My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN 09072021
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2021
>
CCMIN 09072021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/18/2021 11:19:45 AM
Creation date
11/4/2021 8:24:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/7/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NAME
CCMIN 09072021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Department of Drinking Water has not yet established the minimum contaminant levels (MCLs) for <br />PFAS and it is possible that delays could happen or wells could be shut down. In that event the <br />City would need to buy water from Zone 7 at $6 million annually which would negate any interest - <br />rate advantage. The other option is the Revenue Bond which is significantly faster, has no <br />environmental review or state agency review, and the bonds could be funded. One negative is <br />that the current interest rate of the bonds is 3.2% which assumes the City is not refunding <br />although she believes they can be refunded. Another is that the Revenue Bond debt service is <br />$7.7 million more than the SRF loan. She reported the rate consultant reported the SRF loan <br />would result in a $9.50 or 18% increase in customers' bi-monthly bills and Revenue Bonds would <br />result in an $11.60 or 22% increase to customers bi-monthly bills. <br />Director Olson reported the City has joined in litigation to try to recover some of the costs <br />associated with mitigating the PFAS from the companies that are suspected to have released it <br />into the groundwater. There are over 500 lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions that have been <br />consolidated in the U. S. District Court in South Carolina and it is unclear when it will be resolved <br />and how much the City will receive. If the City prevails the amount of the bonds issued or loans <br />taken out would be reduced if received before the project begins and if received afterward would <br />be put towards the service and reduce the water rates in that year. <br />The alternative to the PFAS Project is to buy water from Zone 7 which would be a 42% rate <br />increase and that compares to up to 22% for debt service with the Revenue Bonds. There is also <br />an annual rate increase for Zone 7 and there is uncertainty whether Zone 7 would be able to <br />increase the water supply long-term. Staff has spoken to Zone 7 in the short term if the City has to <br />shut down all wells and is not proposing that alternative. <br />Staff will be restarting the rate review process that was paused due to the pandemic and the <br />PFAS project. Other rate considerations include increased labor costs, increased costs to manage <br />new well treatment facilities, increased major maintenance capital requirements including results <br />of the Water Master Plan that will need to be incorporated into the rates, and drought -related <br />revenue impacts. A rate review will need to be completed before securing debt funding and <br />recommends modeling a 4% interest rate which is more conservative. If the rates are less than <br />that the water rates can be adjusted downward. Staff recommends beginning the process with the <br />State to apply for the SRF loan and if there is no movement by May 2022, to change gears and <br />start the process to issue the Revenue Bonds. The rate review process will be restarted to bring <br />them back before City Council by spring 2022. <br />In response to Councilmember Narum, Utilities Planning Manager Todd Yamello confirmed the <br />well rehabilitation and PFAS equipment would need to be done at the same time for cost savings. <br />Being able to procure the vessels in advance due to the long lead-time would be dependent on <br />the SRF approval and is why May 2022 was defined as the timeframe to have funding in place. <br />In response to Councilmember Narum, Director Olson confirmed the City investigated borrowing <br />funds and the fund she would be comfortable borrowing from is the Low Income Housing Fund <br />that has between $10 to $15 million. The General Fund Reserve is invested with the PERS <br />Section 115 Pension Trust Fund and would not want to liquidate it. <br />In response to Councilmember Balch, Director Olson confirmed the net proceeds and issuance <br />costs are factored in when comparing rates. There is less of an issuance cost with the State SRF <br />loan than issuing bonds from the City. Mr. Yamello explained the increased operating costs will be <br />due to the PFAS media which needs to be replaced annually. The vessels themselves will be <br />housed outdoors with no structure at the corp yard. <br />City Council Minutes Page 13 of 16 September 7, 2021 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.