LAFCO
Sewer Districts Final MSR Appendicies
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
Appendices
This MSR Update for Wastewater Services by Solano LAFCO includes several appendices as follows:
Appendix 1 Wastewater Regulations
Appendix 2 FSSD District Brochure
Appendix 3 VSFCD Timeline
Appendix 4 Solano County Economic Forecast by Caltrans
Appendix 5 Drainage Maintenance Agreement Among the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District, the
City of Fairfield, and the City of Suisun City Compiled, as amended, through
January 23, 1995
Final Wastewater Services MSR
Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations
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.
Federal Wastewater Treatment Regulations
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.
Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations ………………………………………………………………………A1-1
The two approaches to regulating water pollution are implemented through the use of
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 Solano County are subject to the NPDES stormwater permit
regulations, and are subject to the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No.
R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 (the “2015 Permit” or “Permit”). The 2015 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 in Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa
Clara County, and the Cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo and the Vallejo Sanitation and
Flood Control District in Solano 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. For example, high
mercury levels in the Bay make regular consumption of fish unsafe. Urban stormwater runoff is
one of the largest sources of pollution in San Francisco Bay and its tributaries. On April 1, 2016,
FSSD prepared a Watersheds and Management Areas Plan1 for Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) and Mercury (Hg) and submitted it to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board (Regional Board) by the Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program
(FSURMP), as required by Provisions C.11.a.iii.(1) and C.12.a.iii.(1) of the Municipal Regional
Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) (Order R2-2015-049). The Vallejo Sanitation and Flood
Control District also submitted a similar plan2 to the Board on April 1, 2016.
Wastewater: The California Regional Water Quality Control Board is responsible for
implementing the NPDES permit system as it pertains to wastewater discharge. Fairfield
1
The entire FSSD Plan is available online at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/
water_issues/programs/stormwater/Municipal/wma/C.11-12.a.iii%20Progress%20Rpt%20FSURMP.pdf
2 The VSFCD Mercury And PCBs Control Measures Implementation Status Report is available online at:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stormwater/Municipal/wma/C.11-
12.a.iii%20Progress%20Rpt%20VSFCD_033116.pdf
Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-2
Suisun Sewer District’s WWTP operates under Order No. R2-
2015-0013 (NPDES No. CA0038024). Vallejo Sanitation and
Flood Control District’s wastewater treatment plant operates
under Permit Order No. R2-2012-0017 and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No.
CA0037699).
Enforcement of NPDES guidelines and permits in Solano County falls within jurisdiction of the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and is subject to review by
the EPA Regional Administrator (EPA Region IX, San Francisco Office). 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 CVRWQCB 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 storm water, control of this type of pollution has
proven to be difficult and could require upgrades to existing wastewater treatment plants. On
August 12, 2015, the EPA3 approved SWRCB’s Six-Year Plan (2014-2020) with Regional Water
Quality Control Boards. These new regulations may further affect the wastewater agencies in
Solano County, especially those with high storm water infiltration rates.4
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 are developing a TMDL for dissolved oxygen in Suisun Marsh. See
SFRWQCB website at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/
water_issues/programs/TMDLs/suisunmarshtmdl.shtml for additional details.
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 aquatic life and/or human health for 36 pollutants for which water quality criteria
exist, but which were not covered under California’s statewide water quality regulations.
3 EPA’s approval letter for the Six Year Plan is available on-line at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/docs/plans_policies/usepa_approval_2014to202020.pdf
4 State Water Resources Control Board. Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) Control Program.
www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps.
Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-3
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 schedules of compliance
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
economic impacts. EPA staff notes that California has some discretion to develop mechanisms
that could result in more flexibility for local areas (e.g., site-specific criteria, phased TMDL
program).
For Solano County, the San Francisco RWQCB does not require a separate and specific CTR
permit. 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. Recently written permits include effluent limitations based
Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-4
on the results of the CTR samples; future permits will identify specific pollutants and limits
based on current testing.
California Wastewater Treatment Regulations
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
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 Solano County
located in the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.
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, and types of waste. The regional offices are also authorized to enforce discharge
limitations, take 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 local governments to notify their regional office of the
filing of tentative subdivision maps of six (6) or more family units unless the development
discharges waste into a community sewer system. It also requires that any person discharging
or proposing to discharge waste, even individual septic systems for single-family residences, to
file a report with the regional offices. For more than 20 years, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB
has waived the filing of those reports for individual septic systems in Solano County since the
County’s Department of Environmental Health (EH) had adopted substantially similar policies
and ordinances5 regulating waste discharge. However, local jurisdictions in Solano County are
still required to notify the San Francisco Bay RWQCB of development with six units or more.
5 Solano County Sewage Standards in Chapter 6.3 of the County Ordinance is available on-line at:
https://www.solanocounty.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=7909
Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-5
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.
California Storm Drainage & Flood Control Regulations
SB 985 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
The Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City have policies and procedures consistent with the San
Francisco Bay RWQCB recommendation for connection to a public wastewater system in
urbanized areas. Specifically, both cities generally require areas receiving sewer service to be
annexed to the city.
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 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.
In order to implement the long-term biosolids permitting program, required by the Water
Quality 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;
Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-6
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 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 of 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 1.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) as a monthly average, and a total nitrogen of 6 to 8 mg/L
as an 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 publically
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
Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-7
the environmental suit, and has made a determination that numeric nutrient standards are
necessary in Florida. Proposed criteria for total nitrogen and total phosphorus were released in
January 2010. This action is possibly precedential, and may result in environmental groups
suing the EPA to impose nutrient criteria in other areas of the country.
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.
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), including a wide suite of human
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 that are 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.
Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-8
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.
California State Recycled Water Policy
The SWRCB adopted a Recycled Water Policy (RW
Policy) in 2009 and updated in 2013 to establish more
uniform requirements for water recycling
throughout the State and to streamline the permit
application process in most instances6. The RW
Policy includes a mandate that the State increase the
use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least
200,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) by 2020 and by at
least 300,000 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. Regulations are not expected to arise in the
imminent future.
6 Details are at the State Water Board website at www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_recycling_policy/.
Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-9
REFERENCES
Alameda County Water District et. al. September 2013. San Francisco Bay Area Integrated
Regional Water Management Plan. 973-pages. Authored by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
in consultation with ESA, and Kearns & West. Available on-line at:
http://bairwmp.org/docs/2013-bairwm-plan-update/2013-final-plan/San%20Francisco%20Bay%
20Area%20IRWMP%20Final_September%202013.pdf
City of Suisun City. Sewer System Management Plan, Feb 2014. 106-pages Available on-line at:
http://www.suisun.com/wp-content/files/Elements_1-11_-_Sewer_System_ Management_Plan_-
_2014.pdf.
State Water Resources Control Board. 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
List / 305(b) Report).
State Water Resources Control Board. Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) Control Program.
www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps.
Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-10
FFaaiirrffiieelldd--SSuuiissuunn SSeewweerr DDiissttrriicctt
Board of Directors:
Pete Sanchez, President ● Catherine Moy, Vice President
Pam Bertani ● Jane Day ● Mike Hudson ● Harry Price
Mike Segala ● Chuck Timm ● Rick Vaccaro ● Lori Wilson
A. Preliminary Treatment B. Primary Treatment C. Intermediate Treatment
Debris and grit that are harmful to downstream The primary clarifiers at the head of the The oxidation towers and intermediary
equipment are removed with bar screens and facility remove heavier solids through set- clarifiers remove soluble organic matter.
degritting equipment. Influent flow is tling.
measured and recorded at this location.
D. Secondary Treatment E. Tertiary Treatment
Secondary treatment is accomplished in the aeration tanks and secondary clarifiers. Bacteria Filters provide a polishing step to remove
consume organic matter in the intermediate treatment effluent, generating an ‘activated’ the few suspended particles remaining in
sludge. To survive, bacteria need oxygen that is provided in the aeration tanks. Secondary the secondary clarifier effluent.
clarifiers remove the activated sludge through settling.
F. Ultraviolet Disinfection (UV) G. Final Effluent Storage H. Anaerobic Digestion
UV light destroys the genetic makeup of Final effluent can be discharged directly Solids removed in the clarifiers are thickened
pathogenic organisms to prevent the spread of into the Suisun Marsh, or temporarily and then digested in a closed vessel.
waterborne diseases to downstream users and the stored in large, earthen reservoirs for later Digesters provide an environment to reduce
environment. use in irrigation or utility applications. the organic matter and disease-causing
organisms. Methane is produced as the
solids are digested and is used as a fuel for
on-site electrical generators.
J. Flow Equalization
Flow equalization facilities are used to divert
and temporarily store incoming flows during
high flow, wet weather periods. The stored
wastewater is routed back to the plant for
treatment.
I. Dewatering
The digested solids are pumped to the
dewatering building or solar drying beds,
where excess water is removed.
Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District
1010 Chadbourne Road
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707)429-8930
www.fssd.com
The Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District oversees wastewater collection and
treatment, water recycling, and stormwater management services in a
41-square-mile area of Solano County, California. The service area encompasses
FLOWS AND LOADING
the cities of Fairfield and Suisun City as well as one of the nation’s most
strategically important military installations, Travis Air Force Base.
Average Daily Flow:
The District owns and operates a system of sanitary sewers and pumping stations 12.2 million gallons per day
that serves 135,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers and
government Agencies. Major industries includes Anheuser-Busch Brewery, Travis Biosolids Disposal:
Air Force Base, and Super Store Industries. Households, retail businesses, major 10,400 wet tons annually
food and beverage producers, light industries, manufacturers and vital military
Suspended Solids Removed:
Operations depend upon this service.
99.5% of incoming solids
The District’s collection system consists of 13 pump stations and a 70-mile network
of 12 to 48 inch diameter sewer pipes that collect and transport sanitary waste to a Dry Weather Capacity:
modern, efficient wastewater treatment plant. The treatment facilities, which 23.7 million gallons per day
occupy about 150 acres, replaced three older plants in 1976 and have undergone
major renovation and expansion to keep pace with the region’s population and Irrigation/Utility Water Output:
economic growth, as well as technological advancements in the wastewater 193 million gallons
industry.
The District’s mission is to safeguard public health and the environment. Just south
POWER
of the District’s boundary is the sensitive Suisun Marsh, which is the nation’s
largest brackish water marsh as well as the largest wetland on the Pacific Coast. Consumed:
This 116,000-acre region not only supports abundant plant life but also serves as a 11,642 MWh annually
stopover for up to 1.5 million migratory birds traversing the Pacific Flyway each
year. Protecting public and environmental health requires the District to ensure that Sources:
discharged water meets stringent water quality standards set by Federal, State and PG&E, solar, wind and
Regional agencies. methane co-generation
Wind Turbine Power Solar Power
Wastewater treatment is an The District’s property is host
energy-intensive process. for the solar system owned
The District’s wastewater and operated by SunEdison.
treatment facilities are the The solar system has the
first in California to be capacity to deliver 1 MW of
powered by wind turbines. power to the treatment plant
The four are rated at 50 kw at 12 KV and produces
and became operational in approximately 20% of
early 2010. electricity used each year.
VALLEJO SANITATION & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1952 1970 1977 1987 1990 2005 2006 2010
VSFCD created by California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act VSFCD begins more Clean Water Act amendments shift VSFCD wins national first place award Treatment plant VSFCD completes $60 District wins two major statewide awards:
a special act of requires sewage treatment plants to keep advanced focus to polluted runoff, and the from the U.S. EPA for innovative and completes major million project designed Wastewater Plant of the Year and Safety
the California water clean, balancing economic treatment. District creates its first Storm Drain beneficial application of biosolids to odor reduction to eliminate sewer over- Plant of the Year from the California
legislature. considerations with environmental goals. Master Plan. farmland in Sonoma County. project. flows in Vallejo. Water Environment Association.
1959 1972 1983 1988 1991 2002 2008
Wastewater Clean Water Act established, initial District purchases Tubbs District improves Treatment plant capacity is VSFCD wins Governors VSFCD wins Governors Environmental Economic
treatment plant focus on reducing polluted effluent Island farm for the secondary facility to increased from 30 to 60 Environmental Economic Leadership Award for Energy Conservation; major
begins treating from industrial and sewage beneficial reuse of biosolids. provide better service. million gallons per day. Leadership Award for Energy modifications to the plant includes building a 8.5
Vallejo’s sewage. treatment facilities. Conservation million gallon storage tank to prevent overflows.
CELEBRATING 60 YEARS OF SERVICE 1952 - 2012
CELEBRATING
60 YEARS OF SERVICE
S C E F
olano ounty ConomiC orECaSt
Solano County is located on the Northeast edge of the San
thousands Total Wage & Salary Job Creation
Francisco Bay, approximately halfway between San Francisco and of jobs
1990 - 2040
Sacramento. Solano County has a population of 427,700 people 6
and a total of 129,900 wage and salary jobs. The per capita income
in Solano County is $43,319 and the average salary per worker 4
is $67,135.
2
In 2014, employment in Northern California increased by
3.4 percent, whereas employment in the greater Bay Area grew
0
by 4.0 percent. In Solano County, a total of 2,700 wage and salary
jobs were created, representing an increase of 2.1 percent. The -2
unemployment rate improved significantly, falling from 9.0 percent
-4
in 2013 to 7.4 percent in 2014.
Most major sectors gained jobs in 2014. The largest increases
-6
were observed in manufacturing (+630 jobs), leisure and hospitality 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
(+600 jobs), education and healthcare (+550 jobs), and wholesale
constant 2014 Real Per Capita Personal Income
and retail trade (+420 jobs). The largest losses occurred in
dollars per person
1990 - 2040
construction (-190 jobs) and financial activities (-190 jobs).
70,000
From 2009 to 2014, the Solano County population increased
at an annual average rate of 0.7 percent. This growth was due 65,000
largely to the natural increase (new births), as net migration was
60,000
low.
55,000
California
50,000
45,000
40,000
Solano County forecast
35,000
F H 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
orecast igHligHts
• In 2015, total employment will increase by 2.6 percent. Between • Net migration will remain positive over the forecast period. From
2015 and 2020, the annual growth rate is expected to average 2015 to 2020, an average of 2,800 net migrants will enter the
1.6 percent. county each year.
• Average salaries in Solano County are virtually identical to the • Real per capita income is forecast to rise by 3.3 percent in 2015.
California state average. Between 2015 and 2020, inflation- Between 2015 and 2020, real per capita income will grow at
adjusted salaries are projected to increase by 0.7 percent per an average rate of 0.8 percent per year.
year in Solano County, compared to 0.6 percent per year across
the state. • Total taxable sales, adjusted for inflation, are expected to
increase by an average of 1.7 percent per year during the
• Between 2015 and 2020, the largest employment increases will 2015-2020 period.
occur in education and healthcare (+2,600 jobs), construction
(+1,800 jobs), leisure and hospitality (+1,700 jobs), and • Industrial production is expected to increase by 4.8 percent in
professional services (+1,500 jobs). Together, these sectors will 2015. Between 2015 and 2020, the growth rate is forecasted
account for 68 percent of net job creation in the county. to average 3.1 percent per year.
• The population is expected to grow by 1.2 percent in 2015.
Annual growth in the 2015 to 2020 period is forecast to average
1.1 percent.
189
Solano County Economic Forecast
2006-2014 History, 2015-2040 Forecast
Net Registered New Homes Total Taxable Personal Real Per Inflation Rate Real Farm Real Industrial Unemploy-
Population Migration Vehicles Households Permitted Sales Income Capita Income (% change Crop Value Production ment Rate
(people) (people) (thousands) (thousands) (homes) (billions) (billions) (dollars) in CPI) (millions) (billions) (percent)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 411,351 -2,268 380 140.0 1,300 $6.5 $15.3 $44,748 3.2 281.6 2.9 4.9
2007 412,636 -1,836 375 140.5 973 $6.3 $16.0 $45,157 3.4 312.7 3.0 5.3
2008 413,167 -2,468 371 141.1 562 $6.0 $16.2 $44,527 2.9 331.5 3.2 6.9
2009 412,488 -3,558 372 140.9 559 $5.3 $15.9 $43,359 0.8 282.9 3.0 10.6
2010 413,129 -1,769 371 141.8 441 $5.2 $15.8 $42,448 1.3 287.5 2.9 12.5
2011 414,268 -1,198 365 142.4 388 $5.8 $16.5 $42,971 2.7 314.9 2.8 12.1
2012 419,064 2,605 368 142.8 529 $6.0 $17.3 $43,358 2.7 360.4 2.9 10.6
2013 422,899 1,619 381 143.3 800 $6.4 $18.1 $43,914 2.3 358.1 2.9 9.0
2014 427,743 2,559 389 143.9 666 $6.8 $19.0 $44,319 2.8 358.7 3.2 7.4
2015 432,611 2,622 395 144.5 983 $7.1 $20.0 $45,765 1.2 359.9 3.3 6.5
2016 437,971 3,122 400 145.4 1,280 $7.6 $21.4 $46,907 3.2 362.2 3.5 5.6
2017 443,249 3,021 404 146.6 1,508 $8.0 $22.5 $47,132 3.2 366.5 3.6 5.3
2018 448,274 2,746 408 148.0 1,603 $8.4 $23.5 $47,259 3.0 371.0 3.7 5.2
2019 453,218 2,638 411 149.5 1,610 $8.7 $24.6 $47,474 2.8 375.4 3.8 5.1
2020 458,006 2,458 414 150.9 1,605 $9.0 $25.6 $47,608 2.9 376.7 3.9 5.1
2021 462,840 2,506 416 152.4 1,565 $9.3 $26.7 $47,548 3.0 378.9 4.0 5.1
2022 467,732 2,566 418 153.9 1,519 $9.6 $27.8 $47,568 3.1 380.5 4.1 5.1
2023 472,718 2,654 420 155.3 1,492 $9.9 $28.9 $47,740 2.7 381.4 4.2 5.0
2024 477,616 2,572 421 156.6 1,491 $10.3 $30.2 $48,139 2.6 382.8 4.3 5.0
2025 482,301 2,376 423 158.0 1,464 $10.6 $31.6 $48,515 2.8 384.3 4.4 5.0
2026 486,879 2,281 425 159.3 1,409 $11.0 $33.0 $48,790 2.8 385.8 4.5 5.0
2027 491,269 2,107 427 160.6 1,363 $11.4 $34.4 $49,023 2.8 387.2 4.7 5.0
2028 495,635 2,111 429 161.9 1,319 $11.9 $35.9 $49,301 2.7 388.7 4.8 5.0
2029 499,928 2,048 432 163.1 1,293 $12.4 $37.3 $49,640 2.5 389.7 5.0 5.0
2030 504,098 1,943 434 164.3 1,278 $13.0 $38.8 $50,042 2.4 391.6 5.1 5.0
2031 508,164 1,841 436 165.5 1,276 $13.6 $40.4 $50,488 2.3 393.5 5.2 5.0
2032 512,107 1,719 439 166.6 1,274 $14.3 $42.0 $50,870 2.5 395.4 5.4 5.0
2033 515,951 1,609 441 167.8 1,258 $14.9 $43.7 $51,444 2.1 397.3 5.6 5.0
2034 519,667 1,485 443 169.0 1,243 $15.6 $45.5 $51,997 2.3 399.3 5.8 5.0
2035 523,433 1,555 446 170.1 1,216 $16.2 $47.4 $52,512 2.4 401.3 5.9 5.0
2036 527,344 1,702 448 171.2 1,195 $16.9 $49.4 $52,831 2.8 403.2 6.1 5.0
2037 531,302 1,773 450 172.3 1,180 $17.5 $51.4 $53,117 2.8 405.2 6.3 5.0
2038 535,303 1,839 452 173.4 1,163 $18.1 $53.5 $53,469 2.7 407.2 6.5 5.0
2039 539,331 1,895 454 174.5 1,147 $18.8 $55.8 $53,760 2.8 409.3 6.7 5.0
2040 543,311 1,856 455 175.5 1,137 $19.4 $58.1 $54,076 2.8 411.3 6.9 5.0
percent Population Growth units New Residential Units
change 1990 - 2040 permitted 1990 - 2040
6.0 3,200
2,800
5.0
2,400
4.0
2,000
3.0
1,600
2.0
1,200
1.0
800
0.0 400
-1.0 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
190
Solano County Employment Forecast
2006-2014 History, 2015-2040 Forecast
Total Wage Manufac- Transportation Wholesale & Financial Professional Health &
& Salary Farm Construction turing & Utilities Retail Trade Activities Services Information Education Leisure Government
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------employment (thousands of jobs)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 133.2 1.73 12.6 10.6 4.2 23.0 6.2 11.5 1.6 17.9 13.5 26.0
2007 131.6 1.55 10.7 10.6 4.5 22.4 5.6 11.5 1.6 18.6 13.7 26.6
2008 129.0 1.60 9.2 10.3 4.6 21.8 5.1 10.6 1.5 19.2 13.9 26.9
2009 124.7 1.56 7.4 9.9 4.6 20.3 5.1 10.8 1.3 19.8 13.8 26.1
2010 120.9 1.39 7.2 9.7 4.2 20.6 5.2 8.8 1.3 20.2 13.7 24.9
2011 120.6 1.41 7.8 9.6 3.7 20.5 5.1 8.8 1.1 20.4 13.9 24.3
2012 123.1 1.49 8.1 10.0 3.7 21.2 5.0 8.9 1.1 21.2 14.2 24.1
2013 127.2 1.67 8.6 10.2 3.9 21.4 5.1 9.4 1.1 23.0 14.6 24.0
2014 129.9 1.88 8.4 10.8 4.1 21.8 4.9 9.5 1.1 23.6 15.2 24.3
2015 133.3 1.88 8.8 11.0 4.3 22.2 4.9 10.1 1.1 24.4 15.9 24.4
2016 136.7 1.89 9.1 11.1 4.4 22.6 5.0 10.6 1.1 25.0 16.6 25.0
2017 139.6 1.91 9.8 11.3 4.5 22.8 5.1 10.9 1.1 25.4 17.1 25.3
2018 141.4 1.92 10.1 11.4 4.5 23.0 5.1 11.1 1.1 26.0 17.4 25.4
2019 143.0 1.94 10.4 11.4 4.6 23.2 5.1 11.3 1.1 26.5 17.6 25.5
2020 144.6 1.94 10.5 11.5 4.6 23.3 5.1 11.6 1.1 27.0 17.7 25.9
2021 145.3 1.95 10.6 11.5 4.6 23.4 5.1 11.8 1.1 27.6 17.7 25.6
2022 146.4 1.95 10.7 11.5 4.6 23.5 5.1 12.0 1.1 28.1 17.7 25.6
2023 147.5 1.96 10.7 11.5 4.6 23.6 5.1 12.3 1.1 28.7 17.7 25.7
2024 148.4 1.96 10.7 11.4 4.7 23.7 5.1 12.5 1.1 29.2 17.7 25.8
2025 149.3 1.97 10.7 11.5 4.7 23.8 5.1 12.8 1.1 29.6 17.7 25.9
2026 150.2 1.97 10.7 11.4 4.7 23.9 5.1 13.0 1.1 30.1 17.8 26.1
2027 151.2 1.98 10.6 11.4 4.7 24.0 5.1 13.2 1.1 30.5 17.9 26.3
2028 152.3 1.98 10.6 11.4 4.7 24.1 5.1 13.5 1.1 30.9 17.9 26.6
2029 153.5 1.98 10.5 11.4 4.7 24.2 5.1 13.7 1.1 31.4 18.1 26.9
2030 154.9 1.99 10.5 11.4 4.7 24.3 5.1 13.9 1.1 31.8 18.2 27.3
2031 156.2 2.00 10.5 11.4 4.7 24.4 5.1 14.1 1.1 32.3 18.3 27.8
2032 157.7 2.00 10.5 11.4 4.7 24.5 5.1 14.2 1.1 32.8 18.5 28.4
2033 159.1 2.01 10.5 11.4 4.8 24.6 5.1 14.4 1.1 33.2 18.6 28.9
2034 160.4 2.02 10.5 11.4 4.8 24.7 5.1 14.6 1.1 33.7 18.8 29.4
2035 161.6 2.02 10.4 11.4 4.8 24.8 5.1 14.7 1.2 34.1 18.9 29.7
2036 162.7 2.03 10.4 11.4 4.8 24.9 5.1 14.8 1.2 34.6 19.1 30.0
2037 163.8 2.03 10.4 11.4 4.8 24.9 5.1 15.0 1.2 35.1 19.2 30.3
2038 164.9 2.04 10.4 11.4 4.8 25.0 5.1 15.1 1.2 35.5 19.4 30.5
2039 165.9 2.05 10.3 11.5 4.8 25.0 5.1 15.3 1.2 36.0 19.5 30.7
2040 166.9 2.06 10.3 11.5 4.8 25.1 5.1 15.4 1.2 36.4 19.7 30.8
thousands Manufacturing Employment thousands Employment in Professional Services
of jobs 1990 - 2040 of jobs 1990 - 2040
12 16
11 14
10 12
9 10
8 8
7 6
6 4
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
191
percent Real Retail Sales Growth thousands of Real Earnings Per Worker
constant 2014
change 1990 - 2040 dollars per worker 1990 - 2040
10 85
80
5
75
0
70
California
65
-5
60
-10 Solano
55
County
forecast
-15 50
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
inmigrants Net Migration inflation adjusted Industrial and Farm Production Indices
minus index (1990=100)
outmigrants 1990 - 2040 1990 - 2040
700
15,000
600
12,000
500
9,000
400
6,000
3,000 300
Industrial
0 200
-3,000 100
Farm forecast
-6,000 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
County Economic and Demographic Indicators
Projected Economic Growth (2015-2020)
Expected retail sales growth: 6.7% Expected population growth: 5.9%
Expected job growth: 8.5% Net migration to account for: 55.1%
Fastest growing jobs sector: Construction Expected growth in number of vehicles: 4.8%
Expected personal income growth: 10.1%
Demographics (2015)
Population with B.A. or higher: 24.0%
Unemployment rate (March 2015): 6.3%
Median home selling price (2014): $300,000
County rank* in California (58 counties): 20th
Median household income: $64,618
Working age (16-64) population: 66.1%
Quality of Life
Violent crime rate (2013): 473 per 100,000 persons High School drop out rate (2014): 10.6%
County rank* in California (58 counties): 41th Households at/below poverty line (2015): 10.4%
Average commute time to work (2015): 31.1 minutes * The county ranked 1st corresponds to the lowest rate in California
192
Drainage Maintenance Agreement
Among the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District,
the City of Fairfield, and the City of Suisun City
Compiled, as amended, through January 23, 1995
DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT MADE AND ENTERED
INTO ON THIS FIRST DAY OF
MARCH, 1988, BY AND BETWEEN
FAIRFIELD-SUISUN SEWER
DISTRICT, a public corporation,
hereinafter referred to as “DISTRICT,”
AND
CITY OF FAIRFIELD, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as
“FAIRFIELD,”
AND
CITY OF SUISUN CITY, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as
“SUISUN CITY,”
RECITALS
1. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is constructing the modified Fairfield Vicinity
Streams Project on land owned by the State of California and FAIRFIELD and SUISUN
CITY.
2. FAIRFIELD and SUISUN CITY have agreed with the United States and the State of
California to operate and maintain the drainage facilities constructed as part of the
Fairfield Vicinity Streams Project.
3. DISTRICT has completed a drainage maintenance feasibility study and additional
analyses which demonstrated advantages to regionalizing the maintenance management
of certain storm water drainage facilities including the federal Fairfield Vicinity Streams
Project.
4. FAIRFIELD and SUISUN CITY are desirous of DISTRICT, through exercise of its
statutory authority, assuming limited responsibility for maintenance of drainage facilities.
5. DISTRICT is amenable to assuming such limited responsibility.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions herein
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
SECTION I
DEFINITIONS
1. CITIES – collective reference to FAIRFIELD and SUISUN CITY acting as individual
parties to this agreement.
2. District Engineer – The General Manager/District Engineer of the DISTRICT or such
other person as may be designated to act on behalf of DISTRICT by the Board of
Directors.
3. Director of Public Works – The Director of Public Works or such other person as may be
designated to act on behalf of the city by the city council.
4. Local Facilities – those storm drainage facilities for which DISTRICT provides
supplemental maintenance funding only under the terms of this agreement but for which
CITIES retain direct operation and maintenance responsibility.
5. Regional Facilities – those storm drainage facilities for which DISTRICT accepts limited
maintenance responsibility under the terms of this agreement.
6. Natural Creeks – open drainage channels which have not been materially altered in either
channel shape or alignment from their natural state.
7. Improved Channels – open drainage channels which have been altered from their natural
state in order to improve their capacity to carry water.
SECTION II
DISTRICT AGREES:
1. Regional Facilities – To assume responsibility for the following maintenance
activities on Regional Facilities owned by or under the control of CITIES:
A. Storm Water Pumping Stations
1) perform all required preventive and corrective maintenance of existing
and future pumping stations which are turned over to the DISTRICT in
acceptable structural and mechanical condition.
2) make recommendations for station improvements to increase reliability
and/or capacity.
3) make no modifications or improvements to facilities which would
adversely affect pumping capacity or reliability without the express
written consent of the Director of Public Works of the city in which the
facility is located.
4) inspect for operational readiness during dry weather conditions.
5) monitor operational status during wet weather conditions and make
reasonable efforts to keep the station in operation.
6) maintain written records of work performed and make such records
available for inspection by the Director of Public Works during normal
business hours.
B. Other Facilities – provide periodic inspection, cleaning and repair of
Regional Facilities including pipelines, improved channels, natural creeks,
detention basins, bridge foundations, sloughs, culverts and appurtenant
structures as required to maintain design hydraulic capacity in accordance
with this agreement, but not including maintenance of fences, gates,
guardrails, barricades or other devices intended to limit public access or
contact with the maintained facilities.
C. Replace equipment and structures that fail, provided that the District’s
obligation shall not exceed $50,000 per fiscal year.
D. Prepare and submit such reports on maintenance activity as may be required
by non-city agencies. CITIES shall provide data to DISTRICT for
preparation of said reports for those facilities maintained by CITIES.
E. Act as Lead Agency for purposes of obtaining permits, licenses, easements or
other instruments that may be necessary to carry out DISTRICT
responsibilities.
F. Regional Facility Inventory – implement and maintain a computerized data
base inventory of regional drainage facilities and make summary reports and
data available to CITIES as requested.
G. Act as Lead Agency for the purpose of dealing with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, EPA and other agencies promulgating non-point
source pollution control regulations.
H. Insurance – require DISTRICT contractors or other parties working on any
activities associated with this contract to indemnify and hold harmless
CITIES, and to name CITIES as additional insureds.
I. With approval of DISTRICT Board of Directors, participate in the
Section II.I. is
construction of specific capital improvements to the drainage system. added
01/23/1995
2. Local Facilities – Provide supplemental funding to CITIES at levels set by the
DISTRICT in accordance with procedures established herein.
3. Enterprise Fund – establish a separate enterprise fund to account for revenues and
expenditures related to drainage maintenance activities of the DISTRICT. Revenues
shall include drainage maintenance fees, interest income and grants-in-aid related to
activities under this agreement.
A. Restrictions – to make no transfers into or out of the enterprise fund unless
authorized by the DISTRICT Board of Directors.
B. Annual Financial Report – to prepare an annual financial report of the
enterprise fund audited by an independent Certified Public Accountant. The
report shall be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and standards and submitted to the DISTRICT Board of Directors
within six months of the close of each fiscal year.
C. Budget – to prepare an annual budget for the activities covered by this
agreement, including estimated revenues, fees, and maintenance and capital
expenses and allocation to and status of reserves.
SECTION III
CITIES AGREE:
1. to allow DISTRICT and its contractors and agents free and unencumbered access to
facilities for the purpose of performing its obligations under this agreement.
2. to furnish DISTRICT with all available spare parts, construction drawings,
maintenance manuals, maintenance records, operational records, equipment
guarantees, financial records and related materials for each facility for which
DISTRICT assumes limited maintenance responsibility.
3. to warrant the overall structural and mechanical integrity of the facilities as of the
effective date of this agreement and make such repairs as may be required by
DISTRICT to bring existing facilities up to acceptable structural and mechanical
condition. Work shall be completed before the effective date of this agreement.
4. fund and construct such capital improvements to increase reliability and/or hydraulic
capacity as may be recommended by DISTRICT and determined to be financially
feasible by CITIES.
5. that new storm water pumping stations will be designed and constructed to conform
with minimum engineering standards established by DISTRICT.
6. submit to District on or before May 1 each year an annual report on maintenance
activities completed during the prior calendar year.
SECTION IV
THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE:
1. Maintenance Planning Committee – there shall be established a Maintenance Planning
Committee, hereinafter COMMITTEE, consisting of the District Engineer of
DISTRICT, the Director of Public Works of FAIRFIELD and the Director of Public
Works of SUISUN CITY, or their respective designees. The COMMITTEE shall
meet on a regular basis, but not less than once each calendar year, to review and plan
regional maintenance priorities for the upcoming year, and make recommendations to
DISTRICT for consideration in preparation of the annual budget.
Section IV.2.A
2. Local Facility Maintenance
amended
06/27/1994
A. Enterprise Fund Accounts – CITIES shall each establish a separate & 01/23/1995
enterprise fund account within their respective financial accounting systems
to account for revenues and expenditures directly related to maintenance of
local facilities under the terms of this agreement. Revenues include the
annual DISTRICT funding and other revenues such as interest earnings or
grants-in-aid related to activities under this agreement.
1) Eligible Expenditures – Eligible expenditures shall be limited to the
following:
a. Direct expenses related directly to the maintenance and
rehabilitation of such facilities including salaries, employee fringe
benefits, equipment costs, materials, and supplies.
b. Indirect expenses may be charged to the enterprise fund but not
exceeding 15% of the eligible direct expenses.
c. Capital improvements to the drainage system which have been
budgeted and approved by the DISTRICT.
2) Interfund Transfers and Loans – No interfund transfer of funds into or
out of the enterprise fund shall be made unless authorized by the
DISTRICT.
3) Annual Financial Report – CITIES shall prepare an annual financial
report of the enterprise fund for the fiscal year which shall be audited by
an independent certified public accountant. The report shall be prepared
in accordance with generally-accepted accounting principles and
standards and submitted within six months of the close of the fiscal year.
4) Reserve Account – CITIES shall create a reserve account within the
enterprise fund for major maintenance and replacement of local
facilities. Any funds not spent during the fiscal year shall be deposited
to this reserve account. The minimum fund balance shall be maintained
at no less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the average annual revenues
allocated to CITY by DISTRICT.
5) Disaster Relief Funds – In the event of a flooding emergency for which
CITIES apply and receive state and/or federal relief funds, that portion
of said relief funds related to repayment of enterprise fund expenditures
associated with the emergency shall be deposited in the enterprise fund
to offset eligible expenses incurred during the emergency. The CITIES
are responsible for providing documentation of the eligible emergency
expenses and shall be responsible for responding to the state or federal
audits of said funds and expenses.
B. Facility Inventory – CITIES and DISTRICT agree to jointly develop a
computerized data base inventory of drainage maintenance facilities within
their jurisdictions. The inventory shall be in a format approved by the
District Engineer and, as a minimum, contain information on location, type of
facility, size, materials of construction, date installed and maintenance
history. CITIES shall submit to DISTRICT on or before May 1 each
calendar year a printed report listing all facilities within their respective
jurisdictions by type and size and an updated copy of the complete inventory
on magnetic media. This report shall include all new facilities placed in
service during the previous calendar year as well as all previously-
inventoried facilities. This inventory shall subdivide facilities into Local and
Regional categories for purposes of this agreement. Pipelines under 36" in
diameter and appurtenant structures shall be included as local facilities.
Designation of larger facilities as local shall be at discretion of CITIES, but
local facilities inventory for facilities larger than 33" diameter may not be
increased or decreased more than 10 percent in any fiscal year as measured
by effect on total supplemental funding by DISTRICT unless authorized by
DISTRICT Board.
C. Maintenance Cost Allowance – DISTRICT shall annually remit to CITIES
for deposit to each city’s enterprise fund an amount of money which shall be
calculated on the basis of Unit Maintenance Cost Allowances and number of
units maintained in accordance with procedures established herein. Unit
Maintenance Cost Allowances shall be established annually by the
DISTRICT by incorporation into the annual budget.
The amount to be deposited by DISTRICT shall be determined by
multiplying the number of units of each type of facility in each city’s Local
Facility Inventory by the Unit Maintenance Cost Allowance for that type of
facility and subtracting the city’s local contribution to the fund as shown in
the example attached as EXHIBIT A.
D. Neither DISTRICT nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible
for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted
to be done by FAIRFIELD under or in connection with any work, authority
or jurisdiction not delegated to DISTRICT under this agreement. It is also
agreed that, pursuant to Government Code § 895.4, FAIRFIELD shall fully
indemnify and hold DISTRICT harmless from any liability imposed for
injury (as defined by Government Code § 810.8) occurring by reason of
anything done or omitted to be done by FAIRFIELD under or in connection
with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to DISTRICT under
this agreement.
E. Neither FAIRFIELD nor any officer or employee thereof, is responsible for
any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be
done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any work, authority or
jurisdiction delegated to DISTRICT under this agreement. It is also agreed
that, pursuant to Government Code § 895.4, DISTRICT shall fully indemnify
and hold FAIRFIELD harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as
defined by Government Code § 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done
or omitted to be done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any work,
authority, or jurisdiction delegated to DISTRICT under this agreement.
F. Neither DISTRICT nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible
for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted
to be done by SUISUN CITY under or in connection with any work,
authority or jurisdiction not delegated to DISTRICT under this agreement. It
is also agreed that, pursuant to Government Code § 895.4, SUISUN CITY
shall fully indemnify and hold DISTRICT harmless from any liability
imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code § 810.8) occurring by
reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SUISUN CITY under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to
DISTRICT under this agreement.
G. Neither SUISUN CITY nor any officer or employee thereof, is responsible
for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted
to be done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any work, authority or
jurisdiction delegated to DISTRICT under this agreement. It is also agreed
that, pursuant to Government Code § 895.4, DISTRICT shall fully indemnify
and hold SUISUN CITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as
defined by Government Code § 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done
or omitted to be done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any work,
authority, or jurisdiction delegated to DISTRICT under this agreement.
3. Termination – Either CITY may terminate its participation in this agreement by
giving written notice to the DISTRICT no later than May 31 of any year. Such
termination shall be effective on July 1 of that year. The DISTRICT may terminate
its participation in this agreement with respect to either CITY by giving written notice
no later than March 1 of any year. Such termination shall be effective on July 1 of
that year.
4. FAIRFIELD agrees to provide supplemental financial management services to
DISTRICT for Drainage Maintenance activities in accordance with the provisions of
the existing financial management agreement between DISTRICT and FAIRFIELD.
As compensation for these supplemental services, DISTRICT agrees to pay $2500 per
year in addition to compensation provided under existing agreement. Supplemental
compensation shall be adjusted annually by the mechanism provided under existing
agreement.
5. Mutual Aid – DISTRICT and CITIES agree to provide mutual aid and assistance for
drainage maintenance when requested during emergency situations, and agree to
reimburse each other for expenses related to said aid and assistance.
6. Effective Date – the effective date of this agreement shall be 12:01 A.M. July 1, 1988.
IN WITNESS the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day first above-written.
EXHIBIT A
Example Calculation of Local Facilities Maintenance Cost Allowance
Facility Inventory Unit Maintenance Total
Type of Facility Units No. of Units Cost Allowance Allowance
Storm drain pipes L.F. 200,000 X $0.20 = $40,000
less than 33"
Storm drain pipes L.F. 15,000 X 0.20 = 3,000
greater than 33"
Box culvert drains L.F. 1,000 X 0.35 = 350
Improved Earth Channel L.F. 15,000 X 2.50 = 37,500
Natural Creek L.F. 25,000 X 2.00 = 50,000
Total 130,850
Less local contribution -50,000
District contribution $80,850