News

Stunned by rising costs, Palo Alto seeks to renegotiate deal for wastewater plant

Price tag for salt-removal facility has more than doubled since city struck deal with Mountain View, Valley Water

UV light reactors receive the treated wastewater to expose it to UV light in the final stage of the purification process at the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center in San Jose on March 21, 2022. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

If things go as planned, the largely dormant site on the eastern edge of San Antonio Road in Palo Alto will eventually be home to a transitional housing complex for unhoused individuals, as well as a wastewater-treatment plants that will purify water.

Another water-treatment plant, which would remove salt from wastewater would be built at a different Baylands site, near the existing Regional Water Quality Control Plant.

The salt-removal plant would make local wastewater more suitable for irrigating redwoods and other sensitive trees and vegetation, allowing Palo Alto and Mountain View to use more recycled water for those purposes. The other one would be paid for and constructed by Valley Water and would purify wastewater to drinking standards.

But as the partner agencies move ahead with the planned facilities, they are confronting an obstacle: rapidly rising costs that are testing Palo Alto's commitment to the projects.

During a Monday discussion, several City Council members said they were stunned by the changing price tag for the salt-removal plant. Under a deal that Palo Alto, Mountain View and Valley Water signed in December 2019, the water district is expected to pay $16 million for a plant that was estimated at that time to cost about $20 million. The remainder would be split between Mountain View, which would pay 75%, and Palo Alto, which would foot the bill for the remaining 25%.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

Today, the estimated costs for the salt-removal plant have risen to about $53 million, and city officials are hoping that the deal can be changed so that the water agency could contribute additional funds. At the same time, global concerns about sea-level rise are prompting fresh questions about the proposed designs of the Baylands facilities.

Council member Eric Filseth was one of several council members who marveled on Monday at the magnitude of the cost increase.

"How were we so far off five years ago when we came up with $20 million on those things? That's a lot of cost escalation," Filseth said.

'How were we so far off five years ago when we came up with $20 million on those things? That's a lot of cost escalation'

-Eric Filseth, city council member, Palo Alto

Public Works staff noted that the initial cost estimate was intended to gauge the feasibility of the plant and did not consider numerous factors specific to the site. These include the need to drill down into the Bay mud to construct the pad for the facility and to raise all electric equipment by 3 feet, said Karin North, assistant director of Public Works. The initial cost, she said, was based on a similar plant that was built in San Diego.

Palo Alto staff have identified other sources that the cities can tap into for the salt-removal facility. The city also is hoping to use $18.94 million from a Valley Water program known as "Guiding Principle 5," which allows taxes paid to the state by Palo Alto and Mountain View property owners to be spent on a broad range of water conservation and treatment projects. According to Public Works staff, about $10 million would come from Palo Alto taxpayers and $8.4 million would come from Mountain View.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Not everyone is excited about that allocation. Council member Greg Tanaka argued that any tax funds from the state program should be proportionately split between the two cities. If Mountain View uses 75% of the recycled water and Palo Alto uses 25%, as is proposed under the current deal, the tax funds should reflect that.

"Why should we pay more and get less of the benefit?" Tanaka asked.

The rising threat of sea-level rise is another factor that could complicate the construction of the new plants. Recent reports that the colossal Thwaites Glacier (commonly known as "Doomsday Glacier") in Antarctica is rapidly melting is prompting concerns among climate scientists about shifting coastlines. Mayor Pat Burt brought up the Doomsday Glacier and suggested that the plants be designed in such a way that they could be modified to adapt to rising sea levels.

"I want to make sure we're not locking ourselves into plants that constrain ourselves from adapting to new higher standards," Burt said.

Council member Greer Stone agreed and wondered if another site can be considered for the plant. Simply meeting the state and federal standards for sea-level rise may not be sufficient. Things are changing quickly, he said.

"It's as if we're on the deck of the Titanic and they're saying, 'Get into lifeboats,' and we're saying, 'Well, the ship is supposed to be unsinkable,' even though it's sinking all around us," Stone said.

Stone also suggested that the city discuss with Valley Water the prospect of having the water district increase its contributions. Public Works Director Brad Eggleston said these discussions have already been happening.

"This has been raised as a big concern, that the estimate increased so much," Eggleston said.

Horizontal reverse osmosis tubes receive treated wastewater during the second stage of purification at the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center in San Jose on March 21, 2022. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

Despite the challenges, administrators from both Valley Water and Mountain View suggested on Monday that they remain fully committed to the projects, which are intended to boost the region's resiliency against the drought. The salt-removal plant would allow the city to shift away from potable water for irrigation. And the advanced purification plant would use a technique known as reverse osmosis to turn wastewater into drinking water.

Valley Water, which is charged with building the purification plant, would then provide the option to Palo Alto and Mountain View to buy water from one of its water supplies. The water district is preparing to put out a request for proposals for design and construction of the plant and to perform an environmental impact report. Among the factors that the district will study in the report is the environmental impact of disposing waste byproducts from the treated water into the bay.

While the cities and the water district are moving ahead with plans for the new facilities, some of the details in the 2019 agreement may be revised given the recent cost escalations. Gary Kremen, who serves on the Valley Water board of directors, suggested Monday that the district may be willing to raise its share of the costs for the salt-removal plant, though this would require more support from other board members.

"Realistically, we understand that the salt removal project has escalated beyond the $20 million that we said," Kremen told the council. "I'm working hard to get three other votes to come up with some additional cash. I'm going to see what we can do on that."

Mountain View City Council member Pat Showalter also highlighted the benefits of the partnership, which would allow her city to use more recycled water to serve more customers in the North Bayshore area, where Google and Intuit are based.

"We want to have better-quality water," Showalter told the Palo Alto council. "And combining water from advanced recycled water treatment plants that we're discussing with the existing tertiary supply will allow us to have just a very high caliber product and that is really important for all of us to be able to really market this water."

Correction: The story had initially stated the incorrect location near the Baylands for the salt-removal plant and misstated the name of the program that would use tax funds from Palo Alto and Mountain View property owners to help pay for the plant. The story has also been modified to clarify that while the 2019 agreement between Palo Alto and Mountain View allows the cities to purchase water from Valley Water, that does not have to be the treated wastewater.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Get uninterrupted access to important local city government news. Become a member today.

Stunned by rising costs, Palo Alto seeks to renegotiate deal for wastewater plant

Price tag for salt-removal facility has more than doubled since city struck deal with Mountain View, Valley Water

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Thu, Sep 15, 2022, 11:53 am

If things go as planned, the largely dormant site on the eastern edge of San Antonio Road in Palo Alto will eventually be home to a transitional housing complex for unhoused individuals, as well as a wastewater-treatment plants that will purify water.

Another water-treatment plant, which would remove salt from wastewater would be built at a different Baylands site, near the existing Regional Water Quality Control Plant.

The salt-removal plant would make local wastewater more suitable for irrigating redwoods and other sensitive trees and vegetation, allowing Palo Alto and Mountain View to use more recycled water for those purposes. The other one would be paid for and constructed by Valley Water and would purify wastewater to drinking standards.

But as the partner agencies move ahead with the planned facilities, they are confronting an obstacle: rapidly rising costs that are testing Palo Alto's commitment to the projects.

During a Monday discussion, several City Council members said they were stunned by the changing price tag for the salt-removal plant. Under a deal that Palo Alto, Mountain View and Valley Water signed in December 2019, the water district is expected to pay $16 million for a plant that was estimated at that time to cost about $20 million. The remainder would be split between Mountain View, which would pay 75%, and Palo Alto, which would foot the bill for the remaining 25%.

Today, the estimated costs for the salt-removal plant have risen to about $53 million, and city officials are hoping that the deal can be changed so that the water agency could contribute additional funds. At the same time, global concerns about sea-level rise are prompting fresh questions about the proposed designs of the Baylands facilities.

Council member Eric Filseth was one of several council members who marveled on Monday at the magnitude of the cost increase.

"How were we so far off five years ago when we came up with $20 million on those things? That's a lot of cost escalation," Filseth said.

Public Works staff noted that the initial cost estimate was intended to gauge the feasibility of the plant and did not consider numerous factors specific to the site. These include the need to drill down into the Bay mud to construct the pad for the facility and to raise all electric equipment by 3 feet, said Karin North, assistant director of Public Works. The initial cost, she said, was based on a similar plant that was built in San Diego.

Palo Alto staff have identified other sources that the cities can tap into for the salt-removal facility. The city also is hoping to use $18.94 million from a Valley Water program known as "Guiding Principle 5," which allows taxes paid to the state by Palo Alto and Mountain View property owners to be spent on a broad range of water conservation and treatment projects. According to Public Works staff, about $10 million would come from Palo Alto taxpayers and $8.4 million would come from Mountain View.

Not everyone is excited about that allocation. Council member Greg Tanaka argued that any tax funds from the state program should be proportionately split between the two cities. If Mountain View uses 75% of the recycled water and Palo Alto uses 25%, as is proposed under the current deal, the tax funds should reflect that.

"Why should we pay more and get less of the benefit?" Tanaka asked.

The rising threat of sea-level rise is another factor that could complicate the construction of the new plants. Recent reports that the colossal Thwaites Glacier (commonly known as "Doomsday Glacier") in Antarctica is rapidly melting is prompting concerns among climate scientists about shifting coastlines. Mayor Pat Burt brought up the Doomsday Glacier and suggested that the plants be designed in such a way that they could be modified to adapt to rising sea levels.

"I want to make sure we're not locking ourselves into plants that constrain ourselves from adapting to new higher standards," Burt said.

Council member Greer Stone agreed and wondered if another site can be considered for the plant. Simply meeting the state and federal standards for sea-level rise may not be sufficient. Things are changing quickly, he said.

"It's as if we're on the deck of the Titanic and they're saying, 'Get into lifeboats,' and we're saying, 'Well, the ship is supposed to be unsinkable,' even though it's sinking all around us," Stone said.

Stone also suggested that the city discuss with Valley Water the prospect of having the water district increase its contributions. Public Works Director Brad Eggleston said these discussions have already been happening.

"This has been raised as a big concern, that the estimate increased so much," Eggleston said.

Despite the challenges, administrators from both Valley Water and Mountain View suggested on Monday that they remain fully committed to the projects, which are intended to boost the region's resiliency against the drought. The salt-removal plant would allow the city to shift away from potable water for irrigation. And the advanced purification plant would use a technique known as reverse osmosis to turn wastewater into drinking water.

Valley Water, which is charged with building the purification plant, would then provide the option to Palo Alto and Mountain View to buy water from one of its water supplies. The water district is preparing to put out a request for proposals for design and construction of the plant and to perform an environmental impact report. Among the factors that the district will study in the report is the environmental impact of disposing waste byproducts from the treated water into the bay.

While the cities and the water district are moving ahead with plans for the new facilities, some of the details in the 2019 agreement may be revised given the recent cost escalations. Gary Kremen, who serves on the Valley Water board of directors, suggested Monday that the district may be willing to raise its share of the costs for the salt-removal plant, though this would require more support from other board members.

"Realistically, we understand that the salt removal project has escalated beyond the $20 million that we said," Kremen told the council. "I'm working hard to get three other votes to come up with some additional cash. I'm going to see what we can do on that."

Mountain View City Council member Pat Showalter also highlighted the benefits of the partnership, which would allow her city to use more recycled water to serve more customers in the North Bayshore area, where Google and Intuit are based.

"We want to have better-quality water," Showalter told the Palo Alto council. "And combining water from advanced recycled water treatment plants that we're discussing with the existing tertiary supply will allow us to have just a very high caliber product and that is really important for all of us to be able to really market this water."

Correction: The story had initially stated the incorrect location near the Baylands for the salt-removal plant and misstated the name of the program that would use tax funds from Palo Alto and Mountain View property owners to help pay for the plant. The story has also been modified to clarify that while the 2019 agreement between Palo Alto and Mountain View allows the cities to purchase water from Valley Water, that does not have to be the treated wastewater.

Comments

Green Gables
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 16, 2022 at 11:17 am
Green Gables, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2022 at 11:17 am

I agree with Councilman Tanaka that Mountain View should pay 75% since they use 75%. Palo Alto has already been used and abused by VTA for costs.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 16, 2022 at 11:27 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2022 at 11:27 am

Let's hope PA does a better job of negotiating this one than they did on the proposed business tax.


Mondoman
Registered user
Green Acres
on Sep 16, 2022 at 12:34 pm
Mondoman, Green Acres
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2022 at 12:34 pm

Since the Doomsday Glacier melting won't hit for hundreds to thousands of years, it seems to me that it would be better to spend today's money on improving our electrical distribution system, which we need right now.


MyFeelz
Registered user
JLS Middle School
on Sep 16, 2022 at 1:32 pm
MyFeelz, JLS Middle School
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2022 at 1:32 pm

Mondoman, your theory is perfectly suited to the reasoning around why they didn't have more lifeboats on Titanic. "Unsinkable!" "Won't ever happen!" "One life boat is too many for such a grand modern ship!" "Let's have more champagne!" "Why are all those rats running uphill?" "Who cares, let's have some more champagne!"

I finally put together the waste treatment facility being right next door to a bunch of planned low income housing. Who else would live near a cesspool except for the POOR? I guess they should be grateful, and maybe we can set up a gofundme account to purchase nose plugs to give them.


Anonymous
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 16, 2022 at 2:02 pm
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2022 at 2:02 pm

We have paid for pure Hetch Hetchy mountain water in PA. This is a long-standing favorable arrangement.
I believe PA paid San Francisco a lot of $ as our contribution towards upgrading the Hetch Hetchy water pipeline in recent years.
Now our city will have the option to purchase locally purified waste water for our drinking water.
- NO.
Talk about bait and switch!


Alcon
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 16, 2022 at 3:36 pm
Alcon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2022 at 3:36 pm

Next time the Council agrees to a percentage of cost on a project we do not control the agreement should cap the actual dollars by adding a clause "but not to exceed X dollars".


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 16, 2022 at 5:52 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Sep 16, 2022 at 5:52 pm

"Next time the Council agrees to a percentage of cost on a project we do not control the agreement should cap the actual dollars by adding a clause "but not to exceed X dollars".

You think they would have learned after the Mitchell Park Library fiasco with its cost overruns and delays.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.