San Diegans Face Doubling of Sewage Fees : Construction: Higher rates needed to pay for required expansion, improvements. More bad news: Repairs to ocean outfall pipe will cost $16 million, instead of $10 million.

San Diegans might have to pay more than double their existing sewer rates by the year 2003 as part of an extensive package drawn up to comply with the federal Clean Water Act and to improve the city’s waste-removal system, officials said Wednesday.

A $2.5-billion construction program--which could soar to as much as $5.5 billion with inflation and financing figured in--will be presented to the San Diego City Council for its approval Monday. The council first heard of the plan in closed session Tuesday.

The plan being recommended by City Manager Jack McGrory calls for 15% increases in sewer rates in each fiscal year beginning in July, 1992, and proceeding through 1997. An increase of 8% in fiscal year 1998 would be followed by 1.5% increases in each year through 2003.

If adopted, the plan would raise the monthly rate of $20.39 now targeted for 1993 to $22.13 in ’93 and to as much as $45.06 in fiscal year 2003. McGrory has proposed a number of financing alternatives, however, that seek to limit the yearly increases to 7%.

The most economical of three alternatives depends on $160 million in federal grants and “full participation” by other county and stage agencies, McGrory said. But even that plan would impose monthly rates of $38.42 by the year 2003--almost double the current figure.

McGrory said “significant improvements” are needed in the city’s overburdened sewer system, not only because of growth but also to comply with the U.S. Clean Water Act and the consent decree mandated in federal court.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency is charged with enforcing the Clean Water Act, which mandates that every city in the country employ, at a minimum, secondary treatment of sewage. The EPA filed suit against the city in 1988 to begin enforcing the act.

San Diego’s method is advanced primary, which removes fewer of the suspended solids in the effluent--about 75% to 80%, rather than the 90% that secondary treatment removes. The city also would reclaim much of the water processed in its updated sewer system.

The $2.5 billion in construction bonds needed to finance improvements would pay for five new water reclamation plants and two new outfall structures, and would cease the city’s current habit of paying for sewer improvements on what McGrory’s plan calls a “pay-as-you-go” basis.

“But we can’t get there from here,” he said, “without having a significant increase in rates.”

McGrory’s plan was outlined at a press conference Wednesday afternoon, when city officials also said, for the first time, that the ruptured Point Loma outfall pipe cannot be repaired by April 4, as first predicted, and will cost $16 million, rather than $10.8 million, to fix.

More than 500 feet of the 9-foot-diameter pipe was found to have extensive damage after the rupture that was first detected on Feb. 2. The outfall continues to spew up to 180 million gallons a day of partly treated waste into the ocean, 3,150 feet offshore.

Dave Schlesinger, the director of the city’s Clean Water Program, said Wednesday that a series of spring storms expected to last through the weekend had forced the 100-by-300-foot repair barge to a nearby harbor and delayed repairs indefinitely.

Schlesinger said cost estimates for repairing the outfall had jumped from $10 million to $10.8 million to $16 million so that additional ballast rock could be applied to the foundation of the pipe to provide “as much support as possible.”

Schlesinger said city engineers think the outfall was damaged by a strong current caused by a storm during low tide. The additional ballast rock would help prevent that occurring again, he said.

Despite this conclusion, which Schlesinger said EPA engineers supported, the cause of the rupture is being investigated by a Menlo Park firm, Failure Analysis Associates, whose independent inquiry was requested by federal authorities. Its report is not due until May.

City officials acknowledged that the public might be reluctant to consider rate increases, in light of the recession and a 6% rate increase imposed in 1990.

That increase called for monthly sewer rates in April, 1990, to climb as high as $24.41 by July, 1995, with water bills increasing from $16.80 to $22.07 during the same period. The current combined sewer-water rates will climb as high as $46.48 by 1995.

No mention of water rates was made Wednesday, but a water bill of $22.07 in mid-1995, combined with the proposed sewer rate of $29.27, would put the monthly amount at $51.34. Even with only a 7% sewer rate increase, which officials say is “iffy,” the bill would be $45.64.

City Manager McGrory said the council needs to act soon because the financing of the first $160 million to $200 million in construction bonds is needed before July 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year.

City administrators conceded Wednesday that talk of doubling existing sewer rates won’t be popular, but one official used a popular television ad to characterize the dilemma. As the auto mechanic tells the consumer in the ad, “You can pay me now, or pay me later.”

Deputy City Manager Roger Frauenfelder said the city council could opt to continue funding the necessary improvements at the current rate of 6%, “but if they do that, it would only mean higher increases in subsequent years. In other words, it might mean a 25% increase in 1994.”

Frauenfelder said the city could pursue the option of returning to federal court and asking U.S. Dist. Judge Rudi M. Brewster to modify the existing construction schedule and to grant a waiver from secondary sewage requirements at the Point Loma outfall.

Frauenfelder said the problem of getting the court’s permission to “slow things down means you’re doing something less than the consent decree calls for.” Short of that, he said the city has “a good chance” to obtain federal funding for some of the $2.5 billion.

McGrory said the city can also lessen its burden by turning to other municipalities within San Diego County. If they don’t cooperate, McGrory said, the city will have to ask Brewster for permission to “downsize our clean water project to meet only our needs. . . .

“The rest of the cities can then figure out how to comply with the Clean Water Act. The city of San Diego should not have to pay for the entire region,” he said.