Mt. View Sanitary District Set to Vote Thursday on Steep Rate Hikes

Plus, MRC Oversight Committee selects consultants to lead investigations into toxic dust release from refinery, discusses computer model on where dust landed and plans for soil sampling

Editor’s note: The following report on the Mt. View Sanitary District’s proposed rate increases by freelance writer Tom Lochner is made possible by the financial support of paid newsletter subscribers and other donors.

By Tom Lochner

The Mt. View Sanitary District wants to raise its sewer service charges by about 9 percent annually for five years, citing urgent needs to "replace critical aging infrastructure and meet increasingly stringent regulations that require significant upgrades in equipment and technology."

The proposal, the subject of a public hearing that will be held Thursday, has prompted a pushback from some residents who say that rates are already to high, that the district needs to operate more frugally, and that it should consider merging with the much larger, adjacent Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, popularly known as Central San.

The current sewer rate for single-family houses in the Mt. View district is $814.20 a year. The proposed 9 percent annual increase would bring it to $888 starting July 1, and to $1,260, more than one-and-a half times the current rate, by the fifth year, beginning July 1, 2027. That amount would be more than double the $615.60 that single-family houses paid eight years earlier, in fiscal 2019-20.

Apartments and commercial businesses would see similar percentage increases. The rate increase proposal is contained in the public hearing notice, available at https://mvsd.specialdistrict.org/files/5a69347b0/2023-01-31+ITEM+3A.pdf

Thursday’s public hearing will begin at 6:30 p.m. in the Board Room at 3800 Arthur Road, Martinez. A vote on the increase proposal is scheduled immediately upon conclusion of the hearing. 

Mt. View Sanitary District facilities in Martinez

Under Proposition 218, approved by California voters in 1996, a rate increase proposal can be shot down if a majority of property owners protest in writing. The written protests must be received by the district prior to the close of the public hearing to be considered, and can be submitted up to the close of the hearing. Details of how to file are described at the end of the public hearing notice.

In support of its rate increase request, the district cites a need to continue to implement its Capital Improvement Program covering its collection system, pump stations and marsh assets, and "meet regulatory requirements, prepare for the future, and ensure sustainability." Other specifics of the district's plan are contained in the hearing notice. "To meet these challenges, increases are necessary," the notice states.

A group of residents has launched a drive to urge property owners to file written protest letters, even as they acknowledge the daunting prospect of getting more than 50 percent to do so, given that many people may never have read the notice. But one of the group, Alice Jackman, notes that public opposition over a proposal in 2020 for an even higher rate of increase – for an almost doubling, over five years, of the then-rate of $615.60 a year – led the board to pull back and propose a more moderate increase.

Jackman is no newcomer to the process. In May 2020, she wrote a lengthy opinion letter that was published in the now-defunct Martinez News-Gazette, reflecting many of the same concerns she has today over how the district spends its money and whether residents can afford higher rates.

Formed in 1923, the Mt. View Sanitary District covers the northeast part of Martinez and some unincorporated areas, with about 22,000 residents and with 7,912 residential and 314 commercial, industrial and institutional sewer connections, according to the most recent figures on the district website. The district has a treatment plant, about 73 miles of sewers and four pump stations. It also manages a complex of marshes and other wetlands.

The rest of Martinez is served by much larger Central San, which also serves Pleasant Hill, Concord, Clayton, Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, Danville, San Ramon and some unincorporated areas. Its ratepayers pay less than Mt. View's – currently $690 a month for single-family houses in Central San, compared with Mt. View's $814.20. 

Central San is proposing a rate hike, too, to $697 next fiscal year and $725 the following year. It will hold a public hearing on April 20 at 2:30 p.m., in its board room at 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez. A notice of proposed rate increases and public hearing is at https://www.centralsan.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/rate_notice_2023.pdf?1677081769. 

Jackman says many residents of the Mt. View district are struggling, not just to pay high sewer service rates, but to make ends meet in general. Other concerns she expressed include the amount of long-term debt the district takes on; and amounts spent on contracted services, membership dues in organizations, and travel.

Jackman pointed to a 2014 study by the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which states that "Preparation of a fiscal/operational study evaluating the long-term impacts of consolidation with CCCSD should be considered." 

She notes that the top five positions at Mt. View receive more than $1.1 million in annual compensation in 2021, as indicated on the state Controller's Government Compensation website.

Mt. View’s top salary in 2021 went to the general manager, who received wages of $228,984; plus retirement and health contributions of $60,754, for a total of: $289,738. The district engineer made $194,244 in wages and $54,506 in benefits that year, for a total of $248,750. In June 2022, the GM's annual base salary was raised to $253,836, reflecting a merit increase of approximately 3 percent followed by a cost-of-living (COLA) increase of 4.264 percent, according to the Mt. View website. 

Mt. View’s top salaries are considerably lower than at Central San, where in 2021, the general manager made $340,535 in wages plus $132,329 in retirement and health benefits, or $472,864 total; and the director of finance and administration: $297,497 plus $46,732, or $344,229 total. 

Every Monday morning, the Mt. View District updates the count of written protests against the proposed rate increase that it has received. As of April 3, it logged 456. An updated count should be available on Monday, April 10. The information is at https://mvsd.specialdistrict.org/public-notice-proposition-218.

Robin Mitchell, Mountain View's public outreach coordinator, responded to a request for comment with a detailed presentation previously shown at a March 29 open house at the district office that seeks to address residents' concerns, including ones expressed by Jackman.

The presentation notes a Sewer Service Charge Rebate Assistance Program (SSCRAP) that is designed to help people with limited income with their sewer service costs. SSCRAP can be accessed here: https://www.mvsd.org/sewer-service-charge-rebate-assistance-program.

Higher rates of increase than other districts, according to the presentation, reflect the now 100-year-old Mountain View district's emphasis on making needed capital improvements, and the fact that construction costs have risen faster than the Bay Area Consumer Price Index in recent years.

Mt. View's salaries and benefits, the presentation says, constituted 48 percent of total spending in fiscal 2021-22, compared with 54 percent at Central San. And for fiscal 2022-23 Mt. View budgeted 36.1 percent of its total budget for salaries and benefits compared with 79.6 percent at Central San, it continues, adding: "A salary comparison between MVSD and our nearest neighbor confirms that MVSD salaries are reasonable."

Mt. View's total spending in fiscal 2021-22 was $8.57 million, and is projected at $12.72 million in the current fiscal year, according to the presentation; the difference is due primarily to increased spending on capital projects this fiscal year.

As for consolidation with Central San, "both districts 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," the presentation says, attributing that information to LAFCO.

The entire 54-page presentation is at https://www.mvsd.org/files/a77ba88ea/Open+House+Presentation.pdf.

Refinery Investigation Updates

By Craig Lazzeretti

There were some important developments this week on the investigations into the “spent catalyst” release by the Martinez Refining Co. on Thanksgiving night and the following day that dumped 20 to 24 tons of toxic dust laden with heavy metals on the surrounding community.

The MRC Oversight Committee being led by Contra Costa Health Services announced that it has hired consultants to lead the “community risk assessment” into the release, including toxicology studies on soil samples where the dust was observed and believed to have landed. The firm TRC will be leading that aspect of the investigation. It describes itself as a “global consulting, engineering and construction management firm that provides environmentally focused and digitally powered solutions across our key markets.” Nicole Health, the head of Contra Costa Health’s hazardous materials division, said at Thursday’s oversight committee meeting it has done other local environmental work, including on Keller Canyon Landfill and the Marathon Renewable Fuels project.

Leading the investigation into the cause of the incident itself and handling of it, including the refinery’s failure to activate the Community Warning System, will be Scott Berger and Associates. Berger served 14 years as executive director of the Center for Chemical Process Safety.

Phil Martien of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District also provided presentations at the oversight meeting and Wednesday’s City Council meeting on the district’s computer-generated map model that identified both where the dust was observed after the release and where it was believed to have landed based on wind direction and speeds at the time. The model suggests that the dust fell primarily to the west and southwest of the refinery’s boundaries. The map also laid out, through shades and contours, where the the highest and lowest concentrations of the dust were believed to have fallen.

Light concentrations of the dust are believed to have fallen as far west as Crockett and El Sobrante, but Martien said those concentrations were generally at least 10 times less than what was reflected in the areas around the refinery. The model also indicates that the dust drifted across the Bay into Solano County.

Martien, who heads the district’s assessment, inventory and modeling division, emphasized that the “goal of the mapping is not to identify areas of health impacts; the goal is really to help conduct and plan for soil sampling.” The model should be taken as a “guide given the best information available,” he added.

“This refinery has been operating for decades. There is a light amount of this material coming out all the time. There’s a lot of questions this model does not address that really the soil sampling will have to tell us what the impacts are.”

Heath said that air district’s computer model map will not be the sole source used by TRC to decide where to conduct soil sampling. The timeline for completing the soil sampling and reporting the results is mid-May, she added.

Thursday’s MRC Oversight Committee meeting can be viewed here.

At Wednesday’s City Council meeting, there was once again passionate public comment by many residents about the accident and lingering questions, echoing the frustration and anger that have spread through the community in the months since the release. Several residents called on the refinery to drop its lawsuit against the air district over a new rule that would require it to reduce particulate matter pollution from the refinery, which can be accomplished by installing a “wet gas scrubbing system” in the fluidized catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) where the release occurred. There’s been speculation about whether such a device, which removes air pollutants from gas streams by contacting the gas stream with a scrubbing liquid, could have prevented or limited the impact of the spent catalyst accident.

The refinery has denied that a wet gas scrubber would have prevented the accident, but air district officials have said it could have made at least some difference.

Councilman Jay Howard focused on the wet gas scrubbing issue throughout the meeting, asking whether the presence of such a device would have stopped the toxic release.

“I have to think it would help, but I don’t know for sure it would have controlled all the emissions,” said Martien, noting that “in general,” wet gas scrubbers are more effective in this regard than electrostatic precipitators, the current technology used by MRC to manage spent catalyst in its FCCU.

According to Martien’s presentation, the events leading up to the Thanksgiving release involved the refinery turning off its electrostatic precipitator for safety reasons after an upset in the FCCU on Nov. 20. The toxic dust was released into the community when a pressure imbalance occurred as the refinery tried to restart the FCCU on Thanksgiving.

“It’s true that you don’t necessarily have to turn your wet gas scrubbers off for safety reasons like you do with electrostatic precipitators,” he said. “There’s not a danger of sparking and explosion.”

Contra Costa County Deputy Health Officer Dr. Sara Levin went further, saying, “there are institutional factors and the lack of the wet scrubbing that could have prevented this is a major thing. … I don’t want to see this reduced to some human factors as the cause of this disaster. There are safety mechanisms that could have been institutionalized in place that are regulated and in fact where MRC is suing the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to not implement those safety factors.”

Refineries currently have until 2026 to comply with the air district’s new emissions-reduction rule, but that, of course, could be affected by the litigation that MRC, which is owned by PBF Energy, and Chevron are pursuing against the rule.

Vice Mayor Mark Ross, a longtime member of the air district board, said MRC and Chevron are waging aggressive legal efforts to avoid having to install wet gas scrubbing technology, “fighting it tooth and nail as deeply as any litigation I’ve ever seen anybody take the air district on with.” Ross voted against the air district rule in 2021 that would lead to wet gas scrubbers, saying he was concerned that it would lead to prolonged litigation and curtail other, more modest efforts to reduce emissions.

Heath said the gas scrubber question would be addressed as part of the oversight committee’s independent investigation into the incident and how to prevent future incidents. Howard said he believes the council should push for MRC to implement the system.

It was also disclosed at the meeting that the air district has issued 21 violations against MRC over the incident and is continuing to investigate it. “It most likely will end up in some kind of litigation,” said Jeffrey Gove, the air district’s director of compliance and enforcement.

No MRC representatives spoke at the council meeting.

In a piece of good news, Gregory Nudd, the district’s deputy air pollution control officer, said the agency is planning to soon install a “much larger and more capable” air pollution monitor that will provide real-time data on a number of pollutants from MRC. Such a monitor is currently being installed for emissions at the Valero refinery in Benicia.

Heath told the council Wednesday that her department is conducting a three-week safety inspection of the refinery’s FCCU. That is expected to be wrapped up by the beginning of May, with a report to follow within 30 days.

In response to complaints that important updates about the refinery accident and health warnings/concerns have not been received by many residents, Assistant City Manager Lauren Sugayan told the oversight committee that the city will be including with water bills a two-sided flyer with important information and developments on the topic, including health advisories about eating produce from soil that may have been affected by the dust, water-testing results and pertinent website information to stay abreast of developments. Heath also said that improving community communication will be addressed by the oversight committee and county Health Services.

Meanwhile, KQED’s Forum radio program produced a show this week on the refinery incident and fallout, featuring residents, activists and local officials. It can be found here.