MHI for the Vine Hill CDP exceeds $124,000 annually. Therefore, this
area is not a DUC.
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 18-6: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2022 – 2045)
2022 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2022 to
2022 to 2045 2022to 2045 2045
County of Contra
Costa1 1,156,555 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.1% 174,876 0.61%
Mt View Sanitary
District2 25,620 26,581 27,621 28,498 29,138 29,558 15.4% 3,938 0.62%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060
(Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
2: California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State: January 1, 2021, and 2022. Sacramento, California.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/.
3: Mt View Sanitary District. October 12, 2022d. Staff Response to LAFCO's Request for Information via ESRI's 123 Online Survey. 2-pages. Available
in LAFCO's office upon request.
4: U.S. Census Bureau. Contra Costa County, California: Housing. Retrieved on December 5, 2022, from
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/contracostacountycalifornia/HSG010221#HSG010221>.
5: Population projection for Mt View Sanitary District calculated as 2.22 percent of the County of Contra Costa population.
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
18.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNCAontTraI CVostEa LSA FCO
Because MVSD is an "island" within CCCSD, alternative government structure options are limited.
Two options were identified in the 2014 MSR: (1) maintain the status quo and (2) consolidate with the
CCCSD (LAFCO, 2014).
Option #1 - Maintain the Status Quo: MVSD currently provides adequate wastewater services for
residents and businesses within its boundaries. MVSD has invested considerable revenues in
system-wide capital improvements and facilities. LAFCO's 2014 MSR noted that MVSD had a healthy
reserve and generally adheres to a "pay-as-you-go" policy in funding infrastructure upgrades. The
2014 MSR found that MVSD had reduced maintenance intervals, deferred selected capital projects,
and consistently increased user rates over time to stabilize district finances. However, preventative
maintenance, as indicated by the total number of work orders issued and the percentage
completion, has significantly increased since 2016. In 2022 1932 work orders were issued and had
an 87% completion rate, up from 932 work orders and 83% completion in 2016. MVSD will need to
assess the ability of the community to absorb continuous annual increases, which will be systemic
in order for MVSD to meet its long-term capital improvement needs (LAFCO, 2014). Since the 2014
MSR, MVSD has completed multiple engineering condition assessment studies and increased
capital expenditures significantly to make identified repairs/replacements. The current CIP reflects
identified projects and estimated expenditures for the next 10 years. Rate Studies and Affordability
Studies will continue to be used as tools to ensure that rates are affordable. MVSD recently
completed its Affordability Assessment which concludes that its rates are affordable for most of its
customers (MVSD, 2023b). MVSD does offer a 20 percent discount for low-income customers, as
previously described.
Option #2 - Consolidate with the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District: Both districts provide
similar services within their boundaries. Both MVSD and CCCSD have indicated that differences in
treatment and disposal operations, topography, and cost (real estate acquisition and capital
improvements) make consolidation of the two districts fiscally infeasible. Further study should be
pursued to determine if consolidation is a fiscally viable long-term option for both districts (LAFCO,
2014).
In the previous 2014 MSR, MVSD indicated that it did not support consolidation with CCCSD for
several reasons (significant capital investment and real estate acquisition would be required to
pump MVSD effluent to the CCCSD system; current service boundaries of MVSD and CCCSD largely
defined by topography; consolidation would not provide any economic advantage to ratepayers.)
However, since then, clean water regulatory requirements have increased. Also, MVSD's facilities
have aged. It is possible that consolidation with CCCSD as a cost-saving measure may become more
feasible in the future. At this time the MVSD Board and executive management are maintaining a wait
and see approach pending the results of a feasibility study. MVSD's recent Rate Study (MVSD, 2023a)
and Affordability Assessment (MVSD, 2023b) indicate that the District may have some level of fiscal
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
sustainability in the near term. MVSD staff indicate infrastructure is sufficieCnotn ttora mCoasintata LinA FtChOe
provision of wastewater services to our citizens. Continued condition assessments will determine
the need for renewal or replacement of infrastructure systems including renovation or
modernization. CCCSD has stated that they are not interested in a hostile takeover (Corona, 2023).
MVSD and CCCSD are enterprise districts, such that fees and rates are based upon actual costs.
The 2014 MSR indicated that the preparation of a fiscal/operational study evaluating the long-term
impacts of consolidation with CCCSD should be considered. However, this recommendation was
never implemented, and a fiscal/operational study was not produced or created. On April 13, 2023
at an MVSD Public Hearing for rate increases, CCCSD gave testimony and offered to fund a
Consolidation Feasibility Study (Study) and both agencies are currently working on a Memorandum
of Understanding for establishing how they will work together on the study.
18.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected area. Currently, the District serves 25,620 residents.
• Is the existing population estimated? Based on population trends for the whole
• Is the projected future growth estimated? County, it is calculated that the MVSD service
area population could grow to 29,558 by 2045, an
increase of approximately 15.4 percent.
However, MVSD staff MVSD staff expects future
growth to be minimal and suggests that the
population may decline in the future.
Location and characteristics of any Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part
disadvantaged unincorporated communities of this MSR Update process. Data query results
within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. showed no disadvantaged unincorporated
communities (DUCs) within the District's boundary or
its SOI. However, two low-income areas are located
north of the District and within the City of Martinez.
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
These disadvantaged areas should be
considered when considering changes to a
boundary or SOI. However, no health and safety
issues have been identified.
Present and planned capacity of public facilities, • The Ten-Year CIP was updated in 2022 and
adequacy of public services, and infrastructure is used to plan capital projects financially.
needs or deficiencies, including needs or Some capital projects in the CIP update
deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and include a plant master plan, a UV
industrial water, and structural fire protection in disinfection replacement, collection
any disadvantaged, unincorporated system improvements, a climate resiliency
communities within or contiguous to the sphere study, and various others.
of influence.
• SSOs were considered in this MSR. A 3.6-
• Does the agency have a CIP? year term from January 1, 2019, to August 9,
• Are SSOs identified? 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO
• Are local hazards identified? database. The query identified 17 SSO
events.
• Mt View Sanitary District did not participate
in the county-wide Hazard Mitigation Plan.
It is recommended that MVSD consider
participating in the LHMP when it is next
updated.
• MVSD operates as an enterprise-type
activity, with its primary revenue source
being service charges and fees. Rates were
recently studied in the District's March 2023
Final Sewer Service Charges Study,
prepared by consultants called Municipal
Financial Services. This 2023 Service
Charges Study provides a comprehensive
analysis of the District's projected cash
flow and customer wastewater discharge
characteristics.
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Financial ability of agencies to provide services. • Total revenues exceedCeodn ttroat aClo esxtpa eLnAdFiCtuOr es
• Has the agency prepared a rate study? in two of the three study years. MVSD has
• Do revenues exceed expenditures? reserve funds that include (not limited to)
• Is the ratio of annual debt service to total Cash and Equivalents of $13 million in
fund annual expenditures 10% or less? FY2022.
• The Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to
Annual Expenditures is 1.54 (or 154 percent).
This is a positive ratio.
• A ratio of the Annual Debt Service
Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
calculates to 9.8%, which is a stable ratio.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. MVSD has a joint program with CCCSD, including
source control management. MVSD participates
in educational programs with local colleges and
schools. The education programs are
coordinated with local schools to encourage
environmental management and education.
MVSD has minimal opportunities for shared
facilities as it is essentially surrounded by the
CCCSD service area. Several cell phone site
leases and billboard leases have been
renegotiated to increase revenues.
Accountability for community service needs, MVSD's website (https://www.mvsd.org/)
including government structure and operational provides the public with internet access to Board
facilities. agendas and minutes, public notices, MVSD
budgets, and audits. "The Mt. View Monitor"
• Does the agency have a website? newsletter is published quarterly (also available
• Does the agency post a public outreach online) and provides the public with updates on
tool (such as a calendar or newsletter) on district activities and projects. Additionally, Mt.
its website? View Sanitary District has maintained the District
• What is the recommendation for Transparency Certificate of Excellence from the
mergers, consolidations, or other Special District Leadership Foundation (SDLF)
changes to governance structure? since 2013 in recognition of its outstanding
efforts to promote transparency and good
governance. The Certificate was renewed in
2023.
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
The 2014 MSR indicated that the preparation of a
fiscal/operational study evaluating the long-term
impacts of consolidation with CCCSD should be
considered. On April 13, 2023 at an MVSD Public
Hearing for rate increases, CCCSD gave
testimony and offered to fund a Consolidation
Feasibility Study and both agencies are currently
working on a Memorandum of Understanding for
establishing how we will work together on the
study. LAFCO continues to recommend
additional formal study to evaluate the long-term
fiscal and other impacts of consolidation with
CCCSD.
Board members are elected to four-year terms.
The Board of Directors holds regular meetings
once per month. MVSD's elections for the Board
of Directors are held on an "at-large" basis. It is
recommended that MVSD Directors be elected
by division. MVSD staff notes that there is a
recent Supreme Court case pending that may
influence their decisions about whether to have
Directors be elected by division.
Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified that
service delivery, as required by commission directly relate to Commission policy. However, it
policy. should be noted that several local citizens met
with LAFCO's Executive Officer on April 11, 2023,
and expressed concern regarding MVSD's rates.
18-9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Section 18.7 notes that Because MVSD is an "island" within CCCSD, alternative government
structure options are limited. Two options were identified in the 2014 MSR: (1) maintain the status
quo and (2) consolidate with the CCCSD (LAFCO, 2014). LAFCO's previous MSR recommended that
in the near term, reconfirm current determinations and current MVSD SOI. MVSD and CCCSD are
currently working together to begin a Consolidation Feasibility Study (Study). MVSD, CCCSD and
LAFCO will then determine how to implement the Study conclusions and options pursuant to Contra
Costa LAFCO Policy 3.11. It is further recommended that MVSD, CCCSD, and LAFCO work together
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
to publish a feasibility study regarding consolidation before January 1, 2027. Contra Costa LAFCO
18.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Corona, Lilia and Elliott, Chris. March 29, 2023, at 8 am via Zoom. Interview with staff from Mt View
Sanitary District. Conducted by Amanda Ross, South Fork Consulting, and Bruce Baracco,
Consultant.
Mt View Sanitary District. (2021a). Sewer System Management Plan. 46-pages. Retrieved on
December 3, 2022, from
<https://www.mvsd.org/files/bc9311c12/2019+SSMP+%2B+2021+Audit+Changes.pdf>.
Mt View Sanitary District. October 20, 2021b. Financial Statements. JUNE 30, 2021 and 2020.
Contributions from Cropper Rowe, LLP Walnut Creek, California 51-pages. Retrieved July 10,
2023, from <https://www.mvsd.org/district-transparency>.
Mt View Sanitary District. (2022a). 10-Year Capital Improvement Program: Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Update. 50-pages. Retrieved December 3, 2022, from
<https://www.mvsd.org/files/87db8cede/10-YEAR+CIP+UPDATE+FY22-23.pdf>.
Mt View Sanitary District. (2022b). FY 2022-2023 Annual Budget. 38-pages. Retrieved December 3,
2022, from <https://www.mvsd.org/files/428aa3d57/Final+Adopted+MVSD+FY+2022-
2023+Budget+Book.pdf>.
Mt View Sanitary District. (n.d.a). About Us – Mt. View Sanitary District. Retrieved on December 3,
2022, from <https://www.mvsd.org/about-us>.
Mt View Sanitary District. (n.d.b). Service Area – Mt. View Sanitary District. Retrieved on December 3,
2022, from <https://www.mvsd.org/service-area-70615f8>.
Mt View Sanitary District. June 9, 2022d. 10-Year Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Year 2022-
2023 Update. Prepared by: Chris Elliott, District Engineer. 50-pages. Retrieved July 10, 2023,
from <https://www.mvsd.org/financial-information >.
Mt View Sanitary District. October 12, 2022d. Staff Response to LAFCO's Request for Information via
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
ESRI's 123 Online Survey. 2-pages. Available in LAFCO's office upon reqCueosntt.r a Costa LAFCO
Mt View Sanitary District. March 2023a. Final 2023 Sewer Service Charges Study. Prepared by
Municipal Financial Services. Celina, Texas. 36-pages.
Mt View Sanitary District. 2023b. Water/Wastewater Affordability Assessment. Approved April 2023.
Prepared by Municipal Financial Services. Celina, Texas. 19-pages.
Mt View Sanitary District. October 18, 2022e. Financial Statements. June 30, 2022, and 2021.
Contributions from Cropper Rowe, LLP Walnut Creek, California 59-pages. Retrieved July 10,
2023, from <https://www.mvsd.org/district-transparency>.
Mt View Sanitary District. June 19, 2023. MVSD Annual Budget FY 2023-2024. 53- pages. Retrieved
July 10, 2023, from < https://www.mvsd.org >.
U.S. Census Bureau. Contra Costa County, California: Housing. Retrieved on December 5, 2022,
from
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/contracostacountycalifornia/HSG010221#
HSG010221>.
Chapter 18: MVSD Page 18-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Chapter 19: RODEO SANITARY Contra Costa LAFCO
DISTRICT – WASTEWATER SERVICES
Table of Contents
19.1: OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 19-1
19.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY & SOI ............................................................................................................ 19-4
19.3: DISTRICT WASTEWATER OPERATIONS............................................................................................ 19-7
19.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 19-18
19.5: POPULATION ................................................................................................................................. 19-26
19.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ................................................................................................. 19-27
19.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................. 19-30
19.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ............................................. 19-32
19.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: .................................................................................... 19-35
19.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 19-36
19.1: OVERVIEW
The Rodeo Sanitary District (RSD) was formed in 1914 and serves the unincorporated communities
of Rodeo and Tormey. The RSD is located directly adjacent to San Pablo Bay and between the cities
of Crockett and Hercules. RSD provides sewer service to 2,509 residential and commercial
customers within its 1.6+ square mile boundary (RSD, 2022a). Adjacent wastewater service
providers include the City of Hercules to the south and the Crockett Community Services District
(CCSD) to the east. The area between RSD’s north and south service areas is the Conoco Phillips
Refinery, which operates its own private wastewater system (LAFCO, 2014). The City of Hercules’
sphere of influence (SOI) lies to the southeast. The District lies within the San Francisco Bay /
Sacramento Delta Estuary - San Pablo Bay watershed (HUC Code 18050002). Additional information
about this watershed is provided in Appendix F. RSD’s Agency Profile is included in Table 19-1 (next
page). A map of RSD’s current boundary and SOI is shown in Figure 19- 1.
.
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 19-1: Agency Profile – Rodeo Sanitary District Contra Costa LAFCO
General Information
Agency Type Independent Special District
Principal Act Sanitary District Act of 1923
Date Formed 1914
Services Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal; contracts for solid
waste services with Republic Services in Richmond, California.
Service Area
Location Village of Tormey and unincorporated community of Rodeo;
Sq. Miles/Acres 1.6 square miles/1055 acres
Land Uses Residential, light commercial, and public use
Population Served 9,453 residents (2020)
Last SOI Update July 2013 and reaffirmed on May 14, 2014
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities Water Pollution Control Plant, 25 miles of gravity sewers, 2 pump
stations, two force mains (RSD, 2018)
Connections 2,514 residential/commercial (RSD, 2022a)
Treatment 0.60 million gallons per day (MGD) (average daily dry weather flow);
Plant Capacity 1.14 MGD (design capacity) (RSD, 2018)
Primar y RSD, the City of Pinole, and the City of Hercules share discharge
Disposal facilities into San Pablo Bay.
Budget Inf ormation- FY 2022-2023
Revenues Expenditures Net
Operating/General Fund $ 3,381,146 $ -3,490,115 $ -108,969
Combined Other Funds $ 721,662 $ -215,134 $ 506,528
All funds $ 4,918,167 $ -3,705,249 $ 397,559
FY 2022- Long-Term Planned Expenditures
Capital Expenditures $ 2.2 Million a llocated Note: The Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Capital Budget
for FY 2023-24 was $2.2 Million (up from $645,000 in FY 2022-
23). Actual capital expenditures for 2022-2023
were approximately $460,000. Detailed
financial forecasts on Long-Term Planned
Expenditures are not readily available. Long-
term projects are described in the 2013
Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan.
Reserves $ 2,284,252 June 30, 2023 Financial Statement- Board
Designated Reserve. (Note: Total Assets in FY
2022-23 were $27,663,293 and included current
assets, net pension assets, and capital assets)
Governance
Governing Body Board of Directors (5 members)
Agency Contact Steven S. Beall, P.E. District Manager, bealls@rodeosan.org
Notes: None
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 19-1: Boundary/SOI Map – Rodeo Sanitary District Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
19.2: DISTRICT BOUNDARY & SOI Contra Costa LAFCO
RSD is an independent district formed in 1914 pursuant to the Sanitary District Act of 1923 (Health &
Safety Code §6400 et seq.). The District’s boundary encompasses three non-contiguous service
areas:
1) an area of medium-density single-family residential, north of Willow Avenue;
2) a small area designated for public use west of San Pablo Avenue; and
3) an area primarily designated for heavy industrial use west of Crockett.
RSD’s boundary is 1.6 square miles in size. RSD’s profile is shown in Table 19-1, and a map of the
District’s boundary and current SOI is shown in Figure 19.1.
Land-Use Within the RSD Boundary
Historically, the name “Rodeo” means “cattle roundup” in Spanish, and this area was originally part
of the Spanish land grant called El Rancho de Pinole. In 1865, brothers John and Patrick Tormey
purchased 7,000 acres of land from Don Ignacio Martinez Rancho El Pinole estate. The Tormey
brothers became successful ranchers and businessmen who eventually graded streets and lots to
prepare homesteads in what would become the town of Rodeo.
RSD is an independent special district and does not have land-use authority. Land use in the
unincorporated community of Rodeo is governed by the Contra Costa County General Plan (2010).
Contra Costa County has also approved specialized planning documents for the area, including the
Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan (1997) and Rodeo Redevelopment Area Planned Unit
Development Zoning Code and Design Guidelines (2005). The Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council
(RMAC) has five Council members who solicit public input and advise the County Board of
Supervisors regarding land use and other issues. The Rodeo MAC oversees a defined geographic
area, and its boundary encompasses a larger area than RSD’s. The Rodeo MAC meets on the 4th
Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m.; additional information is available at:
<https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/3276/Rodeo-MAC-Information>.
Several public agencies provide public services to this unincorporated community, including the
Contra Costa County Sheriff, Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, and the John Swett Unified
School District. East Bay Municipal Utility District1 provides drinking water, and the water pipes are
often located under streets near the RSD wastewater pipes. The Contra Costa Sheriff operates a
substation at 1126 Mariposa Ave. near the Bayo Vista housing development. The Rodeo Library
building was originally a schoolhouse built around 1911. Stormwater management is provided by the
Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCFCWCD). Stormwater management
can sometimes affect the sewer collection system, especially in relation to inflows and infiltration
1
RSD and EBMUD actively communicate regarding pipe maintenance etc. and their staffs have a stable
relationship (personal communication, S. Beall, January 2024). There is a major EBMUD water trunk line that
runs underground between the homes at Hawthorne and Elm Street. A walking path is located on the surface,
above the pipeline. EBMUD owns this in fee.
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
issues. Therefore, it is important for CCFCWCD to conduct regular maintenancCeo onft rsato Croms tdar LaAinFsC iOn
the Rodeo area.
One key community asset is the Rodeo Creek Trail, which runs two and one-half miles along Rodeo
Creek2 from Mariners Point to Investment Street. The Trail is located along a natural riparian corridor
and includes benches and picnic tables. The Trail facilitates community access for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and people with disabilities. Parker Avenue is the focus of the commercial downtown.
Single-family residential properties comprise most of the land use within Rodeo. The community is
somewhat walkable for local errands with a “Walk Score” of 61.
Future growth opportunities are limited because there is no available land area to expand the urban
footprint as the San Francisco Bay and the City of Hercules border RSD. The District is built-out. Infill
development or zoning changes to add higher density might result in a slight trend for increased
density. The potential for new commercial development seems minimal. For example, a Safeway
Grocery store recently moved into a neighboring community. The grocery store building remains
vacant. Given the excess capacity in the wastewater treatment system, these minor trends in future
population growth will not have a significant effect on District operations (personal communication,
S. Beall, January 2024).
Sphere of Influence
RSD’s current SOI is relatively small, containing a total of 0.05 square miles. The District’s SOI was
most recently reviewed and reconfirmed as part of LAFCO’s 2014 2014 Municipal Service Review
(MSR)/SOI Update for Wastewater Services. Previous LAFCO actions about RSD are listed in Table
19.2 below.
Table 19-2: Previous LAFCO Actions
Date LAFCO Action Description
May 14, Reconfirm RSD’s The boundary and SOI for RSD were affirmed as part of the
2014 boundary and SOI. 2014 MSR.
July 10, 2013 Approved a SOI CC LAFCO expanded RSD’s SOI to add the Bayo Vista
amendment apartment complex, the Viewpoint Avenue homes, and the
LAFCO Reso 13-02 Rodeo Marina.
January 8, Annexation LAFCO CC LAFCO approved the Rodeo Marina annexation to RSD.
2014 13-03
November Annexation LAFCO CC LAFCO approved the annexation of the Bayo Vista
12, 2014 13-04 property to RSD.
May 14, Reaffirmed SOI no Reconfirmed SOI as part of LAFCO’s 2014 MSR/SOI Update
2014 Reso # for this one for Wastewater Services.
Data Source: (LAFCO, 2014 and personal communication, Ms. Texeira, 2024)
2
Army Corps of Engineers manages Rodeo Creek. Rodeo Creek is located adjacent to and parallels Willow
rd
and Parker Ave all the way to the SF Bay. 3 Street crosses the Creek.
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
As listed in Table 19-2, the Rodeo Marina was annexed in 2014, and this area is shown in Figure 19-
1. The County funded a project for a sewer line to be built to the marina. The Rodeo WTTP, located at
800 San Pablo Avenue, is within the district boundary.
The Bay-O-Vista subdivision is affordable housing owned by Contra Costa County. Originally, this
area was built to house armed forces during WWII. The subdivision currently serves as Section 8
housing. RSD provides wastewater service to this site. In 2014, RSD applied to annex this site.
However, it is not clear whether this annexation application was approved.
Figure 19-1 shows the RSD boundary, including the unincorporated community of Tormey and an
area to the north that was a mercury smelter many decades ago. This area has a total of 19
wastewater connections, a mix of residential and commercial. As each property rental agreement or
lease expires for the residences on Old County Road, the leases are not renewed. The buildings are
razed, and the property left as a vacant lot. This will continue for the remaining properties to provide
a safety buffer for their operations. Therefore, the number of wastewater connections to this area is
expected to decline in the future. In 2004, as part of an agreement between the CA State Lands
Commission, Wickland Oil et al., a pump station, collection system, and force main were installed
to collect and transport the sewage from this area. Discharge is to RSD’s WPCP via an 8,000-foot
force main. Existing commercial uses will likely continue. The pump station could handle future
connections, which would require a capacity analysis and annexation if the proposed connections
are out of the existing District service area.
The area to the north of Tormey and the NuStar Facility, located in proximity to the San Pablo Bay,
Carquinez Strait confluence was a mercury smelter decades ago. This area is now designated as a
Superfund site.
Adjacent Land Use
Phillips 66 Rodeo Marine Terminal
Phillips 66 operates a refinery adjacent to the RSD boundaries. The refinery is currently undertaking
a process to transform into the Rodeo Renewed Project, which would convert renewable feedstocks
into renewable diesel, renewable components of other transportation fuels, and renewable fuel gas
through the use of existing refinery process units. The renewable feedstocks will be non-hazardous
and non-regulated materials, as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
172. Renewable feedstocks will also be delivered to the Rodeo facility using the existing railcar
infrastructure, modified to reflect the elimination of butane exports. Existing equipment will also be
modified to enable the offloading of local renewable feedstocks by tanker trucks. Upon completion
of the Project, the Rodeo facility will no longer process conventional or nonconventional crude oils,
will operate fewer fired heaters, and will no longer export butanes across the existing rail rack. The
Phillips 66 Rodeo Marine Terminal has its own independent wastewater disposal system. The County
of Contra Costa provides additional information at:
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
<https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/RodeoRenewed>. Contra Costa LAFCO
H-Cycle
A company called H-Cycle is looking to re-purpose the land from the Refinery Coke Plant located
along Franklin Road. If H-Cycle were to develop the location, H-Cycle would use municipal solid
waste and turn it into hydrogen gas. The potential project/facility would like to discharge wastewater
to RSD. However, there are several hurdles. H-Cycle’s site is not located within the RSD boundary or
SOI. H-Cycle would potentially generate so much wastewater that it would trigger the need to expand
RSDs WPCP. Given the volume and type of wastewater, this proposal might not be feasible. An
alternative option is to direct wastewater to the Hercules/Pinole WPCP.
19.3: DISTRICT WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
The District’s wastewater service includes collection, conveyance to the WPCP, and disposal
services. RSD provides wastewater collection and conveyance services to approximately 2,509
sewer connections (RSD, 2022a). One RSD connection may serve many individual customers. RSD’s
customer base includes a limited number of commercial customers, including six restaurants, plus
additional light commercial/retail customers. There is one commercial laundry mat (RSD, 2022a).
RSD does not have any industrial customers or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) categorical
users (RSD, 2022a). RSD operates independently, and it has no physical interties with any other
agency.
Staffing: RSD is a small operating agency with eight full-time employees, including three (3)
professional staff and five (5) operations staff. Contracts with consultants occur on an “as-needed”
basis. RSD sends lab samples to a contract lab. A contractor does Closed Circuit Television Video
(CCTV) inspection and cleaning of the collection system.
The eight employees execute all of the functions needed for day-to-day operations with assistance
from outside contractors and vendors. The inventory of skilled wastewater operators is very low. RSD
has experienced some staff turnover concerns, especially within the entry-level operating positions.
The Bay Area Consortium of Water and Wastewater Education started training and funding classes
to assist with educational components in 2008. Although RSD is a small agency, it is an informative
training site because it is an agency where the operations staff have an opportunity to practice a
range of skills (operations, collections, maintenance, lab analysis, and special projects). Over the
years, RSD has trained 15 operators to become successful operators at neighboring agencies. One
staff position has historically been allocated specifically as a training position. This has been very
successful. In order to address staff turnover concerns, RSD conducted a salary survey that was
finalized in May 2023. The Labor Negotiation Committee used this to help complete Union MOU
negotiations. The salary survey was included in a Report to the RSD Board as an informational item
in May/June 2023. The Union contract was renewed in June 2023 for a term of five years.
Subsequently, the RSD Board increased wages for operating staff from 15 to 40 percent. The District
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
feels it is now competitive with wages (personal communication, S. Beall, JanuaCroy n2t0r2a4 C)o. sta LAFCO
Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan: RSD’s “Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan”
(CWWMP), dated June 2013, provides an assessment and strategic planning of the District’s
wastewater treatment and collection system. The Plan’s primary objectives are to ensure reliable
wastewater treatment, comply with current and future regulations, and develop a prioritized 20-year
Capital Improvement Program. The Plan examines existing system conditions, regulatory
requirements, and potential improvement alternatives. It also includes financial analysis and
implementation strategies for the proposed improvements, emphasizing cost-effectiveness and
environmental compliance (RSD, 2013).
LAFCO’s 2014 MSR noted several key points about the CWWMP. Specifically, as part of the CWWMP
process, RSD performed several supporting tasks to identify worst condition areas with the highest
inflow and infiltration, including: collection system flow monitoring during winter 2011-2012;
hydraulic flow model of the collection system; and limited smoke testing. The adopted CWWMP
identified District-wide treatment and collection needs for a 20-year time period. Issues identified in
the 2008 MSR were addressed, including several projects at the WPCP. Improvements as part of the
CWWMP assisted RSD in operating safely and more efficiently. The District borrowed $16.6 million
through the State Water Resources Control Board State Revolving Fund Program. The SRF program
provided low-interest loans for six major sewer projects, one major treatment plant project, and one
major project at the RSD Main Pump Station.
Sanitary Sewer Management Plan: The RSD’s “Sanitary Sewer Management Plan” (SSMP), updated
in October 2023, outlines the comprehensive approach for managing, operating, and maintaining
the sanitary sewer system. It is designed to comply with regulations from the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) and focuses on preventing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and effectively
managing them if they occur. The SSMP covers several key areas: goals, organization, legal authority,
operations, maintenance, and emergency response strategies. It also addresses fats, oils, and
grease (FOG) control issues, system evaluation, capacity assurance, performance monitoring, and
program modifications. The SSMP aims to ensure that the system operates effectively, meets
regulatory requirements, and protects public health and the environment (RSD, 2023).
RSD’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system was upgraded as part of the
CWWMP WPCP project. All of the process systems at the WPCP operate under Programmable Logic
Controllers (PLCs). RSD’s SCADA system in the operations building tracks process data, monitors
keys system for anomaly alarming, and provides an interface between the operations staff and many
of the process systems. The entire WPCP and both pump stations are monitored 24 hours per day
with support from on-call staff. RSDs on-call staff are responsible for addressing emergency
conditions after business hours. RSD utilizes asset management and Computer-based Maintenance
Management System. RSD is in the process of upgrading the CMMS (Steven Beall, personal
communication, February 2024).
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Collection System Contra Costa LAFCO
The District maintains the collection system and has a total gravity pipeline length of 25 linear miles,
almost a quarter of which was completely replaced within the last nine years. The collection system
conveys the sewage to two pump stations. The Main Pump Station, located about 2000 feet from the
WPCP, is responsible for more than 99% of the total flow. The Tormey Pump Station, located about
1.5 miles from the WPCP, conveys less than 1 percent of the total flow. All of the sewer is pumped
to the WPCP headworks for the start of treatment.
The collection system has geographic areas that contain a wide range of sewers by age. A significant
portion of the collection system dates back approximately 100+ years or more to when the system
was originally constructed and privately owned. Major subdivisions were constructed in the 1940s,
1960s, and 1970s. The collection system was originally designed to drain to Rodeo Creek. A trunk
line at Rodeo Creek, the main influent pump station, and the primary treatment plant were
constructed in the late 1950s. Many of the older sewers were not well-engineered or properly
installed. For example, pipes were undersized (based on modern plumbing codes), and numerous
lines had insufficient maintenance hole access. In recent years, RSD has implemented a multi-
phased collection system rehabilitation program that has remedied most issues.
Additionally, RSD completes ongoing maintenance and improvements to address issues that
contribute to public health risk and to reduce infiltration flows that occur during rainy weather. Since
completing the CWWMP Sewer Projects, RSD’s collection system performance has drastically
improved. Prior to the Sewer Projects, the District would experience wet weather sewer overflows
during severe wet weather. During the 2021-2022 winter, central California sustained severe historic
atmospheric river weather conditions. RSD received record rainfall, resulting in record sewer flows.
The District did not have a single weather-related sewer overflow (Steven Beall, personal
communication, February 2024). RSD is in the planning process of several additional major
collection system projects. These projects are intended to address high-risk areas of the collection
system.
A list of the regulatory permits utilized by RSD in their collection, treatment, and disposal process is
provided in Table 19-3. RSD’s recent improvements to the system include completing several major
sewer rehabilitation projects consisting of approximately five miles of sewers. RSD has also added
a bar screen treatment step to the preliminary phase of the WPCP to remove flushable wipes (RSD,
2022a).
Water Pollution Control Plant
RSD’s water pollution control plant (WPCP) is located at 800 San Pablo Avenue in Rodeo. The Primary
Plant was constructed in 1957. Under new regulations from the 1972 Clean Water Act, the Secondary
Plant, a significant plant expansion was performed in 1973. Today, the WPCP treats an average daily
dry weather flow (ADDWF) of 525,000 gallons of wastewater. The average wet weather flow is
approximately 750,000 gallons per day. The WPCP has a peak hour wet weather capacity of 3.4
million gallons per day (MGD). The WPCP has an ADDWF design capacity of 1.14 MGD. The WPCP is
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
a full secondary activated sludge plant with sodium hypochlorite disinfection aCnodn stroad Ciuomst ab iLsAuFlfCitOe
dichlorination. Over the last two decades, the WPCP has performed numerous upgrades to improve
reliability, reduce energy use, address regulatory changes, and to address new waste streams. The
items are too numerous to list. To highlight the major improvements, the WPCP has reduced energy
use by about 30%, reduced potable water use by about 80%, installed a new analyzer building and
chemical feed system to enhance chemical delivery, replaced the secondary clarifier sludge
collection mechanisms, upgraded the anaerobic digester system, installed a new Bar Screen
process to remove sanitary wipes, and rehabilitated several major structures and process electrical
systems (Steven Beall, personal communication, February 2024).
The WPCP currently operates at approximately 50 percent of its design capacity (i.e., 0.525 MGD
ADDWF divided by 1.14 MGD design capacity). Therefore, the treatment system is a good size in
comparison to the population (S. Beall, personal communication, January 2024). The WPCP capacity
could be increased to 1.5 MGD if minor physical modifications were implemented and if permits
were to be approved (S. Beall, personal communication, January 2024).
Disposal
In 1977, RSD, the City of Hercules, and the City of Pinole entered into a joint powers agreement for
the purpose of providing deep-water disposal facilities. Treated wastewater from the RSD WPCP and
the Pinole-Hercules WPCP is discharged through a combined deep-water outfall into San Pablo Bay.
There is a valve station where the RSD line “T’s” into the cities’ line. Infrastructure at the “shared”
deep-water discharge is up to date. In 2019, the cathodic protection system was replaced. An
inspection of the outfall is conducted regularly (every five years). A corrosion engineer inspects the
facility. A dive inspection is done on the diffuser section of the outfall pipe (personal communication,
S. Beall, January 2024). Based on recent inspections and the rehabilitation of the Cathodic
Protection System, the shard facilities appear to have a long service life left (Steven Beall, personal
communication, February 2024).
The San Pablo Bay has experienced historic and current anthropogenic activities and associated
water pollution. The RWQCB will likely continue increasing stringent water quality standards for the
San Pablo Bay. This may require that RSD and the two cities continue to implement improvements
to their treatment processes and carry out preventive programs (LAFCO, 2008).
The WPCP utilizes Anaerobic digestion, a biological process used in municipal wastewater
treatment to break down organic matter in the absence of oxygen. The WPCP process units produce
byproducts (sludge) during the treatment of municipal sewage that are rich in organic materials,
including bacteria, debris, and other organic matter.
Anaerobic bacteria break down the complex organic compounds in the sludge into simpler
compounds in a series of steps. The breakdown results in the production of biogas, primarily
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 19-3: List of Permits from State and Federal Agencies Contra Costa LAFCO
Name of Agency/Permit Identification Number Date Notes
NPDES – CA0037826 by Order R2-2022-0037 Adopted December 14, Permit Amendment – WDR for
2022, effective February 1, Mercury and PCBs – R2-2022-
2023. 038
Permit Amendment – Chlorine
Residual Monitoring Changes –
R2-2023-023
State Water Resources Control • General Order 2022-0103-DWQ
Board Sanitary Sewer Systems • Rodeo SD CS (2SSO10171)
Bay Are air Quality Management • Permit ID 5731 (WPCP) Annual
District • Permit ID 14614 (Main Pump
Station)
• Permit ID 16561 (Tormey Pump
Station)
Contra Costa Hazardous • Permit 07-000-758197 (WPCP) Annual
Materials Program Certified • Permit 07-000-773883 (Main
Unified Program Agency - Pump Station)
• Permit 07-000-773882 (Tormey
Pump Station)
EPA Department of Toxic • EPA ID CAD040003113 (WPCP)
Substance Control • CAL000432713 (Main Pump
Station)
Data Source: (personal communication, S. Beall, January 2024).
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
composed of methane (CH₄) and carbon dioxide (CO₂). The remaining mateCrioanl taraft eCro sdtiag eLsAtFioCnO,
known as digestate, is stabilized and reduced in volume. All gas produced during this process is
burned or flared in the presence of natural gas. This flaring process eliminates methane.
The remaining anaerobic sludge (digestate) is dewatered using a centrifuge and stored in the
District’s drying beds waiting for hauling to a landfill. The final dewatered sludge cake (aka biosolid)
is then transported to the Potrero Hills Landfill in Fairfield, California, for disposal.
Due to increasing difficulties in the use or disposal of biosolids in California, with restrictions on land
application by many counties and fewer landfills accepting biosolids, the District is considering
alternative biosolids use and/or disposal scenarios. Upon the expiration of the existing biosolids
landfill agreement or the landfill’s closure, the District will be required to produce a Class A product
for disposal. This might be achieved through on-site Class A biosolids production via capital projects
or through participation in the Bay Area regional biosolids program.
Local Hazards
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Volume 2, dated January 2018, maps critical
infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards (Contra Costa County,
2018). The Rodeo Sanitary District did not participate in the county-wide HMP. However, several
other service providers in the Rodeo community participated, including Contra Costa County and
the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Based on the information
provided about the Rodeo area in Volume 2 of the HMP, there is public infrastructure located within
or close proximity to areas subject to identified hazards. Hazards include low to moderate
Liquefaction Susceptibility; moderate earthquake risk with Site Class / Soil Profile “D” with stiff soil;
and potential flood hazard areas, as shown in Figures 19-2 and 19-3. (Contra Costa County, 2018).
It should be noted that cost-burdened and low-income households are vulnerable to local hazards.
The RSD’s next Sanitary Sewer Management Plan update should include information about these
hazards. Additionally, it is recommended that LAFCO and the RSD contact the County to request an
invitation to participate in the next update to the HMP. It would be useful for LAFCO to have access
to detailed spatial mapping of the RSD’s wastewater infrastructure in relation to the hazards
identified in the HMP prior to the next update of its Wastewater Services MSR/SOI.
Additionally, the 2018 HMP Volume 2 identifies several oil refineries in the general area that can pose
hazard risks. Hazards can occur during production, storage, transportation, use, or disposal
processes. Hazardous materials can sometimes result in situations associated with death, serious
injury, long-lasting health effects, and damage to buildings, homes, and other property (Contra
Costa County, 2018).
Contra Costa County identified Rodeo as an Impacted Community under Senate Bill (SB) 1000. This
indicates that Rodeo residents may experience disproportionate pollution and health impacts from
hazardous waste clean-up sites, impaired water bodies, and air pollution. State data from
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
CalEnviroScreen is available online at Contra Costa LAFCO
<https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40>.
Figure 19-2: Tsunami Inundation Zone in Rodeo
(Figure 19-2 provided by Contra Costa County, 2018)
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 19-3: Projected Sea Level Rise in Rodeo Contra Costa LAFCO
(Figure 19-3 provided by Contra Costa County, 2018)
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a SSO database from public/permitted systems and private lateral
sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California Integrated Water Quality
System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General Waste Discharge
Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSS) under Water Quality Order No. WQ 2022-0103-DWQ
(SSS WDRs), on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate a SSS comprised of more
than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility must be
covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A 3.6-year term from January 1, 2019, to
August 9, 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The results of the database queries
regarding RSD are listed below in Table 19-4 (next page).
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 19-4: Rodeo Sanitary District Sanitary Sewer Overflows Contra Costa LAFCO
EVENT Region Responsible Collection SSO Start Date SSO Vol of SSO Vol of SSO SSO Failure WDID
ID Agency System Category Vol Recovered Reached Point
Surface
Water
865844 2 RSD Rodeo SD CS Category 3 3/4/2020 25 25 0 Air Relief Valve 2SSO10171
(ARV)/Blow-Off
Valve (BOV)
881192 2 RSD Rodeo SD CS Category 3 5/9/2022 51 2 0 Maintenance 2SSO10171
hole
Data Source: CIQWS SSO Database
Figure 19-4. View of the Rodeo Sanitary District Facilities
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
During this 3.6-year timeframe, two SSO events occurred in the RSD. Both SCSoOnst rwa eCroes trae lLaAtiFveClOy
small; however, the most recent spill was not fully recovered. The first spill listed in the query results
occurred on March 4, 2020, with a volume of 25 gallons. This spill was caused by an Air Relief Valve
(ARV)/Blow-Off Valve (BOV) failure. The spill did not reach surface water, and the total spill volume
was recovered. The second spill, within the query results, occurred on May 9, 2022, and had a
volume of 51 gallons. The cause of the spill was a small rubber ball found in the downstream
maintenance hole. This spill did not reach surface water, and only two gallons were recovered.
LAFCO’s 2014 MSR noted that between the years 2009 to 2014, RSD had experienced approximately
45 SSOs. The majority were related to wet weather flow (LAFCO, 2014).
From July to October 2022, San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known as a
red tide, as described in Appendix F. The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma akashiwo,
can cause water to turn reddish-brown. The HAB extended throughout the open-bay regions of the
South Bay, the Central Bay, and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths linked to the red tide were reported
to include sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, and anchovy. The San Francisco Bay Water
Board is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay through the Nutrient Management Strategy,
which includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other agencies to study the
potential impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. The RSD has an opportunity to assist with this
effort by continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by discussing the nutrient problem with
other wastewater districts and the Water Board.
Infrastructure Needs
Existing Infrastructure: The RSD currently maintains various equipment, vehicles3, infrastructure,
and associated assets to support its wastewater collection and conveyance system. The secondary
level treatment facility is located in Rodeo. Disposal facilities are shared with the cities of Pinole and
Hercules through a JPA. The District is working to rehabilitate its infrastructure and maintain
regulatory compliance.
Identified Infrastructure Needs: The RSD’s capital improvement plan is described in Section 19.4
(see page 19-18). Additionally, the District’s 2013 CWWMP identified District-wide treatment and
collection needs for the time period 2013 to 2033. Improvements as part of the CWWMP will assist
the District in operating safely and more efficiently. Replacement projects for high-maintenance
3
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the District, it is likely that sometime in the future, the
District may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting vehicles reliant upon an alternative energy source
such as electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore,
alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
sewer mains will continue as funds are received for capital projects. For exampleC, oinn t2r0a1 C4o, sthtae LRAoFdCeOo
Creek Force Main Realignment Project was started (LAFCO, 2014).
Factors influencing the District’s ability to collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater and provide
public service to customers were considered. According to the District staff, the RSD operates at
less than 50% of the permitted capacity (RSD, 2022a). Over the past ten years, the District completed
collection system and WPCP projects that improved the District’s ability to manage dry and wet
weather flows (RSD, 2022a). Although the RSD is sufficiently staffed to perform maintenance, the
District is seeking funding to continue the rehabilitation of the WPCP and collection system and to
fund the addition of the photovoltaic systems (RSD, 2022a). The District hopes to generate energy by
adding a photovoltaic system to reduce operating expenses (RSD, 2022a). Increases in costs of
goods and services have made it more challenging to maintain a fiscal reserve in the operating fund
and capital fund (RSD, 2022b).
Cooperative Programs
RSD actively cooperates with local and regional service providers, as described below.
• RSD is a member of the Bay Area Consortium of Water and Wastewater Education
(BACWWE), which supports and funds a technical studies program with the Solano
Community College to train and develop potential new candidates for the water and
wastewater industry. The Program, specifically at RSD, provides on-the-job training through
student internships.
• RSD participates in the annual Contra Costa County Science and Engineering Fair at Los
Medanos College. Representatives from 11 water, wastewater, and recycled water agencies
also participate in this annual event.
• RSD participates in the annual Northern Safety Day as sponsored by the California Water
Environment Association. This annual safety training day makes safety the highest priority for
wastewater professionals and allows engagement in hands-on equipment demonstrations.
• RSD is an affiliate of the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA), a local government agency
created by a JPA in 1984. The membership includes sanitary sewer service providers in the
nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. BACWA was founded and continues to assist agencies
in carrying out mutually beneficial projects, and to facilitate the development of scientific,
economic, and other information about the San Francisco Bay environment and the agencies
that work to protect it and public health.
• RSD is a member of CAL-WARN, a Water and Wastewater Agency Response Network that
operates for the provision of mutual aid.
• RSD staff has an informal agreement with the City of Pinole staff, such that each party helps
with minor maintenance needs, chemicals, and other miscellaneous items when needed.
Awards
RSD has received several awards and recognitions, notably from the California Water Environment
Association - San Francisco Bay Section and the Water Environment Federation. They were awarded
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
the Small Plant of the Year for multiple years: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, andC o2n01tr8a. CAodsdtiati LoAnaFlClyO,
in 2018, Senior Plant Operator James Petalio was named Operator of the Year, recognizing his
outstanding contributions to wastewater treatment facility operations. The Water Environment
Federation awarded Petalio the 2019 Operator Ingenuity Award for his innovative solution in
reconfiguring the District’s chlorine analyzers, which led to significant cost savings and operational
improvements. For more detailed information, readers can visit RSD’s Awards & Certificates web
page.
Future challenges
The RSD may face challenges in the future4, primarily due to its small size. In the past, California has
updated waste discharge requirements. These water quality requirements add maintenance life
cycle costs to the District. RSD has anticipated the new regulations and planned ahead. The age of
infrastructure is another potential future challenge. For example, the WPCP is 50 to 70 years old and
it is expensive to maintain.
It may be challenging for RSD to comply with CARB’s 2022 new rule regarding zero-emission
vehicles. Although RSD supports zero emissions conceptually, there is concern that requirements
to purchase EVs will create economic impacts on small districts. RSD’s vehicle fleet is older and
relatively small. For example, RSD’s vehicles (pick-up trucks) are 12 to 13 years old. The dump truck
is a 2010 model. The hydro-flusher is a 2016 model. Ideally, CARB may allow an exemption of a
phase-in program for this rule implementation.
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9, has several recommended remedies for
California’s aging wastewater infrastructure, as outlined in Appendix J and summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a WPCP is, what kind
of waste it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the sewer pipes. Continue educational
programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom to call if such an event occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling.
4. (Source: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2019)
19.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
RSD prepares an Annual Financial Statement and an annual Budget, which presents a snapshot of
the District’s financial health. These documents are available on the RSD website at:
<https://rodeosan.org/about/financial-information/ >. These documents form the basis of the
analysis provided in this section. This financial analysis represents a snapshot in time (i.e. a limited
4
Although garbage collection is not the topic of this MSR, please note that RSD manages solid waste
and recycling via a contract with Republic Services. A new law is the SB1383 Organic Reduction Act
which is expected to influence RSD’s garbage service. Although garbage collection is franchised, RSD
does allocate staff time to management and coordination with the contractor.
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
time period). However, RSD regularly updates its financial data and readers may Creovniterwa Cthoes tnae LwA dFaCtOa
on RSD’s website.
RSD’s wastewater services function as an enterprise fund that separately accounts for self-
supporting operations. RSD’s primary revenue source is service charges and fees. Although RSD has
faced challenges in maintaining financial sustainability amidst rising operational costs, its Board of
Directors and staff continue to make improvements in efficiency. RSD will continue to have a need
for effective resource management and financial planning for future stability.
RSD’s Financial Statement for the fiscal year (FY) 2022-23 reveals a net position of $14,901,857. This
net position represents an increase from FY 2021-22 by $397,559 or three %. The increase in current
assets of $122,325, or four %, is a result of the operating cash balance. Capital assets decreased by
$536,618 or two+ %; capital assets totaled $39,653,976, netted with total accumulated depreciation
of $15,165,916. The decrease in non-current liabilities of $837,650 or six % results from decreasing
outstanding loan balances (RSD, 2023).
Five primary areas of criteria are utilized to assess the present and future financial condition of RSD’s
wastewater service operations, as discussed in the following paragraphs.
Four Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and
delivering goods in connection with the principal ongoing operations of the proprietary fund. The
principal operating revenue is customer sewer service charges. Non-operating revenue includes
property tax and miscellaneous fees. Operating expenses for enterprise funds include the cost of
sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and
expenses not meeting this definition are reported as non-operating revenues and expenses.
For FY 2022-23 (ended June 30, 2023), RSD had operating revenue comprised of sewer service
charges totaling $3,381,146. Non-operating revenues included the ad valorem taxes of $ 485,220;
franchise fees of $107,331; and miscellaneous income of $129,111. For FY 2022-23, RSD had total
expenses in the amount of $3,705,249 The total operating loss was $108,969. The total net position
at the beginning of the year was $14,504,298. The total net position at the end of the year was
$14,901,857. This equates to a change in net position in the amount of $397,559.
Figure 19-5 is a bar graph showing all the actual operating expenses for the Rodeo Sanitary District
for the FY 2022-23. The five largest expenses were:
• Depreciation: $994,035
• Salaries: $985,526
• Employee Benefits - Retirement: $178,242
• Utilities and Telephone: $262,986
• Employee Benefits - Insurance: $139,203
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 19-5: Actual Operating Expenses FY 2022-23 Contra Costa LAFCO
Data Source for Figure 19-5: RSD, AFS, 2023.
This revenue and expense data for the fiscal years 2019 to 2023 are depicted in Figure 19-6 below
which contains a bar chart providing a clear comparison between the different types of revenues and
the expenses for each fiscal year, allowing for a straightforward visual assessment of the financial
health and performance of the Rodeo Sanitary District over these years.
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY22/23
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-20
$
.S.U
Figure 19-6: Five -Year Comparison of
Revenue to Expenses
Data Source: RSD, Annual Financial Statements 2019 -2023
Total Revenue Total Expenses
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
In four of the five fiscal years studied in Figure 19-6, RSD experienced revenCuoenst rtah Caot setxac LeAeFdCeOd
expenditures. This allowed RSD to contribute to its reserve funds. In most years, sufficient revenue
is collected to support operational and maintenance expenditures. Rate increases have been
implemented to ensure sufficient revenues meet operational and capital project expenditures.
Ratios of Revenue Sources
RSD received most (86 percent) of its revenues from service charges and fees, totaling $3,368,664
in FY 2021-22. Figure 19-7 below shows that the ad valorem taxes comprised 11 percent of revenue
or $432,107. Franchise fees comprised two percent or $62,347. Miscellaneous income comprised
one percent or $55,049 in FY 2021-22 (RSD, AFS, 2022b). This ratio reflects an appropriate balance
for a typical enterprise-type service and minimizes negative economic factors’ impact on more
elastic revenues such as property tax. As RSD receives a small portion of its revenue from property
tax, any impact on this revenue due to any future economic downturn would not significantly impact
RSD.
Figure 19-7: Ratio of Revenue
Sources FY 2021-22
2% 1%
11%
Sewer service charges
Ad valorem taxes
Franchise fees
Miscellaneous income
86%
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited
by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to
the annual fund expenditures (LAFCO, 2014).
Figure 19-8 below shows the District’s total assets, including current and non-current assets for FY
2021-22. Non-current assets include prepaid interest; deposit for sales agreement; and capital
assets (net of accumulated depreciation).
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 19-8: District Assets, FY 2021/2022
Non Current Assets
Current Assets
$0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000
U.S. $
Data Source: RSD, AFS, 2022
The FY 2021-22 audited financial report does not provide information on an unrestricted net position.
Therefore, data on the total net position of $14,504,298 is utilized as a substitute. Based on total
expenses of $4,028,539 for this same fiscal year, the expenditures comprise 27.8 percent of the total
net position. (RSD, AFS, 2022b).
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. RSD has several types of debt related to
financing wastewater capital improvement projects totaling approximately $12.8 million (FY 2022-
23), as shown in Table 19-5 and Figure 19-9, including:
• State Revolving Fund Sewer Year 1, 2, and 3 Loans
• State Revolving Fund IPS Loan
• State Revolving Fund Wastewater Treatment Plant Loan
• Compensated Absences
• (Data Source: RSD, AFS, 2022b)
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of RSD’s ability to
meet debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a 10% or less ratio would
reflect a very stable ratio (LAFCO, 2014). RSD’s annual debt service ratio to total expenditures is
approximately 26 %5, a mediocre ratio. However, as shown in Figure 19-9, total liabilities are
decreasing every year.
5
Note: The annual debt service ratio is calculated as total deb t service due for FY 2022-23. Principal paid on
capital debt was $733,729 and the interest paid on the capital debt was $221,888 in FY 2022-23. Therefore,
$955,617 divided by total expenditures of $ 3,705,249 = 0.26.
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 19-5: RSD Liabilities FY 2022-23 Contra Costa LAFCO
$18,000,000
$16,169,250 $15,980,060
$16,000,000 $14,623,795
$14,040,079
$14,000,000 $13,197,414
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
RSD has successfully reduced operational costs through efficiency. For example, from July 2012 to
June 2021, RSD’s operating budget only increased by 4.6 percent. The Consumer Price Index over
that same time period was 28%. RSD was able to optimize operations and energy efficiency. Income
increased by 7% over past 5 years. RSD has done a good job at cost efficiency. For example, RSD
staff implemented in-house projects to remove potable water use, which resulted in a reduction of
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-23
$
.S.U
Figure 19-9: RSD LIabilities
Data Source: RSD Annual Financial Statements 2019-2022
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
80% over five years. Energy efficiency was achieved by changing technologies tCoo snatvrea oCno sPtaG LEA bFilClsO.
Negotiations with the lab contractor also achieved cost savings (personal communication, S. Beall,
January 2024). RSD has a reserve of several million dollars.
RSD utilizes the State Revolving Fund Low-Interest Loan to partially fund WPCP and collection
system upgrades. This will reduce long-term costs. As the WPCP is upgraded, it is expected to level
off or reduce operating costs, including flow monitoring and after-hour call outs with overtime. In the
2008 MSR, cooperative treatment programs were proposed with the Cities of Hercules and Pinole,
but those were not implemented due to resistance from the other agencies.
New cost avoidance activities include seeking grant funding to continue the WPCP and collection
system rehabilitation and add photovoltaic systems6. It is hoped the energy generation will allow the
District to reduce operating expenses to help offset the rising costs of goods and services. According
to RSD staff, the District is also interested in further exploring the sharing of resources with the
Pinole/Hercules wastewater systems and/or CCSD. (RSD, 2022a).
Capital Improvement Program
The District’s current maintenance budget covers the maintenance of existing plant equipment and
collection system infrastructure to maintain the level of treatment and collection the state requires.
As items are replaced or rehabilitated, the expenditures on large-scale maintenance activities will
be reduced, making way for lower-cost maintenance (RSD, AFS, 2022b). In addition to routine
maintenance, RSD implements a portion of the capital improvement projects that are outlined in its
Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan (CWWMP), dated June 2013. The District’s Annual
Financial Statement (2022b) notes that fiscal year 2021-22 major capital projects included the
following:
• District-Wide Electrical and Control Rehabilitation. The District continues a District-wide
project to rehabilitate the electrical and control systems throughout the District’s facilities.
This project is needed due to the 40+ year old electrical infrastructure. Construction
activities include replacing corroded conduits and wires and upgrading electrical
infrastructure to the current code. Expenditures through June 30, 2022 were $60,414.
Frequently, the projects are based on reactive discoveries and are not planned.
• Miscellaneous Collection System Rehabilitation. The District continues to complete
Collection System Rehabilitation Projects on an as-discovered basis. The projects are
generally initiated as the result of CCTV inspection or local sewer line failure. Expenditures
through June 30, 2022 were $137,950.
• Bar Screen Project. The Bar Screen Project includes a minor component of the District-wide
electrical and control rehabilitation and a major rehabilitation of the District’s headworks
structure. Project elements include but are not limited to new Motor Control Centers (MCCs)
6
RSD does not yet have solar. Finding space to install solar facilities is a challenge due to land constraints. The
RSD is communicating with EBRPD to inquire about installing a PV system. Ideally, the proposed solar would
be used to power the entire facility and generate extra power for the grid.
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
and the ventilation system in the digester control building, concrete repCaoirn, tnreaw C ogsratati LnAg FaCnOd
new handrail for the headworks structure, and a new bar screen structure consisting of new
bar screen, conveyance, and washing and compacting equipment. The bar screen project
and complementary minor projects have an estimated capital cost of $4.17 million.
Expenditures through June 30, 2022 were $346,120. District reserves funded this project. The
project is complete.
• Priority Improvements. The District initiated the Priority Improvements Project to perform
several minor sewer rehabilitations. Planning and design-level activities occurred prior to
June 30, 2021. The project design continues with anticipated construction in the spring of
2023. Expenditures through June 30, 2022 were $117,470.
• Digester System Rehabilitation Project. RSD Implemented a digester cleaning and cover seal
rehab project. Cleaning is typically completed on a 5-year cycle. However, the accumulation
of rags in the digester created difficult operating conditions; therefore, the project was
initiated a year early. The cleaning portion was completed in June 2022, and the cover seal
rehab was completed in August 2022. The cleaning expense portion was $136,375.
Upcoming projects include primary and secondary clarifier repairs and coating, aeration basin panel
rehab and instrumentation replacement, main administration building expansion and upgrades, and
collection system pipeline repairs. (RSD, 2023). Capital improvement projects are financed by two
mechanisms: District reserves and loans. During the 2013 to 2019 CWWMP process, the District
Board chose to finance the initial CIP projects primarily through the use of Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) low-interest loans in order to minimize the long-term cost of borrowing. The
FY 2022-23 Capital Budget was $645,000 (up from $444,000 in FY 2021-22). Actual capital
expenditures for FY2021-22 were approximately $950,000. The FY 2022-23 Capital Budget had a
potential loss of approximately $5,000. This will potentially decrease the total capital reserve from
$1,360,000 to $1,355,000. The District’s Capital Reserve policy requires a $2 million reserve, thus
resulting in an unmet goal of approximately $644,000 (RSD, Board Meeting Notes, 5/10/22).
In 2020, RSD began an Energy Infrastructure Upgrades Program in partnership with a private
company called ENGIE with the aim to improve plant operations, and reduce energy costs and
emissions. The potential infrastructure improvements at the Water Pollution Control Plant could
have resulted in energy and operational savings, which could have covered the program’s costs.
Unfortunately, most of the project elements were eliminated due to the escalating costs of goods
and services. The remaining improvement under consideration is the battery energy storage system
(BESS).
Rate Structure
Rates for sewer service fees reflect the current operating budget and are charged at a fixed rate for
residential customers. RSD reports that it had previously considered rate restructuring to a tiered
system. However, the District does not anticipate the need to implement such a structure at this
time (LAFCO, 2014).
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
The RSD Board sets the Sewer Service Fee rate for its users to cover the costs Coof nOtrMa& CRo satna dL AdFeCbtO-
financed capital improvements. Operating costs have remained at or below inflationary levels for
the past several years. Rate increases are determined on an as-needed basis for the continuing
operations of the District. The Board of Directors approved a phased-in rate increase schedule from
the FY 2018-19 to the FY 2022-23. However, the Board of Directors chose to eliminate the Sewer
Service Fee increase for the FY 2020–21 in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Board of
Directors continued with the plan phased rate increase for the 2022 and 2023 fiscal years. RSD
implemented a 13% rate increase for the FY 2023-24. The current rate for sewer fees is $1,165.62 per
year for a single-family home. Past sewer rates are summarized below in Table 19-6.
Table 19-6: Past Sewer Rates
Data Source for Table 19-6: RSD, AFS, 2022b
RSD’s sewer fee is collected on the County tax roll. RSD does not hand-bill residential customers.
RSD does hand-bill a few commercial customers. RSD also has a fee breakdown for restaurants and
commercial based on winter water use. Due to the small size of RSD, they do not have economies of
scale.
19.5: POPULATION
The unincorporated community of Rodeo is a census-designated place (CDP). CDPs are a statistical
geography representing closely settled, unincorporated communities that are locally recognized
and identified by name. In 2020, Rodeo CDP had 9,653 people and 3,202 housing units as described
by the U.S. Census here: <https://data.census.gov/profile?g=1600000US0662490>. However, RSD
provides service to approximately two-thirds of the CDP because the CDP has a different geographic
boundary. In this case, the population estimate is based on the number of wastewater connections.
The RSD serves 2,450 wastewater connections (RSD, 2022a). There are approximately 9,453
residents within the District boundary as of 2020 (per Contra Costa County). Detailed information
regarding population demographics in Contra Costa County is provided in Appendix A. RSD’s
boundary contained 5,241 registered voters as of January 2023.
Two population estimates are provided in Table 19-7 below. The medium estimate utilizes the
California Department of Water Resources variable of 3.3 people per water connection. The 3.3
people per water connection variable was multiplied by the 2,450 connections. The low estimate
uses the 2.71 variable based on the average number of people per household in Contra Costa
County. The 2.71 average number of people per household variable was multiplied by the 2,450
connections. Since the unincorporated portion of the service area includes many small apartment
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
buildings, the District SSMP likely provides an accurate population estimate. Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 19-7: Existing Permanent Population, Rodeo Sanitary District, 2018-2022
Population Scenario Population in Population in SOI
Boundary only (1)
Rodeo Sanitary District – Low Population Estimate
(SSMP) (2018) 8,769 45
Rodeo Sanitary District – Medium Population Estimate
(2020 from Contra Costa County Conservation
Department 9,453 45
(1) Based on an average number of people per parcel.
Projected Future Population: Data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to
project population growth for Contra Costa County, as shown in Table 19-8 below. The population
within the RSD service area is expected to increase by 15.1 percent within the 23-year period. The
District’s 2045 population is projected to be 10,884.
The anticipated future population growth of the community can influence the demand for
wastewater services. However, projecting a community’s future population is complicated due to
varying annexation rates and census tracts that do not match District boundaries.
19.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address municipal
service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in some disadvantaged communities. A
disadvantaged community is defined as a community with a median household income (MHI) of 80% or
less than the statewide MHI. A disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) is an inhabited
community containing 12 or more registered voters that constitute all or a portion of a
“disadvantaged community.” This determination assesses the prospect of including a DUC(s) when
an agency’s SOI is updated or expanded. Additionally, in 2011 SB 244 began requiring cities and
counties to address the infrastructure needs of disadvantaged communities in city and county
general plans, MSRs, and annexation decisions. Therefore, this MSR Update identifies
disadvantaged communities within relevant jurisdictions’ SOI.
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 19-8: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2022 – 2045)
2022 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2020 to
2020 to 2045 2020 to 2045 2045
County of Contra
Costa1 1,156,555 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.1% 174,876 0.61%
Rodeo Sanitary District2 9,453 9,788 10,171 10,494 10,730 10,884 15.13% 1,431 0.56%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060
(Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021. See also 2: California Department of Finance. E-1
Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State: January 1, 2021 and 2022. Sacramento, California.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/.
2: RSD population data based on Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation information.
4: Population projection for Rodeo Sanitary District calculated as 0.8175 percent of the County of Contra Costa population.
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
The MHI for California in 2020 was $83,056 (ACS, 2021). 80 percent of the MCHonI t(r$a6 6C,o4s4t5a )L iAsF tChOe
income threshold used to identify DUC status. 2020 is the base year because data from the US 2020
Census is readily available. Table 19-9 and Figure 19- 9 below show that this MSR Update identifies
disadvantaged communities within the unincorporated community of Rodeo, a Census Designated
Place within the District. LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal, and industrial
water, or structural fire protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of
a SOI update for cities and special districts that provide such services. These services have been
recently reviewed under the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of
Influence Updates (2016), the Contra Costa City Services Municipal Service Review and Sphere of
Influence Study (2nd Round) (2019), and the Contra Costa County-wide Water Service Municipal
Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round) (2014). These services have remained
relatively unchanged since the publication of these reports. Communities within the existing District
boundary or SOI do not lack public services because they either receive services from a municipal
provider or the properties are self-sufficient, relying upon groundwater wells and septic tanks. No
health or safety issues have been identified.
Figure 19- 9: Disadvantaged Communities in Rodeo and Crockett
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-29
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 19-9: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities in Rodeo Sanitary District
Unincorporated Census Tract Geo Census Block Group Median Household
Community ID Number Income in 2020
Rodeo 060133580004 4 $46,324
Rodeo and Crockett 060133580005 5 $38,865
U.S. Census Bureau. November 2, 2021. 2020 American Community Survey 1-Year Experimental
Estimates. Table ID: XK201902. Table Title: Median Household Income In The Past 12 Months (In
2020 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars). Retrieved July 7, 2021 from <https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/acs/data/experimental-data/1-year.html>.
19.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
RSD currently provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for residences and
businesses within its boundaries. RSD is providing adequate service and maintains its
infrastructure. Over the past decade, RSD has conducted ongoing rehabilitation of its infrastructure
and is implementing programs and practices that improve cost efficiency. Prior to and during 2014,
several SOI amendments and annexations to RSD resolved the outstanding boundary issues.
LAFCO’s 2014 MSR described the status of a proposed partnership with the cities of Hercules and
Pinole to provide regional collection and treatment of sewage. The 2014 MSR noted that the proposal
was met with resistance from both cities and has not been pursued or studied (LAFCO, 2014).
Therefore, the 2014 MSR did not identify additional government structure options. RSD’s annual
financial statements indicate it is maintaining stable operations and building up reserve funds.
However, since RSD is a relatively small wastewater service provider, it may experience difficulties
meeting increasingly stringent regulatory requirements in the future. Therefore, this 2024 MSR
suggests that two government structure alternatives be considered.
Maintain the Status Quo
RSD is currently providing adequate wastewater services within its boundaries. The RSD has
developed and implemented a CIP to maintain and upgrade necessary infrastructure (LAFCO, 2014).
RSD has partnered with the cities of Pinole and Hercules in a JPA for wastewater disposal. Through
this JPA, RSD has demonstrated that it is a good partner and can effectively meet its contractual
obligations. The MSR authors recommend this first option to maintain the status quo for RSD’s
existing governance structure and boundaries.
Expand SOI to Include “Tormey”
Figure 19-1 shows the RSD boundary, including the unincorporated community of Tormey and an
area to the north that was a mercury smelter many decades ago. This area has a total of 19
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-30
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
wastewater connections, a mix of residential and commercial. As each property Creonnttaral a Cgorseteam LeAnFtC oOr
lease expires for the residences on Old County Road, the leases are not renewed. The buildings are
razed, and the property left as a vacant lot. This will continue for the remaining properties to provide
a safety buffer for their operations. Therefore, the number of wastewater connections to this area is
expected to decline in the future. In 2004, as part of an agreement between the CA State Lands
Commission, Wickland Oil, et al., a pump station, collection system, and force main were installed
to collect and transport the sewage from this area. Discharge is to RSD’s WPCP via an 8,000-foot
force main. Existing commercial uses will likely continue. The pump station could handle future
connections which would require a capacity analysis and annexation if the proposed connections
are out of the existing District service area.
This alternative is not recommended to be included in the RSD SOI for several reasons. The area is a
former mercury smelter and remains contaminated with toxic waste. It is a designated Superfund
site. This area is located in close proximity to the San Francisco Bay and may be subject to sea level
rise. Any expansion of the SOI or boundary in this area would require a detailed CEQA analysis and
possibly also a NEPA analysis.
Consolidate Sanitary Sewer Service with nearby Service Provider
Through the JPA and shared outfall with the City of Pinole and Hercules, RSD has demonstrated that
it functions as a good partner and meets its responsibilities consistent with contractual
arrangements. However, due to its small size, RSD may face challenges in the future. Therefore,
LAFCO and the RSD may wish to evaluate an alternative option to consolidate sanitary sewer service
with a nearby service provider, such as the cities of Hercules, Pinole, and/or the CCSD. Although this
new option was not evaluated in this MSR, LAFCO may wish to include an evaluation in the next
update of the Wastewater MSR or at a time when any of the entities submit an application to LAFCO.
Such an evaluation should assess the financial and technical feasibility of the proposal to ensure it
is cost-effective before adoption or implementation.
Since the RSD boundaries contain DUCs, it is important to note that LAFCO has a special
responsibility to ensure that present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public
services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies, including needs or deficiencies related to
sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection are provided in any
disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the SOI. Therefore, additional
study is needed prior to implementing this option in the future.
RSD and its neighboring agencies (cities of Hercules and Pinole or the CCSD) have been operating
as separate legal entities governed by different boards of directors. Merging or consolidating
together could provide the following benefits:
• Better utilization of the excess capacity in the RSD’s WPCP (RSD currently uses about half of the
WPCP’s design capacity).
• Economies of scale that can be achieved within a larger operation.
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-31
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
• Ability to optimize human resources since a larger dedicated staff could affCoordn ttroa aClolosctaa tLeA sFtCaOff
resources more efficiently.
• Resource sharing of specialized vehicles and equipment could be enhanced. For example, RSD
may need a combo truck for only 10 percent of the year.
• Sewer maintenance cost efficiencies could be achieved within a larger system.
• Policy decisions could be made under one Board of Directors with a shared mission and vision,
thereby streamlining and broadening policy and leadership decision-making.
• Create unity among workforce and organizational culture, as well as enhance the ability to
recruit and retain the highest quality employees.
• Legally merging the service providers would allow the entities to provide customers with the
most efficient and effective sewage collection, treatment, and resource recovery services.
• Ideally, such a merger would not change any of the sewage services provided—the agencies
would simply become one single service provider for customers.
However, such a proposed merger or consolidation has several downsides. For example, any merger
or consolidation would be complicated. Further study of the tradeoffs and conversations among key
stakeholders would be necessary before moving forward with this concept.
19.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
Table 19-10: MSR Determinations for Rodeo San District
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected The current population within the RSD service area is
area. 9,453 people as of 2020. Over the next 23 years, the
population is expected to increase by 15.1 percent to a
• Is the existing population estimated?
total of 10,884.
• Is the projected future growth
estimated?
Location and characteristics of any RSD’s boundary contains DUCs. The Median
disadvantaged unincorporated Household Income in 2020 within Census Block Group
Numbers 4 and 5 are $46,324 and $38,865,
communities within or contiguous to the
respectively, which falls below the income threshold
sphere of influence.
for DUC status. LAFCO is required to consider the
need for sewer, municipal, and industrial water, or
structural fire protection services within identified
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-32
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI update
for cities and special districts that provide such
services. These services have been recently reviewed
under the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal
Service Review/Sphere of Influence Updates (2016),
the Contra Costa City Services Municipal Service
Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round)
(2019), and the Contra Costa County-wide Water
Service Municipal Service Review and Sphere of
Influence Study (2nd Round) (2014). These services
have remained relatively unchanged since the
publication of these reports. Communities within the
existing District boundary or SOI do not lack public
services because they either receive services from a
municipal provider or the properties are self-sufficient,
relying upon groundwater wells and septic tanks. No
health or safety issues have been identified.
Present and planned capacity of public RSD completed a Comprehensive Wastewater Master
facilities, adequacy of public services, and Plan (CWWMP) (adopted in June 2013) that serves as a
20-year implementation plan for facilities and
infrastructure needs or deficiencies,
operations. Improvements as part of the CWWMP will
including needs or deficiencies related to
assist RSD in operating safely and more efficiently.
sewers, municipal and industrial water,
Replacement projects for high-maintenance sewer
and structural fire protection in any
mains will continue as funds are received for capital
disadvantaged, unincorporated projects.
communities within or contiguous to the
sphere of influence. A 3.6-year term from January 1, 2019, to August 9, 2022,
was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. During this
• Does the agency have a CIP?
3.6-year timeframe, there were two SSO events in the
• Are SSOs identified?
Rodeo Sanitary District. A significant reduction from
• Are local hazards identified? years past.
Rodeo Sanitation District did not participate in the
county-wide Local HMP. However, based on
information provided about the Rodeo area in Volume
2 of the HMP, there is public infrastructure located
within or close proximity to areas subject to identified
hazards. Hazards include low to moderate
Liquefaction Susceptibility; moderate earthquake risk
with Site Class / Soil Profile “D” with stiff soil; and
potential flood hazard areas. It should be noted that
cost-burdened and low-income households are
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-33
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
vulnerable to local hazards. The RSD’s next Sanitary
Sewer Management Plan update should include
information about these hazards. Additionally, it is
recommended that RSD participate in the next update
to the HMP. It would be useful for LAFCO to have
access to detailed spatial mapping of the RSD’s
wastewater infrastructure in relation to the hazards
identified in the HMP prior to the next MSR/SOI.
Financial ability of agencies to provide Rates: The Board of Directors approved a phased-in
services. rate increase schedule from the FY 2018-19 to the FY
2022-23. However, the Board of Directors chose to
• Has the agency prepared a rate
eliminate the Sewer Service Fee increase for the FY
study?
2020–21 in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. The
• Do revenues exceed expenditures?
Board of Directors later continued with the plan phased
• Is the ratio of annual debt service to rate increase for the 2022 and 2023 Fiscal Years. The
total fund annual expenditures 10% or current (FY 2023-24) rate for sewer fees is $1,165.62
less? per year for a single-family home.
Revenues: Revenues exceeded expenditures in four of
the five study years, which is a good indicator of fiscal
health.
Ratio of annual debt service: RSD’s annual debt service
ratio to total expenditures is approximately 17 percent,
a mediocre ratio. It is recommended that LAFCO re-
evaluate this financial metric when it next considers an
application from RSD or the next MSR/SOI update.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared Disposal facilities are shared with the cities of Pinole
facilities. and Hercules through a JPA. Additionally, RSD is a
member of the Bay Area Consortium of Water and
Wastewater Education, which supports and funds a
technical studies program with the Solano Community
College to train and develop potential new candidates
for the industry. RSD also utilizes an intern program to
bring in candidates to prepare for future position
openings. RSD’s food, oil, and grease (FOG) program is
supported in the local community.
The District is also interested in further exploring the
sharing of additional resources with the
Pinole/Hercules wastewater systems and/or CCSD in
mutually beneficial ways.
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-34
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Accountability for community service RSD has demonstrated accountCaobniltirtay Cfoors tcao LmAmFCuOn ity
needs, including government structure service needs, including operational facilities. For
example:
and operational facilities.
• RSD’s website at <https://rodeosan.org/>
provides the public with internet access to Board
• Does the agency have a website?
agendas and minutes, public notices, district
• Does the agency post a public budgets, and audits.
outreach tool (such as a calendar • The RSD publishes the “Pipeline” newsletter to
or newsletter) on its website? update the public on projects and provides helpful
• What is the recommendation for information.
• RSD has a “NextDoor” page and developing a
mergers, consolidations, or other
“FaceBook” page
changes to governance structure?
• RSD is a small operating agency with eight full-
time employees. Due to RSD’s small size, this MSR
describes three potential options regarding future
mergers, consolidations, or other changes to the
governance structure. Based on the analysis, the
MSR authors recommend that LAFCO maintain
the status quo for the RSD governance structure.
Any other matter related to effective or No additional issues have been identified.
efficient service delivery, as required by
commission policy.
19.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE:
Recommendation: It is recommended that LAFCO reconfirm current determinations and SOI for the
RSD.
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires that LAFCO
review and update the SOI for each of the special districts and cities within the county (State of
California Government Code §56133 et seq.). Section 19.7, Government Structure Alternatives,
describes various issues and options associated with changing the structure of this local
government agency and studied three options:
• Maintain the Status Quo
• Expand SOI to Include “Tormey”
• Consolidate Sanitary Sewer Service with nearby Service Provider
LAFCO often accomplishes its government structure issues through changes to boundaries and/or
SOIs. Based on the context provided in this Chapter, one option is recommended for RSD’s SOI,
as listed below.
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-35
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
• Retain the existing SOI: If LAFCO determines that the existing government structure is
appropriate, then the existing SOI should be retained. This option would enable RSD to
continue to include the areas within its SOI in its long-term facilities and capacity planning
based on the adopted land use.
19.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California’s Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
CA Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) - State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.)
California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS) SSO Public Report - Detail Page.
Query run on August 27, 2023 from
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/chc_sso.html>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit California State Data Center.
5/23/2023. Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC)
Data Release. Table 2: Land Area, Population and Population Density for California,
Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP), Census
2020Contributions from U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 1, 2023b. Report E-1 & E-1H,
Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2022 and
2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population
Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage
2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State:
January 1, 2021 and 2022. Sacramento, California.
<https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/>.
Contra Costa County. 2010. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020. Available at:
<http://cacontracostacounty2.civicplus.com/4732/General-Plan>.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Contra Costa LAFCO. August 13, 2008. Final Water and Wastewater Municipal Services Review for
West Contra Costa County. Chapter 6, RSD. 8-pages. Martinez, CA. Contributions from
Dudek Consultants. Retrieved on January 9, 2024 from
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-36
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviewCs/o>n.t ra Costa LAFCO
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. June 12, 2019. City-wide Services Municipal Service Review Update.
Prepared by Lamphier-Gregory Consultants and Berkson Associates. 793-pages. Retrieved
December 2022 from <https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-
reviews/>.
Rodeo Sanitary District. November 3, 2022a. Staff Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information via
ESRI’s 123 Online Survey. 2-pages. Available in LAFCO’s office upon request.
Rodeo Sanitary District. June 2013. Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan. 817-pages.
Contributions from Carollo Engineers. Retrieved on December 10, 2022, from
<https://rodeosan.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/rsd_WastewaterMasterPlan.pdf>.
Rodeo Sanitary District. (2018). Sewer System Management Plan. Assistance provided Larson
Consulting. 94-pages. Retrieved on December 9, 2022, from <https://rodeosan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/11/rsd_SewerSystemMaganementPlan.pdf>.
Rodeo Sanitary District. (n.d.a). About the Rodeo Sanitary District – District at a Glance. Retrieved on
December 7, 2022, from <https://rodeosan.org/about/>.
Rodeo Sanitary District. (n.d.b). Staff (webpage). Retrieved on December 10, 2022, from
<https://rodeosan.org/about/staff/>.
Rodeo Sanitary District. December 1, 2022b. Rodeo Sanitary District Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022 as audited by Mann Urrutia Nelson
CPAs & Associates LLP. Retrieved on December 30, 2023, from <https://rodeosan.org/ >.
Rodeo Sanitary District. December 19, 2023. Annual Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2023 as audited by Munn CPAs LLP, Sacramento. 39-pages.
U.S. Bureau. (n.d.). Explore Census Data. Retrieved December 10, 2022, from
<https://data.census.gov/profile?g=1600000US0662490>.
U.S. Census Bureau. November 2, 2021. 2020 American Community Survey 1-Year Experimental
Estimates. Table ID: XK201902. Table Title: Median Household Income In The Past 12 Months
(In 2020 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars). Retrieved July 7, 2021 from
<https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/experimental-data/1-year.html>.
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-37
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 19-10: Location of Administrative Offices for RSD Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 19: RSD Page 19-38
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Chapter 20: STEGE SANITARY DICSonTtra RCosItaC LATFCO
– WASTEWATER SERVICES
Table of Contents
20.1: OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 20-1
20.2: SSD BOUNDARY & SOI ..................................................................................................................... 20-4
20.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................... 20-7
20.4: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 20-16
20.5: POPULATION ................................................................................................................................ 20-23
20.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ................................................................................................. 20-26
20.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................. 20-27
20.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ............................................. 20-28
20.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ..................................................................................... 20-31
20.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 20-32
20.1: OVERVIEW
The Stege Sanitary District (SSD) was originally organized in 1913 and is one of the oldest special
districts in the Bay Area. SSD directly provides collection of sanitary wastewater from homes and
businesses in the developed area in the southwest portion of the County. Additionally, SSD
cooperates with EBMUD for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. The geographic area
remained relatively rural until significant residential growth occurred in the late 1920s and 1930s.
Extensive development took place following the end of World War II. SSD provides a thorough history
of the district in a 120-page e-book by David Weinstein and available for free as a download from
<https://www.stegesan.org/files/5afd3e669/Stege_100th_anniversary_book_color_full_web_-
_NEW_pg_13.pdf>. The original SSD boundaries were similar to those of today; however, service
within the boundaries has expanded significantly (LAFCO, 2014).
The present service area of SSD comprises 5.3 square miles. It includes the communities of El
Cerrito, Kensington, and the portion of the Richmond Annex west of El Cerrito and south of Potrero
Avenue (SSD, 2022b). SSD’s sphere of influence is coterminous with the district boundary, as shown
in Figure 20-1. The district lies within the San Francisco Bay / Sacramento Delta Estuary watershed.
Additional information about this watershed is provided in Appendix F. SSD’s Agency Profile is shown
in Table 20-1.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-1
Table 20-1: Agency Profile – Stege Sanitary District Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
General Information
Agency Type Independent Special District
Principal Act Health and Safety Code Section 2200 et seq.
Date Formed 1913
Services Wastewater collection
Service Area
Location City of El Cerrito, unincorporated community of Kensington, a portion
of the Richmond Annex community
Sq. Miles/Acres 5.3 square miles/ 3,392 Acres
Land Uses Residential, commercial, industrial, open space
Population Served 35,000 (SSD, 2022b)
Last SOI Update 8/13/2008 and SOI updated 5/14/2014
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities 148 miles of collection lines, 2 pump stations (SSD, 2022b)
Connections 13,123 (SSD, 2022)
Treatment Plant EBMUD treatment plant – Oakland 320 MGD (maximum) (EBMUD, 2021)
Capacity (MGD)
Primary Disposal EBMUD treatment plant disposes of treated effluent through an outfall
Method into San Francisco Bay.
Budget Information- FY 2023-2024
Revenues Expenditures Net
Operating/General Fund $4,890,00 $3,470,661 $1,419,339
Combined Other Funds $3,529 ,00 $5,713,300 -$2,18 4,300
All Funds $8,419 ,00 $9,183,961 -$764,961
FY 2023 -202 4 Long-Term Planned Expenditures
(Budgeted)
Capital Expenditures $5,713,300 Determined annually based on the Sewer
System Management Plan (SSMP) and Master
Plan
Total Assets $64,305,950 June 30, 2023 Financial Statement
Total Net Position $60,320,090 June 30, 2023 Financial Statement- Restricted &
Unrestricted
Governance
Governing Body Board of Directors (5 members)
Agency Contact Rex Delizo, P.E., District Manager, (510) 524-4668
Notes
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 20-1: Boundary/SOI Map – Stege Sanitary District Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
20.2: SSD BOUNDARY & SOI Contra Costa LAFCO
SSD is an independent district formed in 1913 pursuant to the Sanitary District Act of 1923 (Health &
Safety Code §6400 et seq.). The district’s boundary area is 5.3 square miles and includes the
communities of El Cerrito, Kensington, and the portion of the Richmond Annex west of El Cerrito and
south of Potrero Avenue. SSD’s profile is shown in Table 20-1. A map of SSD’s current boundary and
sphere of influence (SOI) is shown in Figure 20-1. Land use within the SSD boundary is described on
Page 20-5, and a geographic summary is shown in Table 20-2 below.
Table 20-2: Geographic Summary of SSD Boundary Area
Name of SSD Community Size
City of El Cerrito Approx 4.0 sq. mi.
Kensington (unincorporated community) Approx. 0.9 sq. mi.
Portion of the Richmond Annex west of El Approx. 0.4 sq. mi.
Cerrito and south of Potrero Avenue.
TOTAL 5.3 sq. mi.
SSD also conveys sewage for approximately 101 homes outside SSD’s boundaries by contract with
the City of Richmond (personal communication, R. Delizo, March 19, 2024). SSD began service to
this area in 1982 at the request of the City of Richmond. The sewer system in this area was badly
damaged in a landslide, and it was determined that it was in the public interest that SSD serve the
area (LAFCO, 2014). A map of this out-of-boundary service is shown in Figure 20-2 below.
Figure 20-2: Out-of-Boundary Service to the City of Richmond area
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Sphere of Influence Contra Costa LAFCO
The Sphere of Influence and the district boundary are coterminous. LAFCO action on 8/13/2008
affirmed the existing SSD boundary and coterminous SOI. LAFCO also reaffirmed the coterminous
boundary and SOI as part of its May 14, 2014 MSR/SOI for water and wastewater services.
Land Use Within the SSD Boundary
SSD is an independent district and does not have land-use authority. Land use within the SSD
boundary varies depending on City and/or County regulations for the specific community. The
service area is comprised of three communities of El Cerrito, Kensington, and the portion of the
Richmond Annex west of El Cerrito and south of Potrero Avenue, as shown in Table 20-3.
Table 20-3: Land Use in Three Communities
Name of SSD Land-Use Summary
Community
City of El Cerrito The City of El Cerrito was incorporated in 1917. El Cerrito is a charter
city with five publicly elected City Council members as described on
their website at < https://www.el-cerrito.org/>. The City provides a
full array of municipal services.
El Cerrito’s General Plan was adopted in 1999. The General Plan
Housing Element for 2015-2023 was adopted and certified in 2015.
Land uses in the City include a mix of residential, commercial, and
open space. There are no agricultural land uses in the City of El
Cerrito.
Portion of the Richmond The City of Richmond was incorporated in 1905. Richmond is a
Annex west of El Cerrito charter city with seven publicly elected City Council members as
described on their website at < https://ci.richmond.ca.us/>. The City
and south of Potrero
provides a wide array of municipal services.
Avenue.
Richmond’s General Plan 2030 was approved on April 25, 2012. The
General Plan Housing Element (6th cycle) was certified by CA HCD on
October 2, 2023. The City contains a variety of housing styles. Several
retail districts provide commercial services to local residents,
including the Hilltop Mall, Downtown Richmond, and the Macdonald
80 Shopping Center. Richmond contains several refineries. The City
is known for its waterfront which contains the San Francisco Bay
Trail. The City contains a total area of 52.5 square miles. However,
SSD serves only a small portion of the City of Richmond (0.4 sq. mi.).
Kensington The unincorporated community of Kensington is governed by the
Contra Costa County General Plan (2010). Contra Costa County has
also approved specialized planning documents for the area,
including the Kensington Planning Ordinance and the Kensington
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) Ordinance. Kensington functions
as a suburb comprised predominately of single-family homes. Two
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
commercial corridors on Arlington Avenue (at AmChoenrtsrta) aCnodst aC LoAluFsCaO
Circle contain a mix of shops, restaurants, cocktail bars, and coffee
shops. Kensington residents have access to several nearby parks.
The Kensington Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC) has five Council
members who solicit public input and advise the County Board of
Supervisors regarding land use and other issues. The Kensington
MAC oversees a defined geographic area described on their website
at: <https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/1641/Kensington-Municipal-
Advisory-Council >.
Several public agencies provide public services to this
unincorporated community, including the Kensington Police
Protection and Community Services District, Kensington Fire
Protection District, and the West Contra Costa Unified School
District. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) provides drinking
water and wastewater treatment services.
Bay Area Regional Plans
The Bay Area Regional Collaborative includes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. This collaborative multi-agency
regional committee allows cross-jurisdictional work on projects such as Resilient Bay Area and
Carbon Free Future. SSD’s boundary/SOI is adjacent to or encompasses a portion of the San
Francisco Bay, a sensitive environmental resource. The California state planning and regulatory
agency, which has regional authority over San Francisco Bay, the Bay’s shoreline band, and the
Suisun Marsh, is called the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).
Its mission is to protect and enhance San Francisco Bay and to encourage the Bay’s responsible and
productive use for this and future generations as described on its website at: <https://bcdc.ca.gov/
>.
Future Growth
SSD’s service area is mostly built out; however, growth may occur through infill and redevelopment.
SSD expects future growth within the district to occur only through the San Pablo Avenue Specific
Plan Area Development and on the few remaining vacant parcels (SSD, SSMP, 2023a). The San Pablo
Avenue Specific Plan allows for new transit-orientated development around the two (2) City of El
Cerrito’s BART stations. SSD charges an impact fee on newly developed units to upgrade the San
Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area sewers. SSD has a replacement plan based on the level of
development anticipated by the City of El Cerrito. The priority of the sewer capacity improvements is
based on the demand for sewer capacity and the timing of the proposed developments as they are
approved and as funding allows (personal communication, R. Delizo, March 19, 2024). Future growth
may result in increased demand for the wastewater collection system. However, SSD carefully plans
its infrastructure to accommodate any future growth.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
20.3: WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
SSD provides wastewater collection services. SSD has approximately 13,123 sewer connections
(SSD, 2022). One SSD connection may serve many individual customers. SSD collects sewage and
conveys it through 148 miles of sewer main line and two pump stations for treatment. Wastewater is
collected and then flows to the Special District #1 Interceptor sewer and the Point Isabel pump
station where it is then conveyed to the EBMUD Wastewater Treatment Facility in Oakland for
treatment (LAFCO, 2014).
SSD has an older wastewater collection system (LAFCO, 2008). Therefore, to ensure adequate
service levels for existing and new customers, SSD has implemented an aggressive sewer main
maintenance and replacement program since 2007 and replaced approximately 21 percent of its
sewer main pipelines. As part of its responsibilities, SSD regularly accomplishes the following:
• Maintains collection system pipelines
• Issue permits for sewer connections and lateral repair
• Inspect new sewer connections and lateral repair
• Operate sewer pump stations
• Plan for improvements to the collection system
• Oversee cost of operation and capital improvements
SSD is located within the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Region 2 – San Francisco
Bay and has Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) # 2SSO10198. The collection system has an
Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) of 3.0 million gallons per day (MGD) and an Average Wet Weather
Flow (AWWF) between 5-6 MGD (LAFCO, 2008). SSD’s sewer mains range from 4 to 60 inches, with
some segments estimated to be over 80 years old. The Canon lift station services 26 homes, and the
Burlingame lift station serves 135 homes and a commercial bottling plant. (LAFCO, 2008).
Sanitary Sewer Management Plan
The Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) for SSD, dated
March 2023, describes key components and objectives,
reflecting the district’s commitment to efficient and
responsible sewer system management. The SSMP includes
several key elements:
• Introduction and Goals: It outlines the district’s
efforts to improve sewer system management, addressing
regulatory requirements and setting goals for best practices,
SSO reduction, capacity assurance, and compliance with
state and federal regulations.
• Organization: The SSMP describes the structure and
responsibilities of the district’s management and staff,
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
including the District Manager, Senior Civil Engineer, and Maintenance SCuopnetrrian tCeonsdtae nLtA. FCO
• Operation and Maintenance Program: It details the district’s practices for maintaining the
sewer system, including preventive operations, inspection activities, and emergency
response.
• Legal Authority: The SSMP discusses the district’s legal authority over the sewer system,
covering aspects like ordinance codes, inflow and infiltration (I&I) control, and fats, oils, and
grease (FOG) management.
• Design and Performance Provisions: The Plan outlines new construction and rehabilitation
standards, ensuring compliance with regional and District standards.
• Spill Emergency Response Plan (SERP): The SSMP includes policies and procedures for
managing sewer overflows and emergencies, detailing the district’s response strategy and
reporting policies.
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
The SSD’s Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, dated April 2024, is an eight-page document that outlines a
comprehensive approach to maintaining and improving the district’s sewer system. It includes
protocols for regular inspection of sewer mains using Closed Circuit Television to ensure timely
repairs and rehabilitation. The plan prioritizes projects based on the severity of defects and the
potential for sanitary sewer overflow (SSO), focusing on areas with the highest contribution to I&I.
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) forecasts significant investments in system rehabilitation and
equipment, complying with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Consent Decree
requirements. Additionally, the Master Plan addresses specific needs for the San Pablo Avenue
Specific Plan Area, including capacity improvements funded by impact fees to support anticipated
development (SSD, 2024).
Figure 20-3. Google Maps Street View of the Stege Sanitary District
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
US EPA Consent Decree Contra Costa LAFCO
The RWQCB made formal complaints regarding water quality problems created by EBMUD’s
wastewater treatment systems and satellite collection systems, including SSD. The complaint
indicated that the wastewater facilities discharged pollutants in violation of their NPDES Permit(s).
This complaint resulted in the Final Consent Decree in the matter of the United States of America et
al. v. East Bay Municipal Utility District1, et.al. The Consent Decree outlines a series of activities and
capital improvements required of EBMUD and the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville,
Oakland Piedmont, and SSD. The agencies are required to reduce wet weather sewage flows to the
EBMUD Wastewater Treatment Facilities and to eventually eliminate the operation of, and
associated discharges from, the EBMUD Wet Weather Treatment Facilities located at Point Isabel in
Richmond, San Antonio Creek, and Oakport in Oakland. SSD’s SSMP and its Master Plan include
projects that allow SSD to remain compliant with the Consent Decree. The US EPA Consent Decree
ends Dec 31, 2035.
In the past, there was not enough capacity at WWTP to accommodate heavy amounts of I&I. Rather
than increasing the capacity of WWTP, stakeholders negotiated the EPA Consent Decree and began
the program to replace pipelines and reduce peak flows. As part of this program, private sewer
laterals owned and maintained by local homeowners are being replaced. In September 2005, the
district implemented lateral testing requirements upon the sale of property. All laterals found to be
defective were required to be repaired or rehabilitated. On October 17, 2011, the district transitioned
from implementation of this program into participation in EBMUD’s Regional Private Sewer Lateral
(PSL) Program. The Regional PSL Program triggers include buying or selling a property, remodeling in
excess of $100,000, or changing the size of the water meter. SSD staff currently works with EBMUD
to coordinate efforts of the regional PSL program. This regional program was initiated partly due to
the EPA Consent Decree and is coordinated on a regional basis by EBMUD in consultation with local
wastewater collectors such as SSD (personal communication, R. Delizo, March 19, 2024).
In April 2024, the U.S. EPA issued a fine to SSD for $25,000 as a result of water quality violations
under the Consent Decree.
Treatment and Disposal
From the EBMUD WWTP in Oakland, treated effluent is discharged to the San Francisco Bay.
According to the EBMUD website, dried biosolids are disposed of through land application on farms,
feedstock for compost, or serve as daily cover at landfills (EBMUD, n.d.).
Local Hazards
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2, dated January 2018, maps critical
infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards (Contra Costa
1 The Consent Decree was issued on September 22, 2014, by the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
approved for the Consolidated Case Nos. C09-00186-RS and C09-05684-RS, DOJ Case No. 90-5-1-1-09361/2.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
County, 2018). SSD did not participate in the county-wide Hazard MitiCgaotniotrna CPolastna. LIAt FCisO
recommended that SSD contact the Emergency Services Manager at the Contra Costa County
Office of Emergency Services and formally request that SSD be invited to participate in the next
update to the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Alternatively, SSD could prepare detailed spatial mapping of
the district’s wastewater infrastructure in relation to the identified hazards, and this should be
conducted prior to LAFCO’s next update to the Wastewater Services MSR/SOI.
In its 2023 SSMP, the SSD notes the following:
A significant challenge for the District is ground movement caused by several active
earthquake faults, including the Hayward Fault that essentially bisects the District.
Frequent seismic movement and periodic earthquakes can crack pipes and loosen
joints, particularly with clay pipe. In a severe earthquake, major pipelines can be
sheared and/or severely offset. There is also a significant, well-known active slide
area in the District known as the Blakemont Slide. There is continuous land
movement in this region that impacts all utilities including District main sewer lines
(SSD, SSMP, 2023a).
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted
systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California
Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General
Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. WQ
2022-0103-DWQ (SSS WDRs), on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate a
sanitary sewer system comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a
publicly owned treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A
3.6-year term from January 1, 2019, to August 9, 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The
results of the database queries regarding SSD are listed below in Table 20-4 (next page).
During this 3.6-year timeframe, there were 31 SSO events in the SSD boundary area. All the SSOs
had failure points at the gravity mainline. The majority of the overflows were relatively small. The
largest spill in the query had a volume of 14,000 gallons and took place on October 24, 2021. This
spill occurred due to a rainfall event exceeding design capacity, and none of the spill material was
recovered. All the spill material reached surface water. Another significant spill occurred on January
16, 2019, with a volume of 4,250 gallons. This spill occurred due to heavy rains and grease blockage.
None of the spill material was recovered, and all the material reached surface water. In the next MSR,
LAFCO should re-assess this metric.
Sometimes, SSO events are related to stormwater events, which result in I&I issues. SSD
coordinates with local storm drain providers to address this issue. For example, Contra Costa Flood
Control and Water Conservation District (CCFCWCD) provides stormwater service to the
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 20-4: Stege Sanitary District Sanitary Sewer Overflows
Contra Costa LAFCO
EVENT Region Responsible SSO WDID Start Date SSO Vol of SSO Vol SSO SSO Failure
ID Agency Category Vol Recovered Reached Point
Surface
Water
882782 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 8/8/2022 15 10 0 Gravity
Mainline
881673 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 6/8/2022 80 80 0 Gravity
Mainline
881345 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 5/7/2022 1 1 0 Gravity
Mainline
880443 2 SSD Category 2 2SSO10198 3/19/2022 3,433 0 0 Gravity
Mainline
879429 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 2/3/2022 23 23 0 Gravity
Mainline
879201 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 1/29/2022 15 0 0 Gravity
Mainline
878899 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 1/17/2022 25 0 0 Gravity
Mainline
878695 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 12/29/2021 205 140 0 Gravity
Mainline
877335 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 10/20/2021 5 0 0 Gravity
Mainline
877077 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 10/24/2021 5 0 0 Gravity
Mainline
877076 2 SSD Category 1 2SSO10198 10/24/2021 14,000 0 14,000 Gravity
Mainline
876614 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 9/8/2021 10 0 0 Gravity
Mainline
876448 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 9/11/2021 25 0 0 Gravity
Mainline
876229 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 9/1/2021 52 52 0 Gravity
Mainline
871389 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 12/22/2020 6 6 0 Gravity
Mainline
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
870960 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 12/13/2020 36 36 0 Gravity
Contra Costa LAFCO
Mainline
867951 2 SSD Category 1 2SSO10198 6/25/2020 117 12 105 Gravity
Mainline
866282 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 4/17/2020 151 26 0 Gravity
Mainline
865842 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 3/23/2020 5 5 0 Gravity
Mainline
864412 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 1/23/2020 10 10 0 Gravity
Mainline
863960 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 12/27/2019 42 42 0 Gravity
Mainline
863254 2 SSD Category 2 2SSO10198 11/30/2019 1,512 0 0 Gravity
Mainline
862940 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 11/9/2019 154 40 0 Gravity
Mainline
861065 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 9/1/2019 1 1 0 Gravity
Mainline
860587 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 8/2/2019 562 0 0 Gravity
Mainline
860559 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 8/16/2019 10 10 0 Gravity
Mainline
858035 2 SSD Category 3 2SSO10198 4/30/2019 25 0 0 Gravity
Mainline
856117 2 SSD Category 1 2SSO10198 2/13/2019 2,600 0 2,600 Gravity
Mainline
856113 2 SSD Category 1 2SSO10198 2/13/2019 2,400 0 2,400 Gravity
Mainline
855913 2 SSD Category 2 2SSO10198 2/2/2019 1,000 0 0 Gravity
Mainline
855410 2 SSD Category 1 2SSO10198 1/16/2019 4,250 0 4,250 Gravity
Mainline
Data Source: CA Environmental Protection Agency. State Water Resources Control Board. California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS)
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database. Retrieved January 2023 from
<https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet?reportAction=criteria&reportId=sso_main >.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
unincorporated areas such as Kensington. The City of El Cerrito has its own sCtoonrmtr ad Craoisnt as yLsAtFeCmO,
which City staff maintains. The City of Richmond also has its own storm drains. SSD’s sewer lines
are not connected to storm drains. However, private sewer laterals in the area may contribute to I&I
issues. EBMUD coordinates a regional approach to address private sewer laterals, consistent with
the US EPA Consent Decree previously described.
From July to October 2022, San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known as a
red tide, as described in Appendix F. The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma
akashiwo, can cause water to turn reddish-brown. The HAB extended throughout the open-bay
regions of the South Bay, the Central Bay and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths linked to the red tide
were reported to include sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, and anchovy. The San
Francisco Bay Water Board is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay through the Nutrient
Management Strategy, which includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other
agencies to study the potential impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. SSD has an opportunity
to assist with this effort by continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by discussing the
nutrient problem with other wastewater districts and the Water Board.
Infrastructure Needs
Existing Infrastructure: The district maintains various equipment, vehicles2, infrastructure, and
associated assets. SSD has an aged sewer collection system (LAFCO, 2014). Prior to 2014, SSD
implemented several key capital projects, including the construction of a new administration and
operations building, the purchase of a new hydro-vactor, and design planning for a pump station
rehabilitation project (LAFCO, 2014). SSD reports that as of July of 2013, it had replaced 165,000 feet
of sewer main lines, which was 21 percent of the total system. More recently, the district’s CIP totals
approximately $35 million in expenditures for FY 2020 to FY 2029 (SSD, 2023a). The CIP is organized
to fund system rehabilitation, capital equipment, and other capital (SSD,2023). As a result of
agreements with regional agencies and good operations practices, SSD began a sewer main
replacement program resulting in many sewer main replacements. The Sewer System Master Plan
was also updated and adopted in 2022.
Future Challenges
Factors influencing the district’s ability to collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater and provide
public service to customers were considered. District staff indicates that factors such as the
economy, inflation, increasing construction costs, increasing health care costs, traffic, drought, sea
2
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the district, it is likely that sometime in the future, the
district may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting veh icles reliant upon an alternative energy source
such as electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore,
alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
level rise, and many other factors affect their ability to serve customers (SSD, 20C2o2n)t.r a Costa LAFCO
Wastewater service providers in the Bay Area face several future challenges, including anticipated
Nutrient Management Regulations. The RWQCB is expected to implement interim SF Bay-wide and
individual WWTP effluent limits. To protect water quality and local fish, this may include aggressive,
long-term SF Bay-wide nutrient limits based on current scientific information with a multi-year
compliance schedule.
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 has several recommended remedies for
California’s aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a wastewater
treatment plant is, what kind of waste it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the sewer
pipes. Continue educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom to call
if such an event occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling (ASOCE, 2019)
Cooperative Programs
SSD works closely with EBMUD, which provides sewage treatment directly and is also the drinking
water provider for the area. SSD and EBMUD share information. For example, EBMUD provides
annual water data to SSD for use in calculating commercial charges, which have rates based on
water usage (i.e., per gallon for commercial) (personal communication, R. Delizo, March 19, 2024).
SSD is also a member of the Collection System Technical Advisory Committee (CSTAC) Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) to coordinate studies, reports and projects, jointly fund efforts related to the regional
system for wastewater collection, transmission, and treatment, and facilitate the efficient flow of
information among the agencies and the filing of joint reports to appropriate recipients. This JPA was
formed in 2019 and includes six agencies within EBMUD’s Special District #1 (Alameda, Albany,
Berkeley, Emeryville, Piedmont, SSD, and EBMUD).
SSD currently provides conveyance service to 101 homes outside its current boundaries by contract
with the City of Richmond 101 (personal communication, R. Delizo, March 19, 2024). LAFCO’s 2014
MSR noted that due to various engineering and liability issues, SSD has no plans to pursue
annexation of this area in the future (LAFCO, 2014).
SSD participates in several cooperative programs to operate effectively and educate customers on
properly using the sewer system (LAFCO, 2014). Through these efforts, sewer spills are a relative
minimum in number and volume (less than 15,000 gallons) (CIWQS, 2023). Additionally, SSD
participates in an innovative program to increase efficiency and further reduce sewer spills known
as the “Private Sewer Lateral (PSL) Replacement Loan Program.” This program is designed to
encourage property owners to protect and preserve the environment by offering a no-interest
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
deferred payment loan of up to $10,000 to replace PSLs. The program is availCaobnletr ato C aolslt pa rLoApFeCrtOy
owners within the SSD boundary that have not triggered EBMUD’s concurrent Regional PSL Program
requirements.
SSD has been recognized by its peers and associations for its excellence in service delivery. These
awards demonstrate SSD’s good governance practices and operations as follows:
• District of Distinction: The SSD is currently accredited as a District of Distinction through the
Special District Leadership Foundation (SDLF). The District of Distinction accreditation is one
of the most prestigious local government awards in the state of California and clearly
validates the district’s commitment to good governance, andto ethical and sound operating
practices. SSD has been re-accredited as a District of Distinction since 2009.
• Transparency Certificate of Excellence: The SSD is a current holder of the SDLF District
Transparency Certificate of Excellence. The certificate, covering three main subject areas,
including basic transparency, website access, and outreach activities, highlights the core
components necessary to engage and make information available to the public. The
certificate demonstrates the district’s commitment to engaging the public and creating
greater awareness of District activities. The district has been a holder of this certificate since
2013.
• Recognition in Special District Governance: District Manager Rex Delizo is a recipient of the
SDLF Recognition in Special District Governance. This recognition demonstrates to
constituents and colleagues the extent of their commitment and dedication to providing the
best possible service to the communities they serve by acknowledging that they have taken
the time and made the effort to get core governance training and continuing education.
• California Sanitation Risk Management Authority (CSRMA) 2020/21 Workers’ Compensation
Excellence Award: The SSD has been awarded the California Sanitation Risk Management
Authority (CSRMA) 2020/21 Workers’ Compensation Excellence Award. This award
recognizes Districts within the CSRMA Pooled Workers’ Compensation Program that have
successfully implemented soft tissue/ strain related injury prevention efforts, such as a job
hazard analysis to evaluate the top ten tasks/equipment that have the highest risk of injury if
operated/performed incorrectly. This is the third time the district has received this award.
• Collection System of the Year Award: The SSD has been honored with the California Water
Environment Association (CWEA) San Francisco Bay Section 2020 Collection System of the
Year Award, Small System Category (0-249 Miles). The CWEA award is designed to honor
exceptional wastewater agencies based on excellent regulatory compliance, administrative
procedures, maintenance programs, safety programs, training programs, emergency
procedures, and significant accomplishments over the past year.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
• National Environmental Achievement Award: The SSD is part of a collective that was honored
with the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) 2020 National
Environmental Achievement Award (NEAA), Operations & Environmental Performance
Category, for the “East Bay Wet Weather Collaboration to Significantly Reduce Infiltration
and Inflow”. The NACWA NEAA recognizes an innovative and effective project, system, or
method relating to wastewater treatment plant or collection system operations developed
and successfully implemented in a cost-effective manner while achieving environmental
compliance objectives. EBMUD and the seven satellite collection system agencies of
Albany, Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Piedmont, and the Stege Sanitary District,
under a collaboratively negotiated Consent Decree with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, use an asset management based approach to reduce infiltration and inflow at the
source, rather than designing, constructing, and operating costly new storage and/or
treatment facilities. The approach includes identifying and eliminating major sources of
Infiltration and Inflow, rehabilitating main sewer lines, and implementing a Regional Private
Sewer Lateral (PSL) program that requires property owners to demonstrate that their PSLs
are leak-free.
• Exceptional Public Outreach & Advocacy Award: At the 50th Anniversary Annual Conference
of the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) held in September 2019, the district
received the CSDA Exceptional Public Outreach & Advocacy Award (Small District Category)
for its 10-year partnership with KIDS for the BAY inspiring new generations of
environmentalists with an increased awareness of watershed stewardship.
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
SSD participates in several regional programs including those with EBMUD and local cities that help
to reduce costs. Joint maintenance programs and training reduce repair costs and liability claims
(LAFCO, 2014).
20.4: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
SSD’s Annual Budget and Certified Annual Financial Reports are the primary information sources for
this analysis. These reports are posted on the district’s website at:
<https://www.stegesan.org/audits>. The financial analysis below represents a snapshot of time.
However, SSD regularly updates its financial data, and readers may review the new data on SSD’s
website. SSD operates as an enterprise-type activity, with its primary revenue source being service
charges and fees. Overall, SSD’s financial status is stable as operations expenditures are currently
fully met by revenues received. Five primary areas of criteria were utilized to assess the present and
future financial condition of SSD’s wastewater service operations, as discussed below.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
3 Year Revenue/Expenditure Trends Contra Costa LAFCO
SSD reported operating revenues of $6,793,749 for FY 2023, with the majority coming from sewer
service charges. Non-operating revenues, including property tax collections and investment income,
amounted to $752,718. Overall, the district had total revenues of $7,546,467 for FY 2023,
representing a 10.22% increase compared to the previous fiscal year (SSD, 2023b). Total revenues
exceeded total expenses in each of the five study years, as shown in Figure 20-4 below.
Figure 20-4: Comparison of Total Revenue to
Total Expenses
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
Total Revenues Total Expenses
Data Source: SSD Annual Financial Statements FY2019-2023
Sufficient revenue was collected to support operational and maintenance expenditures. Rate
increases have been implemented over the last several years to ensure revenues are sufficient to
meet operational and capital project expenditures.
Annual Budget: Table 20-5 summarizes the 2023-2024 annual budget for the district, including
revenue and expenses for the upcoming year. The budget includes details on fund balances,
operating expenses, and future costs. The document shows increases in operating and capital
expenses and specific categories such as salaries and wages, employee benefits, and contracted
repairs. The budget projection for FY 2023/24 indicates that expenses may exceed revenues, as
shown in Table 20-5 below. If the projected budget deficit materializes, the deficit will be covered by
transfers from the Working Capital and Reserve Fund.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 20-5: Budget Projection for FY 2023/24 Contra Costa LAFCO
Data Source for Table 20-5: SSD, Summer 2023 Newsletter, The Endeavor, Retrieved from
<https://www.stegesan.org/endeavor-newsletter >.
Ratios of Revenue Sources
SSD receives most of its revenue from sewer service charges, which totaled $6,744,927 (89 percent)
in FY 2022-23. The remaining revenue sources for FY 2022-23 include other operating revenues at
$48,822 (one percent); property tax at $660,347 (nine percent); interest and investment income at
$43,016 (zero percent); and other non-operating revenues at $49,355 (one percent) of the total (SSD,
2023b). The sources and ratio of total revenue are summarized in Figure 20-5 below. Since SSD
receives a small portion of its revenue from property tax, any impact on this revenue due to future
economic downturns would have an insignificant impact on SSD.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
FIGURE 20-5: REVENUE SOURCES, RATIOS Contra Costa LAFCO
FISCAL YEAR JUNE 30, 2023
Sewer service charges Other operating revenues
Property tax Interest and investment income
Other non-operating revenues
1%
9%
0%
1%
89%
Data Source for Figure 20-5: SSD, 2023
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
In June 2010, SSD’s reserve3 policy was modified as part of its rate planning process, and targets
were established for two funds: the Operating Fund and the Capital Fund (LAFCO, 2014). SSD’s
Working Capital and Reserve Fund Policy was most recently updated in June 2022 and is available
on the district’s website.
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited
by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to
the annual fund expenditures. SSD’s Audited Financial Statement defines cash and cash equivalents
as including amounts in demand deposits as well as short-term investments with original maturities
of three months or less. Included therein are cash on hand, demand deposits with financial
institutions, and the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). For purposes of this
MSR analysis, the cash and cash equivalents balance will be referred to as the “Fund Balance.” The
district’s cash and cash equivalents are composed of deposits and short-term investments. Cash
and investments totaled approximately $11,975,925 in June 2023, as shown in Table 20-6. The Ratio
of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to the annual fund
3
LAFCO’s 2014 MSR noted that “The reserve target for the Capital Fund is $1,500,000 which allows SSD to have
$1,000,000 available for emergency capital costs and $500,000 for other capital costs. For the Operating Fund,
SSD maintains a reserve target consisting of 60 percent of annual O&M costs. For FY 13/14, the reserve target
for the Operating Fund w as $1,437,319 and the total reserve target for both the Operating and the Capital Fund
is $2,937,319. As of July 1, 2013, cash on hand was $2,837,092 which equates to 97 percent of the total reserve
target” (LAFCO, 2014).
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
expenditures is approximately 3.0 for SSD as of June 30, 2023, which calculates Ctoo n3t0r0a pCeorsctea nLtA. FThCiOs
represents a solid ratio for positive fiscal health.
Table 20-6: Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments as of June 30, 2023
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. SSD has several types of debt related to
wastewater services, as listed in Table 20-7. Long-term liabilities totaled 3,015,219 as of June 30,
2023. The annual debt service expenditure is $196,272.
Table 20-7: SSD Long-Term Liabilities as of June 30, 2023
Balance Balance Due Within
Long-term Liabilities July 01, 2022 Additions Deductions June 30, 2023 One Year
Direct Borrowings:
SRF Loan C-06-4665-210 $ 165,695 $ - $ 39,962 $ 125,733 $ 40,921
Net OPEB Liability 292,464 139,070 125,104 306,430 -
Net Pension Liability 989,167 1,602,897 475,062 2,117,002 -
Compensated Absences 440,089 166,836 140,871 466,054 155,351
Total Long-term Liabilities $ 1,887,415 $ 1,908,803 $ 780,999 $ 3,015,219 $ 196,272
Data Source: SSD, Financial Statements And Independent Auditor’s Report, June 30, 2023
Total expenditures in FY 2022/23 were $3,960,770 (SSD, 2023b). The ratio of annual debt service to
total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of SSD’s ability to meet debt obligations in relation to
service provision expenditures. Ideally, a ratio of 10 percent or less would reflect a very stable ratio.
SSD’s annual debt service ratio ($196,272) to total expenditures ($3,960,770) is approximately five
percent, a very good ratio.
Capital Improvement Program
Existing Infrastructure Improvements: SSD recently completed several capital improvement
projects4 , as listed below.
4 LAFCO’s 2014 MSR on Wastewater Services noted that a new administration building was built in 2010, and
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
• Pipes in Canon Drive: In 2021, the district replaced an 80-year-old pipeC oanlotnrag CCoasntao nL ADFrCivOe
with two pressurized sewer pipes. The project was completed ahead of schedule and under
budget.
• San Pablo Avenue Improvement Plan: The first stage of sewer upgrades to San Pablo Avenue
was recently completed in 2021. A special impact fee to pay for required sewer upgrades in
the improvement area is assessed to the area developers. Existing District ratepayers did not
see any increase in their sewer charges because of this work.
• Standard Sewer Rehabilitation: The district has an ongoing program to replace aging clay
pipes (some of which are 100 years old) with High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipes. The
new HDPE pipes are better able to withstand earth movement and repel tree root intrusions.
More than 12,000 feet of pipe is replaced each year.
Proposed Improvements:
• CANON PUMP STATION REHABILITATION PROJECT: The district is drawing up plans to
rehabilitate the pump station on Canon Drive, which was built in 1962 and has undergone
only minor updates since then. The pump station now needs significant upgrades to bring it
up to modern safety and reliability standards. Construction is slated to begin in 2024. The
project consists of converting the existing dry pit/wet well sanitary sewer pump station to a
wet well pump station with new submersible pumps (provide spare 3rd pump), including a
control panel, shade structure, and electrical work. The construction contractor will bypass
sanitary sewer flows without interruption during construction. Existing redwood trees will be
removed. Additionally, new underground conduits will be constructed. A PG&E power pole
will be removed. The project site will transition power to a new electrical service. Site
surfacing work includes new concrete paving work and fencing. The cost of this project may
exceed $ 1 million.
• SSD’s FY 2023/24 budget indicates that the FY 2023-24 Capital Expenses total $5,713,300.
Construction costs total $4,884,400 (85.5%), which includes $3,473,000 for the annual
sewer rehabilitation project, $324,400 for the Private Sewer Lateral Replacement Loan
Program (funding limited to property tax revenue), $50,000 for interceptor cleaning, $25,000
for maintenance hole adjustments, and $10,000 for capital work on the administration
building (funded by the Building Reserve Fund). The capital equipment expenses total
$785,000 (13.7%).
The SSD’s Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, dated March 2023, detailed on page 20-10, describes the CIP.
The district’s CIP totals ~$39 million in expenditures over the course of FY 2020 to FY 2029 (SSD,
2024). The plan is organized into three funding groups:
• System Rehabilitation: complies with the USEPA Consent Decree and includes the annual
pipe-bursting project;
a new hydro-vactor was purchased in 2013. In FY 13/14, $220,000 was allocated to a pump station
rehabilitation project which has since been completed (LAFCO, 2014).
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
• Capital Equipment: includes smaller value capital items, including flCoown tmrae Cteorsst,a vLeAhFicClOe
replacement, maintenance hole covers; and
• Other Capital: includes administration building repairs, pump station rehabilitation, and
interceptor cleaning.
A summary of the ten-year financial plan for the Capital Improvements Plan and Contracted Repairs
is listed in Table 20-8 below.
Table 20-8: Ten-Year CIP Budget
Data Source for Table 20-8: SSD Master Plan, 2024
Capital expenditures are generally determined annually and funded from revenues and reserve fund
balance.
Rate Structure
LAFCO’s 2014 MSR noted that SSD had a flat rate structure for residential single-family home
customers. Since most of SSD’s costs, including equipment, sewer repairs/replacements, and
salaries/benefits, are fixed and not based on the amount of actual wastewater flow or water usage,
SSD does not anticipate changing the flat rate structure for residential sewer service (LAFCO, 2014).
Sewer Service Charges are established to cover the cost of the operation, maintenance, and capital
improvements to the sanitary sewer system. SSD is only responsible for the collection of sanitary
sewer flows, and the SSD Sewer Service Charge reflects this. SSD collects sanitary sewer flows from
its service area and delivers it to EBMUD for wastewater treatment. EBMUD charges a separate fee
for wastewater treatment, in addition to the SSD Sewer Service Charge.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
SSD’s service rate structure reflects fixed rate fees for its residential customers. The current
residential rates are as follows:
• Single-Family Residence: FY 2023-2024: $429/year
• Multi-Family Residence: FY 2023-2024: $297/year
Commercial rates are a fixed rate fee applied to annual water consumption. The current (FY 2023-
2024) annual commercial fee is $9.02 per each 1,000 gallons of water consumption. SSD raised fees
each year for the last several years.
SSD’s sewer service charges cover the cost of operating and maintaining the sanitary sewer
collection system. SSD collects and delivers sanitary wastewater to EBMUD for treatment. EBMUD
charges a separate fee for wastewater treatment. Sewer service charges are collected through the
annual property tax bills issued by the County. The County’s bill includes the line item “STEGE
SEWER CHG” that are the fees assessed to a property by SSD.
Sewer Rate Study
A Sewer Rate Study was completed by Lechowicz & Tseng Municipal Consultants in 2019, and the
SSD Board considered this study during a public meeting on June 27, 2019. Based on this Sewer Rate
Study, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2121-0619. This Sewer Rate Study was updated in 2024
and was considered during the Board’s January 18, 2024 meeting. The rate updates are in progress.
20.5: POPULATION
There were approximately 38,270 residents within the district boundaries as of 2020 per the Contra
Costa Conservation Department5, as listed in Table 20-9 below. Of the 38,270 residents within the
district boundaries, it is estimated that 100 percent receive wastewater services from SSD. Detailed
information regarding population demographics in Contra Costa County is provided in Appendix A.
5 In 2022, Stege Sanitary District estimated their population at 35,000 persons (SSD, 2022b).
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 20-9: Existing Permanent Population, Stege Sanitary District, 2020 Contra Costa LAFCO
Name of District Population in Number of Registered Population in SOI
Boundary(1) Voters in Boundary(2) only(3)
SSD 38,270 23,917 as of June 12, 2019 N/A
Sources:
(1) Contra Costa Conservation Department.
(2). Registered Voter data provided by Contra Costa LAFCO Directory through the County
Elections Office.
(3) The Sphere of Influence and the district boundary are coterminous and have the same
population.
This population is split among three geographic areas, as shown in Table 20-10 below.
Table 20-10: Population Summary of SSD Boundary Area
Name of SSD Community Population Size (2020)
City of El Cerrito 1 25,484
Kensington (CDP)2 5,428
Portion of the Richmond Annex west of El 7,358
Cerrito and south of Potrero Avenue.
TOTAL3 38,270
Data Source:
1CA Dept of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, Report E-1 & E-1H, Population and
Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State for January 1, 2022 and 2023
2U. S. Census Quick Facts at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts
3Contra Costa LAFCO based on data from Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation.
Land use is indirectly related to population. SSD’s service area is largely built out, with growth limited
to a few remaining vacant parcels and revitalization/intensification of existing commercial areas
(LAFCO, 2014).
Projected Future Population: Projecting a district’s future population is complicated due to varying
annexation rates and census tracts that do not match District boundaries. Data from the California
Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth for Contra Costa County, as
shown in Table 20-11 below. The anticipated future population growth of the district has the potential
to influence the demand for the provision of wastewater services - see the projections in Table 20-
11 below.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 20-11: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2022 – 2045)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2022 to
2022 to 2045 2022 to 2045 2045
Contra Costa County1 1,156,555 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.1% 174,876 0.61%
Stege Sanitary District
38,270 39,632 41,182 42,490 43,445 44070 15.15% 5,800 0.57%
2,3,4
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-
2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
2: California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State: January 1, 2021, and 2022.
Sacramento, California. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/.
3: SSD. (2023a). Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). 38-pages. Retrieved on March 2024, from <https://www.stegesan.org/ >.
4: Population projection for SSD calculated as 3.31 percent of the County of Contra Costa population.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3 rd Round)
20.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES Contra Costa LAFCO
Identifying disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) allows public agencies, cities, and
counties to address municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in some
disadvantaged communities. Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part of this MSR
Update. Data query results showed no disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within
the district’s boundary or SOI.
SSD’s boundaries include the City of El Cerrito, a portion of the City of Richmond, and the
unincorporated community of Kensington. El Cerrito and Richmond areas contain disadvantaged
communities within their boundary, as shown in Figure 20-6 below.
Figure 20-6: Disadvantaged Communities within the SSD
Readers can learn more about disadvantaged communities within the SSD and Contra Costa County
through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services database of socioeconomic and health
indicators in disadvantaged communities called the Environmental Justice Explorer Database. This
database can be queried at <https://onemap.cdc.gov/portal/apps/sites/#/eji-explorer>. Query
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3 rd Round)
results indicate that disadvantaged communities near the El Cerrito area may exCpoenriternac Ceo hsatard LsAhFipCsO,
including:
• Potentially Hazardous & Toxic Sites such as National Priority List Sites, Toxic Release
Inventory Sites, and Risk Management Plan Sites
• Housing Built Pre-1980
• Transportation infrastructure that emits air pollution, such as High-Volume Roads (I-80) and
Railways
• Households where English is spoken “Less than Well”
• Air pollution from diesel particulate matter
• Low-income households that experience poverty, no high school diploma, unemployment,
housing tenure, and housing (rent) burdened
20.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
SSD provides wastewater collection services to an urban area. SSD employs a professional staff of
ten employees (five employees in the office and five in the field). The average longevity of employees
is over 15 years, allowing SSD to retain institutional knowledge of its service area. SSD publishes an
annual performance report prepared by management for use by the district’s Board of Directors to help
evaluate the value of the service being delivered to SSD customers as posted on its website at:
<https://www.stegesan.org/performance-report#body_file-79e47002-fc7e-4929-9a45-
d16416816d27>.
SSD may face several future issues, including an aging wastewater collection system and
increasingly stringent water quality standards. The district has planned for these service needs
through its CIP and rate structure. However, there will be a continued need for cost-effective
wastewater services within the SSD boundary area. LAFCO’s 2014 MSR identified two government
structure options for SSD, and LAFCO’s 2008 MSR identified one government structure option. These
three options are described in the following paragraphs.
Maintain the status quo
SSD is currently providing adequate wastewater collection services for residences and businesses
within its boundaries (LAFCO, 2014). SSD is rehabilitating its collection system and has planned for
future capital needs. Since 2008, funding for system rehabilitation projects has increased. In
addition, SSD’s financial situation is stable, with a healthy reserve fund balance that provides a good
capability to absorb short-term impacts. It is recommended that LAFCO retain SSD’s existing
boundary and SOI.
Annex the area being served outside the SSD boundaries
SSD currently provides conveyance service to 101 homes outside its current boundaries by contract
with the City of Richmond. Located along the base of the San Pablo Ridge, these parcels are located
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3 rd Round)
along the northeast boundary of SSD and the City of El Cerrito and are accessed vCiao nRtifrlae CRoasntgae L RAoFaCdO.
This area is prone to landslide activity. The City of Richmond constructed a costly conveyance
system using three lift stations and approximately four miles of sewer mains to provide service to
this area. In 1982, a landslide severed the service mains providing service to this area. At that time,
it was determined that emergency service in the area could best be provided by SSD. Due to various
engineering and liability issues associated with the annexation of these parcels to SSD (which are
outside the scope of this MSR), SSD has stated that there are no plans to annex this area in the near
future (LAFCO, 2014). MSR Authors queried SSD staff about whether there are any anticipated
changes to the district SOI and/or service boundary in the next five years. District staff reported no
anticipated changes to the district’s SOI and/or service boundary in the next five years (SSD, 2022).
Merge or Consolidate with EBMUD or West County Wastewater District
Although EBMUD provides wastewater conveyance, treatment, and disposal services within the East
Bay, it does not provide local wastewater collection services to the subject area. LAFCO’s 2008 MSR
noted that a reorganization between SSD and EBMUD was not considered as an option at that time.
However, SSD may wish to study this option in the future to determine whether it would help solve
any future challenges encountered.
SSD shares its northern boundary with the West County Wastewater District (WCWD); however, the
two systems are designed to take advantage of gravity flow and use separate treatment and disposal
facilities (LAFCO, 2008). Therefore, a reorganization of SSD and WCWD is not considered a feasible
option at this time. However, SSD may wish to study this option in the future to determine whether it
would help solve any future challenges encountered. For example, the SSD may voluntarily choose
to pursue the preparation of a focused study evaluating the feasibility/cost-effectiveness of merging
its wastewater operations with nearby wastewater service provider as a potential long-term
governance alternative.
20.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3 rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 20-12: MSR Determinations for SSD
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATION
Growth and Population for the affected SSD provides wastewater collection services for
area. approximately 38,270 people, with a total of about
• Is the existing population estimated? 13,123 sewer connections. The service area is
• Is the projected future growth largely built out, with growth limited to a few
estimated? remaining vacant parcels and revitalization of
existing commercial areas. The future population in
the year 2045 is estimated to be approximately
40,342.
Location and characteristics of any There are no DUCs located within, or contiguous
disadvantaged unincorporated to, the SSD SOI.
communities within or contiguous to the
sphere of influence.
Present and planned capacity of public SSD has an aged sewer collection system. As a
facilities, adequacy of public services, and result of agreements with regional agencies and
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, good operations practices, SSD has continued its
including needs or deficiencies related to sewer main replacement program, and trouble
sewers, municipal and industrial water, locations are being maintained more aggressively.
and structural fire protection in any The Sewer System Master Plan was also updated
disadvantaged, unincorporated and adopted in 2022. There are no DUCs located
communities within or contiguous to the within, or contiguous to, the SSD SOI.
sphere of influence.
• Does the agency have a CIP? A 3.6-year term from January 1, 2019, to August 9,
• Are SSOs identified? 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database.
• Are local hazards identified? During this 3.6-year timeframe, there were 31 SSO
events in the SSD boundary area.
The SSD did not participate in the county-wide
Hazard Mitigation Plan. It is recommended that
both SSD and LAFCO contact the Emergency
Services Manager, Contra Costa County Office of
Emergency Services, and formally request that SSD
be invited to participate in the next update to the
Hazard Mitigation Plan. Alternatively, SSD could
prepare detailed spatial mapping of the district’s
wastewater infrastructure in relation to hazards
identified and this should be conducted prior to
LAFCO’s next update to the Wastewater Services
MSR/SOI.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-29
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3 rd Round)
Financial ability of agencies to provide SSD prepared a Sewer Rate StudCyo Unptrdaa Cteo isnta 2 L0A24F,C O
services. which was considered during the Board’s January
• Has the agency prepared a rate 18, 2024 meeting. The rate updates are in
study? progress.
• Do revenues exceed expenditures?
The district had total revenues of $7,546,467 for FY
• Is the ratio of annual debt service to
2023, representing a 10.22% increase compared to
total fund annual expenditures 10%
the previous fiscal year. Total revenues exceeded
or less?
total expenses in each of the five study years from
FY2019 to FY2023.
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual
expenditures is an indicator of SSD’s ability to meet
debt obligations in relation to service provision
expenditures. Ideally, a 10 percent or less ratio
would reflect a very stable ratio. SSD’s annual debt
service ratio ($196,272) to total expenditures
($3,960,770) is approximately five (5) percent, a very
good ratio.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared SSD is a member of the CSTAC JPA, which conducts
facilities. studies and projects to control wet weather
overflows and implements the East Bay Regional
Fats, Oils and Grease control program with five
other agencies. Another program identifying private
sewer lateral deficiencies on a regional basis is
being implemented through EBMUD’s regional PSL
program.
Accountability for community service SSD was formed in May 1913 and currently operates
needs, including government structure under the oversight and guidance of an elected
and operational facilities. Board of Directors. The district’s Manual on Board
• Does the agency have a website? Governance Policy is updated regularly.
• Does the agency post a public
SSD’s website is https://www.stegesan.org/ and
outreach tool (such as a calendar
provides the public with internet access to Board
or newsletter) on its website?
agendas and minutes, public notices, district
• What is the recommendation for
budgets, and audits. “The Endeavor” newsletter is
mergers, consolidations, or other
published biannually and provides the public with
changes to governance structure?
updates on SSD projects, events, and budgets.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-30
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3 rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
This MSR briefly considers three options for
mergers, consolidations, or other changes to the
governance structure. The MSR Authors
recommend retention of the Status Quo. Additional
study would be needed before other governance
structure options are considered in the future.
Any other matter related to effective or No additional issues have been identified.
efficient service delivery, as required by
commission policy.
20.9: RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
It is recommended that LAFCO reconfirm current determinations and coterminous SSD SOI.
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires that LAFCO
review and update the sphere of influence (SOI) for each of the special districts and cities within the
County (LAFCO, 2008). SSD provides wastewater collection services for the City of El Cerrito, the
unincorporated community of Kensington, and the Richmond Annex community within the
southeastern portion of Richmond. There will be an increased need for cost-effective wastewater
services within the SSD service area, given current urban land uses, an aging wastewater collection
system, and increasingly stringent water quality standards. The district has planned for service
needs through its CIP and fee structure (LAFCO, 2008). SSD’s SOI is coterminous with its
boundaries.
Section 20.7, Government Structure Alternatives (see page 20-26), analyzes three different options to
change the SSD governance structure. When LAFCO reviews or modifies an SOI for a district, it typically
considers all of its options to change the governance structure. For SSD, three alternative options were
considered as listed:
1) Maintain the status quo
2) Annex the area being served outside the SSD boundaries
3) Merge or Consolidate with EBMUD or West County Wastewater District
Option #2 notes that the district provides conveyance service to 101 homes outside the SSD
boundaries by Agreement with the City of Richmond through Resolution #50-83 dated April 4, 1983.
SSD accepts the wastewater generated in this area and conveys it through its system. SSD performs
no maintenance or work in the area of 101 homes. Conveyance service for this area is by contract
and has taken place only because of an emergency need as the result of a landslide. Bringing this
area into SSD SOI would normally be required for extra territorial service provision. However, this
service predates the statute requiring LAFCO approval (LAFCO, 2008). In conclusion, it is
recommended that LAFCO maintain SSD’s existing boundary and SOI.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-31
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3 rd Round)
20.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY Contra Costa LAFCO
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California’s Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. June 12, 2019. City-wide Services Municipal Service Review Update. Prepared
by Lamphier-Gregory Consultants and Berkson Associates. 793-pages. Retrieved December
2022 from <https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
CA Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA). State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.)
California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS) SSO Public Report - Detail Page.
Query run on August 27, 2023 from
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/chc_sso.html>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit California State Data Center.
5/23/2023. Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC)
Data Release. Table 2: Land Area, Population and Population Density for California,
Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP), Census
2020Contributions from U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 1, 2023a. Report E-1 & E-1H,
Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2022 and
2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
CA Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. 2023. California
Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database. Retrieved
January2023 from
<https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet?reportAction
=criteria &reportId=sso_main >.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved August 13, 2008. Final Water and Wastewater Municipal Services
Review for West Contra Costa County. Chapter 7, SSD. 17-pages. Retrieved on March 1, 2024
from: < https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
East Bay Municipal Utility District. (2021). Urban Water Management Plan 2020. 316-pages.
Retrieved on December 26, 2022, from <https://www.ebmud.com/water/about-your-
water/water-supply/urban-water-management-plan>.
East Bay Municipal Utility District. (n.d.). Biosolids. Retrieved on December 26, 2022, from
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-32
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3 rd Round)
<https://www.ebmud.com/wastewater/collection-treatment/wastewateCro-ntra Costa LAFCO
treatment/biosolids>.
Stege Sanitary District. September 29, 2022. Staff Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information via
ESRI’s 123 On-line Survey. 2-pages. Available in LAFCO’s office upon request.
Stege Sanitary District. April 2024. Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. Retrieved on April, 2024 from
<https://www.stegesan.org/>.
Stege Sanitary District. (March 2023a). Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). 38-pages.
Retrieved on March, 3, 2024, from <https://www.stegesan.org/ >.
Stege Sanitary District. November 28, 2023b. Financial Statements And Independent Auditor’s
Report For FY Ending June 30, 2023. Contributions from Chavan & Associates, LLP, Certified
Public Accountants, Morgan Hill, California. 56-pages.
Chapter 20: SSD Page 20-33
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
CHAPTER 21: TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Table of Contents
21.1: OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 21-1
21.2: EXISTING BOUNDARY & SOI ............................................................................................................ 21-4
21.3: DISTRICT WASTEWATER OPERATIONS............................................................................................ 21-5
21.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 21-11
21.5: POPULATION ................................................................................................................................. 21-19
21.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ................................................................................................. 21-21
21.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................. 21-22
21.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ............................................. 21-22
21.9: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ................................................................................................................. 21-26
21.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 21-27
21.1: OVERVIEW
Discovery Bay was originally established in the 1970s as a weekend and summer resort community.
Discovery Bay evolved into a year-round home for approximately 18,260 residents as of 2020.
TODBCSD was formed in 1998 as an independent district pursuant to the Community Services
District Act (Government Code Section 61000 et seq.). The Town of Discovery Bay Community
Services District (TODBCSD) is located in the eastern portion of the County, north of Highway 4,
approximately one mile east of the Byron Highway. The service area encompasses the developed
and developing unincorporated community of Discovery Bay of approximately 2,844 acres (4.76 sq.
miles).
TODBCSD is authorized to provide water and wastewater, parks and park maintenance, lighting,
landscaping, and recreation services. This report focuses on TODBCSD's wastewater services, one
of TODBCSD's primary functions. TODBCSD provides wastewater collection, conveyance,
treatment, and discharge of treated effluent. A map of TODBCSD's current boundary and sphere of
influence (SOI) is shown in Figure 21-1. The District does not anticipate changes to its SOI in the next
3-5 years (TODBCSD, 2022b). The District lies within the San Francisco Bay / Sacramento Delta
Estuary watershed. Additional information about this watershed is provided in Appendix F. The
TODBCSD's Agency Profile is included in Table 21- 1 (next page).
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 21-1: Agency Profile – Town of Discovery Bay Community Services DistrCicotn tra Costa LAFCO
General Information
Agency Type Community Services District
Principal Act Community Services District Laws, Government Code Section 61000 et
seq. and SB 135, Community Services District Law
Date Formed 1998
Services sewage collection, treatment, and disposal. Additionally, water, parks
and park maintenance, landscaping, and recreation.
Service Area
Location Unincorporated community of Discovery Bay
Square Miles/Acres 4.76 square miles/2,844 acres
Land Uses Predominantly residential with some commercial and irrigation uses
Water Connections 6,157 service connections (residential, commercial, irrigation), 126
commercial/industrial customers (TODBCSD, 2022b)
Population Served 18,020 (Contra Costa County GIS Data)
Last SOI Update May 14, 2014 and also 2020 and 2022
Sewer Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities 2 wastewater treatment plants, 15 lift stations (TODBCSD, 2022b)
Treatment Plant • Permitted Flow – 2.35 MGD (CRWQCB, 2019)
Capacity (MGD) • Peak Day Flow – 1.48 MGD
• Total Average Daily Flow - 1.8 MGD
• Average Annual Flow – 1.2 MGD
Primary Disposal Secondary treatment, U.V. disinfection, and discharge into Old River
Method
Budget Information- Estimates for F.Y. 2023-2024– Wastewater Fund
Revenues Expenditures Net
(per FY 23 Budget) (per FY 23 Budget) Surplus/(Deficit)
General/Operating Fund $ 6,228,622.32 $ 6,037,664.67 $ 190,958
Combined Other Funds $ 439,100 $ 0 $ 439,100
All Funds $6,667,722.32 $6,037,664.67 $ 630,057.65
Estimate F.Y. 2023-2024 Estimate F.Y. 2023-2024
(Wastewater Only) (Total for all services in TODBCSD)
Capital Expenditures $ 6,569,560 $ 8,771,560
Reserves $1,830,600 (Sewer Fund Note: Reserve funds are typically 30% of the operating
per Budget Estimated budget.
Balance for FY23/24).
Note: The Sewer Fund has cash and investment
balance of $11,917, 400 per AFS, TODBBCSD, 2023
Total Assets $ 93,190,637 June 30, 2022 Financial Statement- All Funds Restricted &
Unrestricted. with capital assets at $52,670,022 net of
accumulated depreciation. Current, non-current and other
assets were $40,520,615.
Governance
Governing Body Board of Directors (five members)
Agency Contact Dina Breitstein, General Manager, dbreitstein@todb.ca.gov
Notes: None
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 21-1: Boundary/SOI Map – TODBCSD Contra Costa LAFCO
Note: This map might not reflect the recent annexation of the Pantages project
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
21.2: EXISTING BOUNDARY & SOI Contra Costa LAFCO
The District's SOI was reconfirmed as part of LAFCO's 2014 MSR/SOI Update as listed in Table 21-2
below. In 2020, LAFCO approved the corresponding SOI amendment and annexation (Newport
Pointe) and in 2022, LAFCO approved the corresponding SOI amendment and annexation
(Pantages).
Table 21-2: SOI Key Milestones
Date Action
5/10/2006 SOI approved by LAFCO action
11/14/2007 SOI amended
7/24/2008 Annexation recorded
2014 SOI reconfirmed
6/12/2019 LAFCO retained SOI as part of the “City Services” MSR
2020 LAFCO approved SOI amendment and corresponding annexation
(Newport Pointe)
2022 LAFCO approved SOI amendment and corresponding annexation
(Pantages)
Data Source: LAFCO, MSR, 2014 and Ms. Texeira 2024
Recent Annexations into District Boundaries
Contra Costa LAFCO processed a SOI amendment and corresponding annexation in 2022 that
included three separate projects as follows:
1) Pantages (Subdivision) - Annexation of approximately 205 acres at the eastern terminus of
Point of Timber Road (east of Bixler Road), Discovery Bay, California. The Pantages Bay
development included approximately 277 residential units (116 have boat docks), the
creation of 47 acres of bays and covers, wetlands/emergent marsh preservation, trails and
other project-related improvements, and a Sheriff's Marine Patrol Station.
2) The annexation also included annexation of the Newport Well Site located at the
intersection of Newport Drive and Solinas Place, and
3) Wastewater Plant No. 2 located at 17501 Highway 4.
Both the Newport Pointe and Pantages Bay projects were approved by the Contra Costa Board of
Supervisors.
The 2014 MSR noted that two parcels were once located outside of the district boundaries. One
parcel is a 15.38+ acre parcel located at 14021 Highway 4 in unincorporated Byron. The property
houses a single-family residential unit and is located outside the Urban Limit Line. However, both of
these parcels were recently annexed into the district boundary. The two homes used to have wells;
however, the water quality for the wells degraded. The property owners asked to be added to the
system. As part of the agreement, the properties had to abandon the wells. These properties are
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
annexed in and are currently receiving water and wastewater services. (BreitsteiCno anntrda G Coolsdtsaw LoArFthCyO,
personal communication, 2023).
There have been informal discussions with a project proponent who proposes the development of
2,500 new parcels and associated homes. Future development of this size would require substantial
increases to wastewater and water treatment. The proposed project site is not currently located
within the district boundary. The project proponent has been informed that an annexation
application would be necessary (Breitstein and Goldsworthy, personal communication, 2023). This
project would contribute to projected future population growth.
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta: Portions of the District boundary and SOI are located within the
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Estuary watershed (Delta), specifically within the “Secondary Zone”.
The Delta is a large inland river delta geographically connected to the San Francisco Bay Estuary and
home to several rare and endangered fish species. The Delta is also designated a National Heritage
Area. The Secondary Zone is within the “Legal Delta” and is described by various state laws and
planning documents (DPC, 2010 and DSC, 2013). For local government planners and administrators,
there are three key Delta planning documents listed below:
• The Delta Plan, by the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updated through 2024.
• Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta by the Delta
Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010.
• Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by Visser, M.A.;
Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. in 2018.
DPC’s Land Use and Resource Management Plan recognizes that urbanization and other
development projects within the secondary zone have the potential to impact the Primary Zone of
the Delta (DPC, 2010). These planning documents are important because the District’s discharge of
treated wastewater to the San Joaquin River has the potential to influence water quality and rare or
endangered species within the Delta.
21.3: DISTRICT WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
TODBCSD provides various services1, including wastewater, for the community of 4.76 square miles.
The CSD's wastewater service includes collection, conveyance to two wastewater treatment plants,
and disposal. The CSD provides wastewater collection and conveyance services to approximately
6,157 sewer connections, as shown in Table 21-1 (TODBCSD, 2022b). The District has 126
commercial and industrial customers (TODBCSD, 2022b). One TODBCSD connection may serve
many individual customers.
1 Please note that TODBCSD does not provide flood control services. Within the boundary area, there is a dry levee
around the gated communities to the North West. The local HOA maintains the levees.
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Wastewater operations functions include two relatively small but environCmonetnrtaa Clloy stsae LnAsiFtCivOe
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) with a permitted capacity of 2.35 MGD (CRWQCB, 2019) and
average daily demand of 2.5 MGD (TODBCSD, 2022b). A system of 15 lift stations takes collected
effluent to the WWTP for treatment and disposal (TODBCSD, 2022b). TODBCSD continues to
contract operation of the WWTP with Veolia Water. The contract was originally approved in 2009 and
is set to be renewed in 2026.
The District's previously noted operational problems and environmental/ permit issues have
improved over the past five years (Breitstein and Goldsworthy, personal communication, 2023).
Additionally, in 2014, LAFCO’s MSR noted that “significant progress was achieved in addressing
major sewer issues since the 2006 MSR” (LAFCO, 2014). District staff indicates that the NPDES
Permit Change requires that the district add denitrification to its wastewater process (TODBCSD,
2022b). The staff indicated that this project is underway and is due for completion by December 2023
(TODBCSD, 2022b).
Treated effluent is discharged to Old River, specifically at a location southeast of the second WWTP
(TODBCSD, 2019). Biosolid handling facilities are located at the second wastewater treatment plant
(TODBCSD, 2019). Dried biosolids are disposed of in a landfill, but other alternatives have been
considered (TODBCSD, 2019).
Factors influencing the district's ability to collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater and provide
public service to customers were considered. District staff indicates that capacity is a factor that
would impact future population growth (TODBCSD, 2022b). The District is consistently looking for
best practices and opportunities to improve efficiencies, affordability, and service delivery to their
customers (TODBCSD, 2022b).
Local Hazards
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2 (HMP), dated January 2018, maps critical
infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards (Contra Costa County,
2018). TODBCSD did not participate in the 2018 county-wide Hazard Mitigation Plan. However, the
County is currently updating the HMP and TODBCSD staff has indicated that they are involved in this
recent update process.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted
systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California
Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General
Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSS) under Water Quality Order No.
2006-0003 (SSS WDRs) on May 2, 2006. All public agencies that own or operate a SSS comprised of
more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 21-3: Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District Sanitary Sewer Overflows Contra Costa LAFCO
EVENT Region Responsible Collection SSO Start Date SSO Vol of SSO Vol of SSO SSO Failure WDID
ID Agency System Category Vol Recovered Reached Point
Surface Water
858930 5S TODBCSD Discovery Category 6/12/2019 975 0 50 Air Relief 5SSO10929
Bay C.S. 1 Valve
(ARV)/Blow-
Off Valve
(BOV)
859756 5S TODBCSD Discovery Category 7/11/2019 150 150 0 Maintenance 5SSO10929
Bay C.S. 3 hole
864351 5S TODBCSD Discovery Category 1/17/2020 700 650 0 Pump Station- 5SSO10929
Bay C.S. 3 Mechanical
Data Source: CIQWS Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
Figure 21-2: Street View of TODBCSD Facilities
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A 3.6-year term frCoomn tJraan Cuoasryta 1 L, 2A0F1C9O,
to August 9, 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The results of the database queries
regarding TODBCSD are listed below in Table 21-3. During this 3.6-year timeframe, there were three
SSO events in the TODBCSD jurisdiction. All three SSOs were relatively small and had a volume of
less than 1,000 gallons. The June 16, 2022, spill had the greatest volume of 975 gallons. The failure
was caused by Caltrans bush cutting the roadway on Highway 4, which led to the disruption of the
air relief line and the force-main line. None of the spilled material was recovered. Instead, 925
gallons of the spilled material reached land, and 50 gallons reached surface water. The District has
no outstanding fines or orders from the RWQCB or other State agencies. (Breitstein and
Goldsworthy, personal communication, 2023). This can be compared to historical data. LAFCO's
2006 MSR noted that TODBCSD experienced several permit violations which were resolved in a
timely manner2.
The 2008 and 2014 NPDES permits aimed to reduce discharges exceeding Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) limits. TODBCSD appears to have addressed these issues through the
change of contract operators and oversight by management and engineering support. While it is
realistic to expect occasional problems with a wastewater system, the challenge is addressing and
solving issues for future operations (LAFCO, 2014).
To address those past issues, the district has taken steps to prevent spills like the 2008 raw sewage
spill (94,000 gallons) into the lake. For example, the district's asset management staff uses sonar to
review sewer mains. Since the spill, the district has purchased video equipment to record sewer
mains, conducts routine inspections, and provides services looking for buried metal pipes during
construction. The new tech video equipment is regularly utilized as part of routine inspections.
(Breitstein and Goldsworthy, personal communication, 2023).
Status of NPDES Permit
TODBCSD's NPDES permit was most recently renewed in 2019 (CRWQCB, 2019). The NPDES
permits are on a five-year renewal cycle, and the next permit is scheduled for renewal in 2024
(Breitstein and Goldsworthy, personal communication, 2023).
2
Past RWQCB (or other State) fines or orders: In the past (2006 to 2014) the RWQCB issued fines or orders for water quality violations, TODBCSD
has resolved these past fines. The RWQCB issued a Notice of Violation (issued February 13, 2013) for minimum penalties concerning Coliform
violations on January 25-26, 2011, February 2, 2011, June 16-17, 2011, June 21-22, 2011, June 24, 2011 and May 9, 2012. These fines were
resolved through an agreement between the TODBCSD and the RWQCB. On July 3, 2013 the Town of Discovery Bay Board of Directors authorized
a Supplemental Environmental Program (SEP) as proposed to the RWQ CB. On August 7, 2013, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board authorized the SEP program as submitted by the TODBCSD. The SEP, as presented, provides a Grant to the University of California, to
continue to fund the wetlands demonstration project (LAFCO, 2014).
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS Contra Costa LAFCO
Existing Infrastructure: TODBCSD currently maintains various equipment, vehicles3, infrastructure,
and associated assets. The CSD's wastewater system includes 15 wastewater lift stations that
transport/move the raw wastewater to the main wastewater treatment facility and 60 miles of sewer
mains. Veolia Water Company operates and maintains wastewater facilities under a multi-year
contract. The largest part of the wastewater infrastructure is the two wastewater treatment plants
that treat an average of 1.8 MGD (Total Average Daily Flow). Both plants are regularly maintained and
upgraded. Capital investments are made periodically to ensure function and to comply with
California's Title 22 waste discharge requirements. The District's NPDES permit CA0078590 for the
WWTP allows a capacity of 2.35 MGD (CRWQCB, 2019).
The Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan Update prepared by Stantec Consulting Services was
approved in 2019 (TODCSD, 2019). The Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan includes detailed
evaluations of all wastewater treatment system components and results in a prioritized list of
recommended improvements. Amendment 2 Update investigates methods for meeting new and
more stringent requirements for nitrogen removal. Amendment 3 was developed to investigate
whether Plant 1 should be rehabilitated or replaced with new facilities at Plant 2. This Master Plan
Update re-evaluates needed improvements under changed conditions, including substantial
reductions in wastewater flows and the high cost of proposed improvements for nitrogen removal
(TODBCSD, 2019). In summary, the 2019 Wastewater Master Plan identifies potential rehabilitation
projects, and it is periodically updated. Recent capital improvement achievements include finishing
Edgeview Pipeline Project, initiated the denitrification project, and ordered Vac-Truck.
The District has identified several infrastructure needs for the coming year in its Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) as follows: continue construction of the denitrification project, start
outfall diffuser project, receive delivery of new vac-truck, denitrification, lift station upgrades, solar
dryer panel replacements at plant 2, outfall diffuser repair, and relocation of District office building
(TPDBCSD, Budget, 2022a). The CIP is discussed in further detail is section 21.5 District Financial
Overview (see page 21-15).
Future challenges: The District is considering whether to construct new administrative offices and
board chambers. The cost of architectural design, materials, and new construction is estimated at
approximately $13 million. However, less expensive options are also being considered. The amount
of these costs that the Sewer Fund would bear is unclear. Collaboratively working through this issue
with local residents will be an ongoing task for the district during the upcoming year.
3
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the district, it is likely that sometime in the future, the
district may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting vehicles reliant upon an alternative energy source
such as electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore,
alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 (2019) has several recommCenondterda rCeomstead LieAsF CfoOr
California’s aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a wastewater
treatment plant is, what kind of wastes it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the
sewer pipes. Continue educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom
to call if such an event occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling.
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
The CSD implements several actions to reduce costs. TODBCSD's management has set cost
containment or reduction as a major strategic goal for TODBCSD (LAFCO, 2014). District cost
avoidance and/or resource sharing endeavors include outsourcing services (i.e., maintenance and
operations of wastewater facilities). The CSD also participates in a Wastewater Response Network,
a voluntary program of public utility agencies to share equipment and staff during emergencies
(LAFCO, 2014). Major rehabilitation projects are phased in with the aim to reduce debt financing
costs. For example, TODB sets aside funds into its revolving funds as a means to reduce the need to
issue debt. Low-energy lighting was installed at facilities to reduce energy costs. No other cost
avoidance or resource-sharing endeavors have been undertaken by the district as it relates to
wastewater services apart from the Bay Area Chemical Consortium. The District's regional location
and distance from neighboring partners make any opportunities requiring substantial infrastructure
changes untenable (District staff, personal communication, April 2023). However, TODB is currently
looking for energy-saving opportunities such as solar and battery backups.
Cooperative Programs
TODBCSD is a member of the Bay Area Chemical Consortium to purchase bulk chemicals for water
and wastewater treatment. As part of this Consortium, cost savings for the district have been steady
until the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Since the pandemic, costs for bulk purchasing of chemicals
have risen 281% from approximately 0.67 cents a gallon in 2020 to the most recent bid of $2.55 a
gallon for F.Y. 2024. Though costs have gone up, the district still finds that the program saves the
district approximately $1.30 a gallon on average compared to competitor prices (District staff,
personal communication, April 2023).
A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) agreement with the Byron Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) formed the
Discovery Bay Financing Authority to finance bonds for long-term capital projects. TODBCSD is
studying several possible cooperative programs for the operations of its recreation programs
(LAFCO, 2014).
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
21.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW Contra Costa LAFCO
Enterprise Funds are used to separately account for self-supporting operations. The main focus of
this analysis is the Sewer Fund, which is an enterprise fund. The District's Budget and Certified
Annual Financial Statements (which include an Independent Auditor's Report) are the primary
information source for data related to the Sewer Fund, and these reports are posted on the
TODBCSD's website at: <https://todb.ca.gov/annual-audit-information>. This financial analysis
represents a snapshot in time (i.e. a limited time period). However, TODBCSD regularly updates its
financial data and readers may review the new data on the district’s website.
TODBCSD operates its wastewater services as an enterprise-type activity, with a significant portion
of its overall revenue from charges for services. The CSD has a Standard and Poor's Financial Rating
of A.A., and all of the audits are "Clean," meaning that the CSD continues to adhere to regulations
set forth by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB)and follow best practices as set
forth by the Government Financials Officer’s Association (GFOA).
The TODBCSD Operating Budget is prepared annually, and it provides one additional year of financial
forecasting so that it covers a two-year period in total. The Budget outlines the CSD's financial plan
and services for the upcoming year. The Budget is divided into several sections, including an
overview of the district's finances, a breakdown of departmental budgets, and a summary of goals
and objectives for the year. The document also includes information about the district's revenue
sources, expenditures, and reserves, as well as details about the services provided by each
department.
Overall, TODBCSD approves budgets and financial statements annually, maintains a capital
improvement program, and has a good reserve fund balance providing adequate capability to absorb
short-term impacts. Five primary areas of criteria have been utilized to assess the present and future
financial condition of TODBCSD's wastewater service operations, as discussed below:
3 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
For the year ending June 30, 2022 (FY21/22), the Sewer Fund expenses were $5,869,983, which was
less than Fund Program Revenue for the Fund at $6,214,221 (TODBCSD, 2023). For FY20/21, Sewer
Fund Expenses were $5,093,701. Fund Program revenues were $6,151,094 (TODBCSD, 2023). For
the year ending June 30, 2020 (FY19/20), the Sewer Fund expenses were $5,405,964, less than Total
Revenue for the Fund at $6,256,401 (TODBCSD, 2023). Fund Revenue exceeded Fund Expenses in
each of the three study years, as shown in Figure 21-3 below. This key performance measure
indicates that the Sewer Fund is solvent and has the capacity to cover its costs.
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 21-3: Sewer Fund Revenues and Expenses
$7,000,000
$6,256,401 $6,151,094 $6,214,221
$5,869,983
$6,000,000
$5,405,964
$5,093,701
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22
Program Revenue Expenses
Source for Figure 21-3: TODBCSD, Annual Financial Statements for FY19/20, FY20/21, FY21/22
As shown in Figure 21-3 above, the Sewer Fund has experienced surpluses in the operating portions
of the funds. However, the district indicates that capital improvement expenses will increase in the
future, and rate increases may be needed to accommodate the expenditures. The District has taken
several actions to ensure operating revenues/reserves are sufficient to fund and operate major
capital projects. Specifically, the district develops timelines for the Capital Improvement Plan to
ensure infrastructure is developed within the necessary timeframe. Both rate studies and the CIP
consider estimated costs that include real-world bids. CIP studies are completed every 5-10 years.
The District will likely begin a new rate study in July 2023. A new rate study is necessary because
costs have increased during the pandemic. The District has experienced supply chain issues, and
increased costs for energy, labor, supplies, and materials (Breitstein and Goldsworthy, personal
communication, 2023).
Ratios of Revenue Sources
The Sewer Fund is an enterprise fund, and it receives approximately 98% of its revenues from
charges and fees for services, one percent from interest earnings, and one percent from
miscellaneous other income sources, as shown in Figure 21-4 below (TODBCSD, 2023).
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 21- 4: Revenues by Source Contra Costa LAFCO
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited
by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to
the annual fund expenditures. The Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures should
be no less than 2 months of regular general fund operating expenditures which generally equates to
no less than a 16.7% ratio. TODBCSD's Sewer Fund currently has a reserve fund of $1,830,600, as
shown in Table 21-4 below (TODBCSD, 2022, Budget). In FY21/22, the Sewer Fund expenses were
$6,214,221 (TODBCSD, 2023). Dividing the Reserve Fund Balance by the Annual Expenditure yields
a ratio for the Sewer Fund of approximately 29%. This is above the minimum suggested ratio, which
indicates TODBCSD is doing a good job maintaining a balance of reserve/fund balance to
expenditure ratio.
Table 21-4: Wastewater Fund Summary from Annual Budget
Data Source for Table 21-4: (TODBCSD, 2022, Budget)
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
The District has several types of investments, including certificates of deposit and savings with the
Contra Costa County Treasury (TODBCSD, 2022, Budget).
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. The CSD has issued three revenue bonds,
one each in 2012, 2017, and 2022. The 2012 Bonds4 (known as the 2022B Bonds) were refunded on
December 1, 2022. The remaining balance on the bond issues are:
• 2017: Bond balance of $7,850,000
• 2022: Bond balance of $16,650,000
• 2022B: Bond balance of $11,156,000
As shown above, in 2022, TODBCSD incurred new debt of approximately $16.9 million via the
Discovery Bay Public Financing Authority. This debt is in the form of enterprise revenue bonds
designated for capital improvement projects identified in TODBCSD's Master Plans. The total bond
balance as of December 2022 was $35,656,000. The CSD has a Standard and Poor's credit rating of
"A.A." (Data source: https://todb.ca.gov/todb-bond-balance). However, these bonds also included
funds for drinking water projects and cannot be solely attributed to wastewater projects.
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of TODBCSD's
ability to meet debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a 10% or less
ratio would reflect a stable ratio. In FY21/22, TODBCSD's Budget states that debt service for the
Sewer Fund was $ 849,539 (TODBCSD, 2022, Budget). Its total Sewer Fund expenditures were
$6,214,221 (TODBCSD, AFS, 2023). Calculating the division of Annual Debt Service Expenditures to
Total Annual Expenditures yields a positive ratio of approximately 13.67%.
Overall, the Sewer Fund had a Net Position of Net position is $16,990,156. Table 21-5 below shows
that the total liabilities and net position equates to $49,873,995 as of June 30, 2022.
4
The previous MSR noted the status of long-term debt from the 2012 Bonds. In August 2012,
TODBCSD issued $14.1 million in Discovery Bay Public Financing Authority 2012 Enterprise Revenue
Bonds to provide the necessary long-term funding for a series of capital improvement projects that
were recommended as part of the Master Plans (LAFCO, 2014). TODBCSD issued debt financing to
fund capital improvement projects and had approximately $7.1 million budgeted in 2013-14
including, among other upgrades, a new well, WWTP upgrades, and pipeline replacement (LAFCO,
2014).
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 21-5: Statement of Net Position – Sewer Fund, June 30, 2022 Contra Costa LAFCO
Sewer Financing
Fund Authority Fund
Assets and Deferred Outflows of Resources
Current assets
Cash and investments $ 11,768,698 -
Cash and investments - restricted - $16,491,975
Accounts receivable, net $119,098 -
Interest receivable - $138,891
Prepaid expenses 220,881 -
Advances on taxes 499 -
Total current assets 12,109,176 16,630,866
Non-current assets
Debt issuance cost - prepaid insurance - 41,933
Debt service - installment receivable - 36,240,000
Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 37,764,819 2,485,605
Total non-current assets 37,764,819 38,767,538
Deferred outflows of resources - -
Total assets and deferred outflows of $ 49,873,995 $ 55,398,404
resources
Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources and Net Position
Current liabilities
Accounts payable $ 457,993 $ 945,467
Accrued payroll 21,449 -
Interest payable 123,613 138,891
Bonds payable – current - 770,000
Total current liabilities 603,055 1,854,358
Non-current liabilities
Other accrued liabilities - -
Debt service - installment payable 32,253,600 -
Compensated absences 27,184 -
Bonds payable - 35,470,000
Unamortized bond premium - 1,862,500
Total non-current liabilities 32,280,784 37,332,500
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 5,511,219 (33,754,395)
Restricted for debt service - 49,965,941
Unrestricted
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Board designated 1,800,600 Contra Costa L-A FCO
Undesignated 9,678,337 -
Total net position 16,990,156 16,211,546
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources and
net position $ 49,873,995 $ 55,398,404
Data Source: TODBCSD, Annual Financial Statement, 2023
Capital Improvement Program
Infrastructure needs are described on page 21-9. The CIP has been designed to address these needs.
Capital Improvement Funds5 are District revenues and expenses needed for the capital
improvement program (CIP) for the wastewater system. CIP projects are necessary to properly
service, maintain and support District operations' essential functions, including continued
rehabilitation of the wastewater lift stations and wastewater pipeline maintenance and
replacements. The CIP is described in the Annual Budget, which provides a list of CIP projects that
address the long-term capital needs of the district. A robust capital replacement fund represents an
ongoing structural element of long-term financial sustainability.
For FY 2022/2023, Wastewater Capital Improvements and Structures & Replacements include the
state-mandated Denitrification6 Project. The design was completed in FY20/21, and currently, the
FY22/23 CIP for this project is estimated at $5.9 million. The total Denitrification Project cost is
budgeted at $20 million. A new Vac Truck was ordered and is set to be delivered in FY 22/23, and the
Outfall Diffuser design is near completion, with the bidding process to begin in the near future. CIP
items such as lift station improvements and solar dryer panel replacements, and a Recycle Water
Master Plan are budgeted as well (TODBCSD, Budget, 2022a).
5
Prior to 2014, TODBCSD adopted 10-Year Master Plans for wastewater services along with long-term
C6 Dapeintiatlr iIfmicaptrioovne ism tehnet p Prroocgersas mwsh etore mbye enti tDroisgceonv iesr rye mBaoyv’esd f ufrtoumre wgraotewr.t hW ahnedn ceampapcloityye dn eine dwsa atte rb quuiladl iotyu t
(imLApFroCvOe,m 2e0n1t4 t)e. chnologies, denitrification treats water to reduce its nitrate-nitrogen content to potable levels.
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 21-6: TODBCSD Capital Improvement Plan Contra Costa LAFCO
Data Source: TODBCSD Budget, 2022a
Since the TODBCSD responsibilities also include water services, recreation services, and, Lighting
& Landscaping Projects, the total CIPs for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/2023 are valued at $14.6 million.
Rate Structure
TODBCSD took several actions in order to provide wastewater service to planned projects within the
boundaries and SOI, thereby assuring the ability to accommodate future growth as follows:
• In 2012, DBCSD completed a 10-Year Wastewater Master Plan, which included a
comprehensive review of TODBCSD's wastewater infrastructure, potential impacts of future
development, and long-range CIP based upon build-out of future development.
• In 2020, the district completed a review of the its wastewater rate structure.
• The Discovery Bay Public Financing Authority, a JPA with Byron Bethany Financing Authority,
was established. What year?
Current rates for wastewater services: As shown in Table 21-7 below, wastewater charges for
residential connections for FY 2022/2023 are annual fixed charges at approximately $1,030 per unit
for single-family homes and $816 per unit for multi-family developments. Commercial rates are
consumption-based with monthly rates ranging from $6.73 to $18.48 per centum cubic feet
depending on the type of commercial activity, as shown in Table 21-7 (TODB, 2020).
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 21-7: Wastewater Rates from 2020 Rate Study
WASTEWATER Current FY2019/20 Proposed Proposed FY2021/22 Proposed FY2022/23 Proposed FY2023/24 Proposed FY2024/25
FY2020/21
Residential Unmetered Monthly Yearly Monthly Yearly Monthly Yearly Monthly Yearly Monthly Yearly Monthly Yearly
($/month) ($/year) ($/month) ($/year) ($/month) ($/year) ($/month) ($/year) ($/month) ($/year) ($/month) ($/year)
Single Family - Each DU $82.55 $990.63 $83.34 $1,000.08 $84.59 $1,015.08 $85.86 $1,030.32 $87.15 $1,045.80 $88.46 $1,061.52
Multiple Family/Condos - Each DU $61.92 $743.03 $63.89 $766.68 $65.92 $791.04 $68.01 $816.12 $70.17 $842.04 $72.40 $868.80
Vacant $18.67 $224.00 $18.67 $224.00 $18.67 $224.00 $18.67 $224.00 $18.67 $224.00 $18.67 $224.00
Nonresidential Metered Use Use Use Use Use Use
($/ccf) ($/ccf) ($/ccf) ($/ccf) ($/ccf) ($/ccf)
Business/Government/Clubs $5.734 $6.050 $6.384 $6.737 $7.109 $7.501
Restaurants/Bars/Dining Facilities $16.793 $17.337 $17.899 $18.479 $19.078 $19.696
Schools $5.161 $5.462 $5.781 $6.118 $6.475 $6.853
Other Domestic Strength Users $5.734 $6.050 $6.384 $6.737 $7.109 $7.501
DU = Dwelling Unit
ccf = 100 cubic feet = 748 gallons
(Data source for Table 21-7: TODB, 2020, Rate Study)
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
A Wastewater Rate Study was completed in 2020, and it studied future operCaotniotnraa lC aonstda cLaApFiCtaOl
requirements. The District anticipated starting a new rate study in July 2023, approximately one year
earlier than scheduled, due to massive cost increases across all sectors since the COVID-19
pandemic. For example, District energy costs have increased 15%, and chemical costs have
increased 281% since 2020. For the district to be sustainable, rate increases will be necessary a year
sooner than anticipated (District staff, personal communication, April 2023).
21.5: POPULATION
There are approximately 18,020 residents within the district boundaries as of 2022. The population
estimate is based on the County of Contra Costa GIS data showing that approximately 6,345 parcels
(APNs) are within BSD's boundaries. The 6,345 parcels were multiplied by the 2.84 average number
of people per household in Contra Costa County to calculate the total 18,020 residents. This is an
increase in population of 17.3% from the 2020 population of 15,358. Of the 18,020 residents within
the district boundaries, all receive wastewater services from the TODBCSD. Detailed information
regarding population demographics in Contra Costa County is provided in Appendix A.
Table 21-8: Existing Permanent Population, TODBCSD, 2020 to 2022
Name of District Population in Number of Population in
Boundary(1) Registered SOI only(3)
Voters in
Boundary(2)
TODBCSD – High Population Estimate
18,020 10,260 (Jan 2023) 76
(2.84 people per household) (2022)
TODBCSD – Low Population Estimate
15,358 10,260 (Jan 2023) 76
(U.S. Census Bureau 2020)
Sources:
1) U.S. Census Bureau. Explore Census Data – Decennial Census. Retrieved on December 29, 2022, from
<https://data.census.gov/table?q=discovery+bay+&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P1>.
2) Registered Voter data provided by Contra Costa County Elections Office, [January 2023].
3) Calculated estimate based on an average of 3.02 persons per parcel in Contra Costa County and also
using:
• County of Contra Costa APN GIS Data
• U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts – Contra Costa County, California. Retrieved on December 27,
2022, from
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/contracostacountycalifornia/HSD310221#HSD3
10221>.
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 21-9: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2022 – 2045)
2022 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2022 to
2022 to 2045 2022 to 2045 2045
County of Contra Costa1
1,156,555 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.1% 174,876 0.61%
Town of Discovery Bay
CSD2 18,020 18,655 19,384 20,000 20,449 20,744 15.1% 2,724 0.61%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060 (Baseline
2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
2: California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State: January 1, 2021, and 2022. Sacramento, California.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/.
3: County of Contra Costa APN GIS Data
4: U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts – Contra Costa County, California. Retrieved on December 27, 2022, from
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/contracostacountycalifornia/HSD310221#HSD310221>.
5: Population projection for the Town of Discovery Bay CSD calculated as 1.558% of the County of Contra Costa population.
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Existing land uses within the district boundaries include four gated communitiCeos,n tCrlaip Cpoesrt aE sLtAaFteCsO,
The Country Club, Lakeshore, and The Lakes. The residential communities offer Country Club homes
and waterfront homes. There is a full-service marina, three public schools, one private school, two
shopping centers, and an 18-hole championship golf course. Projected future population is shown
in Table 21-9 (previous page).
The district is located within the Legal Delta Secondary Zone, and a detailed population analysis of
the Delta area has been prepared by state agencies (Visser et al., 2018). Readers are encouraged to
review this information directly on the state website (updates are expected soon) as follows:
• Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updated through 2024. The Delta Plan. Available
online at: <https://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan/ >.
• Delta Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010. Land Use and Resource
Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta. 42-pages. Retrieved on April 8, 2024 from
<https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Land-Use-and-Resource-
Management-Plan-2.25.10_-m508.pdf >.
• Visser, M.A.; Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. (2018) Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Sacramento, CA: The Delta Protection Commission. 46-
pages. Available online at: <https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Delta-Socio-
Economic-Indicators-Report-508.pdf>.
Projected Future Population: Future growth is anticipated for TODBCSD (LAFCO, 2014). The
anticipated future population growth of the district has the potential to influence the demand for the
provision of wastewater services. However, projecting a district's future population is complex due
to potential boundary changes, varying population sources, and census tracts that do not match
District boundaries. For this MSR analysis, data from the California Department of Finance (DOF)
was used to project population growth for the County of Contra Costa, as shown in Table 21-9.
During the years 2022 to 2045, the County is expected to grow by a 15.1% increase. This same growth
rate was assumed for the TODBCSD to project future growth and it is estimated that by 2045, the
district will have a population of approximately 20,744 residents, as shown in Table 21-9 (previous
page).
21.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Identifying disadvantaged communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties to address
municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in disadvantaged communities.
Data from the 2020 U.S. Census was queried as part of this MSR Update process. Data query results
showed there are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) and no disadvantaged
communities within the district's boundary or its SOI.
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
21.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE ALTERNCAontTraI CVostEa LSA FCO
Overlapping Boundaries
As shown in Figure 21-5 (next page), TODBCSD and BBID have overlapping boundaries. The overlap
results in some residents of Discovery Bay having a portion of their one percent Ad Valorem property
tax allocated to both BBID and TODBCSD. The 2014 MSR recommended that consideration be given
to reducing BBID's SOI in the overlap area. San Joaquin LAFCO is the principal LAFCO for BBID and,
therefore would be required to initiate any SOI revision (LAFCO, 2014). San Joaquin LAFCO approved
an MSR/SOI for BBID on June 13, 2019. This MSR recommended that the overlap area between
TODBCSD and BBID be detached from BBID. The TODBCSD and LAFCO should look up the
Resolution from San Joaquin LAFCO and determine whether the MSR recommendation has been
implemented. Resolving this issue of overlapping boundaries is a government structure alternative
that warrants further consideration. It is recommended that this issue of overlapping boundaries be
given more detailed consideration in future MSRs or SOIs for districts in the Byron and Discovery Bay
Areas.
One government structure option has been identified for TODBCSD at this current time:
Maintain the Status Quo
TODBCSD currently provides adequate wastewater services for its residents and businesses in
Discovery Bay. The 2014 MSR found that TODBCSD maintains its infrastructure, is planning for the
future through appropriate infrastructure planning and investment and is financially sound. This
finding remains valid.
21.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented in Table 21-10 for Commission
consideration.
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 21—5: Overlapping Boundary – BBID & TODBCSD
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 21-10: MSR Determinations
TOPIC AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATION
Growth and population for the affected area. The estimated population of Discovery Bay CSD is
• Is the existing population estimated? approximately 18,020 permanent residents.
• Is the projected future growth estimated?
New residential projects are in various phases of
the planning and construction process, including
the Pantages Bay and Newport Pointe, which were
approved by the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors prior to 2014.
Location and characteristics of any There are no DUCs located within or contiguous to
disadvantaged unincorporated communities the TODBCSD SOI.
within or contiguous to the sphere of influence.
Present and planned capacity of public TODBCSD contracts with a private company "Veolia
facilities, adequacy of public services, and Water" to operate the wastewater treatment plant(s).
infrastructure needs or deficiencies, including The contract is scheduled to end in 2026. District
needs or deficiencies related to sewers, wastewater operations include two relatively small
municipal and industrial water, and structural WWTP's with capacity to produce an average of 1.2
fire protection in any disadvantaged, MGD and with an average daily demand of 2.5 MGD.
unincorporated communities within or A system of 15 lift stations takes collected effluent
contiguous to the sphere of influence. to the WWTP for treatment and disposal. TODBCSD
• Does the agency have a capital adopted a Wastewater Master Plan in 2019.
improvement plan?
• Are sanitary sewer overflows TODBCSD NPDES permit from the RWQCB allows
identified? a WWTP capacity of 2.35 MGD. This permit was
• Are local hazards identified? issued in 2014.
The CIWQS-Sanitary Sewer Overflow database was
queried for a 3.6-year term from January 1, 2019, to
August 9, 2022. Query results show three SSO
events during this time period.
TODBCSD did not participate in the county-wide
Hazard Mitigation Plan. It is recommended that
TODBCSD complete one of the following options:
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
• Participate in the next update of the Contra
Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan, OR
• Provide detailed spatial mapping of the
district's wastewater infrastructure in relation
to hazards identified to LAFCO when it next
updates its Wastewater Services MSR/SOI.
Financial ability of agencies to provide services. TODBCSD operates its wastewater services as an
• Has the agency prepared a rate study? enterprise-type activity, with a significant portion of
its overall revenue from charges for services. The
• Do revenues exceed expenditures?
CSD has a Standard and Poor's Financial Rating of
• Is the ratio of annual debt service to
A.A., and all of the audits are "Clean," TODBCSD
total fund annual expenditures 10% or
approves budgets and financial statements
less? annually, maintains a capital improvement
program, and has a good reserve fund balance
providing adequate capability to absorb short-term
impacts.
For the year ending June 30, 2022 (FY21/22), the
Sewer Fund expenses were $5,869,983, which was
less than Fund Program Revenue for the Fund at
$6,214,221. Fund Revenue exceeded Fund
Expenses in each of the three study years. This key
performance measure indicates that the Sewer
Fund is solvent and has the capacity to cover its
costs.
The District anticipated starting a new rate study in
July 2023.
Status of, and opportunities for, shared TODBCSD is a member of the Bay Area Chemical
facilities. Consortium to purchase bulk chemicals for water
and wastewater treatment. The Consortium saves
the district, on average $1.30per gallon for
chemicals when compared to competitors.
A Joint Powers Authority agreement with the BBID
formed the Discovery Bay Financing Authority to
finance bonds for long-term capital projects.
TODBCSD and BBID have overlapping boundaries.
The overlap results in some residents of Discovery
Bay having a portion of their one percent Ad
Valorem property tax allocated to both BBID and
TODBCSD.
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Accountability for community service needs, TODBCSD is an independCeonntt ras Cpoesctiaa lL AdFiCstOri ct
including government structure and governed by a five-member Board of Directors
elected at large. TODBCSD meetings are open to
operational facilities.
the public, and Board agendas and meeting
• Does the agency have a website?
minutes are available on its website. TODBCSD's
• Does the agency post a public
website also includes district financial information,
outreach tool (such as a calendar or master planning documents, rate studies, and
newsletter) on its website? employee compensation. The District provides a
• What is the recommendation for community calendar on its website that lists
important meetings.
mergers, consolidations, or other
changes to governance structure?
The CSD participates in the Special District
Leadership Foundation and has been awarded the
district of Distinction "Platinum Level." Other
awards the district has received include the
Transparency Certificate of Excellence and the 2020
SDRMA Safety Award. Also, the Board of Directors
and the General Manager of the Town of Discovery
Bay have each achieved individual recognition in
SDLF Special District Governance.
TODBCSD and BBID have one area with overlapping
boundaries which is described in San Joaquin
LAFCO’s 2019 MSR. This issue of overlapping
boundaries should be given more detailed
consideration in future MSRs or SOIs for districts in
the Byron and Discovery Bay Areas.
One government structure option was identified:
(1) maintain the status quo.
Any other matter related to effective or efficient No additional issues have been identified.
service delivery, as required by Commission
policy.
21.9: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Section 21.7, Government Structure Alternatives, describes various issues and options associated
with changing the structure of this local government agency. LAFCO often accomplishes its
government structure issues through changes to boundaries and/or SOIs. Additionally, LAFCO's
2014 MSR described a conceptual idea to have a regional approach to wastewater services in East
Contra Costa County. However, for wastewater services, this idea has not gained traction with local
residents or the district Board (Breitstein and Goldsworthy, personal communication, 2023). The
2014 MSR noted that the TODBCSD has not been a party to any further discussions on the
regionalization of services since August 2006 (LAFCO, 2014). District staff verified that there has
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
been no further discussion of this regional approach, and no interest has been eCxponretsras eCdo sbtya D LiAsFtrCicOt
staff (Breitstein and Goldsworthy, personal communication, 2023). One barrier to a regional
approach to wastewater services in East Contra Costa County is that the district is not located in
geographic proximity to another service providers or any other treatment plant. Byron Sanitary
District (BSD) is the closest, but merger/consolidation or infrastructure sharing would be financially
infeasible due to the direction of gravitational flow (Breitstein and Goldsworthy, personal
communication, 2023). It is noted that the BSD continues to be managed by the BBID. There have
been no discussions between the CSD and BSD about any potential for a future service agreement
to treat and dispose of sewage. TODBCSD staff feel this approach would not benefit the district due
to the topography and geographic distance (Breitstein and Goldsworthy, personal communication,
2023). The TODBCSD indicates that it is not necessary to further the discussion at this time (LAFCO,
2014, Breitstein and Goldsworthy, personal communication, 2023).
The MSR authors queried District staff about the level of interest in forming a Municipal Advisory
Council (MAC) for this area in the future. District staff indicated there is not much interest in a
TODBCSD MAC regarding wastewater issues. However, for drinking water issues, there may be a
higher level of interest in the community (Breitstein and Goldsworthy, personal communication,
2023). Contra Costa County has a County Service Area P-6 Citizen Advisory Committee which
creates reports and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on extended police protection
services including, but not limited to, enforcement of the State Vehicle Code where authorized by
law, crime prevention, and litter control.
TODBCSD staff indicates there are no other future or near-term SOI/boundary changes to TODBCSD
under consideration (Breitstein and Goldsworthy, personal communication, 2023).
However, over the long term, LAFCO's concept for a regional approach to wastewater services in East
Contra Costa County will continue to have merit. It is noted that both TODBCSD and BBID /BSD have
experience providing both water and wastewater services. Regulations concerning wastewater
service will likely increase in future years. Managing public drinking water and irrigation water
supplies will become more complex in the future due to changing climatic conditions. Given this
dynamic situation, it is possible that a regional approach may become feasible in the future.
Recommended Sphere of Influence: Reaffirm TODBCSD's existing SOI determinations and
reaffirm TODBCSD's current SOI.
21.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California’s Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Breitstein and Goldsworthy. April 4, 2023. Personal communication with Town ofC Donistcroa vCeorsyt Ba aLyA CFSCDO
Staff and the SWALE Consultants (Ross and Baracco).
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. (2019). NPDES Permit Notice of Public Hearing. 2-
pages. Retrieved on December 30, 2022, from
<https://todb.ca.gov/files/73a361f20/NPDES+Permit+Notice+of+Public+Hearing.pdf>.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. (2020). Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission Executive Officer's
Report. 6-pages. Retrieved on January 3, 2023, from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agenda/2020/120920/07%20-%2010-09%20-
%20Newport%20Pointe%20-
%20Town%20of%20Discovery%20Bay%20SOI%20Amendment.pdf>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. (2022). Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission Executive Officer's
Report. 9-pages. Retrieved on January 3, 2022, from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agenda/2022/041322/08-%20LAFCO%2021-
07%20Annexation%20to%20town%20of%20Discovery%20Bay%20Community%20Servic
es%20District%20(DBCSD)%20%20-%20Pantages%20Project.pdf>
Delta Stewardship Council (DSC). 2013 as updated through 2024. The Delta Plan. Available online
at: <https://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan/ >.
Delta Protection Commission (DPC). February 25, 2010. Land Use and Resource Management Plan
for the Primary Zone of the Delta. 42-pages. Retrieved on April 8, 2024 from
<https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Land-Use-and-Resource-
Management-Plan-2.25.10_-m508.pdf >.
Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. November 2019. Wastewater Treatment Plant
Master Plan Update Final. Contributions from Stantec. 197-pages. Retrieved on December
29, 2022, from
<https://todb.specialdistrict.org/files/a5d59b3ec/Wastewater+Treatment+Plant+Plan+201
9.pdf>.
Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. June 4, 2020. Final Report of Water and
Wastewater Rate Study 2020. Contributions from Lechowicz + Tseng Municipal Consultants,
Oakland, Ca. 42-pages.
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. June 15, 2022a.TownC oonft rDa iCscoostvae LryA FBCaOy
Community Services District FY 2022-2023 Adopted Budget. 57-pages. Retrieved on July 14,
2023 from <https://todb.ca.gov/annual-operating-capital-revenue-budgets>.
Town of Discovery Bay CSD. September 30, 2022b. Staff Response to LAFCO's Request for
Information via ESRI's 123 On-line Survey. 2-pages. Available in LAFCO's office upon request.
Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. March 2, 2023. Financial Statements and
Independent Auditor's Report for the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District for
year ended June 30, 2022. Contributions from Croce, Sanguinetti, & Vander Veen, Certified
Public Accountants. 58 pages. Retrieved on July 14, 2023 from <https://todb.ca.gov/annual-
audit-information>.
U.S. Census Bureau. Explore Census Data – Decennial Census. Retrieved on December 29, 2022,
from <https://data.census.gov/table?q=discovery+bay+&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P1>.
Visser, M.A.; Brinkley, C.; Zlotnicki, J. (2018) Socioeconomic Indicators Report: The Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta. Sacramento, CA: The Delta Protection Commission. 46-pages. Available
online at: <https://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Delta-Socio-Economic-
Indicators-Report-508.pdf>.
Chapter 21: TODBCSD Page 21-29
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Chapter 22: WEST COUNTY Contra Costa LAFCO
WASTEWATER DISTRICT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
22.1: OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................................2 2-1
22.2: BOUNDARY & SOI ...........................................................................................................2 2-4
22.3: DISTRICT OPERATIONS ...................................................................................................2 2-6
22.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................... 22-19
22.5: POPULATION ............................................................................................................... 22-27
22.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ................................................................................. 22-30
22.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ALTERNATIVES ........................................................... 22-33
22.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS ................................ 22-37
22.9: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION ............................................................... 22-41
22.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 22-43
22.1: OVERVIEW
West County Wastewater (WCW) is an independent district, formed in 1921 as the San Pablo
Sanitary District and reorganized in 1923 pursuant to the Sanitary District Act of 1923 (Health &
Safety Code §6400 et seq.). In 1978, WCW changed its name to the West Contra Costa Sanitary
District, and in 1992, it changed its name to the West County Wastewater District [now referred to
as West County Wastewater (WCW)] (WCW, 2022c).
WCW provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for a 16.9 square mile area
that includes the City of San Pablo; the northern portion of the City of Richmond; the Crestview
portion of the City of Pinole; the unincorporated communities of El Sobrante, Tara Hills, Rollingwood,
and Bayview; and other unincorporated areas within Contra Costa County. WCW provides contract
services to the Crockett Community Services District (CCSD) for lift station and sanitary sewer
maintenance, as well as limited emergency response support. WCW also maintains a large Contra
Costa (CC) County-owned stormwater pump station and the West County Justice Center
wastewater pump station by contract with CC County (WCW, 2022c). The WCW’s Agency Profile is
included in Table 22-1. A map of WCW’s current boundary and sphere of influence (SOI) is shown in
Figure 22-1. In December 2022, WCW staff provided LAFCO with a rough draft MSR that included
updated data, and this rough draft was utilized as the basis for this Chapter 22 (WCW, 2022c).
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 22-1: Agency Profile – West County Wastewater District Contra Costa LAFCO
General Information
Agency Type Independent Special District
Principal Act Sanitation District Act of 1923, Health & Safety Code Section 6400 et seq.
Date Formed 1921
Services Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal
Service Area
Location City of San Pablo, City of Richmond (portion), City of Pinole (portion),
other unincorporated areas within Contra Costa County
Sq. Miles/Acres 16.9 square miles/10,816 acres
Land Uses Residential, commercial, industrial, public use
Population Served 102,000 (Year 2022) / 123,000 (Year 2050)
Last SOI Update SOI reta ined on May 14, 2014
Infrastructure/Capacity
Facilities Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), 249 linear miles of sewer pipeline,
17 pump stations
Treatment Plant 12.5 million gallons per day (MGD) (dry weather)
Capacity (MGD) 21 MGD (wet weather)
Primary Disposal Approximately 6.5 MGD of secondary effluent is conveyed to two EBMUD
Method reclaim/recycle plants: 1) North Richmond Water Reclamation Plant
(NRWRP) and 2) Richmond Advanced Recycled Expansion (RARE) facility at
Chevron refinery for use as boiler feed water. The remaining secondary
effluent is conveyed to the Richmond WPCP, dechlorinated, and discharged
into San Francisco Bay through a deep-water outfall.
Operating Budget (FY 2021-2022):
Revenues Expenditures Net
Operating/General Fund $28,530,542 $24,296,309 $4,234,233
Combined Other Funds Included Above Included Above N/A
All Funds N/A N/A N/A
FY 2023 Long-Term Planned Expenditures
Capital Expenditures $34.9 million Projected future spending on the Comprehensive
budgeted for FY 2023. Energy and Sustainability Upgrades program is
estimated to be up to $90 million.
Net Assets (Reserves) $107,552,885 Net Assets on June 30, 2022
Governance
Governing Body Board of Directors (5 members)
Agency Contact Michael Savannah, Director of Infrastructure & Planning (510) 222-6700
Notes
• Net Assets do not include Capital Assets
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 22-1: Boundary/SOI Map – West County Wastewater District Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
22.2: BOUNDARY & SOI Contra Costa LAFCO
WCW’s boundary encompasses a 16.9 square mile service area, including the following
communities:
• City of San Pablo (2.7 square miles)
• Portion of the City of Richmond (7.9 square miles)
• Portion of the City of Pinole (0.4 square miles within the Crestview portion), and
• unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County (5.9 square miles, including the communities
of El Sobrante, Tara Hills, Rollingwood, and Bayview)
• (Data Source: WCW, 2022c)
The District’s sphere of influence (SOI) is not coterminous with the District’s boundary. There are
numerous islands (many of which are single parcels) that are within the District’s boundary but are
within the SOI. The SOI is 7.76 sq. mi. in area. WCW provides service to an estimated 45 parcels
outside the District boundary and SOI. These parcels are located in East Richmond Heights, with
service extended to the area in 1958 under an agreement with the City of Richmond. This service
agreement was renewed in 1967. Effective January 1, 2002, Government Code §56133 requires the
District to obtain from LAFCO approval for out-of-agency service. This statute allows the
Commission to authorize a city or district to provide new or extended services outside its
jurisdictional boundary but within its SOI in anticipation of a future change of organization (LAFCO,
2008).
To date, LAFCO has approved 36 boundary changes (i.e., annexations/reorganizations) and four out-
of-agency service agreements. LAFCO is currently processing a new boundary reorganization (i.e.,
annexations to WCW and EBMUD) located on Castro Ranch Road. A brief summary of a few
annexations is listed in Table 22-2 below.
Table 22-2: Proposed and/or Past Annexations into WCW
APN Location Description
APN 432-040-004-9 Castro Ranch Road - Potential annexation to EBMUD and WCW in July 2023. The
El Sobrante subject parcel is 97.6 acres. The applicant proposes to build
one single family home, small-scale farming (e.g., bees,
chickens, goats), and land preservation. The County’s
General Plan designation is Agricultural Land, and the
zoning is A-2 (5-acre minimum). The parcel is outside the
voter-approved Urban Limit Line.
APN 418-150-007. Park Avenue – Annexation into WCW in January 2016. The applicant
418-170-002 and 8 Richmond proposed to build ten single-family homes.
other parcels
(a total of 10
parcels)
APN 432-040-004 6200 Hillside Drive – Annexation into WCW in May 2016. The subject parcel was
El Sobrante 1.0 acres. The applicant proposed to build one single-family
home. The County’s General Plan designation was single-
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
family residential – medium density. ThCe opnatrrcae lC woasst alo LcAatFeCdO
within the voter-approved Urban Limit Line.
APNs 408-090-049 & Adjacent to 2601 Annexation into WCW in December 2017. The subject
408-090-050 Goodrick Avenue – parcel was 13.9 acres. The applicant proposed to build two
Richmond industrial warehouses. The County’s General Plan
designation was special heavy industrial. The parcel was
located within the voter-approved Urban Limit Line.
APN 408-204-002. Northeast of the Fred Annexation into WCW in June 2013. The subject parcel was
408-204-003 and 16 Jackson Way / 34.0 acres. The applicant proposed to build three industrial
other parcels D”Avila Way
buildings. The County’s General Plan designation was high
(a total of 18 intersection –
industrial and light industrial. The parcels were located
parcels) Richmond
within the voter-approved Urban Limit Line.
APN 408-201-017 323 Brookside Drive – Annexation into WCW in March 2020. The subject parcel
Richmond was 3.1 acres. The applicant proposed to build an urban
farm and agricultural education center. The County’s
General Plan designation was heavy industrial and open
space. The parcel was located within the voter-approved
Urban Limit Line.
Land uses within WCW’s boundary include single and multi-family residential, commercial,
industrial, open space, and watershed. Except for a small area along San Pablo Dam Road adjacent
to San Pablo Reservoir, WCW’s boundary is within the County Urban Limit Line (ULL) approved by
the voters in 2006. In 2006, County voters passed Measure L, which extended the term of the ULL
through 2026 and required a 2016 review to determine whether enough capacity existed inside the
ULL to accommodate jobs and housing growth through 2036 (WCW, 2022c).
The County’s 2020 General Plan created policies to preserve the semi-rural, suburban character,
emphasizing single-family homes in El Sobrante. These policies also discourage strip mall
development and advocate preserving areas outside of EBMUD and WCW as open space. The City
of San Pablo’s General Plan discusses the need for additional housing for seniors, multi-family
housing, and additional commercial opportunities. To address these needs, the Plan sets forth
policies for infill housing and additional commercial development (WCW, 2022c). The City of
Richmond (see Chapter 9) and the City of Pinole (see Chapter 7) also have General Plans that guide
growth within their respective cities.
Growth within WCW’s service area will likely occur through infill and redevelopment. In the three-
year period of FY 2020-2022, 30 permits were completed for new construction, of which 90% were
for single and multi-family residential properties. WCW will need to continue to implement its capital
improvement program, including pipeline replacements and treatment plant improvements, to
ensure adequate service levels for existing and new customers (WCW, 2022c).
Adjacent wastewater service providers include the City of Richmond Municipal Sewer District, the
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Stege Sanitary District (SSD) to the south, and the City of Pinole to the northeast. CThoen tWrai lCdocsatta C LaAnFyCoOn
Regional Park and the San Pablo Reservoir lie to the southeast (LAFCO, 2014).
SF Bay Land Use
The Bay Area Regional Collaborative includes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. This collaborative multi-agency
regional committee allows for cross-jurisdictional work on projects such as Resilient Bay Area and
Carbon Free Future. WCW’s boundary/SOI is adjacent to a portion of the San Francisco Bay, a
sensitive environmental resource. The California state planning and regulatory agency, which has
regional authority over San Francisco Bay, the Bay’s shoreline band, and the Suisun Marsh, is called
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Its mission is to protect
and enhance San Francisco Bay and to encourage the Bay’s responsible and productive use for this
and future generations. BCDC works to ensure projects are compatible with the conservation of Bay
resources as described on its website at: <https://bcdc.ca.gov/ >.
22.3: DISTRICT OPERATIONS
The District’s wastewater service includes wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal. The
District provides wastewater services to approximately 25,838 residential and business sewer
connections, as shown in Table 22-3 below (WCW, 2022c). Although service to a multi-unit
residential site is counted as one sewer account, it may serve several households.
Table 22-3: WCW Sewer Service Accounts
Type of Account # of Customers
Residential 24,905
Commercial 929
Industrial 4
TOTAL 25,838
Data Source: WCW, 2022c
Contact the WCW Office
2910 Hilltop Drive
Richmond, CA 94806
(510) 222-6700
www.wcwd.org
WCW’s infrastructure consists of a wastewater collection and conveyance system and treatment
facilities. The wastewater collection system consists of 249.0 miles of gravity pipeline, 6.3 miles of
pressurized pipeline, and 17 pump stations, as listed below in Table 22-4. WCW’s Water Quality &
Resource Recovery Plant (WQRRP) has a design capacity of 12.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and
an average dry weather flow of 7.1 MGD. WCW provides approximately 6.5 MGD of secondary
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
effluent to the two EBMUD reclaim/recycle plants: 1) North Richmond WaterC Ronetcrlaa mCoasttioan L APFlaCnOt
(NRWRP) and 2) the Richmond Advanced Recycled Expansion (RARE plant). The effluent is further
treated at these facilities, and tertiary-treated recycled water is produced for use in Chevron
Refinery’s cooling towers. It is also used for boiler feed or make-up water. Recycled water replaces
potable water that would otherwise be consumed at the refinery. For the past several years, between
90% and 95% of WCW’s effluent has been recycled during the dry season (WCW, 2022c). A lateral
replacement grant program has been underway since 2008. This is intended to reduce infiltration
and system overflows.
WCW’s infrastructure includes a wastewater collection and conveyance system and WQRRP.
Wastewater from WCW’s service area is treated at WCW’s WQRRP in North Richmond. The
secondary effluent is either conveyed to EBMUD for further treatment and use at Chevron’s
Richmond Refinery or to the City of Richmond WPCP, where it is dechlorinated before discharge in
San Francisco Bay. WCW is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (Region 2) (WCW, 2022c). Permits and Orders issued by the
RWQCB are listed in Table 22-4 below.
Table 22-4: Summary of District Infrastructure and Permits
Miles of Sewer Gravity Pipeline / 249.0 miles / 6.3 miles force mains
Force Mains
Number of Pump Stations 17 pump stations
Average Age of Collection System: Approx. 50 years
Avg. Dry Weather Flow / 7.1 MGD /
Avg. Wet Weather Flow 14.0 MGD
Wastewater Treatment / Design WCW WQRRP – 12.5 MGD dry weather, 21 MGD wet
Capacity weather
Water Reclamation & Effluent Up to 6.5 MGD to EBMUD or discharged to San
Disposal Francisco Bay
RWQCB Region Region 2 – San Francisco Bay
NPDES Permit No. CA0038539
RWQCB Orders: • Order No. R2-2019-0003 – Waste Discharge
Requirements
• Order No. R2-2019-0017 – Nutrient discharges
• Order No. R2-2017-0042 – Amendment of Waste
Discharge Requirements
• Order No. R2-2017-0041 – Waste Discharge
Requirements for mercury (Hg) and
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) discharges to SF
Bay
• Order No. R2-2016-0008 – Alternate Monitoring
and Reporting Requirements
Data Source: WCW, 2022
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Through its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), WCW is addressing the need to Creonnotvraa tCeo ostra r eLpAlFaCcOe
aging infrastructure. WCW carries out a preventive maintenance program for the collection system,
using its maintenance records, video inspections, and a multi-year CIP to plan for and prioritize
infrastructure needs. WCW maintains and upgrades the WQRRP as necessary. WCW also works
with EBMUD and the City of Richmond to ensure water quality meets the required objectives (WCW,
2022c).
The disposal facilities are owned by the West County Agency (WCA), a joint powers authority (JPA)
between WCW, the City of Richmond, and the Richmond Municipal Sewer District. However, in June
2023, the WCA Board approved pursuing the dissolution of the WCA and instructed staff to proceed
with negotiating a series of operating agreements for joint operation of shared assets.
Collection and Conveyance System
WCW serves approximately 26,000 accounts, of which 96.4% are residential, 3.6% are commercial,
and 0.01% are industrial. WCW operates and maintains pipelines, force mains, and pumping
stations that convey wastewater to WCW-owned WQRRP in North Richmond. WCW’s service area
is characterized by hilly terrain; the collection system operates with 17 pump stations and gravity
flow. In addition to its own pump stations, WCW operates three additional stations (2 sewer and 1
storm water) under agreements with Contra Costa County and CCSD. WCW cleans approximately
1.5 million feet of pipeline per year on computer-scheduled work orders (this number includes
cleaning sections of pipe multiple times per year). WCW has in-house capabilities for power rodding,
hydro-flushing, and pipeline video inspection (WCW, 2022c). WCW staff actively maintain the
collection system, as shown in Table 22-5 below.
WCW’s collection system includes over 100 miles of 6-inch clay pipe, much of which was
constructed prior to 1970. The concrete used to seal the old joints has gradually decomposed,
leading to increased infiltration and inflow. To avoid plugging with smaller diameter pipes, WCW is
replacing 6-inch pipelines with 8-inch minimum diameter pipes and using a longer lasting joint
material. This reduces the potential for SSO and infiltration and inflow. (WCW, 2022c)
In 2012, WCW implemented a flow monitoring program and collected pertinent data to determine
which areas were associated with the highest rate of inflow and infiltration (I/I). From 2015 to 2019,
WCW utilized CCTV sewer inspections, field reconnaissance, micro-basin flow monitoring, and
smoke testing to determine which pipelines in those areas should be replaced. WCW is addressing
these and other collection system issues through its Capital Improvement Program, which uses a
ten-year planning horizon (WCW, 2022c). Within the past three years, WCW constructed or replaced
approximately 50,000 feet of pipeline.
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 22-5: Collection System Activity Contra Costa LAFCO
Treatment Plant
WCW’s Water Quality and Resource Recovery Plant (WQRRP) is located at 2377 Garden Tract Road
in Richmond. The plant has a permitted dry weather capacity of 12.5 MGD and 21 MGD wet weather
capacity; the current average dry weather flows are approximately 7.1 MGD. The plant has three flow
equalization basins for managing wet weather flows. The wastewater receives advanced secondary
treatment and is either directed to EBMUD’s reclamation facilities or to the City of Richmond’s
WPCP. The wastewater receives tertiary treatment at one of the EBMUD facilities before being used
at Chevron’s refinery (WCW, 2022c).
The treatment plant site also contains an existing solar electricity generating facility that supplies
approximately 1/3 of the electricity used at the treatment plant (LAFCO, 2014).
In the past six years, WCW has completed several critical projects at the WQRRP, including, but not
limited to, the following: upgrading the electrical infrastructure, replacing valves at the Headworks
and effluent pump stations, replacing five effluent pumps, upgrading the secondary process, and
fully rebuilding the 3-water pumps. As noted, the project kicked off in early 2022 and has an expected
completion date around October of 2024. This is the largest capital project in the history of WCW,
and it will reduce the carbon footprint by approximately 90%. It includes but is not limited to, the
following components: installing various energy efficiency lighting and equipment, installing a new
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
solids treatment system (anaerobic digesters and associated equipment), expCaonndtirnag Csotostram L wAFaCteOr
equalization (storage) capacity by approximately 25%, installing new centrifuge sludge/biosolids
dewatering equipment, installing a biosolids dryer [to produce Class A biosolids which can be
beneficially reused (eliminates future use of sludge lagoons which are a large source of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions], installing approx. 0.8 megawatts MW of solar power-generating equipment at
the WQRRP, installing approximately 0.06 MW of solar power-generating equipment at the WQRRP,
installing 0.2 MW of solar power-generating equipment at three lift stations, installing 450 MW
digester gas-powered electrical cogeneration engines (with redundancy) as well as installing a
carbon redirection system for enhanced process control and digester gas production). This project
will be paid for in part by energy and operational savings over its estimated 20-year life cycle (WCW,
2022c).
Secondary effluent not reused by EBMUD is conveyed to the Richmond WPCP, where effluent from
both plants is dechlorinated and discharged to San Francisco Bay through a deep-water outfall.
Disposal Facilities
In 1977, WCW, the City of Richmond, and the Richmond Municipal Sewer District entered into a JPA,
WCA1, to construct and maintain effluent and sludge disposal facilities, including a 5-mile pipeline,
dechlorination processing, and the San Francisco Bay outfall. Treated wastewater from WCW’s
WQRRP that is conveyed to the Richmond WPCP is combined with the effluent from the Richmond
plant, dechlorinated, and discharged through a combined 72-inch diameter deep-water outfall into
central San Francisco Bay. Increasingly stringent water quality standards will require WCW and
Richmond to continue to implement improvements to their treatment processes and manage
programs implemented to avoid wastewater loading that requires additional treatment (WCW,
2022c). Water quality regulations will become increasingly stringent, and compliance will be costly.
WCW’s ability to avoid discharge by directing secondary effluent to the EBMUD reclamation plants
provides significant short-term and long-term benefits to the environment as well as to the
ratepayers (WCW, 2022c).
Water Recycling
The Richmond Advance Recycled Expansion (RARE) Water Project was completed in March 2011.
On average, the RARE facility has been able to reuse 4 MGD of the WCW effluent that previously
would have been discharged within the City of Richmond’s effluent to a shared outfall in San
Francisco Bay. WCW’s Pretreatment Program is officially functioning under the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Board oversight, with biennial inspections by their contractors. WCW’s Lateral
Replacement Grant Program has provided over $1 million over the last five fiscal years (LAFCO, 2014
and WCW, 2022c).
1
The JPA was formed for the purpose of constructing and maintaining effluent and sludge disposal facilities,
including the Bay outfall, 5-mile conveyance pipeline, dechlorination facilities, biosolids drying beds, and
laboratory facilities (WCW, 2022c). However, in June 2023 the WCA Board approved pursuing the dissolution
of the WCA and instructed staff to proceed with negotiating a series of operating agreements for joint operation
of shared assets.
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Sanitary Sewer Management Plan Contra Costa LAFCO
In 2021, WCW prepared its Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) in accordance with the
requirements of the SWRCB’s General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems
(Order No. R2-2017-0041 – Waste Discharge Requirements for Hg and PCB discharges to SF Bay)
(WCW, 2022c). The SSMP included a Fats, Oils, and Grease Control Program, which is expected to
reduce the number of blockages and retain capacity within the sewer system. WCW has an Overflow
Emergency Response Plan that includes an on-call response team (WCW, 2022c). In 2023, WCW
conducted an audit its SSMP (WCW, 2022c).
Local Hazards
The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Volume 2 maps critical infrastructure, such
as wastewater infrastructure, in relation to local hazards. However, WCW did not participate in the
2018 HMP (Contra Costa County, 2018). An equivalent analysis of local hazards in relation to WCW’s
infrastructure is not available on the WCW website. It is important for wastewater agencies to
participate in the Hazard Mitigation planning process as the American Society of Civil Engineers,
Region 9, has recommended that agencies make risk-based decisions on capital improvements,
maintenance, and operations. For purposes of this analysis, it is noted that WCW has infrastructure
located within the City of Richmond and the City of San Pablo2. Both of these Cities participated in
the 2018 HMP. This MSR’s Chapter 9 describes the local hazards that the City of Richmond described
in the Contra Costa County HMP, and these are expected to be similar to the general types of hazards
that WCW could potentially experience. WCW’s Facebook page notes it will participate in the
forthcoming update to the Contra Costa County HMP. It is recommended that WCW incorporate
information about local hazards into the District’s next Sanitary Sewer Management Plan update.
Additionally, it is recommended that when LAFCO next updates this Wastewater Services MSR for
WCW (anticipated in five to ten years), it should specifically address local hazards and the steps
WCW has taken towards resiliency.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) database from public/permitted
systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific module in the California
Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General
Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems under Water Quality Order No. WQ
2022-0103-DWQ (SSS WDRs), on December 6, 2022. All public agencies that own or operate a
sanitary sewer system comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes that convey wastewater to a
publicly owned treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. A
3.6-year term from January 1, 2019 to August 9, 2022, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The
results of the database queries regarding WCW are listed in Table 22-6.
2
Note: The City of Pinole also did not participate in the 2018 Contra Costa County Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 22-6: West County Wastewater District Sanitary Sewer Overflows Contra Costa LAFCO
EVENT Region Responsible SSO Start Date SSO Vol Vol of SSO Vol of SSO SSO Failure WDID
ID Agency Category Recovered Reached Point
Surface
Water
856206 2 WCW Category 2 2/13/2019 2,400 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
856207 2 WCW Category 1 2/13/2019 156,000 0 156,000 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
856210 2 WCW Category 3 2/13/2019 220 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
856211 2 WCW Category 3 2/13/2019 720 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
857448 2 WCW Category 1 3/30/2019 900 300 40 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
857842 2 WCW Category 2 4/17/2019 1,230 1,230 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
858242 2 WCW Category 1 5/7/2019 1,500 300 1,200 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
858265 2 WCW Category 1 5/8/2019 2,750 500 2,250 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
858439 2 WCW Category 3 5/21/2019 100 100 0 Maintenance 2SSO10216
hole
859501 2 WCW Category 3 6/28/2019 50 50 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
861716 2 WCW Category 3 9/11/2019 5 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
861908 2 WCW Category 3 8/27/2019 750 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Mainline Contra Costa LAFCO
861909 2 WCW Category 3 9/23/2019 50 0 0 Pump Station- 2SSO10216
Mechanical
862109 2 WCW Category 3 8/22/2019 250 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
862110 2 WCW Category 1 10/7/2019 590 570 590 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
862662 2 WCW Category 1 10/28/2019 60,500 55,000 60,500 Force Main 2SSO10216
862928 2 WCW Category 1 11/14/2019 14,400 10,360 14,400 Force Main 2SSO10216
864669 2 WCW Category 2 2/5/2020 1,250 0 0 Air Relief Valve 2SSO10216
(ARV)/Blow-Off
Valve (BOV)
865959 2 WCW Category 1 3/30/2020 193,380 0 193,380 Force Main 2SSO10216
866663 2 WCW Category 3 4/22/2020 100 100 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
866665 2 WCW Category 3 3/23/2020 5 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
868427 2 WCW Category 3 7/10/2020 750 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
870579 2 WCW Category 3 11/9/2020 675 675 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
870790 2 WCW Category 1 11/24/2020 43,816 42,000 1,816 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
872100 2 WCW Category 1 1/30/2021 229 100 229 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
873444 2 WCW Category 1 4/6/2021 718 700 18 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
874055 2 WCW Category 3 5/4/2021 200 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
876346 2 WCW Category 1 9/11/2021 1,850 100 1,750 Gravity Contra2 CSoSsOta1 0L2A1F6C O
Mainline
877257 2 WCW Category 1 10/24/2021 111,376 0 111,376 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
877293 2 WCW Category 3 9/30/2021 20 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
877374 2 WCW Category 3 10/24/2021 450 0 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
877418 2 WCW Category 2 11/3/2021 18,900 0 0 Pump Station- 2SSO10216
Controls
877838 2 WCW Category 3 10/24/2021 350 350 0 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
878240 2 WCW Category 1 12/17/2021 12,625 0 12,625 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
878913 2 WCW Category 1 1/19/2022 13,200 0 13,200 Maintenance 2SSO10216
hole
879737 2 WCW Category 1 2/26/2022 400 0 400 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
880690 2 WCW Category 1 4/15/2022 2,280 180 2,100 Gravity 2SSO10216
Mainline
Data Source: CIQWS Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-14
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
During this 3.6-year timeframe, 37 SSO events occurred in the WCW District3.C Ionn mtrao sCto csatas eLsA,F tChOe
SSO had failure points at the gravity mainline. Some of the overflows had significant spill volumes.
The spill that took place on March 30, 2020, had the greatest spill volume of 193,380 gallons. None
of the spilled material was recovered. Instead, the entire spill volume reached surface water. A
structural failure of the pipe caused the spill. Another significant spill occurred on October 24, 2021,
with a volume of 111,376 gallons. None of the spilled material was recovered. Instead, the entire
spill volume reached surface water. The spill was caused by root intrusion. Overall, many of the
SSOs within the query were not recovered.
WCW is reducing the risk of future SSOs through its Sewer Ordinance update, which requires testing
of building sewers and sewer laterals under specific circumstances. Sewers and laterals that do not
pass the prescribed tests must be repaired or replaced per WCW’s policies (WCW, 2022c). The last
column in Table 22-6 lists the Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) used by the RWQCB in their
databases.
From July to October 2022, San Francisco Bay experienced a harmful algal bloom (HAB) known as a
red tide, as described in Appendix F. The species associated with this bloom, Heterosigma akashiwo,
can cause water to take on a reddish-brown color. The HAB extended throughout the open-bay
regions of the South Bay, the Central Bay and into San Pablo Bay. Fish deaths linked to the red tide
included sturgeon, striped bass, sharks, bat rays, smelt, and anchovy. The San Francisco Bay Water
Board is working to manage nutrient inputs to the Bay through the Nutrient Management Strategy,
which includes collaboration with researchers, dischargers, and other agencies to study the
potential impacts of nutrients on San Francisco Bay. The District has an opportunity to assist with
this effort by continuing to reduce the number of SSO events and by discussing the nutrient problem
with other wastewater districts and the Water Board.
In addition to the SSOs listed in Table 22-6, WCW filed a Hazardous Material Spill notice with the CA
Office of Emergency Services on January 11, 2023, and provided an update on January 15, 2023. Due
to heavy rains, the WCW facility pumped sewage directly into the San Francisco Bay. The total
amount was estimated at 11 million gallons. The Contra Costa Health Services Department was
notified.
Another Hazardous Material Spill notice was filed with the CA Office of Emergency Services in June
2023. Approximately 500,000 gallons of sewage spilled from a maintenance hole in El Sobrante,
3
Note: WCW experienced 60 SSOs between the years 2008 to 2014. LAFCO’s 2014 MSR noted that the number
of SSOs experienced tended to decline because WCW has a computer-generated schedule for cleaning and
closed-circuit televising (CCTVing) the collection system. Deficiencies discovered during CCTVing are
scheduled for repair or replacement by WCW construction crews or local contractors (LAFCO, 2014). Through
is cooperative efforts with local partners and through its infrastructure improvements, sewer spills were
reduced in number and volume from 19 in 2009 to 12 in 2012 (LAFCO, 2014).
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-15
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
which also entered San Pablo Creek. The maintenance hole was blocked by greCaosnet aran dC odsistap oLAsaFbClOe
wipes. As a result, WCW put this sewer line at San Pablo Creek on an increased cleaning schedule.
Future Challenges
This section considers factors that influence an agency’s ability to collect, treat, and dispose of
wastewater and provide public service to customers. Wastewater service providers in the Bay Area
face several future challenges, including anticipated Nutrient Management Regulations. The
RWQCB is expected to implement interim SF Bay-wide and individual WWTP effluent limits. This may
include aggressive, long-term SF Bay-wide nutrient limits based on current scientific information
with a multi-year compliance schedule. Therefore, water quality regulations will become
increasingly stringent, and compliance will be costly. WCW’s ability to avoid discharge by
directing secondary effluent to EBMUD provides significant short-term and long-term benefits
to the environment as well as to the ratepayers (WCW, 2022c). Another challenge faced by WCW
is the aging infrastructure.
The American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9 has several recommended remedies for
California’s aging wastewater infrastructure as outlined in Appendix J and as summarized below:
1. Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a wastewater
treatment plant is, what kind of waste it can treat, and what impact wastes have on the sewer
pipes. Continue educational programs about identifying a sewer overflow and whom to call
if such an event occurs.
2. Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations.
3. Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling (ASOCE, 2019)
Cooperative Programs & Shared Facilities
LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make a determination regarding the status of and opportunities
for, shared facilities. WCW currently shares facilities and resources with other agencies4 by
providing contract services and delivering secondary effluent to EBMUD for recycled water use.
(WCW, 2022c).
Since 1995, WCW has provided secondary effluent to EBMUD. The effluent is further treated at the
plant to produce tertiary-treated recycled water for use in the Chevron refinery cooling towers.
EBMUD implemented the RARE Water Project in 2011 to provide up to 4 MGD of high-quality recycled
water for boiler feedwater at the refinery. It provides multiple benefits, including reducing the
quantity of treated wastewater effluent discharged to San Francisco Bay and advancing the use of a
reliable and sustainable water supply. The Chevron Refinery has an average daily demand of 12
MGD, so WCW’s effluent supplies over half of the refinery’s total water needs (WCW, 2022c).
4 Many of these agreements are outdated and either in the process of being updated or planned to
be in the coming one to two years (WCW, 2022c).
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-16
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
WCW provides contract services to the CCSD for lift station and sanitary sewer maintenance for their
wastewater collection system. WCW also maintains the Contra Costa County North Richmond
Stormwater Pump Station and the West County Detention Center wastewater pump station. Finally,
WCW has an emergency response agreement with the SSD and the Richmond Municipal Sewer
District (WCW, 2022c).
Since 2000, WCW, the City of Richmond, and Republic Services (RS), operator of the West County
Landfill just next door to the WQRRP, have been involved in an exchange of services agreement. As
part of RS’s CA Department of Toxic Substance Control landfill post-closure permit, they needed a
long-term alternative for disposing of landfill leachate (liquid composed of various, sometimes nasty
constituents that is collected as it drains from the bottom of the landfill). The parties entered into an
agreement whereby RS disposes of all solid waste generated by the City of Richmond and WCW in
exchange for the two agencies treating leachate (under well-defined permit requirements) through
their respective treatment plants (WCW, 2022c).
Two leachate streams are generated from the landfill, Class I and Class II. Class I Leachate is a
relatively small volume of liquid generated from the former hazardous waste section of the landfill.
It is fully treated at the site and then pumped to WCW’s WQRRP, where it is mixed with influent
(sewage) entering the plant and then fully treated again with other materials being processed. The
Class II Leachate is a larger volume that is sent to the City of Richmond WPCP for treatment through
that facility. This is a less noxious waste stream collected from the domestic section of the landfill,
whose main contaminant of concern is Ammonia (WCW, 2022c).
In the past, WCW studied the possibility of a joint treatment agreement with the Cities of Hercules
or Pinole, but those agencies decided to upgrade their own WWTP (LAFCO, 2014). In the long term,
consolidation with an adjacent sewer service provider may be feasible, resulting in more sharing of staff
expertise, equipment, and regulatory compliance (LAFCO, 2014). In the past, opportunities were
evaluated for WCW to share its treatment and disposal facilities with the cities. Those efforts have been
dormant for many years, and Hercules and Pinole ultimately chose to operate a joint WPCP in Pinole
(WCW, 2022c).
From February 1977 through 2024, WCW participated in the West County Agency (WCA), a joint
power authority (JPA), with the City of Richmond’s Municipal Sanitary Sewer District to construct and
maintain effluent and sludge disposal facilities. Specifically, WCA maintains the San Francisco Bay
outfall (a 5-mile pipeline that runs between the two plants), a large diffuser on the SF Bay seabed,
two Aton marker buoys, and effluent dechlorination processes (WCW, 2022c). However, a WCA staff
report presented at the March 21, 2024, JPA meeting indicates that the parties are in the process of
dissolving the JPA. In June 2023, the WCA Board approved pursuing the dissolution of the WCA and
instructed staff to proceed with negotiating a series of operating agreements for the joint operation
of shared assets. The parties are now in the process of negotiating a Dissolution Agreement and
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-17
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
establishing the terms of operating agreements for assets historically owneCdo bnyt rtah Ceo WstaC LAA. FTChOe
impact of this dissolution on the City of Richmond was not described in the March 2024 staff report.
A final note on shared facilities: biosolids processing and handling facilities constructed under
WCW’s C&GP are sized to handle the City of Richmond’s biosolids and those generated by WCW.
WCW is discontinuing the use of its sludge storage lagoons for various environmental and other
reasons. This change in operations will directly impact the City of Richmond. WCW has offered a
potential solution by allowing an opportunity for the City to continue sending biosolids under a cost-
sharing agreement, which would still need to be developed. WCW suggests there are multiple
benefits to this potential arrangement, which include, but are not limited to, avoiding costs for the
City of Richmond (they would forego an estimated $20M in capital costs, as well as O&M costs
associated with constructing their own biosolids processing and treatment facilities), eliminating
future truck traffic caused by transporting dried biosolids out of Point Richmond and eliminating the
potential for odors that could accompany biosolids treatment (WCW, 2022c).
Awards
WCW has received several awards and recognitions, as listed below:
• Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government
Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) for the WCW annual
comprehensive financial report (ACFR) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. This was the
22nd consecutive year WCW was recognized for its financial reporting. In order to be
awarded, a government must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized ACFR. This
report must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and applicable
legal requirements.
• District Transparency Certificate of Excellence from the Special District Leadership
Foundation in 2017.
• The Water Quality and Resource Recovery Plant has achieved the National Association of
Clean Water Agencies Peak Performance Award for 21 years in a row.
• Platinum and Gold awards from the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)
for 17 consecutive years in recognition of compliance with its National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit (WCW ACFR, 2022a).
• The Project of the Year Award for projects under (5) million dollars in 2016 awarded by APWA
– Northern California Chapter.
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
WCW is leveraging several opportunities that will result in cost savings, some of which represent
significant green strategies to support sustainability (WCW, 2022c). For example, in December 2007,
WCW entered into a purchase power agreement (PPA) for a 1.0 MW solar electricity generating
system at the WQRRP. The system was designed to offset approximately 30% of the power previously
purchased through Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to operate the WQRRP. The project was
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-18
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
implemented through PG&E’s Self Generation Incentive Program, which resulteCdo inn tar are Cboasttea tLoAwFaCrOd
the project cost. The system became operational in 2008, and some components are now nearing
the end of their useful life. WCW is in discussions with the system’s owner to evaluate options to
rehabilitate as necessary or otherwise decide on its future (WCW, 2022c).
As previously noted in this report, WCW worked with EBMUD to implement the RARE Water Project
(advanced recycled water treatment facilities) to provide recycled water to the Chevron Richmond
Refinery and reduce potable water consumption. The Project became operational in 2011. Nearly
all of WCW’s effluent in the summer and most during the wet season is recycled by EBMUD,
supplying over half of the refinery’s total water needs. This reduces the cost of conveying secondary
effluent to the Richmond WPCP and reduces costs for dechlorination and discharge (WCW,
2022c).
WCW implements a Pretreatment Program to inspect, monitor, and enforce regulations related to
discharge from industrial users. WCW’s Pollution Prevention Program targets and educates
commercial and residential users. The two programs aim to prevent harmful discharge from
entering the wastewater system, which would require greater effort and expense by WCW to treat
the waste prior to discharge (WCW, 2022c).
WCW previously amended its Sewer Ordinance to reduce sources of infiltration and inflow and
reduce or eliminate sewage overflows. Effective January 2, 2008, Ordinance 1-02-08 required all
new building sewers and sewer laterals to pass specified tests. Defective building sewers and
sewer laterals are prohibited. Existing building sewers and sewer laterals must be tested when
there is no record of compliance found by WCW, an event such as a sewer overflow has occurred,
a potential sewer overflow could occur, or a remodel, home sale, or transfer is proposed. Sewer
laterals that fail the required testing and analysis process must be repaired or replaced at the
expense of the property owner(s). To assist in defraying some of the costs of addressing sewer
lateral defects via construction, WCW offers a partial reimbursement program that provides up to
50% or up to a maximum of $3,000 for laterals that are less than 100 feet in length and less than 10
feet in depth, or up to a maximum of $4,500 for longer or deeper laterals, towards the construction
cost (WCW, 2022c).
22.4: DISTRICT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
WCW operates as an enterprise-type activity, with its primary revenue source being service charges
and fees. It is self-supporting. The District’s Biennial Operating Budget and Annual Comprehensive
Financial Reports (ACFR) are the primary information source for data related to the WCW Enterprise
Fund, and these reports are posted on the District’s website at: <https://www.wcwd.org/about-
us/plans-documents/>. This financial analysis represents a snapshot in time (i.e., a limited time
period). However, WCW regularly updates its financial data, and readers may review the new data
on the WCW website.
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-19
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
WCW’s enterprise fund is further segmented into four internal sub-funds; Contra Costa LAFCO
• Operating Fund,
• Capital Improvement Fund,
• Restricted Capital Fund, and
• Equipment Replacement Fund.
All departments charge their operating and maintenance expenses to the Operating Fund.
Budgeting: The WCW Biennial Operating Budget for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 was adopted by the
Board of Directors on June 16, 2021. WCW budgets on a fiscal year basis that begins July 1 and ends
June 30. Every two years, WCW prepares a Biennial Budget. The Biennial Budget is intended to inform
elected officials, WCW staff, and the public. The Budget includes a 5.5% increase in Sewer Use
Charges and a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). WCW follows financial policies and procedures and
has a Gann Appropriations Limit in place (WCW Budget, 2021).
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR): The ACFR was prepared by the Administrative
Services Department of the WCW District (WCW ACFR, 2022a). The most recent ACFR available as
of April 4, 2024, is for fiscal year (FY) 2020- 2021. The auditor (Cropper Accountancy Corporation)
provided an opinion that the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material
respects, the respective financial position of the business-type activities of the WCW District as of
June 30, 2021 and 2020 and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable,
cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America (WCW, ACFR, 2022a).
The Auditors noted that although there were no noncompliance instances, they found an internal
financial reporting item that indicated a material weakness. Specifically, during the year ended June
30, 2021, there was continuity of personnel issues related to key employees, particularly within the
finance department. This was partly due to COVID-19 related staffing issues combined with unclear
written procedures for accounting staff. This situation resulted in delays for the audit. The Auditors
recommended that WCW implement additional accounting/financial policies and procedures to
shore up the control environment (WCW, ACFR, 2022a). Given that local agencies are recovering
from COVID-19 and given that WCW has hired new staff, it is likely that this situation is being
resolved.
Five primary areas of criteria were utilized to assess the present and future financial condition of
WCW’s wastewater service operations, as discussed below:
3 Year Revenue/Expenditure Budget Trends
WCW’s primary source of operating revenue is sewer service charges. Revenue is also derived from
interest income on investments, connection fees, and service contracts. Additionally, WCW
receives a portion of local property tax. Additionally, in 2021, WCW issued $79.6 million in
wastewater revenue bonds. This bond funding will be used to complete various capital improvement
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-20
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
projects, including the C&GP. WCW provides contract operations and maintCeonnatnrcae C soestravi LceAsF CtoO
several outside agencies, which increases revenue opportunities for WCW (WCW, 2022c). Table 22-
7 below summarizes the recent financial trends of WCW.
Table 22-7: WCW Financial Summary
FY 2019/2020 FY 2020/2021 FY 2021/2022 FY 2022/2023
Actual Actual Est. Final Budgeted
Operating $29,010,581 $28,530,542 $30,862,940 $31,210,468
Revenues
Operating $20,331,286 $24,296,309 $22,780,071 $25,070,507
Expenses
Net Operating $8,679,295 $4,234,233 $8,082,869 $6,139,961
Revenues /
(Expenses)
Non-Operating $582,000 $1,176,339 $83,529,700 $485,000
Revenues
Non-Operating $8,730,312 $14,559,054 $83,424,857 $10,327,636
Expenses
Net Assets, $103,975,949 $106,284,654 $108,094,778 $116,282,490
Beg. of Year
Net Assets, $106,284,654 $108,094,778 $116,282,490 $112,579,815
End of Year
Change in Net $2,308,705 $1,810,124 $8,187,712 $(3,702,675)
Assets
Data Source: (WCW, 2022c)
Operating revenues for fiscal year 2021 were $26.1 million, and total operating expenses were $27
million, resulting in an operating loss of $1.3 million. This compares to fiscal year 2020 operating
revenues of $26.0 million and total operating expenses of $26.8 million, resulting in an operating loss
of $0.8 million. Sewer Use Charge (Environmental Quality Charge) revenue decreased by $11,151
from fiscal year 2020 to 2021. It increased by $1.8 million from fiscal year 2019 to 2020, primarily due
to decreased water use by commercial customers (WCW ACFR, 2022a). However, total revenue
exceeded total expenses for each of the five study years presented in Figure 22-2. Figure 22-2 below
demonstrates that WCW’s Board of Directors maintains sound fiscal policies and closely monitors
expenses (WCW ACFR, 2022a).
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-21
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Con tra Costa LAFCO
Figure 22-2: 5-Year Comparison of Total Revenue
to
Total Expenses
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Total Revenues Total Expenses
Data Source: WCW ACFR 2022a and 2019
Ratios of Revenue Sources
WCW receives approximately 90 percent of its revenues from service charges and fees. Property
taxes comprise approximately five percent, and Rental Income comprises two percent. Figure 22-3
shows that the remaining revenue sources are one percent or less, including permit fees, contract
services, other revenue, redevelopment allocation, and gain on disposal of fixed assets. This ratio of
revenue reflects an appropriate balance for a typical enterprise-type service and minimizes the
impact that negative economic factors will have on more elastic revenues such as property tax.
FIGURE 22-3: REVENUE SOURCES, RATIOS FISCAL
YEAR JUNE 30, 2021
Redevelopment
Rental income
Other Revenue
allocation… Gain on
2%
1%
Property taxes… disposal of
Contract fixed assets
services… 0%
Permit fees…
Sewer Use
Charge …
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-22
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Ratio of Reserves or Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures
WCW maintains seven reserve funds: 1) Debt Service, 2) Insurance, 3) Connection Fees, 4)
Operating Reserve, 5) Capital Reserve, 6) Equipment and Vehicle and 7) Emergency. On June 30,
2021, WCW had a reserve fund balance as listed below in Table 22-8.
Table 22-8: WCW Defined Reserves for June 30, 2021,
Type of Fund Amount
Debt Service $ 2,286,206
Insurance $ 200,000
Connection Fees $ 485,000
Operating Reserve $12,678,205
Capital Reserve $ 5,351,123
Equipment and Vehicle $ 2,356,981
Emergency $ 1,594,605
Total $ 24,952,120
Data Source: (WCW, 2022c)
The Reserves listed in Table 22-8 above result from budgetary policy describing available liquid
resources, such as cash and investments outside the Budget, to be used if appropriated funds are
insufficient. These funds may be used for contingencies, emergencies, or other unplanned events.
WCW’s Board of Directors reviews reserve levels annually as part of the budget process to determine
whether the levels established provide for the financial security required of a fiscally responsible
local government (WCW ACFR, 2022a). WCW increased service rates to support a hybrid pay-as-
you-go, grant or bond-funded approach to implementing capital projects. Operating revenues
that may be used for capital projects are expected to be consistent at $485,000 per year (unless the
State shifts property revenue from the special districts). Capital expenditures of $216,777,650 are
planned over the 10-year period, based on the FY 2022-23 Operating and Capital Budget (WCW,
2022c). WCW maintains cash and investments totaling $40,255,886, including funds in the Local
Agency Investment Fund (WCW ACFR, 2022a).
An indicator of the ability to absorb an unexpected loss of revenue in a given fiscal year is exhibited
by the amount of unrestricted cash reserve or fund balance the service fund maintains in relation to
the annual fund expenditures. The Government Finance Officers Association generally recommends
maintaining an unassigned fund balance of no less than two months (16.67%) [a “floor”] compared
to annual expenditures. A larger percentage (ratio) is encouraged to allow local agencies to adapt to
risks such as uncertainty and volatility in the world, particularly related to economic disruptions and
severe weather, and to adjust to future resource constraints.
WCW currently has an overall reserve fund balance of $24,952,120, as noted in Table 22-8 above.
However, many of these funds are restricted to a specific use. Therefore, the unrestricted Net
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-23
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Position of $ 17,107,879 for FY 2020-21 was utilized for this calculation. The unreCstornicttread C noestt ap oLsAiFtiCoOn
is approximately 61.45% of total expenditures ($27,840,253), and this represents an acceptable
ratio.
Annual Debt Service Expenditures to Total Annual Expenditures
For local government agencies, liabilities typically include current liabilities such as accounts
payable, salaries payable, bond interest payable, and long-term liabilities such as serial bonds
payable, installments payable, and contracts payable. Specifically, the District obtained four
California State Water Resources Control Board 20-year State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans during
fiscal year 2015. Each of the four SRF loans (payable) were utilized for the Wastewater Facility and
Collection System Rehabilitation Project and are listed below:
A. Phase I, Segment 1: loan in an amount not-to-exceed $1,654,505 with an interest rate of
1.90% per annum for capital projects.
B. Phase I, Segment 2: loan in an amount not-to-exceed $2,881,758 with an interest rate of
1.90% per annum for capital projects. In 2016, Amendment 3 was issued, and the
amendment was executed in February 2021, increasing the total loan amount to $8,918,272.
As of June 30, 2021, this loan is outstanding in the amount of $2,253,766.
C. Phase I, Segment 3: loan in an amount not-to-exceed $14,593,521 with an interest rate of
1.90% per annum for capital projects.
D. Recycled Water Reliability Upgrades: loan in an amount not-to-exceed $30,457,093 with
an interest rate of 1.00% per annum for capital projects.
For each of these loans, the timeframes and interest rates are summarized in Table 22-9 below.
Table 22-9 SRF Loans
These SRF loans have an established repayment scheduled, as detailed in Table 22-10 below.
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-24
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Table 22-10: Repayment Schedule for SRF Loans Contra Costa LAFCO
The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures is an indicator of the ability to meet
debt obligations in relation to service provision expenditures. Ideally, a ratio of 10 percent or less
would reflect a very stable ratio. WCW’s annual debt service for FY 2021 was $2,284,343, as listed in
Table 22-10 above. The ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual expenditures ($27,840,253
in FY 2021) calculates to approximately 21 percent for FY 2021. This ratio falls within the suggested
guideline of 10 percent or less, indicating that WCW will likely be able to continue to meet its debt
service obligations. However, this calculation relies upon the most recent ACFR available which is
for FY 2021. In 2022, new $90 million bonds were issued to fund the Comprehensive Energy and
Sustainability Upgrades. Since this new debt is not included in the above paragraphs, it is
recommended that when LAFCO next updates a MSR for WCW (anticipated within five to ten years),
this metric should be reanalyzed.
Capital Improvement Program
WCW’s Board of Directors approved the Ten-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) at the June 2, 2021
Board meeting. This ten-year CIP covers the time period FY 2021/2022 through 2030/2031. The FY
2022 CIP expenditure budget was $27.5 million and $34.9 million in FY 2023. A significant portion of
the Budget is dedicated to the planned Comprehensive Energy and Sustainability Upgrades program
estimated to cost $79 million over the next three years. The Board authorized the issuance of bonds
in FY 2022 to fund the Comprehensive Energy and Sustainability Upgrades program and other
miscellaneous capital projects. The total dollar amount of the bond issuance is estimated to be up
to $90 million (WCW Budget, 2021).
The CIP also includes approximately $63,000,000 in projects for the gravity portion of the collection
and conveyance system and includes approximately $9,000,000 in projects for the force main
portion of the collection and conveyance system (WCW, 2022c). Approximately $100,000,000 in
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-25
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
projects for the WQRRP, including process improvements and a standby generaCtoonr tirsa a Clsoos tian cLlAuFdCeOd
(WCW, 2022c). Please note that the CIP budget is treated differently than the operating budget
because any unspent funding from one fiscal is rolled over into the next fiscal year. The CIP includes
all current capital improvement projects in progress as well as all identified proposed future CIP. The
Plan both prioritizes and schedules CIP spending for the next 10 years, allowing WCW to effectively
and transparently manage its fiscal and staffing resources (WCW Budget, 2021).
Figure 22-4: Ten-Year Capital Improvements
Data Source for Figure 22-4: (WCW Budget, 2021)
Infrastructure Needs
Existing Infrastructure: WCW currently maintains various equipment, vehicles5, infrastructure, and
associated assets. As noted above, WCW has an aged sewer collection system (LAFCO, 2014).
WCW provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for residential,
commercial, and industrial customers. The infrastructure consists of approximately 249.0
miles of sewer gravity pipeline, 6.3 miles of pressurized pipeline, and 17 pump stations. The
wastewater receives secondary treatment and is either directed to EBMUD for reclamation or
the City of Richmond’s WPCP to be dechlorinated prior to discharge to SF Bay. WCW has had a
collection system preventive maintenance program for over 40 years and is implementing a
lateral testing program on the sale of property to minimize infiltration and inflow and avoid
costly blockages. WCW has increased service rates to support a hybrid pay-as-you-go, grant or
5
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a new rule on Aug 25, 2022 which requires new car
sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While it is not yet clear whether new electric
vehicle laws will apply to the type of trucks utilized by the District, it is likely that sometime in the future, the
District may be asked to consider purchasing or retrofitting veh icles reliant upon an alternative energy source
such as electricity, biogas, hydrogen, or other source. The price per gallon of gasoline has risen; therefore,
alternative fuel/energy for vehicles can sometimes be cheaper.
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-26
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
bond-funded approach to implementing capital projects (WCW, 2022c). The CCoIPn tdreas Ccorisbtead L AinF tChOe
preceding paragraphs was designed to address the identified infrastructure needs.
Rate Structure
WCW uses a flat rate structure for residential properties; non-residential properties pay rates
based on water use. WCW has increased service rates to support a hybrid pay-as-you-go, grant
or bond-funded approach to implementing capital projects (WCW, 2022c). WCW adopts sewer
service charge rate plans every five years and reviews its service charges and connection fees
annually. For example, in 2021, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) completed a Sewer Use
Charge Rate Plan and Study for WCW. The study analyzed revenue, expenses, reserve policies, and
other financial data. Based on this study, WCW updated its fees for the annual service charge for
residential customers. The 2022-23 rate of $711 per year reflects a $37 increase over 2021-22 rates;
the previous rate increase was in July 2021. The annual sewer service charge is collected through the
property tax roll. A flat rate structure for residential sewer service is common in comparison to other
sanitary districts in the area (WCW, 2022c).
Commercial customers pay a service charge based on water use. The
rate varies depending on wastewater loading; the top rate is $12.82
per 1,000 gallons of water delivered for food service accounts. Rates
for industrial users are based on actual flow, chemical oxygen
demand, and suspended solids (WCW, 2022c). The current
wastewater service rates are summarized in Table 22-11 below. A
portion of the 1% property tax collected on property within WCW’s
sanitary sewer service area accrues to WCW (WCW, 2022c). In
addition, properties within Richmond’s city limits are assessed by the
City for $32 per Sewer Service Unit for the City’s Stormwater
Management Program. Industrial users are charged $3.32 per
Industrial Waste Unit (WCW, 2022c).
Table 22-11: WCW Service Area 2022-23 Wastewater Service Charge
Type Rate
Single-Family Residential $59/month ($711/yr.)
Commercial ($7.62 - $12.82/1,000 gal)
Data Source: (WCW, 2022c)
22.5: POPULATION
There are approximately 103,214 residents within the District boundary as of 2020 (Contra Costa
Dept of Conservation, 2022). Detailed information regarding population demographics in Contra
Costa County is provided in Appendix A.
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-27
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 22-12: Existing Permanent Population, WCW, 2020 to 2023
Name of District Population in Number of Registered Population in SOI
Boundary 2020 (1) Voters in Boundary (2) only (3)
WCW 103,214 44,064 as of June 12, 2019 1,685
Sources:
(1) California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State:
January 1, 2021 and 2022. Sacramento, California.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/.
(2) Registered Voter data for January 2023 provided by LAFCO’s Agency Directory, based on Contra
Costa County Elections Office data.
(3): Calculated estimate based on an average of 3.02 persons per parcel in the County of Contra
Costa.
Projected Future Population: Projecting a district’s future population is complicated due to varying
annexation rates and census tracts that do not match the district’s boundary. Data from the
California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth for Contra Costa
County, as shown in Table 22-13 below. Since the anticipated future population growth of the District
has the potential to influence the demand for the provision of wastewater services, the projections
are shown in Table 22-13 below.
WCW’s staff provided their own population data. They estimate the current population within
WCW’s boundary is 102,000 residents (slightly lower than LAFCO’s estimate). Based on the
Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) 2050 Growth Pattern document, WCW staff estimates
the population may reach 123,000 by 2050 with an average annual growth rate of 0.7%. (WCW,
2022c). In Table 22-13, population projections are provided using both LAFCO’s population data
(high scenario) and WCW’s estimate (low scenario). Although using LAFCO’s population data
provides a higher/larger starting point, by the year 2045, both scenarios will be somewhat equivalent.
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-28
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table 22-13: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2045)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Percent Numeric CAGR
Increase Increase 2020 to
2020 to 2045 2020 to 2045 2045
County of Contra Costa1
1,149,800 1,197,341 1,244,173 1,283,681 1,312,536 1,331,431 15.80% 181,631 0.59%
WCW (high scenario) 2 103,214 107,481 111,685 115,232 117,822 119,518 15.80% 16,304 0.59%
WCW (low scenario) 3 102,000 105,500 109,000 112,500 116,000 119,500 17.16% 17,500 0.64%
Sources:
1: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-
2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
2: Population projection for WCW calculated as 8.98 percent of the Contra Costa County’s population.
3. Data provided by WCW staff (WCW, 2022c)
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-29
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
22.6: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES Contra Costa LAFCO
Identifying disadvantaged unincorporated communities allows public agencies, cities, and counties
to address municipal service and infrastructure deficiencies that may exist in some disadvantaged
communities. DUCs are inhabited communities containing 12 or more registered voters that
constitutes all or a portion of a “disadvantaged community.” A disadvantaged community is defined
as a community with a median household income of 80% or less than the statewide median
household income. This determination assesses the prospect of including a DUC(s) when an
agency’s SOI is updated or expanded. In 2011, SB 244 began requiring cities and counties to address
the infrastructure needs of unincorporated disadvantaged communities in city and county general
plans, MSRs, and annexation decisions. Therefore, this MSR Update identified disadvantaged
communities within relevant jurisdictions’ SOI. Figure 22-5 shows the location of all disadvantaged
unincorporated communities in Contra Costa County.
The MHI for California in the year 2020 was $83,056 (ACS, 2021). 80 percent of the MHI ($66,445) is
the income threshold used to identify DUC status. 2020 is used as the base year because data from
the US 2020 Census is readily available. Table 22-14 and Figure 22- 5 below show that this MSR
Update identified disadvantaged communities within the unincorporated communities of North
Richmond, Rollingwood, and El Sobrante, which are all Census Designated Places located within
the District. LAFCO is required to consider the need for sewer, municipal, and industrial water, or
structural fire protection services within identified disadvantaged communities as part of a SOI
update for cities and special districts that provide such services. These services have been recently
reviewed under the 2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence
Updates (2016), the Contra Costa City Services Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence
Study (2nd Round) (2019), and the Contra Costa County-wide Water Service Municipal Service
Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round) (2014). These services have remained relatively
unchanged since publication. Communities within the existing District boundary or SOI do not lack
public services because they either receive services from a municipal provider or the properties are
self-sufficient, relying upon groundwater wells and septic tanks. No health or safety issues have
been identified.
Table 22-14: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities West County Wastewater District
Unincorporated Census Tract Geo ID Census Block Median Household
Community Group Number Income in 2020
El Sobrante CDP 060133690021 1 $55,625
Rollingwood CDP 060133672002 2 $53,571
North Richmond CDP 060133650022 2 $52,083
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau. November 2, 2021
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-30
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 22-5: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Contra Costa LAFCO
Readers can learn more about disadvantaged communities within the WCW and Contra Costa
County through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services database of socioeconomic and
health indicators in disadvantaged communities called the Environmental Justice Explorer
Database. This database can be queried at <https://onemap.cdc.gov/portal/apps/sites/#/eji-
explorer>. For example, the DUC within the El Sobrante CDP (census tract 060133690021) was
queried, and results indicate that this area may experience hardships, including:
• High-Volume Roads
• Minority Status
• Speaks English “Less than Well”
• No High School Diploma
• Lack of Health Insurance
• High Estimated Prevalence of Asthma
In addition to DUCs, there are also disadvantaged communities located within city boundaries, as
shown in Figure 22-6 below.
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-31
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure 22-6: Disadvantaged Communities (2021) Contra Costa LAFCO
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-32
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
22.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND Contra Costa LAFCO
ALTERNATIVES
Existing Government Structure
WCW provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for the City of San Pablo;
portions of the cities of Richmond and Pinole; the unincorporated communities of El Sobrante, Tara
Hills, Rollingwood, and Bayview; and other unincorporated areas within Contra Costa County. WCW
operates under the direction of the General Manager and oversight of a five-member elected Board
of Directors. The Board of Directors are elected by voters within their division of the service area.
Each Board member represents the geographic area in which they live. WCW’s governance is
summarized in Table 22-15 below.
Table 22-15: WCW Governance
Board Meetings: WCW Office (2910 Hilltop Drive) and Zoom (Remote), 1st and 3rd Wednesday
of each month at 06:30 PM
Member Title Term Expires Compensation*
Cheryl Sudduth President / Director, Division 2026
5
David Alvarado Vice-President / Director, 2026
Division 3 *$265.35/each date of
Annie M. King- Director, Division 2 2024 attendance
Meredith
Arto Rinteela Director, Division 1 2026
Harry Wiener Director, Division 4 2024
Data Source: (WCW, 2022c)
Election divisions can be viewed at: <https://www.wcwd.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/District-
2-Map.pdf>. Directors are also eligible to receive the following benefits:
• Medical through CalPERS: WCW pays premiums up to $2,228.36 for active
employees/Directors and eligible retirees (2022c). This number will increase to $2,375.72 in
2023
• Dental: 90% paid for Directors and dependents
• Vision: Fully paid for Directors and dependents
• Life Insurance: $85,000 (at age 70 and older, a benefit reduction schedule applies)
• Employee Assistance Program: Fully paid for Directors and dependents (Data Source:
(WCW, 2022c)
Meeting notices and agendas are posted at least 72 hours in advance at WCW’s office and on WCW’s
website (www.wcwd.org). WCW Board and Committee meetings are open and accessible to the
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-33
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
public. WCW provides public information through its website, including agendaCso, mnterae tCinogs tma iLnAuFteCsO,
the Ordinance code, and other service information. Excerpts from the current Comprehensive
Operating and Capital Budget are available on-line. WCW should consider making more detailed
financial information available, such as the complete operating and capital budget and financial
statements (WCW, 2022c). The Board has two standing committees that meet twice monthly to
address WCW issues and provide guidance to the Board and WCW management: Finance &
Administration and Infrastructure, Operations & Environment. WCW uses its multi-year CIP,
strategic planning, and two-year capital and operations budget to guide WCW operations (WCW,
2022c).
Grand Jury: In November 2021, WCW was the subject of a grand jury report. The West County
Wastewater Grand Jury Report consists of three sub-documents as listed below in chronologic
order.
1) Superior Court of California in Contra Costa County, Civil Grand Jury. November 22, 2021. A
Report By The 2020-2021 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury, Report 2103, on the West
County Wastewater District, Recommendations for the WCWD Board. Martinez, California
94553. 22-pages. Retrieved February 17, 2024 from <https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/grand-
jury-reports.aspx >.
2) West County Wastewater. February 17, 2022. Response to the 2020-2021 Contra Costa
County Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2103 Titled: "West County Wastewater District". 44-
pages. Retrieved February 17, 2024 from <https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/grand-jury-
reports.aspx >.
3) Superior Court of California in Contra Costa County, 2022 – 2023 Civil Grand Jury. April 21,
2023. Compliance and Continuity Report, Report #2301. Martinez, California 94553. 33-
pages. Retrieved February 17, 2024 from <https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/grand-jury-
reports.aspx >.
The Grand Jury investigation focused on the Board of Directors processes and governance, finding
areas where governance could be improved by implementing specific written procedures and
clarifications (Contra Costa County, 2021). WCW responded to the Grand Jury as described on their
website at: <https://www.wcwd.org/board-confirms-commitment-to-public-accountability-best-
practices-in-reply-to-grand-jury/>. Since 2021, WCW’s executive staff and several Board seats have
changed, resulting in newer approaches and dynamics, and which has likely resolved the issues
described in the grand jury report.
Public Outreach: WCW has a Public Outreach Program that includes community events, school
classroom presentations, class tours of the WQRRP, an electronic version of a community
newsletter (The Lateral), engagement on social media, and distribution of information via WCW’s
website (http://www.wcwd.org). On average, over 300 students participate in the program, over 500
members of the public attend community events, and over 1,000 people are engaged on social
media each year (WCW, 2022c). WCW conducts a User Feedback Survey that has been used for
over 26 years (WCW, 2022c).
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-34
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure 22-7: Map from WCW Shows Island Areas Within the Boundary
Data Source for Figure 22-7:
WCW, ACFR for FY2019
Alternative Government
Structure Options
LAFCO’s 2008 MSR for WCW
identified three governance
structure options including:
• Maintain the Status
Quo
• Annex Islands
• Annex Areas receiving
WCW services that are
Outside the District’s
Boundary
These options remain valid
and are reevaluated herein. Additionally, a fourth governance structure option is identified for
purposes of discussion and tracking as follows:
• Merge or Consolidate with Nearby Wastewater Service Providers
Maintain the Status Quo
WCW provides adequate wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for the City of San
Pablo, the northern portion of the City of Richmond, the Crestview portion of the City of Pinole, and
other unincorporated communities (El Sobrante, Tara Hills, Rollingwood, and Bayview) and areas
within Contra Costa County. WCW maintains its infrastructure and is financially sound. WCW is
rehabilitating its collection system and implementing programs and practices that improve cost
efficiency, including providing secondary effluent for recycled water treatment and use (LAFCO
2014). WCW has planned for service needs through its CIP and rate structure. Furthermore, the
District provides secondary effluent to EBMUD for use at the Chevron Refinery. WCW’s RARE yields
high-quality recycled water produced from WCW’s secondary effluent, which is utilized to offset
significant potable water demand.
There is a continuing need for cost-effective wastewater services within western Contra Costa
County, given current urban land use, aging wastewater infrastructure, and increasingly stringent
water quality standards (WCW, 2022c). The benefits of this option are the continuation of service
and fiscal efficiencies that benefit ratepayers for wastewater services. WCW’s preference is to
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-35
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
maintain the status quo. The MSR authors recommend maintaining the status quCoo fnotrr tah Ceo sshtao rLt-AtFeCrmO
along with further study of other options for the long-term.
Annex Islands
There are several islands within WCW’s boundary, surrounded by WCW’s boundary, and within its
SOI. It is anticipated that these islands will be annexed into WCW when a requirement for sewer
service arises. In the meantime, it is recommended that prior to preparation of the next MSR for WCW
(anticipated in the next five to ten years) that LAFCO and WCW work to develop a detailed GIS map
of these islands in relation to WCW’s boundary and SOI.
Annex Areas Outside District Boundary Receiving Service
WCW is providing wastewater services to approximately 45 parcels located outside of its current
boundary and SOI. These parcels are located in East Richmond Heights, with service extended into
the area in 1958 under an agreement with the City of Richmond. However, there may also be other
parcels receiving out-of-area services.
WCW could request that LAFCO approve annexation of these parcels into the District. The benefits
of this option are that it will clean up boundary issues associated with service areas and give the
residents full participation in WCW’s affairs and elections. The parcels need to be evaluated to
determine their location with respect to current boundaries and the local agency adopted Urban
Limit Lines. The out-of-agency service areas must be included in WCW’s SOI prior to annexation.
When annexation is applied for, the application to LAFCO should include an SOI amendment to
coincide with the annexation. This would allow the lead agency, WCW, to prepare an adequate
CEQA review to support the annexation and SOI amendment (WCW, 2022c).
In the meantime, it is recommended that prior to the preparation of the next MSR for WCW
(anticipated in the next five to ten years) that WCW develop and provide to LAFCO a detailed GIS map
of all parcels located outside the District’s boundary receiving service. The map should also show
the local agency adopted Urban Limit Line. WCW is encouraged to review for potential annexation
all properties receiving services outside WCW’s boundary and SOI.
Merge or Consolidate with Nearby Wastewater Service Providers
There are several wastewater collection and treatment service providers located in close proximity to
WCW, including:
• City of Hercules (Chapter 6)
• City of Pinole (Chapter 7)
• Richmond Municipal Sewer District (Chapter 9)
• EBMUD (Chapter16)
• SSD (Chapter 20)
Under this option, WCW could consider operational and governance relationships with these service
providers. This includes the potential for future merger or consolidation of services.
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-36
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
For example, WCW could consider accepting wastewater from the cities of HercCuolenstr, aP Cinoosltea, LaAndFC/oOr
Richmond Municipal Sewer District for treatment at WCW’s treatment plant. Other arrangements
may also be possible. However, infrastructure is separate and is designed to meet local
conditions and use gravity flow where possible. In the past, opportunities were evaluated for WCW
to share its treatment and disposal facilities with the cities of Pinole and Hercules. Those efforts
have been dormant for many years, and those cities chose to operate a joint WPCP in Pinole.
Additional future studies would be needed to determine whether operational efficiencies, cost
savings, and other benefits would be achieved through consolidating with other wastewater
service providers (WCW, 2022c).
EBMUD provides wastewater treatment and disposal services within the East Bay. EBMUD has
approximately 13,530 wastewater accounts in Contra Costa County. See Chapter 16 for details
regarding EBMUD wastewater services in Contra Costa County. WCW and EBMUD coordinate on
several key programs, including WCW’s provision of secondary effluent to EBMUD for further
treatment and use at the Chevron Refinery. WCW notes that a reorganization between these two
districts is not feasible at this time (WCW, 2022c).
WCW shares its southeastern boundary with the SSD; however, the two systems are designed to use
gravity flow and separate treatment and disposal facilities. As a result of these topographic
challenges, WCW staff believes that a reorganization of SSD and WCW is not feasible at this time
(WCW, 2022c).
22.8: RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL SERVICE
REVIEW DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information, issues, and analysis presented in this report, proposed MSR
determinations pursuant to Section 56430 are presented below for Commission consideration:
Table 22-16: MSR Determinations for West County Wastewater
PERFORMANCE MEASURES DETERMINATIONS
Growth and Population for the affected The current estimated population within WCW’s
area. boundary is approximately 103,214 residents. This is
• What is the existing population expected to reach approximately 119,518 by 2045, with a
estimate? compound average annual growth rate of 0.59 percent.
• What is the projected future
growth estimate? Growth within WCW’s service area is likely to occur
through infill and redevelopment. WCW will need to
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-37
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
continue to implement its capital improvement program,
including pipeline and treatment plant improvements, to
ensure adequate service levels for existing and new
customers.
Location and characteristics of any Several DUCs are located in WCW’s SOI. Consideration of
disadvantaged unincorporated future changes to WCW’s SOI or service boundary would
communities within or contiguous to first require a detailed analysis of WCW’s ability to serve
the sphere of influence. these areas. However, the DUCs receive adequate water
and fire protection services. No public health and safety
issues were identified.
Present and planned capacity of public WCW has an aged sewer collection system. WCW’s Board
facilities, adequacy of public services, of Directors approved the 10-year CIP at the June 2, 2021
Board meeting. This 10-year CIP covers the time period FY
and infrastructure needs or
2021-22 through 2030-31. The FY 2022 CIP expenditure
deficiencies, including needs or
budget was $27.5 million and $34.9 million in FY 2023.
deficiencies related to sewers,
Several DUCs are located in WCW’s SOI. Consideration of
municipal and industrial water, and
future changes to WCW’s SOI or service boundary would
structural fire protection in any first require a detailed analysis of WCW’s ability to serve
disadvantaged, unincorporated these areas.
communities within or contiguous to
The SSO database is a specific module in the California
the sphere of influence.
Integrated Water Quality System. The SSO database was
• Does the agency have a CIP?
queried for a 3.6-year term from January 1, 2019 to August 9,
• Are SSOs identified?
2022. The database query shows that during this 3.6-year
• Are local hazards identified? timeframe, WCW experienced 37 SSO events. This is a
relatively large number of SSOs compared to other
wastewater service providers analyzed in this MSR. Also,
the California Office of Emergency Services has two
significant Hazardous Material Spill notices for WCW,
including a January 2023 spill of approximately 11 million
gallons and a June 2023 spill of approximately 500,000
gallons.
The Contra Costa County HMP Volume 2 maps critical
infrastructure, such as wastewater infrastructure, in
relation to local hazards. However, WCW did not participate
in the 2018 HMP. An equivalent analysis of local hazards in
relation to WCW’s infrastructure is not available on the
WCW website. However, WCW’s Facebook page
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-38
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
indicates that it is currently participating in the forthcoming
update to the Contra Costa County HMP. It is
recommended that WCW incorporate information about
local hazards into the District’s next Sanitary Sewer
Management Plan update. Additionally, it is recommended
that when LAFCO next updates this Wastewater Services
MSR/SOI for WCW (anticipated in five to ten years), it
should specifically address local hazards and the steps
WCW has taken towards resiliency.
Financial ability of agencies to provide WCW adopts sewer service charge rate plans every five
services. years and reviews its service charges and connection fees
annually. In 2021, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
• Has the agency prepared a rate
(Stantec) completed a Sewer Use Charge Rate Plan and
study?
Study for WCW. The Study analyzed revenue, expenses,
• Do revenues exceed
reserve policies, and other financial data. Based on this
expenditures? Study, WCW updated its fees for the annual service charge
• Is the ratio of annual debt for residential customers.
service to total fund annual
expenditures 10% or less? WCW’s primary source of revenue is sewer service
charges. WCW also receives some property tax revenue
as well as interest income on investments. This MSR
compared revenues to expenses for five fiscal years
(FY2017 to FY2021). For each of the five study years
studied, total revenue exceeded total expenses.
Specifically, in FY 2021, total revenues were 28,342,038,
and total expenses were 27,840,253. This indicates that
WCW’s Board of Directors maintains sound fiscal policies
and closely monitors expenses).
WCW’s annual debt service for FY2021 was $2,284,343. The
ratio of annual debt service to total fund annual
expenditures ($27,840,253 in FY 2021) was approximately
8.21 percent for FYE 2021. This ratio falls within the
suggested guideline of 10 percent or less, indicating that
WCW will likely be able to continue to meet its debt service
obligations. However, this calculation relies upon the most
recent ACFR available which is for FY2021. In 2022, new $90
million bonds were issued to fund the Comprehensive
Energy and Sustainability Upgrades. Since this new debt is
not included in the above calculation, it is recommended
that when LAFCO next updates an MSR for WCW
(anticipated within five to ten years), this metric should be
reanalyzed.
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-39
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Status of, and opportunities for, shared • WCW shares facilities with otheCro lnotcraal C soasntiat aLrAyF sCeOw er
facilities. service providers, including shared dechlorination
facilities and deep-water outfall, as well as by
providing contract services and emergency
response. WCW provides secondary effluent to the
EBMUD NRWRP for use in the Chevron Richmond
Refinery.
• The West County Agency, a JPA between WCW, the City
of Richmond, and the Richmond Municipal Sewer
District, which constructed and maintained effluent
disposal and sludge disposal facilities is currently being
dissolved.
• In June 2023, the WCA Board approved pursuing the
dissolution of the WCA and instructed staff to proceed
with negotiating a series of operating agreements for
joint operation of shared assets. The parties are now in
the process of negotiating a Dissolution Agreement and
establishing the terms of operating agreements for
assets historically owned by the WCA.
• Prior to 2014, WCW studied the possibility of a joint
treatment agreement with the cities of Hercules or
Pinole, but these agencies decided to upgrade their own
WWTP.
Accountability for community service WCW is governed by a five-member Board of Directors
needs, including government structure elected by voters in five Divisions within WCW. Each Board
member represents the geographic area in which they live.
and operational facilities.
District meetings are open to the public, and information
• Does the agency have a
on WCW is available on its website at
website?
https://www.wcwd.org. The website also includes WCW
• Does the agency post a public financial information and strategic planning documents.
outreach tool (such as a WCW provides extensive public education programs that
calendar or newsletter) on its focus on student outreach, community events, and other
communication opportunities. WCW effectively utilizes
website?
social media as a public outreach tool and actively updates
• Does LAFCO recommend any
its Facebook page at:
mergers, consolidations, or
<https://www.facebook.com/WestCountyWD>.
other changes to governance
structure? This MSR analyzes four governance structure options,
including:
Maintain the Status Quo
Annex Islands
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-40
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
(continued) Contra Costa LAFCO
Annex Areas Outside the district Boundary
Receiving Service
Merge or Consolidate with Nearby Wastewater
Service Providers
The option to “Maintain the status quo” is recommended
for the short-term. In the long-term, LAFCO and WCW
should further evaluate each of the remaining three
options.
Any other matter related to effective or No additional issues have been identified.
efficient service delivery, as required
by commission policy.
2Re2co.m9m: eSndPatHionE: RRecEon fOirmF W ICNW’Fs eLxiUstiEngN deCterEm inRatEionCs OandM reMconEfirNm WDCAWT’s eIxOistNing SOI.
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires that LAFCO
review and update the sphere of influence (SOI) for each of the special districts and cities within
the county (State of California Government Code §56133 et seq.). Section 22.7, Government
Structure Alternatives, describes various issues and options associated with changing the structure
of this local government agency. LAFCO often accomplishes its government structure issues
through changes to boundaries and/or SOIs. Based on the context provided in this Chapter, four
options are identified for WCW’s SOI:
• Retain the existing SOI: If LAFCO determines that the existing government structure is
appropriate, then the existing SOI should be retained. This option would enable WCW to
continue to include the areas within its SOI in its long-term facilities and capacity planning
based on the adopted land use (WCW, 2022c)
• Reduce the SOI: If LAFCO determines an area or community should be served by an agency
other than WCW (such as the City of Pinole, the Richmond Municipal Sewer District, or the
SSD), then reducing WCW’s SOI (and expanding the SOI of the other agency) would be
appropriate. This would not change current service to those areas but would result in the
affected agencies adjusting capital and long-term operational planning (WCW, 2022c).
• Expand the SOI due to service provider change: If LAFCO determines that an area or
community should be served by WCW rather than the current service provider, then
expanding WCW’s SOI (and reducing the SOI of the other agency, such as the SSD) would be
appropriate. If WCW were authorized to serve additional areas in Richmond, Pinole, or
Hercules, it would not require a change in the SOI of the affected City (WCW, 2022c).
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-41
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
• Expand the SOI to encompass existing out-of-agency service areaCso: nWtrCa WCo sstear vLeAsF C45O
parcels outside of WCW’s boundary and SOI. If LAFCO determines that these parcels should
be annexed to WCW, then WCW’s sphere will need to be updated prior to annexation.
Annexations must be consistent with an organization’s adopted SOI (WCW, 2022c).
Table 22-17: WCW – Preliminary SOI Issue Analysis
Issue Comments
Existing and Planned WCW has no land use authority for the area where it provides
Land Uses and Policies wastewater services. County and City plans include land uses and
population growth that will need increased wastewater services.
County and city policies support the provision of adequate
wastewater service for residents and businesses.
Potential effects on Although there is some open space land within WCW’s SOI and
agricultural and open boundaries, wastewater services do not by themselves induce growth
space lands on open space lands. No Williamson Act contracts would be affected.
Opportunity for Infill WCW has no land use authority and has no control over the location
Development rather of infill development.
than SOI expansion
Projected Growth in the The current estimated population within WCW’s boundary is
Affected Area approximately 103,214 residents. This is expected to reach
approximately 119,518 by 2045, with a compound average annual
growth rate of 0.59 percent. Growth within WCW’s service area is
likely to occur through infill and redevelopment. WCW will need
to continue to implement its capital improvement program,
including pipeline and treatment plant improvements, to ensure
adequate service levels for existing and new customers.
Services to be provided WCW provides the following services: wastewater collection,
to any areas added to treatment, and disposal.
the SOI
Service Capacity and WCW provides adequate service, is financially stable, and has the
Adequacy capacity to continue to provide services within its boundary. WCW
has planned for capital needs based on the condition of the
infrastructure and is implementing projects to extend the life of
existing infrastructure.
Location of Facilities, WCW provides services within the City of San Pablo; portions of the
Infrastructure, and cities of Richmond and Pinole; the unincorporated communities of El
Natural Features like Sobrante, Tara Hills, Rollingwood, and Bayview; and other
rivers and ridgelines unincorporated areas within Contra Costa County. WCW’s offices
and treatment plant are in Richmond. WCW discharges treated
wastewater into the San Francisco Bay.
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-42
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Effects on Other WCW coordinates with Richmond, Pinole, and HeCrocnutlreas C oonst as eLrAviFcCeO
Agencies issues in western Contra Costa County. WCW also coordinates with
EBMUD on secondary effluent directed to EBMUD’s NRWRP.
Maintaining the existing SOI would have no effect on other agencies.
Potential for WCW’s current boundaries include portions of Richmond and Pinole.
Consolidations or other In the past, opportunities were evaluated for WCW to share its
Reorganizations when treatment and disposal facilities with the cities of Pinole and
Boundaries Divide Hercules. Those efforts have been dormant for many years, and those
communities Cities ultimately chose to operate a joint WPCP in Pinole.
Social or economic WCW was formed in 1921. WCW collects service charges from
communities of interest existing users and fees for new developments. WCW receives a
in the area portion of the 1% property tax. Property owners and ratepayers within
the area have an economic interest in receiving services from this
investment.
Please refer to the discussion of disadvantaged communities in
Section 22.6 and environmental justice in Chapter 2.
Willingness to serve WCW wishes to continue to provide services within its existing
boundary.
Data Source: WCW, 2022
22.10: BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California’s Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021, from:
<https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/>.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) - State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.)
California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS) SSO Public Report - Detail Page.
Query run on August 27, 2023 from <https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/chc_sso.html>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit California State Data Center.
5/23/2023. Demographic Profile and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC)
Data Release. Table 2: Land Area, Population and Population Density for California,
Counties, Incorporated Cities/Towns, and Census Designated Places (CDP), Census
2020Contributions from U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 1, 2023b. Report E-1 & E-1H,
Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2022 and
2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023 from <https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/>.
California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-43
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060 (Baseline 2019 Population PCoronjtercat iCoonsst;a V LinAtFaCgOe
2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.
<https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/>.
California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State:
January 1, 2020 and 2021. Sacramento, California.
<https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/>.
Contra Costa County. January 2018. Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes.
Contributions from Tetra-Tech Consultants. 726-pages. Retrieved on August 16, 2022, from
<https://contracosta.ca.gov/6842/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan >.
Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury for 2020-2021. November 22, 2021. West County Wastewater
District - Recommendations For The WCWD Board, Report 2103. Martinez, California. 9-
pages. Retrieved April 5, 2024 from < https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/docs/grandjury/2020-
2021/2103/2103-WCWDReport.pdf >.
Contra Costa LAFCO. June 12, 2019. City-wide Services Municipal Service Review Update. Prepared
by Lamphier-Gregory Consultants and Berkson Associates. 793-pages. Retrieved December
2022 from <https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. (2008). Section 6.0 County Sanitation District No. 6 Wastewater Service. 11-
pages. Retrieved on October 28, 2022 from:
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/municipal_service_reviews/central_county_water_wa
stewater/6.0%20County%20San%20Dist%206%20Water%20Wastewater%20Final.pdf>.
Contra Costa LAFCO. Approved May 14, 2014. Final Contra Costa County Water and Wastewater
Agencies Combined Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study (2nd Round).
Contributions from GST Consulting. 309-pages. Retrieved from
<https://www.contracostalafco.org/agencies/municipal-service-reviews/>.
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec). May 5, 2021 West County Wastewater Sewer Use
Charge Rate Plan and Study. 51-pages. Retrieved on April 6, 2024 from:
<https://www.wcwd.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/05/final_WCWEnvironmentalQualityChargeRateStudy.pdf>.
Superior Court of California in Contra Costa County, Civil Grand Jury. November 22, 2021. A Report
By The 2020-2021 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury, Report 2103, on the West County
Wastewater District, Recommendations for the WCWD Board. Martinez, California 94553.
22-pages. Retrieved February 17, 2024 from <https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/grand-jury-
reports.aspx >.
West County Wastewater. February 17, 2022. Response to the 2020-2021 Contra Costa County Civil
Grand Jury Report No. 2103 Titled: "West County Wastewater District". 44-pages. Retrieved
February 17, 2024 from <https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/grand-jury-reports.aspx >.
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-44
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Superior Court of California in Contra Costa County, 2022 – 2023 Civil Grand CJuornyt.r Aap Croils 2ta1 ,L 2A0F2C3O.
Compliance and Continuity Report, Report #2301. Martinez, California 94553. 33-pages.
Retrieved February 17, 2024 from <https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/grand-jury-reports.aspx>.
West County Wastewater. June 16, 2021. West County Wastewater Biennial Operating Budget Fiscal
Years 2022 & 2023. 76 pages. Retrieved April 3, 2024 from <https://www.wcwd.org/about-
us/plans-documents/>.
West County Wastewater (WCW). March 25, 2022a. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021” 94-pages. Contributions from Cropper Accountancy
Corporation, Certified Public Accountants. Retrieved April 3, 2024 from
<https://www.wcwd.org/about-us/plans-documents/>.
West County Wastewater (WCW). September 21, 2022b. Staff Response to LAFCO’s Request for
Information via ESRI’s 123 On-line Survey. 2-pages. Available in LAFCO’s office upon
request.
West County Wastewater District (WCW). December 2022c. First Rough Draft of MSR. 26-pages.
Available from LAFCO’s files upon request.
U.S. Census Bureau. November 2, 2021. 2020 American Community Survey 1-Year Experimental
Estimates. Table ID: XK201902. Table Title: Median Household Income In The Past 12 Months
(In 2020 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars). Retrieved July 7, 2021 from
<https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/experimental-data/1-year.html>.
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved on October 31,
2022 from:
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/contracostacountycalifornia/HSD310220>
Figure 22-8: WCW’s Administrative Office
Location:
2910 Hilltop
Drive,
Richmond,
CA 94806
Image
provided
courtesy of
Google
Maps
Streetview
Chapter 22: WCW Page 22-45
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
CHAPTER 23: PUBLIC COMMENTS
R ECEIVED
The Commission held a public meeting on this MSR/SOI Update on June 12, 2024. Although
public comments were solicited, no public comments were received.
Chapter 23: Public Comments 23-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
CLAFHCOA coPndTuctEed Rpu b2lic 4me:e tSingO onI JRuneE 12S, O202L4 Uto cTonIsiOder NthisS M SR/SOI Update for
wastewater services in Contra Costa County. The Commission formally accepted the report.
Several districts had SOIs that were reconfirmed via LAFCO resolution as shown on the following
pages.
Chapter 24: Adopting Resolution 24-1
RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
APPROVING A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE FOR
BYRON SANITARY DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Government Code §56425 requires the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) to develop and determine the sphere of influence (SOI) of each local governmental agency
within the County; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §56425(f) requires that LAFCO review and update the SOI
boundaries every five years, or as necessary; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §56430 requires that a municipal service review (MSR) be
conducted prior to or in conjunction with an SOI update; and
WHEREAS, LAFCO conducted a 3rd round, countywide review of wastewater service providers,
which includes the Byron Sanitary District (BSD), and adopted written determinations as required by
Government Code §56430 on June 12, 2024; and
WHEREAS, BSD was originally formed in 1948 and operational in 1958 and provides sewage
collection, treatment and disposal services and solid waste by contact to the Byron community; and
WHEREAS, BSD serves a population of approximately 700 with approximately 278 connections
in a service area of approximately 0.53+ square miles; and
WHEREAS, no change in regulation, land use, or development will occur as a result of updating
the District’s SOI; and
WHEREAS, in the form and manner prescribed by law, the Executive Officer has given notice of a
public hearing by this Commission regarding the SOI action; and
WHEREAS, the SOI update was duly considered at a public hearing held on June 12, 2024; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED that the Contra
Costa LAFCO does hereby:
1. Determine, as lead agency for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that
the SOI update is categorically exempt under §15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
2. Expand the SOI to include the Orrin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility to allow for future annexation
of this area. BSD currently provides service to this area.
3. Determine that the Commission has considered the criteria set forth in Government Code §56425 as
follows:
a. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands – The
major portion of BSD’s service area is comprised of the Byron community and an area along
Camino Diablo. BSD lies within the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento Delta Estuary
watershed. The Byron community contains single-family residential development,
commercial and industrial development, schools, churches, and wineries. No land use
changes will result from this SOI update.
b. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area – There are
approximately 234 dwelling units within BSD. Current population is 676. Growth within BSD
is expected to be limited over the next 10 to 20 years. Some limited residential development
may occur. Growth within BSD is expected to reach a population of 712 by the year 2045.
c. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or
is authorized to provide – BSD’s average daily dry weather limit is 96,000 gallons per day
(GPD) (April through October) and average daily flow (ADF) limit is 100,800 (November
through March). Facilities include a wastewater treatment plant; 12,174 linear feet of sewer
collection pipeline; and 278 connections.
d. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission
determines that they are relevant to the agency – BSD provides services within the Byron
community and an adjacent area along Camino Diablo. Primary revenue sources include sewer
charges; property taxes; and interest income. Property owners and ratepayers within the area
have an economic interest in receiving services from this investment. The SOI update will not
affect the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area that are
relevant to BSD.
e. Present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities (DUCs) within the existing SOI - There are no DUCs located
within or adjacent to BSD’s SOI.
f. Nature, location, extent, functions & classes of services to be provided – BSD provides sewage
collection, treatment, disposal and solid waste by contract to the Byron community and an area
along Camino Diablo.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 12th day of June 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CHAIR, CONTRA COSTA LAFCO
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by this Commission on the date
stated above.
Dated: June 12, 2024
Lou Ann Texeira, Executive Officer
Byron Sanitary District Boundary and SOI
y
w County Urban Limit Line
H Kellogg Creek Rd
n
o Parcels
r
y
B
Byron Sanitary District
Hoffman Ln d
R Byron Sanitary District SOI
r
e
xl
Bi
Byer Rd
Hannum Dr
Byron
Tract
Byron
Solara Ct
y
D r M
a
Hosie
Ave
s
W
a y
a in a
w S et
ol t ol
Camino Diablo
H C
Camino Diablo
1st St
By LAFCO action
B on 6/11/2014,
y
r
o BSD boundary
n
H and SOI were approved
w
y
®
This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
Map created 06/23/2014 and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some Feet
by Contra Costa County Department of base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's
Conservation and Development, GIS Group tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for
3 3 0 7 M :5 u 9 i : r 4 R 1 o .7 a 9 d 1 , N M a 1 r 2 ti 2 n : e 0 z 7 , :0 C 3 A . 7 9 5 4 6 5 W 53 its re a p c r c o u d r u a c c e y d . T in h i i s ts m c a ur p r e c n o t n s ta ta in te s i c f o th p e y r s ig o h u t r e c d e in is f o c r i m te a d. t io U n s e a r n s d o m f t a h y is n m ot a b p e a a g l r t e e e re t d o . r e It a m d a a y n d b e 0 1,250 2,500 5,000
accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
06-12-24 LAFCO Meeting Agenda Packet
RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
APPROVING A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE FOR
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 6
WHEREAS, Government Code §56425 requires the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) to develop and determine the sphere of influence (SOI) of each local governmental agency
within the County; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §56425(f) requires that LAFCO review and update the SOI boundaries
every five years, as necessary; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §56430 requires that a municipal service review (MSR) be conducted
prior to or in conjunction with an SOI update; and
WHEREAS, LAFCO conducted a 3rd round, countywide review of wastewater service providers, which
includes County Sanitation District No. 6 (SD No. 6), and adopted written determinations as required by
Government Code §56430 on June 12, 2024; and
WHEREAS, SD No. 6 was 1992 to provide wastewater service to the Stonehurst Subdivision (Alhambra
Valley), located in the City of Martinez; and
WHEREAS, the District serves 0.36 square miles, 47 developed parcels, and approximately 134
residents, and uses septic tank systems; community disposal system with sand filter; UV disinfection; and leach
field disposal; and
WHEREAS, the current collection and treatment system provides minimum service per the
approved operating permit from the State; and
WHEREAS, since its inception, the SD No. 6 wastewater collection facilities and treatment plant
were considered a temporary system and were not intended to operate in perpetuity. This system has not been
maintained to the same standard as a permanent system; and
WHEREAS, the City of Martinez City Council District is the governing body of SD No. 6; and
WHEREAS, the 2024 MSR identified two SOI option for SD No. 6 including 1) retain the zero SOI, and
2) consolidate with Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD); and
WHEREAS, retaining a zero SOI is recommended for SD No. 6. This will allow SD No. 6 to continue to
exist and allow the two districts to pursue a reorganization with CCCSD; and
WHEREAS, no change in regulation, land use or development will occur as a result of updating
the District’s SOI; and
WHEREAS, in the form and manner prescribed by law, the Executive Officer has given notice of a
public hearing by this Commission regarding the SOI action; and
WHEREAS, the SOI update was duly considered at a public hearing held on June 12, 2024; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the Contra
Costa LAFCO does hereby:
1. Determine, as lead agency for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that
the SOI update is categorically exempt under §15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
2. Update and retain a zero SOI for SD No. 6 as described above and generally depicted on Exhibit A
attached hereto.
3. Determine that the Commission has considered the criteria set forth in Government Code §56425 as follows:
a. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands – The District has no
land use authority for the area within its boundary. SD No. 6’s boundary encompasses the 47-parcel Stonehurst
subdivision plus one non-contiguous parcel, all of which will continue to need wastewater services. The area is mostly
developed. The SOI update will not adversely affect present or planned land uses.
b. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area – Approximately 100 residents live
within the District; little or no growth is anticipated. There will be a continued need for wastewater services. No
changes in public facilities or services will result from the SOI update.
c. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is
authorized to provide – The current collection and treatment system provides minimum service per the approved
operating permit from the State. The State’s order mandates connection of the subdivision to a municipal sewer
service, and closure of the SD No. 6 onsite wastewater treatment and disposal system as soon as feasible. The
County will continue to provide service until such time as services are available from CCCSD. No changes in
public facilities or services provided by SD No. 6 will result from this SOI update.
d. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are
relevant to the agency – SD No. 6 was formed in 1992, and the property owners funded the construction of the
treatment and disposal facilities. The property owners pay an annual service charge for the system to be operated
and maintained; and therefore, have an economic interest in receiving services from this investment. The SOI
update will not affect the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area that are relevant
to SD No. 6.
e. Present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated
communities (DUCs) within the existing SOI - There are no DUCs within or contiguous to the SD No. 6 SOI.
f. Nature, location, extent, functions & classes of services to be provided – SD No. 6 provides wastewater service to
the Stonehurst subdivision within the City of Martinez. The SD No. 6 boundary is 237+ acres with 48 parcels,
most of which are developed. Each parcel within the District has an individual septic system; the effluent receives
secondary treatment at a community wastewater treatment plant owned by SD No. 6 and is discharged through a
leach field at the top of an adjacent ridge. The system is managed by the County through an outside contractor.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 12th day of June 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CHAIR, CONTRA COSTA LAFCO
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by this Commission on the date stated
above.
Dated: June 12, 2024
Lou Ann Texeira, Executive Officer
County Sanitation District No. 6 (Alhambra Valley) and Zero SOI
By LAFCO action
on 06/11/2014,
CSD No. 6 boundary
and Zero SOI
were approved V a
c
a
C e
Vi
ew Ct Summerh
ill
L
re n n
e o
k
R
d
St
S
tone
Valley Ct
MARTINEZ
r
D
a
e
A
lh a
m
b ra
V
S
to
Stonehurst
Dr
h
C
el
s
a lle n e
y
R
h
u
d rs
t
C
t
Deer
Creek
Dr
k
R d
Vaca
C reek
W
e
e ay
r
County Sanitation No. 6 Cross Creek Dr a C Alhambra
c
a Valley
City Boundaries V
Parcels
Alhambra Creek
Rd
nt
Ct Alhambra Valley Rd
o
County Urban Limit Line m
yr
P
®
This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
Map created 06/23/2014 and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some Feet
by Contra Costa County Department of base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's
Conservation and Development, GIS Group tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for
3 3 0 7 M :5 u 9 i : r 4 R 1 o .7 a 9 d 1 , N M a 1 r 2 ti 2 n : e 0 z 7 , :0 C 3 A . 7 9 5 4 6 5 W 53 its re a p c r c o u d r u a c c e y d . T in h i i s ts m c a ur p r e c n o t n s ta ta in te s i c f o th p e y r s ig o h u t r e c d e in is f o c r i m te a d. t io U n s e a r n s d o m f t a h y is n m ot a b p e a a g l r t e e e re t d o . r e It a m d a a y n d b e 0 500 1,000 2,000
accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
06-12-24 LAFCO Meeting Agenda Packet
RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
APPROVING A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE FOR
DELTA DIABLO
WHEREAS, Government Code §56425 requires the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) to develop and determine the sphere of influence (SOI) of each local governmental agency
within the County; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §56425(f) requires that LAFCO review and update the SOI
boundaries every five years, or as necessary; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §56430 requires that a municipal service review (MSR) be
conducted prior to or in conjunction with an SOI update; and
WHEREAS, LAFCO conducted a 3rd round, countywide review of wastewater service providers,
which includes Delta Diablo (DD), and adopted written determinations as required by Government Code
§56430 on June 12, 2024; and
WHEREAS, DD was formed in 1955 (originally County Sanitation District No. 75) and provides
wastewater collection and conveyance, treatment and disposal, recycled treatment ,household hazardous
waste collection and reuse/disposal, street sweeping; and
WHEREAS, DD serves a population of approximately 201,000 with approximately 12,778
connections in a service area of approximately 54+ square miles; and
WHEREAS, no change in regulation, land use, or development will occur as a result of updating
the District’s SOI; and
WHEREAS, in the form and manner prescribed by law, the Executive Officer has given notice of a
public hearing by this Commission regarding the SOI action; and
WHEREAS, the SOI update was duly considered at a public hearing held on June 12, 2024; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the Contra
Costa LAFCO does hereby:
1. Determine, as lead agency for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that
the SOI update is categorically exempt under §15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
2. Retain the existing SOI for DD.
3. Determine that the Commission has considered the criteria set forth in Government Code §56425 as
follows:
a. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands – DD
serves the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg and the unincorporated Bay Point community
comprising 54+ square miles. Land uses include residential, commercial, industrial, and open
space. No land use changes will result from this SOI update.
b. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area - DD’s service area is
expected to experience steady growth over the next 20 to 25 years. The Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) projects the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg to grow from a total of
176,650 (2020) to a total of 222,340 (2040). The Bay Point community has a population of
23,436 (2024).
c. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or
is authorized to provide – DD has 72,066 connections; and recycled water is sent to 29 sites.
DD’s facilities include a wastewater treatment plant and recycled water facility; 75.5 linear
miles of sanitary sewer pipeline; five wastewater pump stations; and 16.2 miles of recycled
pipeline. DD treats 19.5 million gallons of wastewater per day (average dry weather flow); and
generates 12.8 million gallons of recycled water. On an average annual basis, 50% of the
influent flow is further treated for reuse; the remaining 50% is discharged through a deep-water
outfall.
d. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission
determines that they are relevant to the agency – DD provides services to the cities of Antioch
and Pittsburg and the unincorporated Bay Point community cities of Antioch and Pittsburg and
the unincorporated Bay Point community. Primary revenue sources include service charges and
permits. The District also receives a portion of the 1% property tax. Property owners and
ratepayers within the area have an economic interest in receiving services from this investment.
The SOI update will not affect the existence of any social or economic communities of interest
in the area that are relevant to DD.
e. Present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities (DUCs) within the existing SOI - There are DUCs located within
DD’s SOI.
f. Nature, location, extent, functions & classes of services to be provided – DD provides
wastewater collection and conveyance, treatment and disposal, recycled treatment, household
hazardous waste collection and reuse/disposal, and street sweeping services to the cities of
Antioch and Pittsburg and to the Bay Point community.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 12th day of June 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CHAIR, CONTRA COSTA LAFCO
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by this Commission on the date
stated above.
Dated: June 12, 2024
Lou Ann Texeira, Executive Officer
Delta Diablo Boundary and SOI
Suisun
Solano County
Bay
Winter
Island Sacramento
Sherman County
Lake
PortChicagoHwy
B
Is
ro
la
w
n
n
d
s
r
Bay
3rd
St
ÄÅ
Ri
v e
160 n
Clyde
Point
Willow Pass Rd PITTSBURG
10th
St
t
SanJoaq
ui
S
R d ÄÅ o r
a o Canal Rd b
ÄÅ 242 Olivera
Rd
ÄÅ 44
Will
o
w P a s
E
s R d
v or c r a
M n a S
d v
lB W Leland Rd
44
R ail r o a d
B
A v e
uc
E
h a
L
n
e
a
la
n
n
H a
R
r
d
d
Rd
P
L
o v e
i
r
t
i d
t
g e
s
R d
burgAnti
C o e c n h tu H ry w B y lvd
m a
L S t 1 2 0 n t d h G S t S S t t A S t C a v all o R d
ÄÅ
Vi e r a A v e
O
W
a
1 il
k
8 b
l
t u
e
h
y
r S A
R
t v
d
e B ri d g e h e a d R d Ma
O
in S
A
t
KLE
B
Y
B
re
ig
ak
e
o 44 v
L A
CONCORD n t r a Bl v
d
ANTIOCH N e ro pi r e
o ly m
Concord Blvd B ail e y
R
d
R d
Ja
m
e
sDonlonBlvd
C
L
o n e T
Hillcre
s t A v
R
d E
Laurel Rd
a s s r e e e
k
er
P W
a
y
ÄÅ
Cowell
Rd
Kir
h
R d 44
c
C n
layton
R d s
R
a
D
e
a e
all r
V
D a
E
lle
m y
CLAYTON p R
ri d
e
M
Delta Diablo in
e
R
d
Delta Diablo SOI
Dr
ell BRENTWOOD
h
c
Mit City Boundaries
e
WALNUT M v
W
a
ln u t
A v e
C
A
C
t L
n
n
o
t
u
R
io
n
E
c
ty
h
E
B
V
K
o
o
u
te
n
r
d
A
a
p
ry
proved Urban Limit Line
arsh
Creek
Rd
Delta
B
D
y
i
L
a
A
b
F
lo
C
b
O
o u
a
n
c
d
ti
a
o
r
n
y
o
a
n
n d
0 5
S
/1
O
4
I
/ 2
a
0
pp
1
r
4
o
,
ved.
Balfour Rd
A
w
e iv
r i a
e F
g Further updates have been ÄÅ
P Wiittsburg Voter Approved Urban Limit Line
made since that MSR action.
44
®
This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
Map created 06/18/2019 and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some Miles
by Contra Costa County Department of base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's
Conservation and Development, GIS Group tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for
3 3 0 7 M :5 u 9 ir :4 R 1 o .7 a 9 d 1 , N M a 1 r 2 ti 2 n : e 0 z 7 , : C 03 A . 7 9 5 4 6 5 W 53 its re a p c r c o u d r u a c c e y d . T in h i i s ts m c a ur p r e c n o t n s ta ta in te s i c f o th p e y r s ig o h u t r e c d e i i n s f o c r it m ed a . t i U on s e a r n s d o m f t a h y is n m ot a b p e a a g l r t e e e re t d o . r e It a m d a a y n d b e 0 2 4 8
accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
06-12-24 LAFCO Meeting Agenda Packet
RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
APPROVING A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE FOR
IRONHOUSE SANITARY DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Government Code §56425 requires the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) to develop and determine the sphere of influence (SOI) of each local governmental agency
within the County; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §56425(f) requires that LAFCO review and update the SOI
boundaries every five years, or as necessary; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §56430 requires that a municipal service review (MSR) be
conducted prior to or in conjunction with an SOI update; and
WHEREAS, LAFCO conducted a 3rd round, countywide review of wastewater service providers,
which includes the Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD), and adopted written determinations as required by
Government Code §56430 on June 12, 2024; and
WHEREAS, ISD was originally formed in 1945 under the Oakley Sanitary District and provides
sewage collection, treatment and disposal services to the City of Oakley, Bethel Island, Jersey Island and
Holland Tract; and
WHEREAS, ISD serves a population of approximately 46,391 with approximately 12,778
connections in a service area of approximately 37+ square miles; and
WHEREAS, no change in regulation, land use, or development will occur as a result of updating
the District’s SOI; and
WHEREAS, in the form and manner prescribed by law, the Executive Officer has given notice of a
public hearing by this Commission regarding the SOI action; and
WHEREAS, the SOI update was duly considered at a public hearing held on June 12, 2024; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED that the Contra
Costa LAFCO does hereby:
1. Determine, as lead agency for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that
the SOI update is categorically exempt under §15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
2. Retain the existing SOI for ISD.
3. Determine that the Commission has considered the criteria set forth in Government Code §56425 as
follows:
a. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands – The
major portion of ISD’s service area is comprised of the City of Oakley and the unincorporated
community of Bethel Island. The City of Oakley’s General Plan includes a broad mix of land
uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public land uses. The vast
majority of Oakley is, as it will be in the future, developed as residential communities of
varying densities. Bethel Island, a residential/vacation area, is expected to remain largely
residential in nature. No land use changes will result from this SOI update.
b. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area - ISD’s service area is
expected to experience steady growth over the next 20 to 25 years. The Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) projects the City of Oakley to grow from 31,950 in 2010 to a
population of 42,950 in 2035. Bethel Island, with a 2010 Census population of 2,137, is also
expected to grow with a projected population of 9,706 by 2025.
c. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or
is authorized to provide – ISD’s facility design capacity is 4.3 million gallons per day (MGD)
average daily flow (ADF). The water recycling facility has 8.6 MGD maximum wet weather
flow. The current ADF is 2.52 MGD. The water recycling has 125 miles of gravity sewer main;
15.9 miles of force main (pressure pipe)l and 32 lift stations. ISD has approximately 12,778
wastewater service connections (equivalent service units) and provides service to
approximately 46,391 community residents.
d. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission
determines that they are relevant to the agency – ISD provides services within the City of
Oakley, Bethel Island, Jersey Island and Holland Tract. ISD collects service charges from
existing users and fees for new development; the District also receives a portion of the 1%
property tax. Property owners and ratepayers within the area have an economic interest in
receiving services from this investment. The SOI update will not affect the existence of any
social or economic communities of interest in the area that are relevant to ISD.
e. Present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities (DUCs) within the existing SOI - There are DUCs located within
ISD’s SOI.
f. Nature, location, extent, functions & classes of services to be provided – ISD provides sewage
collection, treatment and disposal services to the City of Oakley, the unincorporated community
of Bethel Island, and other unincorporated areas in east Contra Costa County.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 12th day of June 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CHAIR, CONTRA COSTA LAFCO
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by this Commission on the date
stated above.
Dated: June 12, 2024
Lou Ann Texeira, Executive Officer
Ironhouse Sanitary District Boundary and SOI
Bradford
Sacramento By LAFCO action
I
I
r
S
o
D
n h
S
o
O
us
I
e Sanitary District County False
River
Island W
Tr
e
a
b
c
b
t
on 06/11/2014,
ISD boundary and
City Boundaries SOI were approved
Little Franks
Tract
County Boundary
Franks
County Urban Limit Line
er Tract
v
Ri
n
ui d
a q R
ÄÅ
160 S a n
J o J
Is
e
la
rs
n
e
d
y
a n
d
J e rs e y T a y lo r S lo B e t h el I
sl
B Is e la th n e d l P ip e r S lo u
Big Is la n u g h Gateway Rd g h
d
d Break R
Wilbur Ave
e
h
e
a
d
R d
Dutch Slough Roosevelt C
ut
18th St g
d
ri
B
ANTIOCH e
v
A OAKLEY
ÄÅ
H
44
illc r
O
e
akley Rd
N e
ro ly
R d
Li v
e
O a k
E
m
pi r e
A v
e
L
M
au
a
r
in
e l
S
R
t
d O h a r a A v
e
R o s e A v e S t
Cypress Rd
S ell e r s A
v e
Contra Cos
h t s e n A v e
ta Canal
S a n d
M
o u n
d S
lo u g h
Ho Tr l a la c n t d
s n g
t A a i ni
v M K Rock Slough
e ÄÅ
Knightsen
44 Veale
Delta Rd Tract
BRENTWOOD
Palm
Lone Tree Way Dredgers Cut
Tract
®
This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
Map created 06/23/2014 and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some Miles
by Contra Costa County Department of base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's
Conservation and Development, GIS Group tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for
3 3 0 7 M :5 u 9 i : r 4 R 1 o .7 a 9 d 1 , N M a 1 r 2 ti 2 n : e 0 z 7 , :0 C 3 A . 7 9 5 4 6 5 W 53 its re a p c r c o u d r u a c c e y d . T in h i i s ts m c a ur p r e c n o t n s ta ta in te s i c f o th p e y r s ig o h u t r e c d e in is f o c r i m te a d. t io U n s e a r n s d o m f t a h y is n m ot a b p e a a g l r t e e e re t d o . r e It a m d a a y n d b e 0 1 2 4
accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
06-12-24 LAFCO Meeting Agenda Packet
RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
APPROVING A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE FOR
RODEO SANITARY DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Government Code §56425 requires the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) to develop and determine the sphere of influence (SOI) of each local governmental agency
within the County; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §56425(f) requires that LAFCO review and update the SOI
boundaries every five years, or as necessary; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §56430 requires that a municipal service review (MSR) be
conducted prior to or in conjunction with an SOI update; and
WHEREAS, LAFCO conducted a 3rd round, countywide review of wastewater service providers,
which includes Rodeo Sanitary District (RSD), and adopted written determinations as required by
Government Code §56430 on June 12, 2024; and
WHEREAS, RSD was formed in 1914 and provides wastewater collection, treatment and disposal;
and contracts with Republic Services in Richmond for solid waste services; and
WHEREAS, RSD serves a population of approximately 9,453 residents with approximately 2,514
connections in a service area of approximately 1.6+ square miles; and
WHEREAS, no change in regulation, land use, or development will occur as a result of updating
the District’s SOI; and
WHEREAS, in the form and manner prescribed by law, the Executive Officer has given notice of a
public hearing by this Commission regarding the SOI action; and
WHEREAS, the SOI update was duly considered at a public hearing held on June 12, 2024; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the Contra
Costa LAFCO does hereby:
1. Determine, as lead agency for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that
the SOI update is categorically exempt under §15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
2. Retain the existing SOI for DD.
3. Determine that the Commission has considered the criteria set forth in Government Code §56425 as
follows:
a. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands – RSD
serves the unincorporated areas of Rodeo and Tormey comprising 1.6+ square miles. Land uses
include residential, light commercial, and public uses. No land use changes will result from this
SOI update.
b. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area - RSD’s service area is
expected to increase by 15.1 percent within the 23-year period.
c. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or
is authorized to provide – RSD facilities include a water pollution control plant, 25 miles of
gravity sewers, two pump stations, and two force mains. RSD treats 0.60 million gallons per
day (MGD) average daily dry weather flow. Plant capacity is 1.14 MGD. RSD and the cities of
Hercules and Pinole share discharge facilities into San Pablo Bay.
d. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission
determines that they are relevant to the agency – RSD provides services to the unincorporated
communities of Rodeo and Tormey. Primary revenue sources include service charges and
permits. The District also receives a portion of the 1% property tax. Property owners and
ratepayers within the area have an economic interest in receiving services from this investment.
The SOI update will not affect the existence of any social or economic communities of interest
in the area that are relevant to RSD.
e. Present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities (DUCs) within the existing SOI - There are DUCs located within
RSD’s SOI.
f. Nature, location, extent, functions & classes of services to be provided – RSD provides
wastewater collection, treatment and disposal; and contracts for solid waste services with
Republic Services in Richmond..
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 12th day of June 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CHAIR, CONTRA COSTA LAFCO
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by this Commission on the date
stated above.
Dated: June 12, 2024
Lou Ann Texeira, Executive Officer
Rodeo Sanitary District Boundary and SOI
By LAFCO action
on 05/14/2014,
Carquinez Strait
Rodeo Sanitary District
existing boundary and SOI
were approved. Crockett
San
Pablo
Ave
San Pablo
Bay Cummings
Skwy
P
a
r
k
e
r
A
v §¨¦
e 8800
P
a
r
k
e
r
A Rodeo
v
e
e
v
A
o
bl
a
P
n
a
S
W
illo
w
A
v
HERCULES e
e
v
A
w
o ÄÅ Rodeo Sanitary District
lliW
44
RSD SOI
San Pablo Ave Willow AveBayberry
Ave
City Boundaries
®
This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
Map created 06/25/2014 and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some Feet
by Contra Costa County Department of base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's
Conservation and Development, GIS Group tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for
3 3 0 7 M :5 u 9 ir :4 R 1 o .7 a 9 d 1 , N M a 1 r 2 ti 2 n : e 0 z 7 , : C 03 A . 7 9 5 4 6 5 W 53 its re a p c r c o u d r u a c c e y d . T in h i i s ts m c a ur p r e c n o t n s ta ta in te s i c f o th p e y r s ig o h u t r e c d e i i n s f o c r it m ed a . t i U on s e a r n s d o m f t a h y is n m ot a b p e a a g l r t e e e re t d o . r e It a m d a a y n d b e 0 750 1,500 3,000
accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
06-12-24 LAFCO Meeting Agenda Packet
RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
APPROVING A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE FOR
STEGE SANITARY DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Government Code §56425 requires the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) to develop and determine the sphere of influence (SOI) of each local governmental agency
within the County; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §56425(f) requires that LAFCO review and update the SOI
boundaries every five years, or as necessary; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §56430 requires that a municipal service review (MSR) be
conducted prior to or in conjunction with an SOI update; and
WHEREAS, LAFCO conducted a 3rd round, countywide review of wastewater service providers,
which includes Stege Sanitary District (SSD), and adopted written determinations as required by
Government Code §56430 on June 12, 2024; and
WHEREAS, SSD was formed in 1913 and provides wastewater collection services to the City of
El Cerrito, the unincorporated Kensington community, and of portion of the Richmond Annex area; and
WHEREAS, SSD serves a population of approximately 35,000 residents with approximately
13,123 connections in a service area of approximately 5.3+ square miles; and
WHEREAS, no change in regulation, land use, or development will occur as a result of updating
the District’s SOI; and
WHEREAS, in the form and manner prescribed by law, the Executive Officer has given notice of a
public hearing by this Commission regarding the SOI action; and
WHEREAS, the SOI update was duly considered at a public hearing held on June 12, 2024; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the Contra
Costa LAFCO does hereby:
1. Determine, as lead agency for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that
the SOI update is categorically exempt under §15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
2. Retain the existing SOI for SSD.
3. Determine that the Commission has considered the criteria set forth in Government Code §56425 as
follows:
a. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands – SSD
serves the City of El Cerrito, the unincorporated community of Kensington, and of portion of
the Richmond Annex area comprising 5.3+ square miles. Land uses include residential,
commercial, industrial, and open space. No land use changes will result from this SOI update.
b. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area - SSD’s service area is
expected to increase by 15.1 percent within the 23-year period.
c. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or
is authorized to provide – SSD facilities include 148 miles of collection lines and two pump
stations. The collection system has an Average Dry Weather Flow of 3.0 million gallons per
day (MGD) and an Average Wet Weather Flow between 5-6 MGD. SSD treats 0.60 million
MGD average daily dry weather flow. The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
treatment plant disposes of treated effluent through an outfall into San Francisco Bay. SSD
currently provides wastewater conveyance service to 101 homes outside its current boundaries
by contract with the City of Richmond. Annexation of this area is an option; however, this area
is subject to landslide activity which makes underground sewer lines costly to maintain.
d. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission
determines that they are relevant to the agency – SSD provides services to the City of El
Cerrito, unincorporated communities of Kensington, and a portion of the Richmond Annex
area. Primary revenue sources include sewer service charges and a portion of the 1% property
tax. Property owners and ratepayers within the area have an economic interest in receiving
services from this investment. The SOI update will not affect the existence of any social or
economic communities of interest in the area that are relevant to SSD.
e. Present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities (DUCs) within the existing SOI - There is a DUC located within
SSD’s SOI.
f. Nature, location, extent, functions & classes of services to be provided – SSD provides
wastewater services to the City of El Cerrito, unincorporated community of Kensington, and a
portion of the Richmond Annex area in Richmond.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 12th day of June 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CHAIR, CONTRA COSTA LAFCO
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by this Commission on the date
stated above.
Dated: June 12, 2024
Lou Ann Texeira, Executive Officer
Stege Sanitary District Boundary and Coterminous SOI
San
East Richmond
Pablo
t
h
S
t
h
S t
S
t
Heights
S
a
n
Reservoir
3 0 4 t h P
3
3
7 t Barrett Ave a
b
lo
D
a
m
§¨¦
R
8800 RICHMOND d
S
A
r
Cutting Blvd a n lin
P
g
to
C
a rls
o
a b
lo
A
n
B lv
d
n v
B e
lv d Potrero Ave R N
ic a
h v EL CERRITO
m e
o
n
llie
d
S
r
S
t
t
RICHMOND
Moeser
Ln
A
s
h
b
u
§¨¦ ry
580 A v A
e r
lin
g
t
Richmond K e Kensington
o
n A
Inner Harbor y v
R
e
o
u
By LAFCO action
Central Ave t e
B
Stege Sanitary District
lv
on 05/14/2014, d City Boundaries
SSD boundary
County Boundary
and coterminous SOI §¨¦ BERKELEY
Alameda
were approved 8800 ALBANY County County Urban Limit Line
®
This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
Map created 06/25/2014 and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some Miles
by Contra Costa County Department of base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's
Conservation and Development, GIS Group tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for
3 3 0 7 M :5 u 9 i : r 4 R 1 o .7 a 9 d 1 , N M a 1 r 2 ti 2 n : e 0 z 7 , :0 C 3 A . 7 9 5 4 6 5 W 53 its re a p c r c o u d r u a c c e y d . T in h i i s ts m c a ur p r e c n o t n s ta ta in te s i c f o th p e y r s ig o h u t r e c d e in is f o c r i m te a d. t io U n s e a r n s d o m f t a h y is n m ot a b p e a a g l r t e e e re t d o . r e It a m d a a y n d b e 0 0.5 1 2
accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
06-12-24 LAFCO Meeting Agenda Packet
RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
APPROVING A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE FOR
WEST COUNTY WASTEWATER DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Government Code §56425 requires the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) to develop and determine the sphere of influence (SOI) of each local governmental agency
within the County; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §56425(f) requires that LAFCO review and update the SOI
boundaries every five years, or as necessary; and
WHEREAS, Government Code §56430 requires that a municipal service review (MSR) be
conducted prior to or in conjunction with an SOI update; and
WHEREAS, LAFCO conducted a 3rd round, countywide review of wastewater service providers,
which includes West County Wastewater District (WCWD), and adopted written determinations as
required by Government Code §56430 on June 12, 2024; and
WHEREAS, WCWD was formed in 1921 and provides wastewater collection, treatment and
disposal services to the City of San Pablo, City of Richmond (portion), City of Pinole (portion), and
unincorporated areas in West County including East Richmond Heights, El Sobrante, Montalvin Manor,
North Richmond, and Tara Hills; and
WHEREAS, WCWD serves a population of approximately 102,000 residents with approximately
25,838 residential and business sewer connections in a service area of approximately 16.9+ square miles;
and
WHEREAS, no change in regulation, land use, or development will occur as a result of updating
the District’s SOI; and
WHEREAS, in the form and manner prescribed by law, the Executive Officer has given notice of a
public hearing by this Commission regarding the SOI action; and
WHEREAS, the SOI update was duly considered at a public hearing held on June 12, 2024; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the Contra
Costa LAFCO does hereby:
1. Determine, as lead agency for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that
the SOI update is categorically exempt under §15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
2. Retain the existing SOI for WCWD.
3. Determine that the Commission has considered the criteria set forth in Government Code §56425 as
follows:
a. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands –
WCWD comprises 16.9+ square miles, and serves the City of San Pablo, a portion of the City
of Richmond, and unincorporated areas including East Richmond Heights, El Sobrante,
Montalvin Manor, North Richmond, and Rollingwood. Land uses include residential,
commercial, industrial, and public use. No land use changes will result from this SOI update.
b. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area - WCWD’s service area
is expected to increase by approximately 17% by 2045.
c. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or
is authorized to provide – WCWD facilities include 249 linear miles of sewer pipeline, a water
pollution control plant, and 17 pump stations. The treatment plant capacity processes 12.5
million gallons per day (MGD) (dry weather), and 21 MGD (wet weather).
d. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission
determines that they are relevant to the agency – WCWD provides services to the City of San
Pablo, portions of the cities on Pinole and Richmond, and other unincorporated areas within
Contra Costa County. Primary revenue sources include sewer service charges and a portion of
the 1% property tax. Property owners and ratepayers within the area have an economic interest
in receiving services from this investment. The SOI update will not affect the existence of any
social or economic communities of interest in the area that are relevant to WCWD.
e. Present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities (DUCs) within the existing SOI - There are disadvantaged
communities with WCWD including the City of San Pablo, portions of the cities of El Cerrito
and Richmond, and unincorporated North Richmond.
f. Nature, location, extent, functions & classes of services to be provided – WCWD provides
wastewater services to the City of San Pablo, portions of the cities of Pinole and Richmond, and
unincorporated communities of Bayview, El Sobrante, Rollingwood, and Tara Hills.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 12th day of June 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CHAIR, CONTRA COSTA LAFCO
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by this Commission on the date
stated above.
Dated: June 12, 2024
Lou Ann Texeira, Executive Officer
West County Wastewater District Boundary and SOI
West County Wastewater District
V
B
i
a
e
y
w
SanPabloAve WCWD SOI
Lupine
R
V
d
iolet
Rd
y City Boundaries
a
W
n County Boundary
P B
S
a
a
a b
n
y lo Gi a nt w y Atlas
M
M
on
a
t
n
a
o
lv
r
in
T H a il r l a s A p
pi a H
C
E
o
R
un
C
ty
U
U
L
rb
E
a
S
n Limit Line
H R
d
PINOLE
P
in
RICHMOND o
w y le
o n d
P k
v e
§¨¦
8800 Sob
E
ra
l
nte
ValleyRd
m A
h
Ri c
Gi
a n t
R d
a
n
P a
bl o Hilltop
Dr
A
p
pi a n W
a y
V a
lle
S y RICHMOND
Parr
Blvd
V
ie
w
SAN Rollingwood SanPabloDam
R
d
R d
RanchRd
PABLO str o
North
Market
Ave
Ca
Richmond
t
S
d
A
m
r
3 a
2 d
o
Rheem Ave r East
St S a S t Rich.
t
r
o
Bl
v
d n
P
Heights
RICHMOND
a
s
d
a
b A
C
a r
r
a r RICHMOND lo
A
rlin
g
G v t o San
e n
By LAFCO action on 5/14/2014, Pablo
B
existing WCWD boundary and SOI vl Reservoir
d
were approved. Further updates have
been made since that MSR action.
EL CERRITO
®
This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
Map created 06/18/2019 and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some Miles
by Contra Costa County Department of base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's
Conservation and Development, GIS Group tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for
3 3 0 7 M :5 u 9 ir :4 R 1 o .7 a 9 d 1 , N M a 1 r 2 ti 2 n : e 0 z 7 , : C 03 A . 7 9 5 4 6 5 W 53 its re a p c r c o u d r u a c c e y d . T in h i i s ts m c a ur p r e c n o t n s ta ta in te s i c f o th p e y r s ig o h u t r e c d e in is f o c r i m te a d. t io U n s e a r n s d o m f t a h y is n m ot a b p e a a g l r t e e e re t d o . r e It a m d a a y n d b e 0 1 2 4
accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
CHAPTER 25: GLOSSARY
Aquifer: A below-ground geologic formation that bears water, stores water, and/or transmits water,
such as to wells and springs.
American Society of Engineers: A professional organization that represents and supports
engineers in various disciplines and promotes the advancement of engineering knowledge
and practices
Annexation: The annexation, inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city or district.
Average base flow (ABF): Flow in the sanitary sewer during dry-weather months, measured when no
appreciable rain is falling. Base flow consists of sanitary flow plus groundwater infiltration.
Average dry-weather flow (ADWF): The 30-day rolling average wastewater flow from May through
October.
Average wet-weather flow (AWWF): The 30-day rolling average wastewater flow from November
through April.
Best Management Practices: Best management practices are defined as methods or techniques
found to be the most effective and practical means in achieving an objective (such as
minimizing pollution) while making the optimum use of the District’s resources.
Board of Directors: The legislative body or governing board of a district.
Board of Supervisors: The elected board of supervisors of a county.
Bond: An interest-bearing promise to pay a stipulated sum of money, with the principal amount due
on a specific date. Funds raised through the sale of bonds can be used for various public
purposes.
Buildout: The maximum development potential when all lands within an area have been converted
to the maximum density allowed under the General Plan.
CFS: Abbreviation for cubic feet per second. Used to describe a rate of the flow in streams and rivers.
One "cfs” is equivalent to 7.48 gallons of water flowing each second. Also, equal to a volume
of water one foot high and one foot wide flowing a distance of one foot in one second.
City: Any charter or general law city.
Community Services District (CSD): A geographic subarea of a county used for planning and
delivery of parks, recreation, and other human services based on an assessment of the
service needs of the population in that subarea. A CSD is a taxation district with independent
administration.
Consolidation: The uniting or joining of two or more districts into a single new successor district. In
the case of consolidation of special districts, all of those districts shall have been formed
pursuant to the same principal act.
25. Glossary 25-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contiguous: In the case of annexation, territory adjacent to an agency to wChoincthr aa Cnonsetxaa LtiAoFnC iOs
proposed. Territory is not contiguous if the only contiguity is based upon a strip of land more
than 300 feet long and less than 200 feet wide.
Cost avoidance: Actions to eliminate unnecessary costs derived from, but not limited to,
duplication of service efforts, higher than necessary administration/operation cost ratios,
use of outdated or deteriorating infrastructure and equipment, underutilized equipment or
buildings or facilities, overlapping/inefficient service boundaries, inefficient purchasing or
budgeting practices, and lack of economies of scale.
Crown (of the sewer): The upper portion of the sewer pipes.
Databases: Structured collections of data that are organized and stored for easy retrieval and
analysis. This MSR utilizes databases stored online and created by state or federal
agencies.
Demographic Data: Statistical information about the characteristics of a population, such as age,
race, income, and education.
Design flow: The selected flow condition for wastewater collection system design, determined by
adding corresponding peak sanitary flow and peak groundwater infiltration. This is also
referred to as peak dry-weather flow.
Design storm: An abstraction based on historical data that determines the amount of stormwater
inflow and rainfall-dependent infiltration.
Detachment: The detachment, deannexation, exclusion, deletion, or removal from a city or district
of any portion of the territory of that city or district.
Determination: The act of making a decision or reaching a conclusion based on evidence or
information. In MSRs, determinations are required by the CKH Act.
Development Fee: A fee charged to the developer of a project by a county, or other public agency
as compensation for otherwise-unmitigated impacts the project will produce. California
Government Code Section 66000, et seq., specifies that development fees shall not exceed
the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. To
lawfully impose a development fee, the public agency must verify its method of calculation
and document proper restrictions on use of the fund.
Disadvantaged Communities: Areas or neighborhoods that face social, economic, or
environmental challenges and have limited access to resources and opportunities. Defined
by the CKH Act.
Discharge: The volume of water that passes a given location within a given period of time. Usually
measured in cfs.
Drainage basin: A watershed (land area) where precipitation runs off into streams, rivers, lakes, and
reservoirs. A drainage basin may be identified by tracing a line along the highest elevations
between two areas on a map, often along a ridgeline.
Glossary 11-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Dissolution: The dissolution, disincorporation, extinguishment, and terminatioCno onf ttrhae C eoxsistate LnAcFeC oOf
a district and the cessation of all its corporate powers, except for the purpose of winding up
the affairs of the district.
District or special District: An agency of the state, formed pursuant to general law or special act,
for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited
boundaries. "District" or "special district" includes a county service area.
District of limited Powers: An airport district, community services district, municipal utility district,
public utilities district, fire protection district, harbor district, port district, recreational
harbor district, small craft harbor district, resort improvement district, library district, local
hospital district, local health district, municipal improvement district formed pursuant to any
special act, municipal water district, police protection district, recreation and park district,
garbage disposal district, garbage and refuse disposal district, sanitary district, or county
sanitation district.
Dry-weather flow: Wastewater flow monitored during the dry season, occurring May through
October. Consists of sanitary flow and groundwater infiltration.
Excessive infiltration and inflow: The quantities of infiltration/ inflow that can be economically
eliminated from a wastewater collection system by rehabilitation, as determined by a cost-
effective analysis.
Emissions: The release or discharge of substances, such as gases or pollutants, into the
atmosphere.
Evaporation: A physical process such that liquid water transforms to water vapor, including
vaporization from water surfaces, land surfaces, and fields.
Evapotranspiration: Combination of evaporation from free water surfaces and transpiration of
water from plant surfaces to the atmosphere.
Formation: The formation, incorporation, organization, or creation of a district.
Function: Any power granted by law to a local agency or a county to provide designated
governmental or proprietary services or facilities for the use, benefit, or protection of all
persons or property.
Functional revenues: Revenues generated from direct services or associated with specific
services, such as a grant or statute, and expenditures.
FY: Fiscal year.
General plan: A document containing a statement of development policies including a diagram and
text setting forth the objectives of the plan. In California, the general plan for a city or a county
must include certain state mandated elements related to land use, circulation, housing,
conservation, open-space, noise, and safety.
General revenues: Revenues not associated with specific services or retained in an enterprise fund.
Glossary 11-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Incorporation: The incorporation, formation, creation, and establishment of aC cointytr wa iCtho sctoar LpAoFraCtOe
powers. Any area proposed for incorporation as a new city must have at least 500 registered
voters residing within the affected area at the time commission proceedings are initiated.
Independent Special District: Any special district having a legislative body all of whose members
are elected by registered voters or landowners within the district, or whose members are
appointed to fixed terms, and excludes any special district having a legislative body
consisting, in whole or in part, of ex officio members who are officers of a county or another
local agency or who are appointees of those officers other than those who are appointed to
fixed terms. "Independent special district" does not include any district excluded from the
definition of district contained in §56036.
Infiltration and inflow (I&I): The collective term used to describe the extraneous flow in a
wastewater collection system from both rainfall-dependent infiltration and inflow or
groundwater infiltration.
Infrastructure: Public services and facilities, such as pipes, canals, levees, water-supply systems,
other utility, systems, and roads.
LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission.
Local Accountability And Governance: A style of public agency decision making, operation and
management that includes an accessible staff, elected or appointed decision-making body
and decision making process, advertisement of, and public participation in, elections,
publicly disclosed budgets, programs, and plans, solicited public participation in the
consideration of work and infrastructure plans; and regularly evaluated or measured
outcomes of plans, programs or operations and disclosure of results to the public.
Local Agency: A city, county, or special district or other public entity, which provides public
services.
Management Efficiency: The organized provision of the highest quality public services with the
lowest necessary expenditure of public funds. An efficiently managed entity (1) promotes
and demonstrates implementation of continuous improvement plans and strategies for
budgeting, managing costs, training and utilizing personnel, and customer service and
involvement, (2) has the ability to provide service over the short and long term, (3) has the
resources (fiscal, manpower, equipment, adopted service or work plans) to provide
adequate service, (4) meets or exceeds environmental and industry service standards, as
feasible considering local conditions or circumstances, (5) and maintains adequate
contingency reserves.
Methane Emissions: The release of methane gas into the atmosphere, often associated with human
activities such as fossil fuel extraction, agriculture, and waste management.
Methane: A colorless and odorless gas that is the primary component of natural gas and a potent
greenhouse gas. Wastewater treatment plants typically emit methane gas.
Municipal Services: The full range of services that a public agency provides, or is authorized to
provide, except general county government functions such as courts, special services and
tax collection. As understood under the CKH Act, this includes all services provided by
Special Districts under California law.
Glossary 11-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Municipal Service Review (MSR): A study designed to determine the adequaCcoyn otrf ag Coovestran mLAeFnCtaOl
services being provided in the region or sub-region. Performing service reviews for each city
and special district within the county may be used by LAFCO, other governmental agencies,
and the public to better understand and improve service conditions.
Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority.
Peak flow: Maximum measured daily flow. Commonly measured in cubic feet per second (cfs).
Typically occurs during wet-weather events and can also be referred to as peak wet-weather
flow.
Peak dry-weather flow (PDWF): Peak daily sanitary flow plus groundwater infiltration.
Peak wet-weather flow (PWWF): Peak daily wet-weather flow plus peak rainfall-dependent
infiltration and inflow from rainfall events.
Peaking Factor: The ratio of peak hourly wet-weather flow to base flow
Per Capita Water Use: The water produced by or introduced into the system of a water supplier
divided by the total residential population; normally expressed in gallons per capita per day
(gpcd).
pH: A measure of the relative acidity or alkalinity of water. Water with a pH of 7 is neutral; lower pH
levels indicate increasing acidity, while pH levels higher than 7 indicate increasingly basic
solutions.
Plan of reorganization: A plan or program for effecting reorganization and which contains a
description of all changes of organization included in the reorganization and setting forth all
terms, conditions, and matters necessary or incidental to the effectuation of that
reorganization.
Potable Water: Water of a quality suitable for drinking.
Principal act: In the case of a district, the law under which the district was formed and, in the case
of a city, the general laws or a charter, as the case may be.
Principal LAFCO for municipal service review: The LAFCO with the lead responsibility for a
municipal service review. Lead responsibility can be determined pursuant to the CKH Act
definition of a Principal LAFCO as it applies to government organization or reorganization
actions, by negotiation, or by agreement among two or more LAFCOs.
Proceeding: A course of action. Procedures.
Public agency: The state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and
county, special district, or other political subdivision, or any agency, board, or commission
of the city, county, city and county, special district, or other political subdivision.
Rainfall-dependent infiltration and inflow (RDI/I): Rainfall runoff from both infiltration and inflow
sources that enter the wastewater collection system during and shortly after a rain event.
RDI/I consists of stormwater inflow and rainfall-dependent infiltration.
Glossary 11-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Rate restructuring: Rate restructuring does not refer to the setting or developmCeonnt torfa s Cpoesctiafi cL AraFtCeOs
or rate structures. During a municipal service review, LAFCO may compile and review certain
rate related data, and other information that may affect rates, as that data applies to the
intent of the CKH Act (§56000, §56001, §56301), factors to be considered (§56668), SOI
determinations (§56425) and all required municipal service review determinations (§56430).
The objective is to identify opportunities to positively impact rates without adversely
affecting service quality or other factors to be considered.
Recycled Water: Treated wastewater reused for various purposes, such as irrigation, industrial
processes, or groundwater recharge.
Reorganization: Two or more changes of organization initiated in a single proposal.
Reserve: (1) For governmental type funds, an account used to earmark a portion of fund balance,
which is legally or contractually restricted for a specific use or not appropriable for
expenditure. (2) For proprietary type/enterprise funds, the portion of retained earnings set
aside for specific purposes. Unnecessary reserves are those set aside for purposes that are
not well defined or adopted or retained earnings that are not reasonably proportional to
annual gross revenues.
Responsible LAFCO: The LAFCO of a county other than the Principal County that may be impacted
by recommendations, determinations or subsequent proposals elicited during a municipal
service review being initiated or considered by the Lead LAFCO.
Retained earnings: The accumulated earnings of an enterprise or intragovernmental service fund
which have been retained in the fund and are not reserved for any specific purpose (debts,
planned improvements, and contingency/emergency).
RWQCB: Regional Water Quality Control Board.
SCADA: Acronym for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition; a software application program
used for process control and to gather real time data from remote locations. The SCADA
System consists of hardware and software components. The hardware collects and feeds
data into a computer with SCADA software installed. The function of SCADA is recording and
logging all events in a file that is stored in a hard disk or sending them to a printer. If conditions
become hazardous, SCADA sounds warning alarm.
Service lateral: A sewer connecting a building or house to the mainline sewer.
Service review: A study and evaluation of municipal service(s) by specific area, subregion or region
culminating in written determinations regarding seven specific evaluation categories.
Sewage: The wastewater released by residences, businesses and industries in a community is
commonly referred to as sewage. It is 99.94 percent water, with only 0.06 percent of the
wastewater dissolved and suspended solid material. The cloudiness of sewage is caused by
suspended particles, which in untreated sewage ranges from 100 to 350 mg/l.
Sewer Information Maintenance and Management System (SIMMS): A computer program that
provides a means of tracking and organizing sewer maintenance schedules.
Glossary 11-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Special Reorganization: A reorganization that includes the detachment of terCroitnotrrya f rCoomst aa LcAitFyC oOr
city and county and the incorporation of that entire detached territory as a city.
Specific plan: A policy statement and implementation tool that is used to address a single project
or planning problem. Specific plans contain concrete standards and development criteria
that supplement those of the general plan.
Sphere of influence (SOI): A plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local
agency, as determined by the LAFCO.
Sphere of influence determinations: In establishing a sphere of influence, the Commission must
consider and prepare written determinations related to present and planned land uses, need
and capacity of public facilities, and existence of social and economic communities of
interest.
Stormwater runoff: Rainwater which does not infiltrate into the soil and runs off the land.
SWRCB: State Water Resources Control Board.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): A quantitative measure of the residual minerals dissolved in water
that remains after evaporation of a solution. Usually expressed in milligrams per liter.
Treated water: Raw water which has been treated for human consumption through secondary or
tertiary processes at a water treatment plan (WTP).
Watershed: An area of land that drains water, sediment and dissolved materials to a common
receiving body or outlet. The term is not restricted to surface water runoff and includes
interactions with subsurface water. Watersheds vary from the largest river basins to just
acres or less in size. In urban watershed management, a watershed is seen as all the land
which contributes runoff to a particular water body.
Wastewater Regulations: Rules and guidelines established by regulatory agencies to control the
treatment, discharge, and management of wastewater to protect public health and the
environment.
Zoning: The primary instrument for implementing the general plan. Zoning divides a community
into districts or "zones" that specify the permitted/prohibited land uses.
Glossary 11-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Many people contributed information that was utilized in this Municipal Service Review and Sphere
of Influence Update.
CHAPTER 26: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Contra Costa LAFCo Staff Lou Ann Texeira, Executive Officer
Anna Seithel, Clerk Analyst
Wastewater Service Providers Many people at each of the 20 wastewater service
providers contributed time and information to
improve this MSR. Their effort is greatly
appreciated.
REPORT PREPARERS
A team of consultants authored this MSR/SOI and provided an independent analysis.
SWALE Inc. Kateri Harrison, Project Manager, Author
Laylonni Laster, Planner & GIS
Judy Stolen, Chico, GIS
Yuba Planning Group, LLC Jessica Hankins, Technical Writer & Editor
South Fork Amanda Ross, Financial Analysis
Baracco and Associates Bruce Baracco, Reviewer
SOFTWARE UTILIZED IN PREPARATION OF MSR/SOI
Several types of computer software were utilized to assist the consultants in preparation of this
report as listed in the table below.
ESRI Arc GIS (Maps) Adobe Acrobat regular + AI (convert Microsoft to
pdf format. Summarize pdf reports)
Microsoft Word & Excel (typing text and tables) Chat GPT (AI used to summarize reports from
the agencies, describe images, reformat tables)
Grammarly.com (corrects typos and Google maps (used images of public buildings,
grammatical errors using AI) measured distances)
Chapter 26: Acknowledgements 26-1
APPENDICES
For the
Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Update
WASTEWATER SERVICES
Prepared by: Prepared for:
Contra Costa LAFCO
https://www.contracostalafco.org/
May 22, 2024
List of Appendices
A. Demographic Data, Contra Costa County
B. Map Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Determination, American Community Survey 5-
year Estimates
C. Economic Data - County Costa County U.S. Census
D. California’s New Housing Laws
E. Housing and Land Use Resources and Databases
F. Description of Watersheds
G. Wastewater Regulations
H. Methane Emissions
I. Recycled Water
J. American Society of Engineers
Appendix A
Demographic Data, Contra Costa County
QuickFacts
Contra Costa County, California; United States
QuickFacts provides statistics for all states and counties. Also for cities and towns with a population of 5,000 or more.
Contra Costa
All Topics United States
County, California
Population estimates, July 1, 2023, (V2023) 1,155,025 334,914,895
PEOPLE
Population
Population estimates, July 1, 2023, (V2023) 1,155,025 334,914,895
Population estimates base, April 1, 2020, (V2023) 1,165,930 331,464,948
Population, percent change - April 1, 2020 (estimates base) to July 1, 2023, (V2023) -0.9% 1.0%
Population, Census, April 1, 2020 1,165,927 331,449,281
Population, Census, April 1, 2010 1,049,025 308,745,538
Age and Sex
Persons under 5 years, percent 5.3% 5.6%
Persons under 18 years, percent 21.7% 21.7%
Persons 65 years and over, percent 17.4% 17.3%
Female persons, percent 50.7% 50.4%
Race and Hispanic Origin
White alone, percent 62.8% 75.5%
Black or African American alone, percent (a) 9.5% 13.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent (a) 1.1% 1.3%
Asian alone, percent (a) 20.2% 6.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent (a) 0.6% 0.3%
Two or More Races, percent 5.8% 3.0%
Hispanic or Latino, percent (b) 27.0% 19.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent 39.8% 58.9%
Population Characteristics
Veterans, 2018-2022 41,949 17,038,807
Foreign born persons, percent, 2018-2022 25.4% 13.7%
Housing
Housing Units, July 1, 2023, (V2023) 432,059 145,344,636
Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2018-2022 67.2% 64.8%
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2018-2022 $787,300 $281,900
Median selected monthly owner costs -with a mortgage, 2018-2022 $3,216 $1,828
Median selected monthly owner costs -without a mortgage, 2018-2022 $886 $584
Median gross rent, 2018-2022 $2,234 $1,268
Building Permits, 2023 2,033 1,511,102
Families & Living Arrangements
Households, 2018-2022 408,537 125,736,353
Persons per household, 2018-2022 2.82 2.57
Living in same house 1 year ago, percent of persons age 1 year+, 2018-2022 88.8% 86.9%
Language other than English spoken at home, percent of persons age 5 years+, 2018-2022 36.3% 21.7%
Computer and Internet Use
Households with a computer, percent, 2018-2022 97.1% 94.0%
Households with a broadband Internet subscription, percent, 2018-2022 94.7% 88.3%
Education
High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2018-2022 89.7% 89.1%
Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2018-2022 44.5% 34.3%
Health
With a disability, under age 65 years, percent, 2018-2022 7.4% 8.9%
Persons without health insurance, under age 65 years, percent 5.2% 9.3%
Economy
In civilian labor force, total, percent of population age 16 years+, 2018-2022 65.0% 63.0%
In civilian labor force, female, percent of population age 16 years+, 2018-2022 59.7% 58.5%
Total accommodation and food services sales, 2017 ($1,000) (c) 2,448,612 938,237,077
Total health care and social assistance receipts/revenue, 2017 ($1,000) (c) 10,075,376 2,527,903,275
Total transportation and warehousing receipts/revenue, 2017 ($1,000) (c) 1,288,141 895,225,411
Total retail sales, 2017 ($1,000) (c) 14,986,369 4,949,601,481
Total retail sales per capita, 2017 (c) $13,081 $15,224
Transportation
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16 years+, 2018-2022 36.8 26.7
Income & Poverty
Median household income (in 2022 dollars), 2018-2022 $120,020 $75,149
Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2022 dollars), 2018-2022 $59,083 $41,261
Persons in poverty, percent 8.7% 11.5%
BUSINESSES
Businesses
Total employer establishments, 2021 25,202 8,148,606
Total employment, 2021 324,805 128,346,299
Total annual payroll, 2021 ($1,000) 25,756,896 8,278,573,947
Total employment, percent change, 2020-2021 -6.2% -4.3%
Total nonemployer establishments, 2021 99,203 28,477,518
All employer firms, Reference year 2017 20,054 5,744,643
Men-owned employer firms, Reference year 2017 11,026 3,480,438
Women-owned employer firms, Reference year 2017 3,796 1,134,549
Minority-owned employer firms, Reference year 2017 5,345 1,014,958
Nonminority-owned employer firms, Reference year 2017 12,331 4,371,152
Veteran-owned employer firms, Reference year 2017 976 351,237
Nonveteran-owned employer firms, Reference year 2017 16,746 4,968,606
GEOGRAPHY
Geography
Population per square mile, 2020 1,626.3 93.8
Population per square mile, 2010 1,465.2 87.4
Land area in square miles, 2020 716.93 3,533,038.28
Land area in square miles, 2010 715.94 3,531,905.43
FIPS Code 06013 1
About datasets used in this table
Value Notes
Methodology differences may exist between data sources, and so estimates from different sources are not comparable.
Some estimates presented here come from sample data, and thus have sampling errors that may render some apparent differences between geographies statistically indistinguishable. Click the Quick Info icon to the left of each row in TAB
learn about sampling error.
The vintage year (e.g., V2023) refers to the final year of the series (2020 thru 2023). Different vintage years of estimates are not comparable.
Users should exercise caution when comparing 2018-2022 ACS 5-year estimates to other ACS estimates. For more information, please visit the 2022 5-year ACS Comparison Guidance page.
Fact Notes
(a) Includes persons reporting only one race
(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories
(c) Economic Census - Puerto Rico data are not comparable to U.S. Economic Census data
Value Flags
D Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information
F Fewer than 25 firms
FN Footnote on this item in place of data
NA Not available
S Suppressed; does not meet publication standards
X Not applicable
Z Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown
- Either no or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest or upper interval of an open ende
N Data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small.
QuickFacts data are derived from: Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, Current Population Survey, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, Stat
Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits.
Appendix B
Map Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Determination,
American Community Survey 5-year Estimates
Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Determination
American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2018 - 2022)
Crockett
Rodeo
Bay Point
Clyde Bethel
Island
PITTSBURG
Vine Hill
PINOLE HERCULES
RICHMOND
MARTINEZ
El Pacheco
Sobrante CONCORD ANTIOCH OAKLEY
North SAN
Richmond PABLO
Knightsen
PLEASANT
Reliez Valley HILL CLAYTON BRENTWOOD
RICHMOND
EL
CERRITO WALNUT
CREEK
Kensington
LAFAYETTE Discovery
Bay
Saranap
Byron
ORINDA
Alamo
Diablo
MORAGA
DANVILLE
Blackhawk
Camino
Tassajara
SAN
RAMON
Norris
Canyon
Disadvantaged City or CDP (San Pablo)
2018-2022 Disadvantaged Communities
Unincorporated Census Designated Places (CDP)
Disadvantaged Community includes Census Tracts, Block Groups,
and Places where the median household income is less than 80% INCORPORATED CITIES AND TOWNS
of the statewide median household income
Appendix C
Economic Data - County Costa County U.S. Census
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Appendix C: Economic Data - County Costa County U.S. Census
Data Dashboard Retrieved on August 8, 2022 from https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/13a111e06ad242fba0fb62f25199c7dd/page/Page-
1/
Appendix C: Economic Data Page C-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Appendix C: Economic Data Page C-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Appendix C: Economic Data Page C-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Appendix C: Economic Data Page C-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Appendix C: Economic Data Page C-5
Appendix D
California’s New Housing Laws
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
APPENDIX D: CALIFORNIA’S NEW HOUSING LAWS
Housing Affordability And Revitalization
The State Legislature has indicated that California needs to build more housing to address current
housing problems like the housing shortage and skyrocketing prices. California’s legislators have
been actively passing bills intended to spur new housing development, specifically affordable
housing and housing located near transit. California’s legislators have been actively passing bills
and during the years 2017 to 2023, they passed approximately 150 new housing laws. These laws are
aimed at encouraging local municipalities and the private construction sector to meet housing goals
and are generally summarized by the following four bullet points:
• allows institutions like colleges and religious organizations to use portions of their property
to build housing,
• continues a state statute used to hold local communities accountable for their fair share of
housing.
• CEQA reform
• the Housing Accountability Unit at the California Department of Housing and Community
Development was created to make sure cities and counties fulfill their legal responsibilities
to plan and permit their fair share of housing.
Regardless of the new housing laws, the practicalities of getting housing built require that local
utilizes and municipalities have sufficient existing capacity in their water, electrical, and wastewater
systems. This MSR/SOI Update addresses wastewater systems by asking: “Does the local
wastewater service provider have sufficient capacity to accommodate future growth?” To some
extent, this MSR/SOI Update addresses this question based on past levels of growth and based on
feedback from the service provider. However, the new housing laws passed by the State Legislature
introduce some uncertainty about future growth projections because we do not yet know how local
communities will implement these new laws. Will future growth in California continue to be relatively
slow (as in the past), or will growth significantly increase?
To answer these questions, Contra Costa County and the incorporated cities therein have recently
adopted or are currently working on their 6th Cycle Housing Element Updates and sharing them with
the California Dept of Housing and Community Development (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/). The data in
this MSR/SOI Update has been designed to provide baseline information to the municipalities that
are developing their Housing Element Updates. Therefore, it is recommended that LAFCO continue
to review and provide comments on Housing Element Updates to ensure that this new MSR/SOI
Update is considered.
Given the uncertainty introduced by these new housing laws, it is premature for this MSR/SOI Update
to attempt to answer these big-picture issues that affect the entire state. Additional study is needed
Appendix D: New Housing Laws Page D-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
to adequately answer the questions about future growth rates and wastewCaotnetrr ai nCforasstatr LuAcFtuCrOe
capacity.
LAFCO has produced this MSR/SOI Update as a resource that can guide future conversations about
these important issues. As future housing is planned and built, it is critical that local cities and
Contra Costa County closely coordinate with LAFCO and wastewater service providers to assess
capacity of the collection systems, wastewater treatment plants, and permitting. Wastewater
service providers face significant financial, water quality, and regulatory constraints, which may
create a barrier that precludes infrastructure expansion unless significant financial resources are
dedicated.
Table A-C-1 below provides a partial list of the new housing laws passed by the CA Legislature in
recent years. A more complete list of the new housing laws is available from the University of
Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation’s “Database Of California Housing And Land Use
Laws”, as provided at this website: <https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/california-land-use-housing/
>.
Table A-C-1: Partial List of New Housing Laws in California (2017 to 2023)
Informal Name Description
Senate Bill 9 May allow up to four units of housing on a single-family lot. SB
9 does not apply in historic districts or environmentally
sensitive areas, like wetlands and certain high fire-risk areas.
Senate Bill 10 Creates a voluntary program that makes it easier for cities to
upzone any urban or transit-adjacent parcel of land, including
a single-family lot, to allow a building of 10 units or fewer.
(2021)
Assembly Bill 2011 (Wicks) Creates a pathway for residential development on sites
otherwise exclusively locally zoned for commercial use
(passed in 2022).
Senate Bill 423 – (Wiener) Extends and expands existing law, requiring local governments
that fail to meet state housing planning goals to streamline
affordable housing projects. This will increase affordable
housing throughout the state in uncooperative cities. (2023)
Senate Bill 4 - (Wiener) Allows housing to be developed on property owned by religious
or independent higher education institutions. These groups are
given this authority “by right,” which requires no discretionary
local governance intervention. (2023)
AB2011 - The Affordable Identifies areas zoned for parking, retail, or office buildings
Housing and High Road Jobs where land could be used for housing. It also allows for housing
Act (Wicks). Chapter 647, on that land and exempts such projects from local approval
Statutes of 2022 for Section processes and the California Environmental Quality Act.
Appendix D: New Housing Laws Page D-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
65400 of the Government Contra Costa LAFCO
Code
Senate Bill 6. (Caballero) Allows more housing to be built in commercial corridors zoned
for retail and office buildings. They also guarantee high union
wages for construction workers and promise an expedited
building process near city centers to avoid sprawl.
AB 12 by Assemblymember Tenancy: security deposits.
Matt Haney (D-San Francisco)
AB 84 by Assemblymember Property tax: welfare exemption: affordable housing.
Christopher Ward (D-San
Diego)
AB 12 by Assemblymember Tenancy: security deposits.
Matt Haney (D-San Francisco)
AB 84 by Assemblymember Property tax: welfare exemption: affordable housing.
Christopher Ward (D-San
Diego)
AB 281 by Assemblymember Planning and zoning: housing: post entitlement phase permits.
Tim Grayson (D-Contra Costa)
AB 318 by Assemblymember Mobile Home Residency Law Protection Act.
Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) –
AB 319 by Assemblymember Mobile Home Parks Act: inspectors: conflict of interest:
Damon Connolly (D-San enforcement actions: sunset.
Rafael)
AB 323 by Assemblymember Density Bonus Law: purchase of density bonus units by
Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) nonprofit housing organizations: civil actions.
AB 346 by Assemblymember Income tax credits: low-income housing: California Debt Limit
Sharon Quirk-Silva (D- Allocation Committee rulemaking.
Fullerton)
AB 434 by Assemblymember Housing element: notice of violation.
Tim Grayson (D-Contra Costa)
AB 480 by Assemblymember Surplus land.
Philip Ting (D-San Francisco)
AB 516 by Assemblymember Mitigation Fee Act: fees for improvements: reports and audits.
James Ramos (D-San
Bernardino)
AB 519 by Assemblymember Affordable Housing Finance Workgroup: affordable housing:
Pilar Schiavo (D-Los Angeles) consolidated application and coordinated review process.
AB 529 by Assemblymembers Adaptive reuse projects.
Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino)-
AB 548 by Assemblymember State Housing Law: inspection.
Tasha Boerner (D-San Diego)
AB 572 by Assemblymember Common interest developments: the imposition of
Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) assessments.
AB 671 by Assemblymember CalHome Program: accessory dwelling units.
Christopher Ward (D-San
Diego)
Appendix D: New Housing Laws Page D-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
AB 812 by Assemblymember Housing development approvals: reserving afCfoorndtarab lCeo usntait Ls AinF CO
Tasha Boerner (D-San Diego) or near a cultural district for artists.
AB 821 by Assemblymember Planning and zoning: general plan: zoning ordinance: conflicts.
Tim Grayson (D-Contra Costa)
AB 894 (Friedman) Parking requirements: shared parking.
AB 911 (Schiavo) Unlawfully restrictive covenants: affordable housing.
AB 976 (Ting) Accessory dwelling units: owner-occupancy requirements.
AB 1033 (Ting) Accessory dwelling units: local ordinances: separate sale or
conveyance.
AB 1114 (Haney) Planning and zoning: housing development projects: post
entitlement phase permits.
AB 1218 (Lowenthal) Development projects: demolition of residential dwelling units.
AB 1287 (Alvarez) Density Bonus Law: maximum allowable residential density:
additional density bonus and incentives or concessions.
AB 1308 (Quirk-Silva) Planning and Zoning Law: single-family residences: parking
requirements.
AB 1317 (Carrillo) Unbundled parking.
AB 1319 (Wicks) Bay Area Housing Finance Authority: housing revenue.
AB 1332 (Carrillo) Accessory dwelling units: pre-approved plans.
AB 1386 (Gabriel) Veterans housing: tenant referrals.
AB 1449 (Alvarez) Affordable housing: California Environmental Quality Act:
exemption.
AB 1474 (Gómez Reyes) California Statewide Housing Plan.
AB 1485 (Haney) Housing element: enforcement: Attorney General.
AB 1490 (Lee) Affordable housing development projects: adaptive reuse.
AB 1508 (Ramos) Department of Housing and Community Development:
California Statewide Housing Plan.
AB 1528 (Gipson) Housing authorities: property taxation.
AB 1620 (Chavez Zbur) – Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act: permanent disabilities:
comparable or smaller units.
AB 1633 (Ting) Housing Accountability Act: disapprovals: California
Environmental Quality Act.
AB 1734 (Byron Jones-Sawyer Local Government: Surplus Land Act: exemptions.
Sr.)
AB 1764 By the Committee on Housing and Community Development –
Housing omnibus.
SB 4(Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: higher education
institutions and religious institutions.
SB 34 (Umberg) Surplus land disposal: violations: County of Orange.
SB 82 (Seyarto) Property taxation: disabled veterans’ exemption: eligibility
letters.
SB 229 (Umberg) Surplus land: disposal of property: violations: public meeting.
SB 240 (Ochoa Bogh) Surplus state real property: affordable housing and housing for
formerly incarcerated individuals.
SB 267 (Talamantes Eggman) Credit history of persons receiving government rent subsidies.
SB 341 (Becker) Housing development.
Appendix D: New Housing Laws Page D-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
SB 423 (Wiener) Land use: streamlined housing approvals: muCltoifnatmrai lCy ohsotua sLiAngF CO
developments.
SB 439 (Skinner) Special motions to strike: priority housing development
projects.
SB 482 (Blakespear) Multifamily Housing Program: supportive housing: capitalized
operating reserves.
SB 520 (Seyarto) Property taxation: homeowners’ exemption.
SB 593 (Wiener) Redevelopment: successor agency debt: City and County of
San Francisco.
SB 684 (Caballero) Land use: streamlined approval processes: development
projects of 10 or fewer residential units on urban lots under 5
acres.
SB 713 (Padilla) Planning and zoning: density bonuses: development standard.
SB 734 (Rubio) Property tax: possessory interests.
SB 747 (Caballero) Land use: surplus land.
SB 789 (Allen) Elections: Senate Constitutional Amendment 2 of the 2021–22
Regular Session and Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 of
the 2023–24 Regular Session.
Data Source: California Press Release, Published: Oct 11, 2023. See
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/10/11/governor-newsom-signs-package-to-streamline-housing-
and-expand-tenant-protections-in-california/
Reference List
• https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-10-13/california-housing-crisis-2023-bills
• https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-09-17/newsom-housing-sb9
• https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/ADU-Paper-FINAL-July-
7th.pdf
• https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/state-law-local-interpretation-
senate-bill-9/
• https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/New-Pathways-to-
Encourage-Housing-Production-Evaluating-Californias-Recent-Housing-Legislation-April-
2023-Final-1.pdf
• https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/ab-2011-commercial-zones/
Appendix D: New Housing Laws Page D-5
Appendix E
Housing and Land Use Resources and Databases
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Appendix E: Housing and Land Use
Resources and Databases
Table of Contents
E-1: Housing Density in Contra Costa County ............................................................................1
E-2: Rent Burden ......................................................................................................................4
E-3: National Walkability Index ..................................................................................................6
E-4: Climate Vulnerability Index ................................................................................................8
E-5: Air Pollution Comparison ................................................................................................. 10
E-6: Number of Building Permits ............................................................................................. 11
E-7: Disadvantaged Communities ........................................................................................... 12
Contra Costa County, like all counties in the California, is facing a housing shortage and high housing
prices. This appendix provides a brief summary of a few on-line databases that provide information
about housing in Contra Costa County (including its cities).
To study and summarize some of the details associated with housing and land-use in Contra Costa
County, this appendix queried several federal and state on-line databases developed by agencies
that collect geographic data. These agencies routinely collect new data and update their databases
accordingly. Therefore, in order to obtain the most recent data, LAFCO’s planners and the general
public are encouraged to view the databases directly on-line and the URL’s are provided in the
following paragraphs below the discussion of each database. These on-line databases describe
detailed information about a variety of metrics including infrastructure vulnerability, population
demographics, and the built environment. LAFCO is particularly interested in data regarding
disadvantaged communities.
E-1: Housing Density in Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County contains a unique mix of urban, suburban, and open space areas. Local
governments and LAFCO have worked together to protect agriculture and open space in the County.
However, in the cities, urban design and the development process can be a bit tricky to implement
successfully. Some cities have general plans that seek to add more density to promote economic
revitalization and affordable housing. However, in other cities and communities housing density is
viewed as a negative trend because if facilities more and bigger buildings, more asphalt and
concrete, fewer trees and green space, less sunlight, and encroachment on privacy. Local
governments resolve these tradeoffs through zoning ordinances that regulate housing density. For
Appendix E – Housing Databases Page E-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
example, single-family districts typically include lot size minimums. Multifamily Czoonnitnrga dCiossttraic LtsA mFCaOy
suggest a minimum or maximum number of dwelling units allowed per acre.
Land in Contra Costa County is finite and limited. Approval of new sprawling development will likely
be limited in the future. Trends toward transit-oriented housing will likely continue. Increased
housing density can save land and energy use, and may cost less for infrastructure development and
maintenance. For example, infrastructure costs per capita may be lower in high-density areas. As
the County and local cities continue to study the opportunities and constraints associated with
housing density, they will gain insight into the economic reality of urban development.
To consider housing density in Contra Costa County, this appendix studies the number of Housing
Units Per Acre as described in the U.S. EPA Smart Locations Database1. The Smart Location
Database summarizes several demographic, employment, and built environment variables for every
census block group (CBG) in the United States. The database includes indicators regarding
residential and employment density, land use diversity, design of the built environment, access to
destinations, and distance to transit. Figure A4-1, below, shows the most recent geographic
boundaries (2019 Census Block Groups) and new and expanded sources of data used to calculate
variables from this database (EPA, 2013 as updated in 2022). Figure A4-x shows housing density as
a function of the number of units per acre. As shown in the map legend, housing density is color-
ramped such that lower density areas have a light-yellow color and higher density areas are shown
in dark brown. For example, Census Block Group 060133100001 in the City of Pittsburg near the
railroad tracts is colored dark brown in the map, indicating a relatively higher housing density.
Antioch’s Census Block Groups 060133050005 and 060133072021 also have higher housing density
(EPA, 2013 as updated in 2022).
Readers are encouraged to look up the most recent data directly through the online databases as
provided on the following websites:
• https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-location-mapping#SLD
or
• https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=137d4e512249480c9
80e00807562da10
1
The U.S. EPA Smart Locations Database can show several variables related to the built environment, including
https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-location-mapping
land use, public transit service, and accessibility to destinations summarized for all census block groups in the
U.S. See for more information.
Appendix E – Housing Databases Page E-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Figure E-1: Housing Units Per Acre in Contra Costa County Contra Costa LAFCO
Data Source: United States EPA Smart Location Database at: <https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-location-mapping#SLD>
Appendix E – Housing Databases Page E-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
E-2: Rent Burden
LAFCO considers disadvantaged communities and environmental justice issues as part of its
responsibility under the CKH Act. Members of these communities may experience a heavy financial
burden associated with paying rent. To study this issue, an online database was queried called “The
City Health Dashboard”. This Dashboard utilizes over 40 measures of health and drivers of health in
larger-sized cities to help community leaders and residents pinpoint and take action on gaps in
health and opportunity. The City Health Dashboard was compiled by the Department of Population
Health at New York University (NYU) Langone Health and the Robert F. Wagner School of Public
Service at NYU as a health improvement planning resource. The Dashboard allows one to view and
compare data from multiple sources on health and the factors that shape health to guide local
solutions. A wide range of factors influence how long and how well we live from education and
income to the quality of our housing and the safety of our neighborhoods. In this section, the query
results from two topics are shown below: 1) Rent burden
As shown in Figure x below, the City of Concord had an estimated 58.9% of households experiencing
high rent burden in 2021, compared to an average of 50.5% across the Dashboard's cities. Walnut
Creek had the lowest percent of households experiencing a rent burden at only 42.6 percent.
Appendix E – Housing Databases Page E-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
E-3: National Walkability Index Contra Costa LAFCO
EPA’s National Walkability Index provides walkability scores based on a simple formula that ranks
selected indicators that affect the propensity of walk trips. Walkability depends upon
characteristics of the built environment that influence the likelihood of walking being used as a mode
of travel.
Or
The dataset covers every Census 2019 block group in the nation, providing a basis for comparing
walkability from community to community. The National Walkability Index dataset ranks each block
group relative to all other block groups in the United States, but individuals can use downloadable
data to construct an index for a smaller universe of block groups, like a state, metropolitan area, or
city. In Figure 2-x below, the dark green areas show those portions of Contra Costa County that are
most walkable including areas of Richmond, Hercules, Martinez, Walnut Creek, and Concord. The
orange-colored areas depict geographic locations that are the least walkable and these include
specific neighborhoods in Martinez, Byron, and Discovery Bay. The City of Martinez contains
neighborhoods that are ranked most walkable and other neighborhoods that are ranked least
walkable. Neighborhood walkability data will be more useful to LAFCO when used in the context of
understanding the total package of infrastructure available to disadvantaged communities. Readers
are invited to learn more about the walkability index on these websites:
• https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-location-mapping#walkability
• https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=f16f5e2f84884b93b38
0cfd4be9f0bba
Reference
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Office of Sustainable Communities. May 13, 2021
(publication). National Walkability Index. On-line Database. Retrieved January 20, 2024
from: <https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-location-mapping#walkability>.
Appendix E – Housing Databases Page E-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Figure E-2- National Walkability Index for Contra Costa County
Appendix E – Housing Databases Page E-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
E-4: Climate Vulnerability Index
The CKH Act requires LAFCO to evaluate environmental justice issues when considering a proposal.
The ramifications from climate change are a threat to everyone’s financial situation, health, air,
water, food, and shelter. However, communities that are socially or economically disadvantaged
may face the greatest risks. Due to their location, income, health, language barriers, and limited
access to resources their risk of exposure to disasters caused by or inflated by climate change is
higher. In the U.S., these more vulnerable communities are largely the communities of color,
immigrants, low-income communities, and people for whom English is not their native language. As
time goes on, they will likely suffer the worst impacts of climate change and associated sea level
rise. Therefore, it is important to recognize that environmental justice and climate change are linked.
The Climate Vulnerability Index was developed by Texas A&M University in collaboration with
numerous other partners. This index provides a robust, data-driven approach to understanding
locally relevant determinants at a neighborhood scale. The index pulls in 184 datasets to rank more
than 70,000 U.S. Census tracts and this mapping tool integrates cumulative impacts. The index
compiles climate impacts at the census tract level, both historical and projected, direct, and indirect
– integrating climate change impacts with environmental, health, and socioeconomic metrics.
Additional details about the methodology used to create the Climate Vulnerability Index can be
found on its website at: <https://climatevulnerabilityindex.org/>. Figure 2-x below shows the spatial
distribution of areas that may be vulnerable to climate change impacts. Darker colors represent
higher vulnerability.
Figure E-3: Climate Vulnerability Index
Most of the areas within Contra Costa County that may be vulnerable to climate change impacts are
Appendix E – Housing Databases Page E-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
located near the shoreline. In particular, the Bay Point neighborhood (Census CTroancttr a0 6C0o1s3ta3 1L4A2F0C0O)
scores in the 73rd percentile, indicating a high level of vulnerability. Additionally, a neighborhood in
Richmond (Census Tract 06013365002) scored in the 68th percentile, indicating a moderate to high
level of vulnerability
Reference
Texas A&M University, Environmental Defense Fund, and Darkhorse Analytics. 2023. The U.S.
Climate Vulnerability Index. Retrieved on November 20, 2023 from
<https://climatevulnerabilityindex.org >.
Appendix E – Housing Databases Page E-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
E-5: Air Pollution Comparison Contra Costa LAFCO
NYU’s City Health Dashboard was queried for an air pollutant called particulate matter. Of the four
cities studied, the City of Pittsburg had the highest level with an estimated fine particulate matter
concentration of 14.9 ug/m3 in December 2022. Query results for the four studied cities are shown
in Figure x below.
Reference
New York University (NYU) Department of Population Health at Langone Health and the Robert F.
Wagner School of Public Service. December 2022. City Health Dashboard. Retrieved on January
21, 2024 from: < https://www.cityhealthdashboard.com>.
Appendix E – Housing Databases Page E-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
E-6: Number of Building Permits Contra Costa LAFCO
When considering future growth of an area, it is helpful to understand the number of building permits
issued. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Office of Policy
Development and Research compiles a dataset of Residential Construction Permits by County. This
dataset contains data on permits for residential construction collected in the Census Bureau's
Building Permits Survey. Data is aggregated to the county level. An eighteen-year time period is
shown in Figure x below. In the year 2021, officials within Contra Costa County issued 3,901 building
permits. The fewest building permits were issued in 2022 at only 1,794 building permits.
Figure E-5: # of Building Permits (all)
Issued Annually
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Data Source for Figure x, above is United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
A statistical analyisis was not done on the data shown in Figure x above. However, it seems that
more building permits were issued during the years 2004 to 2007, prior to the recession of 2008.
Reference
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Office of Policy Development
and Research. Date created: 11/18/2020. Date updated: 11/16/2023. Dataset of Residential
Construction Permits by County from Geospatial Data Storefront. Retrieved on January 21, 2024
from: <https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/>.
Appendix E – Housing Databases Page E-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
E-7: Disadvantaged Communities Contra Costa LAFCO
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) manages a database of socioeconomic
and health indicators in disadvantaged communities called the Environmental Justice Explorer
Database. This database was queried for the Contra Costa County. Query results indicate that
disadvantaged communities in the Contra Costa area may experience hardships. Readers are
invited to query this database for specific areas at:
<https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/eji/index.html >.
This database provides details regarding the census tracts rated in the Env Justice Index. For
example, a small census tract located within the City of Martinez (Census Tract 3160) has an area
rated as “high”. Details are provided in Table x below.
Census Tract 3160, Contra Costa County,
Location
California (City of Martinez)
Total Population in Census Tract 1,055
EJI Rank 0.79
⚠
Environmental Burden Rank 0.80
⚠
Potentially Hazardous & Toxic Sites 0.95
⚠
Toxic Release Inventory Sites 0.84
⚠
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Sites 0.93
⚠
Risk Management Plan Sites 0.82
⚠
Built Environment 0.19
Housing Built Pre-1980 0.81
⚠
Transportation Infrastructure 0.55
Railways 0.79
⚠
Appendix E – Housing Databases Page E-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Socioeconomic Status 0.66
Poverty 0.92
⚠
No High School Diploma 0.79
⚠
Housing Tenure 0.96
⚠
Housing Burdened, Lower-Income Households 0.97
⚠
Household Characteristics 0.76
⚠
Civilian with a Disability 0.99
⚠
Speaks English "Less than Well" 0.83
⚠
Housing Type 0.62
Group Quarters 0.95
⚠
High Pre-existing Chronic Disease Prevalence Sum 2 out of 5
High Estimated Prevalence of Asthma Yes
⚠
High Estimated Prevalence of Poor Mental Health Yes
⚠
In this census tract, a proportion of the area is within 1-mi buffer of a railway. This is why Table lists 0.79 (i.e.
79 percent) and gives it a red flag. Like roads, railways can also present a significant source of noise pollution
to nearby communities. This noise pollution can constitute a major annoyance and source of community
stress, especially when combined with noise pollution from traffic (Öhrström et al., 2007). Among all
transportation-associated sources of noise pollution, railway noise is associated with the most significant
levels of sleep disruption and associated increases in stress and diastolic blood pressure (Elmenhorst et al.,
2019; Petri et al., 2021).
References
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Environmental Justice. 2023.
Environmental Justice Index (EJI) Explorer. Retrieved on September 25, 2023 from
<https://onemap.cdc.gov/portal/apps/sites/#/eji-explorer>.
U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization/Smart Growth Program. Item created: Sep 6, 2013 Item
updated: Feb 16, 2022. Smart Locations Database, Housing Units Per Acre (variable).
Retrieved on January 20, 2024 from < https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-location-
mapping#SLD>.
Appendix E – Housing Databases Page E-13
List of Appendix F
Description of Watersheds
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Appendix F
Description of Watersheds
Contra Costa County, CA
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table of Contents
Introduction – Watersheds Basics ............................................................................................................................... 3
Water Cycle ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Watershed Management ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Contra Costa Watersheds ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Watershed Management Organizations ................................................................................................................. 6
Algal Blooms .............................................................................................................................................................. 7
Atmospheric River & Spill Reports ........................................................................................................................ 8
Water Quality............................................................................................................................................................ 11
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Introduction – Watersheds Basics
Watershed management plans are noted as an important part of the regional context for a MSR in the 2003
OPR LAFCO Municipal Service Review Guidelines. Drainage basins1 are mentioned in the CKH Act [GC
§56668 (a)]. A watershed is the area of land that drains into a body of water such as a river, lake, stream, or bay.
In Contra Costa, all water eventually drains into the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento Delta Estuary. The
watershed includes surface water in streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and the groundwater in local aquifers. The
drinking water that comes out of our taps comes from all these sources. Watersheds are shaped by the natural
contours of the land: hills and valleys. Think of a watershed as a basin, formed by the highest ridges surrounding
a network of streams. Every raindrop falling inside these high points drains into the watershed.
Natural ecological processes support the production of clean water within local watersheds. For example, intact
forests create airborne particles which support raindrop formation. Forests also retain soil moisture, which
reduces fire intensity and extent. Oak woodlands, riparian forests, and other vegetated habitats maintain
hydrological processes that recharge subsurface aquifers and surface water flows. Protection of the natural
habitat within watersheds will sustain yields of clean water, agricultural and forestry products, and provide more
opportunities for nature-based recreation, reduced pollution treatment costs, and other economic returns.
Agriculture also plays an important role within local watersheds. Farmers, ranchers, and other private
landowners have deep knowledge about the land and rivers. Farmers are some of the best protectors of
biodiversity in California.
Forest, meadows, and wetland ecosystems in a watershed naturally filter and replenish water. What we do on
the land and in our homes, yards, businesses, schools, parks, and communities has the potential to affect the
health of our watershed and the quality of our drinking water. Watersheds are a key component of the natural
hydrologic cycle. Each watershed has specific and unique geomorphic, hydrologic, and ecological
characteristics. Watershed systems are best viewed as holistic natural systems. Watersheds are important not
merely for the creeks and rivers that flow within them, but also for the ecosystem services provided by the flora
(including forests), fauna, and soils. To have a dependable and quality water supply, it is critical that local
communities be good stewards of local watersheds.
Water Cycle
Water is part of the natural hydrologic cycle, which is part of Earth’s ancient operating system. The hydrologic
cycle involves Earth’s land, oceans, and atmosphere. The cycling of water involves processes known as
precipitation, evaporation, evapotranspiration, and condensation. Ultimately, the ocean is a vital part of the
water cycle, considering that it holds approximately 97% of the total water on Earth (NASA, n.d.). Evaporation
occurs when a heat source causes water, found on a body of water, to alter from a liquid to a gas state and
results in water vapor that undergoes condensation. Evaporation occurs on various water sources on Earth,
but mainly on the ocean. Condensation is the process by which molecules of water vapor in the air become
liquid (NASA, n.d.). Then, precipitation, which is the product of condensation, falls out of an atmospheric
cloud. Precipitation takes the form as rain, snow, sleet, and other forms. On land, the precipitation of water
allows for the development of runoff or the infiltration of water into the soil to form groundwater. Additionally,
the water that reaches land undergoes evapotranspiration which is the process that involves water transfer from
1
Factors to be considered in the review of a proposal shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(a) Population and population density; land area and land use; assessed valuation; topography, natural
boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; and the likelihood of significant growth
in the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years (CKH Act, GC
§56668 (a).
Appendix F- Watershed Page F- 3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
land to the atmosphere. The water cycle is a system that is energized by the sun and invoClvoenst rtah eC ocsotnat LinAuFoCuOs
exchange of moisture between the ocean, the atmosphere, and the land (NASA, n.d.).
Figure F-1: The Water Cycle
The greater San Franciso Bay and Sacramento/San Joaquin Estuary watershed is comprised of water that drains
from the entire western slope of the Sierra, the eastern slope of the Coast Ranges and the south- and west-
facing drainages of Mount Shasta and Lassen Peak. Water in the Sacramento/San Joaquin rivers flows through
the Delta, into San Francisco Bay, and out through the Golden Gate. This natural system is massive and
geographically diverse, including some of the highest mountains and the largest agricultural valleys on the
continent.
Watershed Management
Wastewater districts, drinking water districts, private property owners, public land management agencies,
stormwater management experts, environmental specialists, land-use planning regulators, and communities all
play an integral part in watershed management. Land managers and property owners within the watershed often
collaborate to protect watershed health and water quality. Non-profits conservation groups recognize that
watershed health is important to their mission. Ideally watershed management would be aimed at creating
and implementing plans, programs and projects to sustain and enhance watershed functions that
affect the plants, animals, and human communities within the watershed boundary. Features of a
Appendix F- Watershed Page F- 4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
watershed that agencies seek to manage include water supply, water quality, draCinoangtrea, Csotostram LwAFatCeOr
runoff, water rights and the overall planning and utilization of watersheds.
Contra Costa Watersheds
Contra Costa County has 31 major watersheds and sub-watersheds that drain to the Bay or Delta as
listed below and as shown in Figure F-2.
Contra Costa County Watersheds
• Baxter, Cerrito, and West Richmond Watersheds
• Wildcat Creek Watershed
• San Pablo Creek Watershed
• Rheem and Garrity Creek Watersheds
• Pinole Creek Watershed
• Refugio, Rodeo, and Carquinez Area Watersheds
• Alhambra Creek and Peyton Slough Watersheds
• Walnut Creek Watershed
• Mount Diablo Creek Watershed
• Willow and Kirker Creek Watersheds
• East and West Antioch Creek Watersheds
• Marsh Creek Watershed
• East County Delta Drainages
• Kellogg and Brushy Creek Watersheds
• Upper Alameda Creek Watershed
• Upper San Leandro and Moraga Creek Watershed
Figure F-2: Watersheds in Contra Costa County
Appendix F- Watershed Page F- 5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
The watersheds in Contra Costa County contain more than 1,300 miles of creeks and drainages. All but
eight of these watersheds are entirely within Contra Costa County. The largest watersheds in Contra Costa
County are Walnut Creek (93,556 acres), San Ramon Creek (tributary to Walnut Creek, 32,915 acres), and
San Pablo Creek (27,640 acres). The County also includes the upper portion of the Alameda Creek
watershed, which is one of the most important watersheds in the Bay Area for both public drinking water
supply and wildlife habitat.
Figure F-3: Typical Community Near State Water Project Infrastructure
The CA Department of Water Resources prepared Figure F-3, to depict a typical northern California
community that supplies water to the State Water Project.
Watershed Management Organizations
Integrated water management plans and activities are often sponsored by local non-profit organizations. A
collaborative effort across agencies, government, and NGOs is essential for proper stewardship on a watershed-
wide basis.
Contra Costa Clean Water Program
The Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) is a county agency, and they maintain a website at:
https://www.cccleanwater.org/. This agency also publishes a watershed atlas that is available as a pdf file to
download from their website. The CCCWP has 21 member agencies that receive support on the
implementation of local stormwater pollution prevention activities (CCCWP, n.d.). CCCWP funds and directs
regional and statewide stormwater-related programs and groups (CCCWP, n.d.). Additionally, CCCWP assists
permittees to maintain compliance with the MRP (CCCWP, n.d.).
Appendix F- Watershed Page F- 6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa County Watershed Program Contra Costa LAFCO
The Contra Costa County Watershed Program is a county agency, and they maintain a website at:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/344/Contra-Costa-County-Watershed-Program. The County Watershed Program
(CWP) ensures that the County of Contra Costa complies with its municipal stormwater National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits (Contra Costa County, n.d.). The CWP currently has the
Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) and the East Contra Costa County Permit (Contra Costa County, n.d.).
Contra Costa Watershed Forum
The Contra Costa Watershed Forum (CCWF) is an open committee, and it maintains a website at:
https://www.ccwatershedforum.org/. The committee includes around fifty organizations, and it is based on the idea
that broad cooperation is needed to impact change (CCWF, n.d.). The organizations collaborate to ensure that
water resources are healthy, functional, and safe (CCWF, n.d.).
Watershed Project
The Watershed Project is a nonprofit, and it maintains a website at: https://app.thewatershedproject.org/. The
Watershed Project is an organization of community groups and volunteers that monitor the health within the
creeks of the County of Contra Costa. The nonprofit follows the California Waterboards Surface Water
Ambient Monitoring Program monitoring and assessment (The Watershed Project, n.d.). The nonprofit
encourages that volunteers help collect monthly data for monitoring purposes (The Watershed Project, n.d.).
Contra Costa Resource Conservation District
The Contra Costa Resource Conservation District (CCRCD) is a non-regulatory special district, and it maintains
a website at: https://www.ccrcd.org/watersheds. The Contra Costa RCD is governed by a Board of Directors that
are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors (CCRCD, n.d.). The CCRCD is an active agent that helps
support natural systems to maintain clean water, clean air, and healthy soils (CCRCD, n.d.). The Contra Costa
RCD does cleanups, environmentally focused discussions, webinars, and contributes to watershed restoration.
San Francisco Estuary Partnership
The San Francisco Estuary Partnership is a collaboration amongst local, state, and federal agencies, NGOs,
academic leaders, and business leaders (SFEP, n.d.). The Partnership maintains a website at:
https://www.sfestuary.org/about-us/. The Partnership’s work is guided by the implementation of the Estuary
Blueprint (SFEP, n.d.). The Partnership manages various multi-beneficial projects that improve the health of
the Estuary (SFEP, n.d.).
San Francisco Estuary Institute
The San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) is an aquatic and ecosystem science institute and they maintain a
website at: https://www.sfei.org/. The SFEI provides scientific support and tools to improve the health of the
waters, wetlands, wildlife, and landscapes of the San Francisco Bay and other areas (SFEI, n.d.). The experts
and scientists in the SFEI provide data, technology, and tools that inspire government, civic, and business
leaders to create solutions for complex environmental issues (SFEI, n.d.).
San Francisco Baykeeper
The San Francisco Bay Keeper is an environmental advocacy nonprofit, and it maintains a website at:
https://baykeeper.org/. Since 1989, the San Francisco Baykeeper has taken action to defend the Bay and its
watershed (San Francisco Baykeeper, n.d.). The San Francisco Baykeeper patrols on the water, investigates
pollution, and helps strengthen laws that protect the Bay (San Francisco Baykeeper, n.d.).
Algal Blooms
During July 2022, there was a report of an algal bloom within the Oakland Estuary that eventually spread to
the South Bay and became expansive (SFEI, 2022). As time passed, fish mortality events were observed as
Appendix F- Watershed Page F- 7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
researchers and residents studied the bloom (SFEI, 2022). Algae is a simple organism that cCaonn tlirvae C ino swtaa tLeAr FaCnOd
can grow uncontrollably into patches (Bartlett et al., 2022). The harmful algae, Heterosigma akashiwo,
experienced unprecedented bloom in the San Francisco Bay estuary during 2022. The Heterosigma akashiwo
is an invasive species that has toxic impacts on fish (SFEI, 2022). This algae bloom resulted in individual
deaths of the southern distinct population segment of Green Sturgeon, which spawns in the Sacramento
River and rears in the Delta, and White Sturgeon which is a state species of special concern. Individuals in
both species experienced high rates of mortality in 2022 following this algae bloom.
During the algae bloom event, the San Francisco Bay became a reddish-brown color (Ocean Protection
Council, n.d.). The overgrowth of algae can produce cyanotoxins than can affect the aquatic ecosystem
health (Ocean Protection Council, n.d.). In the Delta, one common bloom-forming cyanobacteria is the
genus Microcystis. Algae blooms can result in lower dissolved oxygen levels which leads to fish mortality
(Ocean Protection Council, n.d.). Algae blooms can potentially become much more frequent in the future
due to warming waters, decreasing flows from inland waters, and increasing concentrations of nutrients
from land-based pollutants (Ocean Protection Council, n.d.). Excess nitrogen dissolved in water may be a
contributing factor to harmful algal blooms in the San Francisco Bay that threaten human health and
safety. The 2022 algal bloom resulted in the death of thousands of fish including leopard sharks, bat rays,
striped bass, and others (Ocean Protection Council, n.d.).
When local planners evaluate projects, it will become increasingly important to evaluate the effects of
climate change (which will increase water temperatures and the formation of harmful algal blooms). For
example, expansion of a wastewater treatment plant capacity may facilitate new residential or commercial
development on green space, thereby exacerbating local carbon emissions and contributing to climate
change.
Atmospheric River & Spill Reports
Atmospheric rivers are long and narrow parts of the atmosphere that transport water from the tropics to other
parts of the world (NOAA, 2015). When the atmospheric river reaches land, it tends to release water vapor in
the form of rainfall or snow (NOAA, 2015). With large amounts of water vapor and strong winds, the
atmospheric river’s rainfall can result in extreme flooding when stalling over a watershed that is vulnerable to
flooding (NOAA, 2015). A key example is the “Pineapple Express,” which is a strong atmospheric river that
transports moisture from the tropics surrounding Hawaii to the U.S. West Coast (NOAA, 2015). Atmospheric
rivers can be beneficial as they can provide necessary rain or snow to an area (NOAA, 2015). The frequency
and/or intensity of atmospheric rivers may be exacerbated by climate change.
During December 2022 and January 2023, a series of atmospheric rivers arrived in California and caused heavy
rains. This storm water encountered sewer pipes and local wastewater treatment plants and then created sewage
spills. Local agencies are required to report sewage spills to the CA Office of Emergency Services. The OES
database was queried, and the results of this database query are shown in Table A6-6 below. These results show
that between 07/26/2022 and 01/14/2023 there were 48 spill reports listed in the database.
Appendix F- Watershed Page F- 8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Table F-1
CA Office of Emergency Services
Spill Report
Control # Creation Date City Agency Spill Site Water Type
Document
Title
Spill Report 01/14/2023 at 09:25 AM Bethel Private Citizen Residence Sewage
Island
Spill Report 01/11/2023 at 06:33 PM Richmond West County Treatment/ Sewage
Wastewater Sewage
Cal OES- 01/12/2023 at 04:53 PM Sewage
Update
Cal OES- 01/13/2023 Sewage
CAL OES- 01/15/2023 at 05:56 PM Sewage
Update
Spill Report 01/10/2023 at 03:23 PM Crockett Crocket Other Sewage
Community
Spill Report 01/09/2023 at 08:07 AM Richmond City of Richmond Merchant/ Sewage
Business
Spill Report 01/09/2023 at 08:05 AM Richmond City of Richmond Residence Sewage
Spill Report 01/09/2023 at 08:03 AM Richmond City of Richmond Residence Sewage
Spill Report 01/09/2023 at 08:01 AM Richmond City of Richmond Residence Sewage
Spill Report 01/09/2023 at 07:59 AM Richmond City of Richmond Residence Sewage
Spill Report 01/09/2023 Richmond City of Richmond Merchant/ Sewage
Business
Spill Report 01/04/2023 at 10:46 PM Martinez Martinez Refining Refinery Sewage
Company
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 08:49 PM Antioch Delta Diablo Utilities/ Sewage
Substation
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 08:46 PM Antioch Delta Diablo Utilities/ Sewage
Substation
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 04:18 PM Antioch Delta Diablo Treatment/ Sewage
Sewage
Cal OES- 12/31/2022 at 08:52 PM Sewage
Update
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 04:18 PM Pittsburg Delta Diablo Treatment/ Sewage
Sewage
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 04:18 PM Bay Point Delta Diablo Treatment/ Sewage
Sewage
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 02:28 PM Pittsburg City of Pittsburg Road Sewage
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 01:53 PM Martinez Mountview Waterways Sewage
Sanitary
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 01:52 PM Martinez Mountview Treatment/Sewa Sewage
Sanitary District ge
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 12:46 PM Richmond City of Richmond Road Sewage
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 12:39 PM Richmond City of Richmond Road Sewage
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 12:39 PM Richmond City of Richmond Road Sewage
Appendix F- Watershed Page F- 9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 12:39 PM Richmond City of Richmond Road Contra SCeowsatgae L AFCO
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 12:39 PM Richmond City of Richmond Road Sewage
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 12:39 PM Richmond City of Richmond Road Sewage
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 12:09 PM Bethel Ironhouse Sanitary Road Sewage
Island District
Spill Report 12/31/2022 at 10:33 Richmond City of Richmond Road Sewage
AM
Spill Report 12/29/2022 at 02:31 PM Crockett Crockett Residence Sewage
Community
Spill Report 12/28/2022 at 03:59 PM Richmond City of Richmond Refinery Sewage
Spill Report 12/19/2022 at 01:58 PM Crockett Crockett Comm Residence Sewage
Services
Spill Report 12/11/2022 at 02:13 PM Brentwood City of Brentwood Residence Sewage
Spill Report 12/14/2022 Richmond West County Refinery Sewage
Waste
Spill Report 12/11/2022 at 02:13 PM Brentwood City of Brentwood Residence Sewage
Spill Report 11/20/2022 at 02:09 PM Rodeo Private Citizen Residence Sewage
Spill Report 11/14/2022 at 11:20 PM San Pablo West Co Utilities/Substati Sewage
Wastewater
on
Spill Report 10/21/2022 at 09:55 Clayton City of Concord Residence Sewage
AM
Cal OES- 10/21/2022 at 03:22 PM Sewage
Update
Spill Report 10/03/2022 at 02:42 PM Walnut Private Citizen Waterway Sewage
Creek
Spill Report 09/30/2022 at 02:03 Crockett Crocket CSD Residence Sewage
AM
Spill Report 09/26/2022 at 12:05 PM Concord City of Concord Road Sewage
Spill Report 09/14/2022 Discovery Veolia Waterways Sewage
Bay
Spill Report 09/14/2022 Discovery Private Citizen Waterways Sewage
Bay
Spill Report 09/06/2022 at 02:09 PM San Ramon SanRamonResident Waterways Sewage
Spill Report 09/05/2022 at 10:31 AM Concord City of Concord Waterways Sewage
Cal OES- 09/06/2022 at 08:55 AM Sewage
Update
Spill Report 08/29/2022 at 06:47 AM Richmond Chevron Products Refinery Sewage
Cal OES- 08/29/2022 at 07:12 AM Sewage
Update
Spill Report 08/27/2022 at 05:02 PM Walnut Central Contra Road Sewage
Creek Costa
Cal OES- 08/30/2022 at 09:15 AM Sewage
Update
Spill Report 08/22/2022 at 01:21 PM San Pablo West County Road, Waterways Sewage
Waste
Spill Report 08/20/2022 at 03:17 PM Richmond Private Citizen Waterways Unspecified
Spill Report 08/18/2022 San Pablo West County Waste Utilities/ Sewage
Appendix F- Watershed Page F- 10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Substation
Spill Report 08/10/2022 at 01:22 PM Concord City of Concord Other Sewage
Cal OES- 07/26/2022 Antioch City of Antioch Road Sewage
Update Spill
Data Source:
https://w3.calema.ca.gov/operational/malhaz.nsf/f1841a103c102734882563e200760c4a?SearchView
search results for "Contra Costa"
Water Quality
Water quality is heavily regulated in the San Francisco Bay Area as described in detail in Appendix X. In addition
to the previously described excess nutrient concern, there are some emerging concerns about potential water
pollutants that may be at risk of passing through water treatment plants and into discharge points. There has
been growing concern that bays, deltas, and oceans are seeing elevated levels of water pollution including:
• Micro-plastics, and
• per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS),
The Regional Water Quality Control Board and their partners are researching and monitoring these pollutants.
Due to a lack of information, these potential pollutants are not described in any detail in this MSR. However,
a brief introduction to these pollutants is provided herein because LAFCO’s next MSR on wastewater service
providers may need to address these items.
Microplastics are a diverse class of persistent contaminants that have been observed in water, sediment, and
wildlife worldwide. Microplastics and other microparticles have been characterized in San Francisco Bay to
determine abundance, sources, pathways, and loadings of these contaminants in a densely populated urban
environment. Microplastics can be found in stormwater runoff, wastewater effluent, open bay and sanctuary
surface waters, bay sediment, as well as two species of prey fish and bivalves. Studies have been conducted in
the Bay to validate a process-based particle transport model for the Bay and Sanctuaries that can be used to
predict the transport and fate of microplastics in the region. Microplastics may enter the wastewater treatment
system from residential washing machines that wash polyester clothes or from industrial customers.
Additionally, sanitary sewer overflows are a probable source of microplastics (Coffin, 2022; Sutton, 2016;
Sutton, 2020;). However, under normal circumstances, the contributions of wastewater effluent to microplastic
pollution is probably relatively small as stormwater is a larger contributor.
PFAS are commonly called ‘forever chemicals.’ PFAS are a category of chemicals used since the 1940s to repel
oil and water and resist heat, which makes them useful in everyday products such as nonstick cookware, stain
resistant clothing, and firefighting foam. The science is clear that exposure to certain PFAS over a long period
of time can cause cancer and other illnesses. In addition, PFAS exposure during critical life stages such as
pregnancy or early childhood can also result in adverse health impacts. Exposure to PFAS has been linked to
Appendix F- Watershed Page F- 11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
deadly cancers, impacts to the liver and heart, and immune and developmental damage to iCnofanntrtas aCnodst cah LilAdFreCnO.
For example, manufacturing facilities may sometimes discharge PFAS2 into the wastewater treatment system.
Bibliography
Amanda B., Amy G., & SFGATE. (2022). We’ve never seen this before’: Dead fish pile up as algal bloom
consumes SF Bay. SFGATE. Retrieved on February 2, 2023, from
<https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/bay-area-algae-kills-fish-17405314.php>.
Coffin, S., Weisberg, S.B., Rochman, C. et al. Risk characterization of microplastics in San Francisco Bay,
California. Micropl.&Nanopl. 2, 19 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-022-00037-z. Retreived
May 18, 2024 from <https://microplastics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43591-022-00037-z>.
Contra Costa Clean Water Program. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved on January 9, 2023, from
<https://www.cccleanwater.org/about>.
Contra Costa Resource Conservation District. (n.d.). About CCRCD. Retrieved on February 3, 2023, from
<https://www.ccrcd.org/about>.
Contra Costa Watershed Forum. (n.d.). About the Forum. Retrieved on January 10, 2023, from
<https://www.ccwatershedforum.org/>.
County of Contra Costa. (2003). Watershed Atlas. 152-pages. Retrieved on January 9, 2023, from
<https://www.cccleanwater.org/userfiles/kcfinder/files/Watershed%20Atlas.pdf>.
County of Contra Costa. (n.d.). Contra Costa County Watershed Program. Retrieved on January 9, 2023, from
<https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/344/Contra-Costa-County-Watershed-Program>.
NASA. (n.d.). NASA Earth Science: Water Cycle. Retrieved on July 18, 2022, from:
<https://gpm.nasa.gov/education/articles/nasa-earth-science-water-cycle>.
National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. (2015). What are Atmospheric Rivers? Retrieved on February 3,
2023, from <https://www.noaa.gov/stories/what-are-atmospheric-rivers>.
2
For more information on PFAS, please note the following informational resources. PFAS is a general term that
encompasses several different chemical varieties including PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFBS, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA
(also known as “GenX Chemicals”)., and “GenX chemicals. PFAS can often beh tftopusn:/d/ wtowgewt.heewrg i.nor mg/iixnttuerreasc, taivned-
mreaspeas/rpchfa ss_hcoowntsa mthinesaeti omn/ixmtuarpe/s may have combined health impacts. The Environmental Working Group
provides an online map of PFAS contamination at: <
>.h tPtposly:/-/ apnudb sP.aecrsf.lourogr/odaolki/y1l0 S.1u0b2s1ta/naccesse sitnw Matuern.i1ccip00al3 7W7astewater Treatment
Plants in the United States: Seasonal Patterns and Meta-Analysis of Long-Term Trends and Average
Chotntcpesn:/t/rawtwiown.se aprae.g doevs/crreisbeeadr caht:- s<tates/pfas-treatment-drinking-water-and-wastewater-st>a.t eP-FscAieSn Tcreeatment in
drinking water and wastewater is described in the State of the Science Report at:
< https://www.wef.org/publications/publications/books/pfas-in-the-w>a. ter- andA-
wreapsotertw caatlelre-dse “cPtoFrAsS-f uinn dtahme eWntaatlesr-m aannda Wgeamsetenwt-aatnedr- tSreecattomrse:n tF/undamentals, Management, and Treatment” is
available online at: <
>.
Appendix F- Watershed Page F- 12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Ocean Protection Council. (n.d.). Harmful Algal Bloom in San Francisco Bay Results in AquatiCc oMnotrrtaa lCitoy,s tFai sLhA KFiCllOs.
Retrieved on February 3, 2023, from <https://www.opc.ca.gov/2022/09/harmful-algal-bloom/>.
San Francisco Baykeeper. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved on January 3, 2023, from
<https://baykeeper.org/content/about-us>.
San Francisco Estuary Institute & Aquatic Science Center. (2022). Harmful Algal Bloom and Fish Mortality San
Francisco Bay. Retrieved on February 2, 2023, from <https://www.sfei.org/news/harmful-algal-bloom-
identified-san-francisco-bay#sthash.tJgQTBWv.4T3MBQd3.dpbs>.
San Francisco Estuary Institute. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved on January 3, 2023, from
<https://www.sfei.org/contact>.
San Francisco Estuary Partnership. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved on January 3, 2023, from
<https://www.sfestuary.org/about-us/>.
Sutton, R. ; Sedlak, M. ; Lin, D. ; Gilbreath, A. ; Miller, E. L. ; Box, C. ; Holleman, R. C. ; Zhu, X. ; Munno, K.
; Rochman, C. M. December 2020. Microplastics in San Francisco Bay: Abundance, Transport, Fate,
and Policy Recommendations. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2020, abstract #H074-10.
<https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AGUFMH074...10S/abstract >.
Sutton Rebecca, Sherri A. Mason, Shavonne K. Stanek, Ellen Willis-Norton, Ian F. Wren, Carolynn Box.
Microplastic contamination in the San Francisco Bay, California, USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Volume 109, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 230-235, ISSN 0025-326X.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.077.
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X16303976>.
The Watershed Project. (n.d.). About. Retrieved on January 13, 2023, from
<https://app.thewatershedproject.org/about>.
Appendix F- Watershed Page F- 13
Appendix G
Wastewater Regulations
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations Contra Costa LAFCO
Table of Contents
REGULATIONS FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEMS .......................................................... G-1
Federal Wastewater Treatment Regulations ...................................................................... G-2
Clean Water Act ................................................................................................................... G-2
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) ........................................ G-2
Section 303(d) Impaired Waters List and TMDLs ........................................................... G-3
National Toxics Rule ........................................................................................................... G-3
California Toxics Rule ......................................................................................................... G-4
California Wastewater Treatment Regulations .................................................................. G-5
CA Water Code .................................................................................................................... G-5
Assembly Bill 885 ................................................................................................................. G-6
Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements ........................................................ G-7
California Storm Drainage & Flood Control Regulations .............................................. G-7
Local Wastewater Regulations ........................................................................................... G-7
Wastewater Solids Regulations ............................................................................................ G-9
Future Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................... G-10
Nationwide Nutrient Criteria .......................................................................................... G-10
State of California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints .......................................................... G-11
Microconstituents and Bioaccumulative Constituents ................................................. G-11
Biostimulatory Substances Objective and Implementation of Biological Integrity ...... 12
California State Recycled Water Policy .......................................................................... G-13
References .............................................................................................................................. G-15
REGULATIONS FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
Both state and federal regulatory authority exists for the control of water quality in surface waters
of California. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulates municipal and industrial effluent discharges to navigable waters through the issuance
of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The basic approach used
in both state and federal processes is 1) to designate beneficial uses to be protected, 2) to set water
quality objectives that are protective of the most sensitive uses, and 3) to control municipal,
industrial, and other sources to meet these objectives.
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations ………………………………………………………………………G-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Federal Wastewater Treatment Regulations Contra Costa LAFCO
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) is the federal law that governs and authorizes water
quality control activities by the EPA. Pursuant to federal law, the EPA has published water
quality regulations under Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). The CWA
regulates water pollution through two different and supplementary approaches:
Water quality and technology-based standards; and
Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface
waters of the United States.
The two approaches to regulating water pollution are implemented through discharge permits,
which contain mass or concentration-based effluent limits for the pollutants in the permittee’s
wastewater. These approaches are applied to pollutant dischargers through the implementation
of the national wastewater discharge permitting program set up under the CWA. The CWA
established national goals to eliminate pollutant discharges to navigable waters and to assure that
all navigable waters would be fishable and swimmable.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
The NPDES permit system was established under section 402 of the CWA to regulate municipal
and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. The discharge of wastewater to
surface waters is prohibited unless an NPDES permit has been issued, which allows that
discharge. Each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass
emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. Under the NPDES program, dischargers are
required to monitor and provide reports on compliance with their permit limits. These reports,
formally titled Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), are submitted to the appropriate
regulatory agency, and they describe water quality data and analysis. The regulatory agency or
any interested citizen can review this data to determine whether or not the discharger has
complied with its NPDES permit requirements and, if appropriate, pursue action to enforce
compliance.
Stormwater: Areas within Contra Costa County are subject to the NPDES stormwater permit
regulations and are subject to the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Phase II Small
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit (Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ). This
Permit regulates the discharge of stormwater runoff from the municipal separate storm sewer
systems (“MS4s”) and other designated stormwater discharges from municipalities and flood
management agencies throughout Contra Costa County. The purpose of the stormwater
permitting program is to prevent pollution in local waterways. Stormwater can adversely impact
avian, aquatic, and plant life in receiving waters and can cause serious human health impacts.
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………G-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
For example, high mercury levels can make regular consumption of fCisohn truan Csaofset.a LUArFbCaOn
stormwater runoff is one of the largest sources of pollution in the USA.
Enforcement of NPDES guidelines and permits in Contra Costa County falls within the
jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFB RWQCB) and is
subject to review by the EPA Regional Administrator [EPA Pacific Southwest (Region 9)]. In
addition, the RWQCB regulates activities involving discharges to land or groundwater from
diffused sources. A Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the SFB RWQCB to obtain a
Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) for these types of non-surface water discharge.
Congress amended the CWA in 1987 to include non-point source pollutants. Non-point source
pollutants are often chemicals from lawns or gardens, automobile residues, urban runoff, or
household cleaning agents or compounds. Non-point source pollution can also include runoff
from agricultural uses. Most non-point source pollutants enter the wastewater stream and the
water supply in large quantities and sudden surges, largely due to storm events. Although the
EPA has established NPDES requirements for stormwater, control of this type of pollution has
proven to be difficult and could require upgrades to existing wastewater treatment plants. In
November 2020, the State Water Resources Control Board submitted its 2020-2025 Nonpoint
Source Implementation Plan, which was subsequently approved by the EPA. The
Implementation Plan identifies a set of targeted performance measures and describes NPS
Program activities from 2020 through 2025. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards is
working with local agencies to implement the Nonpoint Source Program. These regulations may
further affect the wastewater agencies in Contra Costa County, especially those with high storm
water infiltration rates.1
Section 303(d) Impaired Waters List and TMDLs
Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to develop lists of water bodies which will
not attain water quality objectives after implementation of required levels of treatment by point
source dischargers (municipalities and industries) (40 C.F.R. §130.7(b)(4)). For example, the EPA
and RWQCB have placed a few water bodies located in Contra Costa County on the 303(d) list.
National Toxics Rule
The EPA established the National Toxics Rules (NTR) to create numeric criteria for priority toxic
pollutants for California and 13 other states and territories that were not in complete compliance
with the CWA. For California, the NTR established water quality standards for protection of
1 State Water Resources Control Board. Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) Control Program.
www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps.
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………G-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
aquatic life and/or human health for 36 pollutants for which water quality criteCroian terxai sCto, bstuat LwAhFiCcOh
were not covered under California’s statewide water quality regulations.
California Toxics Rule
The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) is the federal law that governs and authorizes water
quality control activities by the EPA. Pursuant to federal law, the EPA has the NTR. There are 126
constituents listed in the California Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria, which include the previously
issued NTR criteria for California. Some of the key elements of the CTR include:
Amended numeric standards for 30 toxic pollutants and added new criteria for 8 toxic
pollutants to protect aquatic life and human health uses for water bodies.
Dissolved-based standards for most trace metals and endorsement of the use of translator
mechanisms for determination of local metals objectives.
Provisions for compliance schedules to provide time for permittees to meet the new toxics
standards.
Provisions for mixing zones when calculating toxic constituent effluent limitations.
Use of interim effluent limits to provide time for dischargers to take actions to meet final
limits.
The EPA promulgated numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants and other water
quality standards for waters in the State of California pursuant to section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA
if those pollutants could be reasonably expected to interfere with the designated uses of states'
waters. Although California had adopted numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants in 1992,
the courts ordered California to rescind these water quality control plans in 1994 and the new
water quality criteria rule, known as the California Toxics Rule (CTR), temporarily replaced the
standards adopted in 1991. The CTR established:
Ambient aquatic life criteria for 23 priority toxics;
Ambient human health criteria for 57 priority toxics; and
Compliance schedule provision.
Under the CTR, various regional water quality control boards will issue compliance schedules
for new or revised NPDES permit limits based on the federal criteria when certain conditions are
met. Currently, each basin plan, as prepared by the regional water quality control board, contains
a water quality criterion that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in
concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or
aquatic life. This has been contested by local jurisdictions all over California since it is expected
to add significantly to the cost of wastewater treatment.
EPA contends that since California is implementing EPA’s current regulations, the CTR will not
impose any incremental costs and that the water quality criterion does not directly create
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………G-4
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
economic impacts. EPA staff notes that California has some discretion to deCvoenlotrpa Cmoesctha aLnAiFsmCOs
that could result in more flexibility for local areas (e.g., site-specific criteria, phased TMDL
program).
For Contra Costa County, the SFB RWQCB does not require a separate and specific CTR permit.
RWQCB determined that three years of CTR monitoring data did not measure CTR pollutants in
concentrations that resulted in receiving water violations, thus Board eliminated the CTR priority
pollutant monitoring requirement. The wastewater agencies that discharge to surface waters
were required to complete a number (depending on whether discharger is major or minor,
municipal or industrial) of rounds of sampling under the CTR.
California Wastewater Treatment Regulations
CA Water Code
The California Water Code is the principal state regulation governing the use of water resources
within the State of California. This law controls, among other issues, water quality protection and
management and management of water-oriented agencies. Division 7 of the California Water
Code, commonly referred to as the Porter-Cologne Act, is the principal mechanism for the
regulation of water quality and pollution issues within California. This act established a
regulatory program to protect the water quality and beneficial uses of all state waters. The Porter-
Cologne Act also established the State Water Resources Control Board and California Regional
Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) as principal state agencies responsible for water quality
control. The SWRCB has divided California into nine regions, with Contra Costa County located
in the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, Region 2.
The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and regional offices broad powers to protect water
quality and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the
federal CWA. These broad powers include the authority and responsibility to adopt plans and
policies, to regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites, and
to require cleanup of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also
includes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage,
or oil/petroleum product.
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB, as with all other regional boards, must formulate and adopt a
water quality plan for its region, which must conform to the Porter-Cologne Act. The Porter-
Cologne Act also provides that a regional office, such as the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, may
include within its regional plan water discharge prohibitions applicable to local conditions, areas,
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………G-5
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
and types of waste. The regional offices are also authorized to enforce discharCgoen ltirma iCtaotsitoan LsA, tFaCkOe
actions to prevent violations, and conduct investigations about the quality of any of the waters of
the State. Civil and criminal penalties are applicable to persons who violate the requirements of
the Porter-Cologne Act or SWRCB/RWQCB orders.
The Porter-Cologne Act also requires dischargers of fill and dredged material to all waters of the
State be regulated. Additional protections are provided for wetlands, special aquatic sites, and
headwaters because these waterbodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and are
not protected by other programs. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB CWA Section 401 program is
involved with the protection of special-status species and the regulation of hydromodification
impacts. The RWQCB encourages watershed-level analysis and protection because some
functions of wetlands, riparian areas, and headwater streams–including pollutant removal, flood
water retention, and habitat connectivity–are expressed at the watershed or landscape level.
Other state agencies with jurisdiction or involvement in water quality regulation in California
include the Department of Public Health (DPH) for drinking water regulations and water
reclamation criteria, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Department of Fish and Game,
and the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment.
Assembly Bill 885
Legislation (AB 885 by Hannah-Beth Jackson) passed in 2000 requires SWRCB to adopt
regulations for the permitting and operation of septic systems. The law establishes a process for
developing statewide performance standards for on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS)
(aka septic tanks). Furthermore, the bill directs the SWRCB to adopt regulations or standards for
on-site septic systems by 2004 to consider minimum operating requirements, including
construction, siting, and performance requirements. The SWRCB also has specific requirements
for OWTS adjacent to impaired waters. These standards apply to newly constructed systems,
replaced, pooling to the surface, or can impair public health and safety.
In 2018, the SWRCB adopted Resolution No. 2018–0019, which amends the Water Quality Control
Policy for Siting, Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
(OWTS). This resolution amends resolution 2012–0032, adopted in 2012, authorizes subsurface
disposal of domestic wastewater, and establishes minimum requirements for the permitting,
monitoring, and operation of OWTS for protecting beneficial uses of waters of the State. Contra
Costa County Environmental Health is the local permitting authority that ensures compliance
with all applicable State and local regulatory requirements for the installation and repair of
OWTS.
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………G-6
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements Contra Costa LAFCO
A consistent, statewide regulatory approach to address sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) is
provided by the SWRCB’s adopted Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs)
for Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSS), Water Quality Order No. 2022-0103-DWQ (Sanitary Sewer
Systems WDR) in 2022. The Sanitary Sewer Systems WDR requires public agencies that own or
operate sanitary sewer systems to develop and implement Sewer System Management Plans and
report all SSOs to the State Water Board’s online SSO database. The SSO database was queried
for each wastewater service provider studied in this MSR. Most Contra Costa area wastewater
service providers have completed their Sewer System Management Plans as described in this
MSR.
California Storm Drainage & Flood Control Regulations
Section 10561 of the Water Code addresses runoff recapture and requires that State and local
agencies regulating stormwater diversion systems to identify opportunities for capturing that
runoff -- including summer season runoff -- for some form of reuse.
Local Wastewater Regulations
Contra Costa County has policies and procedures consistent with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB
recommendation for connection to a public wastewater system in urbanized areas.
Septic System Permitting
Septic systems are also referred to as on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTSs). OWTS are
regulated by the Contra Costa County Municipal Code, Chapter 420-6, Sewage Collection and
Disposal. Improperly designed or poorly constructed or maintained OWTSs can contaminate
groundwater. The Environmental Health Program reviews OWTS design plans and inspects the
construction of OWTSs to prevent threats to groundwater and public health. The permits are
intended to enforce applicable septic system siting, sizing, and design guidelines to protect water
quality and comply with Basin Plan provisions. Environmental Health Program staff investigate
complaints of improperly functioning OWTSs, and review applications for building permits on
lots served by OWTSs.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The County General Plan Growth Management Element, under the subheading “Sanitary
Sewer,” states the following (Contra Costa County 2005b): The County, pursuant to its police
power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density
or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated
areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………G-7
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
quantity and quality can be provided. At the project approval stage, (subdiviCsoionntr ma Caops, tlaa nLdA FuCsOe
permit, etc.), the County may consult with the appropriate sewer agency. The County, based on
information furnished or available from consultations with the appropriate sewer agency, the
proponent, or other sources, should determine whether (1) capacity exists within the sewer
system if the development project is built within a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be
provided by a funded program or other mechanism. Project approvals conditioned on (1) or (2)
above, will lapse according to their terms if not satisfied by verification that capacity exists to
serve the specific project (“will serve letters”), actual hook-ups or comparable evidence of
adequate sewage collection and wastewater treatment capacity availability.
The County’s General Plan also establishes goals and policies for public services. The General
Plan contains the following policies in Chapter 7, Public Facilities/Services Element that apply to
wastewater (Contra Costa County 2005a):
Policy 7-29 Sewer treatment facilities shall be required to operate in compliance with waste
discharge requirements established by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Development that would result in the violation of waste discharge
requirements shall not be approved.
Policy 7-30 Sewer service agencies shall be encouraged to establish service boundaries and
develop treatment facilities to meet future service needs based on the growth
policies contained in the County and cities' General Plans.
Policy 7-31 Expansion into new areas within the Urban Limit Line but beyond the Spheres of
Influence should be restricted to those areas where urban development can meet
growth management standards included in this General Plan.
Policy 7-32 Development of rural residences, or other uses, that will be served by septic tank and
leachfields, shall be discouraged in areas with high groundwater levels or soils
with poor percolation characteristics.
Policy 7-33 At the project approval stage, the County shall require new development to
demonstrate that wastewater treatment capacity can be provided. The County
shall determine whether (1) capacity exists within the wastewater treatment
system if a development project is built within a set period of time, or (2) capacity
will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. This finding will be
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………G-8
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
based on information furnished or made available to Cthone trCa oCuosnttay LAfrFoCmO
consultations with the appropriate water agency, the applicant, or other sources.
Policy 7-37 The need for sewer system improvements shall be reduced by requiring new
development to incorporate water conservation measures which reduce flows into
the sanitary sewer system.
Contra Costa County Sewage Ordinance
Title 4, Division 420, of the County Municipal Code addresses sewage and collection. The
Municipal Code identifies requirements for the installation of sewer lines and the construction of
sewage processing plants. Construction of wastewater facilities is subject to review and approval
of the Director of Public Works and the County Health Officer.
As described in this MSR, wastewater service providers have requirements related to the
provision of sewer service. Specifically, parcels must be within District boundaries to be eligible
for service. Any parcel that is currently outside District boundaries may apply for annexation,
provided that the parcel is contiguous with current District boundaries.
Wastewater Solids Regulations
Solids generated at a wastewater treatment facility comprise screenings, grit, primary or raw
sludge (PS), and secondary or waste-activated sludge (WAS). The screenings and grit are
typically dewatered and disposed of in a landfill. Sludge generated by a wastewater treatment
facility is defined as biosolids once beneficial use criteria, as determined by compliance with EPA
regulations, have been achieved through stabilization processes. Stabilization processes are
described as those that help reduce pathogens and reduce vector attraction.
Several federal, State and local regulations are in place that influence whether biosolids from
municipal wastewater treatment plants can be reused or disposed of. Increased concerns and
debate over biosolids disposal and its associated environmental impacts have led to more
stringent revisions and amendments for many of these regulations. Continuing changes in
regulations affecting biosolids management make a flexible management program essential.
Federal, State, and local agencies are responsible for regulating biosolids beneficial
reuse/disposal. The authority of each agency varies based on the beneficial reuse/disposal
methods employed. However, overall guidelines are established by the EPA. These guidelines
are, in turn, implemented by state and local governments. Many state and local agencies in
California have developed additional rules, guidelines, and criteria for biosolids management.
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………G-9
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
In order to implement the long-term biosolids permitting program required byC othnetr Wa Caotesrta Q LuAaFlCitOy
Act of 1987, the EPA initiated two rule makings. The first rulemaking established requirements
and procedures for including biosolids management in NPDES permits, procedures for granting
state biosolids management programs primacy over federal programs, or for federal programs to
implement biosolids permits if a state so chooses.
The second rulemaking proposed to regulate and control biosolids permitting was 40 CFR Part
503, Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge. This rule addresses three general
categories of beneficial reuse/disposal of biosolids, including:
Land application of sewage sludge for beneficial use of organic content;
Surface disposal of biosolids in a monofill, surface impoundment, or other dedicated site;
and
Incineration of sewage sludge with or without, auxiliary fuel.
Future Regulatory Considerations
This section provides insight into the future regulatory considerations that may affect Contra
Costa County sewer systems’ effluent discharges. Identifying future regulatory trends is critical
for the following reasons:
Developing treatment scenarios and alternatives;
Planning for process and layout requirements for future regulatory compliance; and
Making budget considerations for major design and construction projects.
Identifying future pollutants of concern (POCs), such as metals, nutrients, and/or pathogens, will
help to develop alternatives that are flexible and can be easily expanded or upgraded to treat
future POCs. For example, planning may include reserving space in the site layout for nutrient
reduction, tertiary filtration, advanced oxidation, or an alternative disinfection method that
would provide treatment for future POCs.
Nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, are the leading cause of impairments to the
nation’s surface waters and, as a result, are receiving greater regulatory scrutiny regarding their
contribution to the overall quality of the nation’s receiving waters. Although appropriate
amounts of nutrients are vital for the health and proper functioning of water bodies, excessive
nutrient concentrations can cause water quality degradation.
Nationwide Nutrient Criteria
In November 2007, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a petition with the EPA
to require that nutrient removal be included in the definition of secondary treatment. The petition
stated that “there are many [biological processes] which can achieve total phosphorus levels of
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………G-10
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
1.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) as a monthly average, and a total nitrogen oCf o6n ttor a8 C mosgta/L L AasF CaOn
annual average” (NRDC et al, 2007).
In response to the petition by NRDC, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies
(NACWA) wrote to the EPA in February 2008, September 2009, and June 2010, urging the EPA to
deny the petition to modify the secondary treatment regulations for several legal, technical, and
political reasons including but not limited to the potentially exorbitant cost to publicly owned
treatment works and the inappropriateness of establishing national limits for local and regional
water quality issues (NACWA, 2008; NACWA, 2009). In October 2009, the EPA stated they were
actively analyzing the data and information to prepare a report and preliminary response to the
NRDC petition. They stated they would consider NACWA, other stakeholders, and all
information carefully before taking action on the NRDC petition (U.S. EPA, 2009a).
Due to the scientific uncertainties associated with the development of numeric nutrient criteria
and the magnitude of the expected costs of compliance, nutrient water quality policies are very
controversial and have sparked several legal actions across the country. The State of Florida has
become the initial focus of environmental groups’ efforts to push the EPA to develop federal
numeric nutrient criteria to be imposed on the states. The EPA has agreed to a consent decree in
the environmental suit and has made a determination that numeric nutrient standards are
necessary for Florida. Proposed criteria for total nitrogen and total phosphorus were released in
January 2010. The EPA withdrew federal water quality standards (WQS) applicable to waters of
the State of Florida in 2014 because Florida adopted— and EPA approved— relevant numeric
nutrient criteria (NNC).
State of California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints
In addition to the increasingly stringent regulation of nutrients, there is a trend towards
increasing regulation of emerging microconstituents and bioaccumulative pollutants in treated
effluent discharges.
Microconstituents and Bioaccumulative Constituents
Microconstituent, also referred to as “contaminants of emerging concern” (CECs) by the EPA
Office of Water, are substances that have been detected in surface waters and the environment
and may potentially cause deleterious effects on aquatic life and the environment at relevant
concentrations. Microconstituents include:
Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs;
used in flame retardants, furniture foam, plastics, etc.) and other organic contaminants.
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………G-11
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), including a wCidoen tsruai tCeo sotfa h LuAmFCaOn
prescribed drugs, over-the-counter medications, bactericides, sunscreens, and synthetic
musks.
Veterinary medicines such as antimicrobials, antibiotics, anti-fungals, growth promoters,
and hormones.
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including synthetic estrogens and androgens,
naturally occurring estrogens, as well as many other compounds capable of modulating
normal hormonal functions and steroidal synthesis in aquatic organisms.
Nanomaterials such as carbon nanotubes or nano-scale particulate titanium dioxide.
Bioaccumulative constituents are substances taken up by organisms at faster rates than the
organisms can remove them. As a result, these constituents accumulate in the organism and the
food chain and can remain in the environment for long periods of time. Mercury, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins are some bioaccumulative constituents that are being increasingly
regulated.
Monitoring requirements for these trace pollutants are increasing, including requirements to
analyze constituents at lower detection limits. It is likely that water quality criteria followed by
new effluent limits will be added to permits. Implementation of CEC standards is not expected
to be imminent as the EPA is currently focused on assessing the potential impact CECs have on
the environment and human health.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is in the process of developing statewide
policies for nutrients. The SWRCB held a scoping meeting in October 2011 to seek input on
content for a proposed Nutrient Numeric Endpoint (NNE) framework and policy for inland
surface waters.
Biostimulatory Substances Objective and Implementation of Biological
Integrity
The existing statutes and regulations are in various forms, such as regional narrative or numeric
nutrient objectives, an objective in the State Ocean Plan, water quality orders, and TMDLs, which
were adopted or are under development by various Regional Water Boards. Currently, there are
approximately 32 TMDLs statewide which list nutrients as toxicants or eutrophication-related
effects on beneficial uses.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is proposing to adopt a statewide
water quality objective for biostimulatory substances along with a program of implementation as
an amendment (Biostimulatory Substances Amendment or project) to the Water Quality Control
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………G-12
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Plan for Inland Surface Water, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California (ICSoWntEraB EC oPsltaan L)A. FTChOe
Biostimulatory Substances Amendment could include a statewide numeric objective or a
statewide narrative objective (with a numeric translator) and various regulatory control options
for point and non-point sources.
It is anticipated that a comprehensive program to implement the water quality objective for
biostimulatory substances will be established in three phases as three amendments to the ISWEBE
Plan. Each phase would reflect implementation unique to three different water body types. If the
Biostimulatory Substances Amendment establishes a numeric water quality objective, rather than
a narrative water quality objective, then potentially each subsequent phase would also establish
a new numeric water quality objective. The latter depends on whether the numeric water quality
objective is developed from factors unique to the different types of waterbodies. The
Biostimulatory Amendment would be the first phase, applicable to wadeable streams. The second
phase will focus on lakes, and the third phase will focus on estuaries, enclosed bays, and non-
wadeable rivers.
This project will also now include a water quality control policy to establish and implement
biological condition assessment methods, scoring tools, and targets aimed at protecting the
biological integrity in wadeable streams (SWRCB, 2017).
California State Recycled Water Policy
The SWRCB adopted a Recycled Water Policy (RW Policy) in 2009 and updated it in 2018 to
establish more uniform requirements for water recycling throughout the State and to streamline
the permit application process in most instances2. The RW Policy includes a goal for the State to
increase the use of recycled water from 714,000 acre-feet per year (afy) in 2015 to 1.5 million afy
by 2020 and to 2.5 million afy by 2030. It also includes goals for stormwater reuse and
conservation and potable water offsets by recycled water. The onus for achieving these mandates
and goals is placed on both recycled water purveyors and potential users. Since the recycled
water project permit process is streamlined, projects will not be required to include a monitoring
component. If any regulations arise from new knowledge of risks associated with CECs, then
projects will be given compliance schedules. New regulations are not expected to arise in the
imminent future (SWRCB, 2018).
2 Details are at the State Water Board website at www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_recycling_policy/.
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………G-13
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
References Contra Costa LAFCO
Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Nutrient Policy Data. Available online at:
<https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/state-progress-toward-developing-numeric-nutrient-
water-quality-criteria>.
________2017. Water Quality Standards. Available online at: <https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-
quality-standards-regulations-california>.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 2014. Technical Support for Nutrient
Numeric Endpoint and TMDL Tool Development. Available online at:
<http://archive.sccwrp.org/ResearchAreas/Nutrients/TechnicalSupportForNutrientNumericEndp
oint.aspx>.
State Water Resources Control Board. 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
List / 305(b) Report).
State Water Resources Control Board. Phase II MS4 Small Permit.
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_municipal.shtml>
State Water Resources Control Board. July 2017. Biostimulatory Substances Objective and Program
to Implement Biological Integrity. Retrieved from:<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issu
es/programs/biostimulatory_substances_biointegrity/>.
State Water Resources Control Board. Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) Control Program.
www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps.
State Water Resources Control Board with the California Environmental Protection Agency.
December 11, 2018. Water Quality Control Policy for Recycled Water. Effective April 8,
2019. 49-pages. Retrieved on March 4, 2020 from: <https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
board_decisions/adopted_orders/resolutions/2018/121118_7_final_amendment_oal.pdf >.
Appendix G: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………G-15
List of Appendix H
Methane Emissions
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Appendix H Contra Costa LAFCO
Methane Emissions from Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Municipal wastewater collection and treatment systems, such as those studied in this MSR,
have been found to emit methane gas. Methane is an odorless gas that is composed of
carbon and hydrogen (Britannica, 2018). Methane is considered a greenhouse gas that
contributes to climate change, since anthropogenic methane production can cause
concentrations to increase more quickly than can be offset by sinks (Britannica, 2018).
Professors Daniel Moore and Cuihong Song from the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at Princeton University published two studies in 2023 in the journal
Environmental Science & Technology on this important issue.
• The first study performed on-the-ground methane emissions measurements at 63
wastewater treatment plants in the United States (Moore et al., 2023).
• The second study used machine learning methods to analyze published literature
data from methane monitoring studies of various wastewater collection and
treatment processes around the globe (Song et al., 2023).
These studies found that municipal wastewater treatment plants emit nearly double the
amount of methane into the atmosphere than scientists previously believed, according to
new research from Princeton University (Moore et al., 2023 & Song et al., 2023). Waste and
wastewater are large contributors to airborne methane. As our local cities urbanize the
waste collects. However, cities and special districts are also investing in climate-friendly
net-zero plans and these plans can help address methane from the liquid wastewater
treatment sector.
Bibliography
Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. (2018). Methane | Definition, Properties, Uses, & Facts.
Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved on March 20, 2023, from
<https://www.britannica.com/science/methane>.
Grist, S. C. (2023). Your Local Sewage Plant is Probably Spewing Methane. Gizmodo.
Retrieved on March 20, 2023, from <https://gizmodo.com/your-local-sewage-plant-
is-probably-spewing-methane-1850207294>.
Moore, D. P., Li, N. P., Wendt, L. P., Castañeda, S. R., Falinski, M. M., Zhu, J., Song, C., Ren, Z.
J., & Zondlo, M. A. (2023). Underestimation of Sector-Wide Methane Emissions from
United States Wastewater Treatment. Environmental Science & Technology.
Appendix H: Methane Emissions Page H-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Retrieved on January 20, 20C2o3n, tra Costa LAfrFoCmO
<https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c05373#>.
Poore, C. (2023). Wastewater sector emits nearly twice as much methane as previously
thought. Princeton Engineering. Retrieved on March 20, 2023, from
<https://engineering.princeton.edu/news/2023/02/28/wastewater-sector-emits-
nearly-twice-much-methane-previously-thought>.
Song, C., Zhu, J., Willis, J. L., Moore, D. P., Zondlo, M. A., & Ren, Z. J. (2023). Methane
Emissions from Municipal Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Systems. Environmental Science & Technology, 57(6), 2248–2261. Retrieved on
January 20, 2023, from <https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c04388>.
Appendix H: Methane Emissions Page H-2
Appendix I
Recycled Water
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Appendix I Contra Costa LAFCO
Recycled Water
Introduction to Recycled Water
Due to on-going droughts and aridification, water resource managers and planners across
California, are encouraging water reclamation, recycling, and reuse.
What is Recycled Water?
Recycled water is mainly municipal sewage that gets treated in a wastewater facility and then
complies with the recycled water regulations for a beneficial use (State Water Resources Control
Board, n.d.). Recycled water is utilized to supplement scarce resources and to provide alternatives
to effluent disposal into surface waters. Recycled water is now considered an important water
resource which helps communities cope with periods of severe drought and a growing demand for
water supply due to increasing population1. Water reuse (both non-potable and potable) can enable
communities to maximize and extend the use of limited freshwater resources.
How is Water Recycled?
Sewage treatment plants now have advanced processes that can treat water to tertiary conditions
and allow recycled water to be produced. Disinfected secondary-2.2 recycled water undergoes
oxidation and disinfection so the median concentration of the total coliform bacteria in the
processed effluent does not exceed a most probable number (MPN) of 2.2 per 100 milliliters, within
the last seven days of analyses (State Water Resources Control Board, 2018). Disinfected
secondary-23 recycled water undergoes oxidation and disinfection so the median concentration of
the total coliform bacteria in the processed effluent does not exceed a MPN of 23 per 100 milliliters,
within the last seven days of analyses (State Water Resources Control Board, 2018). Disinfected
tertiary recycled water goes through either a chlorine disinfection or a disinfection process that
combines with a filtration process to remove 99.999 percent of plaque units of bacteria (State Water
Resources Control Board, 2018). Disinfected tertiary water’s measured concentration of total
coliform bacteria does not exceed a MPN of 2.2 per 100 milliliters, within the last seven days of
analyses (State Water Resources Control Board, 2018).
1 For example, in the Central Coast of California the City of Morro Bay has initiated a new program called “Our
Water”. The program strives to build water and wastewater infrastructure to support a sustainable environment,
economy, and community (Morro Bay, n.d.). The recently developed Morro Bay Water Reclamation Facility is part
of the “Our Water” program and involves the replacement of the existing wastewater treatment plant with an
advanced treatment facility (Morro Bay, n.d.). The program seeks to provide a drought buffer and provide up to 80
percent of the City’s water needs in the future (Morro Bay, n.d.).
Appendix I: Recycled Water Page I-1
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
What are the Rules for Recycled Water?
California has several regulations for water reuse. Indirect potable reuse rules were adopted in 2014,
by California to provide detailed criteria for treatment processes, contaminants to test for, and how
long treated water must remain underground. The State finalized the Reservoir Augmentation
statewide regulations in 2018, to allow highly purified potable reuse water to be placed into drinking
water reservoirs. The State does not currently have direct potable reuse regulations but is currently
working on a DPR regulatory framework and research. AB 574 was signed into law in October 2017.
The law sets a 2023 deadline for the development of Raw Water Augmentation regulations.
Recycled water can be safely used for irrigation, industrial applications, groundwater recharge, and
some commercial activities. California has regulations and guidelines that allows wastewater
effluent, treated at secondary levels, to be used for irrigation of restricted-access golf courses,
cemeteries, freeway landscaping, and nurseries. When wastewater effluent is treated to a tertiary
level, it is allowed to be utilized on food crops, school yards, parks, playgrounds, and golf courses
(State Water Resources Control Board, 2018).
How is Recycled Water Used Locally?
The Western Recycled Water Coalition (WRWC), formerly the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition
(BARWC), is an independent group of cities and public agencies in the Western United States
working together to advocate federal funding for water reuse projects. There are currently 19
member agencies in the WRWC, which include several nearby agencies such as Cal Water,
Hayward, Pleasanton, Dublin San Ramon Services District, and Zone 7 (Western Recycled Water
Coalition, 2017). Current WRWC projects will provide 100,000 acre-feet per year of reliable,
sustainable, drought-tolerant water supply. This volume of water is equivalent to meeting the
household water needs for 875,000 people (Western Recycled Water Coalition, 2017). The Western
Recycled Water Coalition website can be accessed at: http://westernrecycledwatercoalition.org/.
Bibliography
Alameda LAFCO. Approved November 2021. Countywide Municipal Services Review on Water,
Wastewater, Flood Control, and Stormwater Services. Contributions from QK. 300-pages.
(Available via Alameda LAFCO request).
Appendix I: Recycled Water Page I-2
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
City of Morro Bay. (n.d.). About the Project. Retrieved on NovembeCro n2tr2a, C2o0st2a2 L AfFroCmO
<http://westernrecycledwatercoalition.org/>.
State Water Resources Control Board. (2018, October 1). Regulations Related to Recycled Water.
Retrieved from Title 22 Code of Regulations:
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawbo
ok/RWregulations_20181001.pdf>.
State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.). Water Boards Recycled Water Policy and Regulations.
Retrieved November 22, 2022, from
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/recycled_water/>.
Western Recycled Water Coalition. (2017). Members. Retrieved from Western Recycled Water
Coalition: http://www.westernrwc.org/members.php
Appendix I: Recycled Water Page I-3
Wastewater Districts MSR SOI Study (3rd Round)
Contra Costa LAFCO
Appendix J
Wastewater Recommendations from
American Society of Civil Engineers
MSR/SOI Update, Wastewater Services, Contra Costa LAFCO
Appendix J: Wastewater Recommendations from American Society of Civil Engineers
Introduction
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) was founded in 1852 and is the nation's oldest
engineering society. ASCE represents more than 150,000 members of the civil engineering
profession in 177 countries. In the California, the chapter of ASCE published a report entitled
“Report Card for California’s Infrastructure”. An excerpt from this report is provided in the following
pages. Readers are invited to view the full-report on the ASCE website as listed in the bibliography
provided on the next page.
Wastewater: Recommendations To Raise The Grade
• Make risk-based decisions on capital improvements, maintenance, and operations
(i.e. – implement asset management programs).
• The State of California should continue to provide loans and grant funding for the
repair and rehabilitation of wastewater collection and treatment systems, as well
as reuse projects.
• The State of California should continue to implement indirect and direct
potable reuse regulations.
• Implement an education program at the state and local level about what a
wastewater treatment plant is, what kind of wastes it can treat, as well as what
impact wastes have on the sewer pipes such as grease and flushable wipes, etc.
Continue educational programs on how to identify a sewer overflow and who to call
if such an event occurs.
• Continue advancements in water reuse/recycling. Expand recommendation on re-
use/recycling
Bibliography
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9. May 2019. Report Card for California’s Infrastructure
19. 132 pages. Retrieved on September 21, 2021 from:
https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/
##
Appendix J: American Society of Civil Engineers Page J-2