HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUDGET & FINANCE AGENDA 03-31-08
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
(925) 228-9500 . wwwcentlalsanora
5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553-4392 b
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Chair McGill
Member Lucey (Alternate)
Monday, March 31,2008
3:00 p.m.
Executive Conference Room
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
3. OLD BUSINESS
*
a. Question regarding Calpo Hom and Dong Architects
4. CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
5. REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
*
a. Review proposed 2008-09 increase for Capacity Fees and revision of
Environmental and Development-Related Rates and Charges (held over
from 3/17/08 Committee meeting)
b. Review February 2008 Financial Statements (Item 4.b. in Board Binder)
*
c. Review GASS 45 trust options
6. REVIEW EXPENDITURES
7. ADJOURNMENT
*
Attachment
A
", Recycled Paper
3.a...
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
March 27, 2008
TO: BOARD BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
VIA: JAMES KELLY, GENERAL MANAGER M
FROM: ANN FARRELL, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING ~
SUBJECT: CONTRACTS WITH CALPO HOM AND DONG (CHD) ARCHITECTS
Introduction
The Budget and Finance Committee recently requested an update on the contracts with
Calpo Hom and Dong (CHD) Architects for the CSO Project. This memorandum
provides an overview of CHD's scope of services for the CSO project and an updated
budget status. In addition staff has included some information on other work Calpo
Hom and Dong is performing for the District.
CSO Contracts with Caloo Horn and Dona (CHD) Architects
In April 2004, the Board approved a contract for $150,000 with CHD to prepare a
Master Plan for the CSO corporation yard facilities (Attachment 1). As part of this
work, CHD completed a detailed evaluation of alternatives that included the preparation
of a number of reports that were used by the District to select a design alternative.
In August 2006, the Board approved a design services contract with CHD for $650,000
(Attachment 2). This contract includes the costs for engineering sub consultants (civil,
structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering) that are assisting CHD with the
preparation of the detailed plans and specifications. A contract for architectural review
services during construction will be negotiated after the design is complete and the
Board will be requested to authorize a contract amendment for these services at the
time of award of the construction contract, as is typically done with District projects.
In June 2007, staff approved a $30,000 amendment to the CHD design services
contract for costs associated with evaluating additional alternatives requested by the
Board. This work included preparing alternative site plans and layouts for Board
consideration and developing cost estimates for each alternative.
C:\Documents and Settings\afarrell\Desktop\Calpo HOM Memo.doc
Board Budget and Finance Committee
March 27, 2008
CSO Contract Budaet Status
Master Planninq Contract
Master Plan Contract (April 2004) =
Expenditures to Date =
Balance Remaining =
$150,000
<$138.792>
$11,2081
1 Remaining balance to be used by architect to prepare a Green Building Certification
Study not included in the original scope.
Desiqn Services Contract
Design Contract (August 2006) = $650,000
Staff Amendment (June 2007) = $30,000
Total Design Contract = $680,000
Expenditures thru Feb 2008 = ~$119,679>
Balance Remaining = $560,321
CSO Proiect Status and Schedule
Calpo Hom and Dong (CHD) Architects is currently working on preparing the necessary
documentation to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed new facilities from
the City of Walnut Creek. After the District obtains the Conditional Use Permit
(estimated August 2008), then CHD will prepare the detailed plans and specifications
for bidding. CHD has been very helpful and responsive to the District throughout the
entire planning and design process, and they did not bill the District for architectural
work done to resolve the building height issue with the City of Walnut Creek (this is no
longer an issue). District staff are confident that CHD will continue to provide excellent
service to the District as they complete the design services contract. District staff will be
asking for a contract amendment at time of award of the construction contract such that
Calpo Hom and Dong can provide architectural review services during construction.
Staff did hire RBF Consulting on a separate contract, partially in response to a Board
suggestion, to assist with the City of Walnut Creek Conditional Use Permit process and
prepare additional documents requested by the City related to the site work and
landscaping. RBF staff included the former Walnut Creek City Engineer, who met with
Walnut Creek planning staff and assisted with resolving the height issue. RBF has a
good relationship with the City of Walnut Creek and will continue to advise and assist
with matters related to the City review process.
C:\Documents and Settings\afarrell\Desktop\Calpo HOM Memo.doc
Board Budget and Finance Committee
March 27, 2008
Other Proiect Work bv Calpo Hom and Dona
An evaluation of the improvements needed to comply with the American Disabilities Act
was completed in 2007. A number of improvements were recommended both outside
of the Headquarters Office Building (HOB) site and inside HOB. Staff contacted several
architectural firms and asked for their availability and a cost estimate for designing the
necessary improvements. Calpo Hom and Dong responded immediately with a
reasonable price and schedule. Other firms contacted were not interested in this small
project. Staff felt it was important to expedite this work and moved forward with a
contract with CHD for $49,500. The scope included design of the parking
improvements to accommodate handicap parking at HOB, HHW and the Laboratory as
well as other outside improvements related to curb cuts, railings and other ADA
requirements. The HOB interior scope included design of modified restrooms on the
first floor, and modified permit and reception counters. In a position paper on the April 3,
2008 Board Meeting agenda, staff has recommended an addition to the CHD contract of
$10,000 to provide architectural review services during the HOB Site Improvements
Project. A similar contract amendment will be requested at the time of award of the
HOB Interior ADA improvements project. As on the CSO Improvements Project, CHD
has been extremely responsive and provided excellent quality work products for a
reasonable price. Staff is also using Calpo, Hom and Dong to prepare the design for
the 2nd floor lighting and ceiling tile replacement project. During the construction of the
HV AC project it became apparent that the existing lighting support system over the
Engineering Support Mapping Area is failing and needed to be replaced. To
accommodate new lighting fixtures, the reflective ceiling tile would also need to be
replaced. This work is being fast tracked to coordinate with the HOB carpet and
painting project. An agreement with a cost ceiling of $6100 was negotiated with Calpo
Hom Dong for this work.
C:\Documents and Setlings\afarrell\Desktop\Calpo HOM Memo.doc
Central Contra Costa San...dry District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Boetd IINtlng De.: April 1, 2004 No.: 9.a. COLLECTION SYSTEM
Type of AcfIon: AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT
Sub,/<<:f. AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH CALPO HOM AND DONG ARCHITECTS TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE MASTER PLANNING OF THE
COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS DIVISION CORPORATION YARD,
DISTRICT PROJECT 8208
Submltled By: tnllla"ng DeptIDlv.:
Ann E. Farrell, Director of Engineering Engineering I Capital Projects
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
~
W. Brennan
~~
ISSUE: Board of Directors' authorization is required for the General Manager to
execute professional services contracts for amounts greater than $50,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with
Calpo Horn and Dong Architects to provide architectural services for the Collection
System Operations Division (CSOD), Corporation Yard Master Plan, District
Project 8208, in the amount of $150,000.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The estimated planning cost for this project, including District
staff. is $200,000. A detailed estimate of the design and construction cost will be
completed after the Master Planning phase; the total project cost will depend on the
scope of the final project.
AL TERNATIV~S/CONSIDERATIONS: An . alternative would be to use another firm or
design the project using in-house staff. This project requires specialized architectural
expertise, which is not available at the District at this time. A selection process was
conducted and Calpo Horn and Dong had superior experience and references to the
other architects considered.
BACKGROUND: The District operates and maintains approximately 1,500 miles of
sewer pipeline, ranging in size from 4 inches to 120 inches in diameter, with staff and
equipment stationed at its Corporation Yard at 1250 Springbrook Road in
Walnut Creek. In addition, the District operates and maintains 22 sewage pumping
stations with staff currently stationed at the Plant Operations Division building (POD)
and the Martinez Pumping Station, both located in Martinez.
U:\PoIIlIon Papera\FanelI\CSOArcNtec:tPcs1tIonPaper.doc
Page 1 of 5
POSITION PAPER
Board "..tJng Date: April 1, 2004
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO exECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH CALPO HOM AND DONG ARCHITECTS TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE MASTER PLANNING OF THE
COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS DIVISION CORPORATION YARD,
DISTRICT PROJECT 8208
The location of the CSOD Corporation Yard is strategically important as it is in the
geographical center of the District service area. This allows for improved response time
for emergencies, as well as reduced time each moming to get crews to their daily
assigned work sites. The majority of our older pipe and pipe at risk for overflows is
significantly closer to the yard in Walnut Creek than to our Martinez facility. Therefore,
the District is committed to maintaining a CSOD facility at the Springbrook Road
location.
A site plan of the existing property at 1250 Springbrook Road is shown on
Attachment 1. The area is partially surrounded by office buildings and is immediately
adjacent to the 1-68011-24 interchange in Walnut Creek. Currently, there are four
buildings on the site with an approximate square footage as follows:
Main Office Building Lower Floor
Main Office Building Upper Floor
Vehicle Maintenance Shop/Office/Storage Building
Small Office Building (Ducca House)
StoragelWarehouse Building
4,200 square feet
5,400 square feet
5,400 square feet
1,100 square feet
1,900 square feet
These buildings are old and several were not constructed for the current use. They
have been remodeled several times and are not meeting the current needs or current
building standards. The Master Plan will need to consider if the most cost-effective
plan is continued remodeling or rebuilding and how the facility will be kept operational
during the project construction. The Master Plan must also consider the requirements
of the City of Walnut Creek for plan review and how this will impact the use of the site.
Some of the contemplated steps in the development of the Corporation Yard Master
Plan for CSO are as follows:
. Survey the existing CSOD Yard uses;
. Consider other uses which could locate at CSOD (e.g., Pumping Station
Operations, Engineering pipeline construction management staff, Purchasing
staff, Safety staff);
· Consider changing regulations, zoning requirements, site and building security
improvements and other variables:
. Develop a 20-year projection of CSOD space needs;
· Analyze existing structures for future utility and cost to bring up to code for
seismic, electrical, ADA, as well as cost of deferred maintenance;
U:\Posilion Papers\FarreU\cSOArchitectPosilionPaper,doe
Page 2 of 5
POSITION PAPER
Board ....tIng Date: April 1, 2004
Subject AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH CALPO HOM AND DONG ARCHITECTS TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE MASTER PLANNING OF THE
COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS DIVISION CORPORATION YARD,
DISTRICT PROJECT 8208
. Develop a site Master Plan to meet the future needs both with and without added
functions;
. Coordinate with the City of Walnut Creek for plan approval;
. Develop a facilities plan for the recommended facilities;
. Develop construction phasing to manage cost impacts and maintain operations.
It is the District's intent to redesign, reconfigure, or replace the existing structures and
areas in the most cost-effective way to achieve a highly efficient facility adequate to
meet District needs for a term of at least 20 years.
The design architect selection process started in December 2003. Staff identified four
architectural firms that had solid experience with corporation yard master planning and
design. The four firms, Burks Toma Architects; Dreyfus and Blackford; Hardison,
Komatsu, Ivelich and Tucker, and Calpo Horn and Dong Architects submitted proposals
on February 5, 2004.
A Consultant Selection Committee consisting of Engineering and Operations staff
reviewed the written proposals and conducted a formal interview with all four
consultants on February 18, 2004. Following the formal interview, one firm was
eliminated. The Selection Committee then visited corporation yard facilities designed
by each of the three remaining contenders and called references. Based on this
rigorous selection process, the Committee selected Calpo Hom and Dong Architects for
master planning this project due to their experience with planning similar facilities, the
features of the sites they designed, as well as their excellent references.
The planning for the project will start immediately and will be completed by fall 2004.
The planning will be conducted in phases, beginning with a programming study
(architectural term for needs assessment) to define the Collection System Operations
Division facility needs. In parallel with the programming study, an assessment of
existing structures will be conducted to estimate the cost of bringing existing structures
up to code and conducting any deferred maintenance, such as roof replacement. In
addition, preliminary discussions with the City of Walnut Creek will be initiated.
Following the completion of these tasks, the development of altematives will be
conducted. When a range of alternatives has been developed and costs estimated,
staff will report to the Board and seek their input. Based on staff and Board input, a
preferred alternative will be selected and a more detailed facilities plan developed. This
plan will then be presented to the City of Walnut Creek through their plan review
process and possibly modified to incorporate City requirements. When District staff and
U:\Pos1llon Papers\FarreIl\CSOArchltectPoslllonPaper.cIoc
Page 3 of 5
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting 0.18: April 1, 2004
Subject AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH CALPO HOM AND DONG ARCHITECTS TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE MASTER PLANNING OF THE
COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS DIVISION CORPORATION YARD,
DISTRICT PROJECT 8208
Board and the City of Walnut Creek have agreed to a plan, the design and construction
costs of the proposed facilities will be estimated ~nd a design contract with Calpo Hom
and Dong brought back to the Board for approval.
Funds for this project are budgeted in the General Improvements Program in the
current CIS on pages G117. GI 20, and GI 23.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize the General Manager to execute a
professional architectural services agreement with Calpo Horn and Dong Architects in
the amount of $150,000 for the Master Planning of the Collection System Operations
Division Corporation Yard, DP 8208.
U:\PoIIlIon Papers\FaneII\CSOArchltac:lPosltlonPaper.doc
Page 4 of 5
Central Contra Costa Sanitary Distri~'l""'\
BOARD OF DIRECTORS',
POSITION PAPER
..
Board MHtlng Date: August 3, 2006 No.: 8. e .
Type of Action: AUTHORIZE AGREEMENTS
.'
ENGINEERING
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH CALPO HOM & DONG ARCHITECTS FOR DESIGN OF THE CSOD
ADMINSTRATION, CREW, AND WAREHOUSE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT (DP 8208) AND WITH SWINERTON MANAGEMENT AND CONSUL TNG
FOR VALUE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIBILlTY REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
Submitted By:
Don Berger, Associate Engineer
Initiating Dept./Dlv.:
Engineering J Environmental Services
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
~
c~'J ~(~ L ~ LJ,,~
~\~
~
ISSUE: Board of Director's authorizatiol'J is required for the General Manager to
execute professional services agreements for amounts greater than $50,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement for
$650,000 with Calpo Hom & Dong Architects for design of the CSOD Administration,
Crew, and Warehouse Facility Improvements Project (DP 8208) and an agreement for
$50,000 with Swinerton Management and Consulting for value engineering and
constructability review of this project.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total estimated cost to complete the design is $890,000
including outside consultants, District staff, and City of Walnut Creek permitting.
Additional funds will be required in the future to construct the project after the Board
approves the final design and bids the project.
AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: The Board could decide not to move forward
with the proposed conceptual design and continue to evaluate alternatives. However,
the District has spent considerable effort over the last several years carefully evaluating
alternatives and has developed a conceptual plan that appears to meet the District's
needs now and into the foreseeable future. Staff believes that it would be prudent to
move forward with the proposed design at this time.
BACKGROUND: Board and staff have been collaborating on the development of a
plan for the Collection System Operations (CSO) facility improvements for the last
several years. In January of 2006 an Ad Hoc Board Committee was formed to 'work
more closely with staff on this issue. Committee meetings were held on February 15
and April 25, and a report to the full Board was made on May 4. Since that time, staff
has incorporated the Board's additional comments and prepared revised conceptual
N:\ENVRSEC\Position Papers\Berger\PP Design and VE Services 8-3-06.doc
Page 1 of3
POSITION PAPER
( Board MBflting Date: August 3, 2006
Subj<<:t: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH CALPO HOM & DONG ARCHITECTS FOR DESIGN OF THE CSOD
ADMINSTRATION, CREW, AND WAREHOUSE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT (DP 8208) AND WITH SWINERTON MANAGEMENT AND CONSUL TNG
FOR VALUE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIBILlTY REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT
building and site plans. A memorandum detailing the refinements to the plans has
been included in the packet for this Board meeting.
At this time, staff recommends that the District move forward with the development of
the current design concept. The design would be completed in phases beginning with
the schematic design, which would include preparing exterior building elevations and
renderings for Board consideration and input. Following Board concurrence on the
schematic design, plans would then be submitted to the City of Walnut Creek for
approvals followed by preparation of final plans and specifications for bidding. Staff
estimates that it will take about 36 months to design, permit, and construct the project
(including obtaining City of Walnut Creek approvals), and the new facilities could be
completed and ready for occupancy by fall 2009.
Staff recommends that Calpo Hom & Dong Architects provide the design services for
the project based on their performance during the planning and pre-design phases and
their understanding of the project requirements. Calpo Hom & Dong Architects was
initially selected for this project based on a formal consultant selection process
completed in May 2004. Requests for proposals were sent to qualified architects, and
Calpo Hom & Dong was selected after evaluating written proposals and conducting
interviews with the top firms. An agreement has been negotiated with Calpo Hom &
Dong Architects for $650,000 to provide design services (including preparation of
building elevations and renderings) and to prepare contract documents for bidding.
Staff also recommends retaining the services of Swinerton Management and Consulting
to provide value engineering and constructability review of the project. This firm is
experienced at reviewing proposed construction projects to eliminate unnecessary costs
and help assure that the design, materials, and methods of construction provide the
best value and cost benefit to the owner. Staff has negotiated an agreement with
Swinerton Management and Consulting for $50,000 to provide value engineering and
constructability review of this project.
Staff has concluded that the agreements with Calpo Hom & Dong Architects and
Swinerton Management and Consulting are exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CECA) under District CECA Guidelines Section 15262 since they involve
design tasks for possible future actions which the District has not approved, adopted or
funded, and the outcome of these tasks will not have a legally binding effect on later
activities. The District will conduct an environmental evaluation of any capital project
that is proposed in the future as a result of this design effort to determine the
appropriate CECA compliance documentation.
N:\ENVRSEC\Position Papers\Berger\PP Design and VE Services 8-3-06.doc
Page 2 of 3
POSITION PAPER
( Board MtJfJting Date: August 3, 2006
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH CALPO HOM & DONG ARCHITECTS FOR DESIGN OF THE CSOD
ADMINSTRATION, CREW, AND WAREHOUSE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT (DP 8208) AND WITH SWINERTON MANAGEMENT AND CONSUL TNG
FOR VALUE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTtBrLlTY REV1EW OF THtS PROJECT
This project is included in the 2006-07 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) beginning on
page GI-15 in the General Improvements Program. Staff has conducted a cash flow
analysis of the General Improvements Program authorization and concluded that
adequate funds are available for this project.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTlQN: Authorize the General Manager to execute an
agreement for $650,000 with Calpo Horn & Dong Architects for design of the CSOD
Administration, Crew, and Warehouse Facility Improvements Project (DP 8208) and an
agreement for $50,000 with Swinerton Management and Consulting for value
engineering and constructability review of this project.
(
'-
N:\ENVRSEC\Position Papers\Berger\PP Design and VE Services 8-3..()6.doc
Page 3 of 3
5. a..
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553-4392 (925) 228-9500 . www.centralsan org
FAX: (925) 228-4624
JAMES M. KELLY
General Manager
KENTON L. ALM
Counsellor the District
(5/0) 808-2000
March 28, 2008
Elaine Boehme
Secretary olthe District
Dear Interested Customer:
PROPOSED INCREASE FOR CAPACITY FEES, AND REVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND
DEVELOPMENT-RELATED RATES AND CHARGES
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) staff has recommended to its Board of Directors
that capacity fees be increased, and that development-related rates and charges be revised to be
current with our present cost of doing business. These fees were last increased on July 1, 2007.
Reports discussing each of the two proposals are enclosed for your information. If approved, the
new capacity fees, and development-related rates and charges will be effecthle on July 1, 2008.
Capacity Fees: The proposed capacity fees have been calculated so that new customers "buy
in" to the current value of all CCCSD assets. This approach was first adopted in 2001, and was
used in 2007, when the fees were last increased. Using this approach, each new customers'
share in the current value of District facilities, equipment, land and fund balances is "equalized"
with existing District customers at the time of connection. This is done by dividing the current
value of all CCCSD assets by the current number of connections and charging this amount for
new connections. The current and proposed capacity fees for each new residential unit and
"Residential Unit Equival~nt (RUE)" are:
Current
Fee (before Julv 1. 2008)
Proposed
(effective Julv 1. 2008) Increase
Pumped Service $5,990 per RUE
$4,923 per RUE 8.8%
$6,509 per RUE 8.7%
Gravity Service $4,524 per RUE
The proposed capacity fee increases are principally due to CCCSD's 2006-07 investment of
nearly $40 million in additions, upgrades, renovation, and replacement of capital facilities.
Capacity fees for nonresidential (commercial, industrial and institutional) projects are also based
on "Residential Unit Equivalents," so they will also increase by the same percentages if the
proposal is adopted.
A
";J Recycled Paper
Capacity Fees, and Environmental and Development-Related Rates and Charges
March 28, 2008
Page 2
Environmental and Development-Related Rates and Charaes: Chapter 6.30 of the CCCSD
Code establishes environmental rates and charges to recover the costs for permitting of industrial
users and for regulating septage/grease hauling and disposal, and development-related rates and
charges to recover costs to provide services including:
. Permit Issuance
· Plan and easement review for main sewer extension projects
· Inspection of main sewer extensions and side sewers
· Processing of quitclaims and real property agreements
· Administering the reimbursement and capacity use charge programs
· Surveying and review ofgeotechnical engineering
· Preparing development-related record drawings and adding new development
information to the District's maps
After a review of the rates and charges in effect since July 1,2007, CCCSD staff recommended
to the Board of Directors that most environmental and development-related rates and charges be
increased. However, District staff has recommended that environmental rates and charges for
industrial user permits and septage/grease disposal remain unchanged.
Outreach Proaram: District staff will hold two informal meetings to discuss the proposed
increases in capacity fees, as well as revision of the rates and charges, with interested customers
on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 7:00 p.m., and Wednesday, April 9, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. Both
meetings will be held in the District Board Meeting Room at 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez.
Public Hearings to receive comments on the capacity fee and rates and charges proposals are
scheduled for Thursday, April 17, 2008, at 2 p.m., in the CCCSD Board of Directors Meeting
Room. The draft ordinances to be considered by the Board, and the data and documents on
which the fee proposal is based will be available for review ten (10) days prior to the public
hearing, as required.
If you have questions or would like any additional information, please telephone me at (925) 229-
7335 or Kurt Darner at (925) 229-7338, or send an e-mail messagetojm2@centralsan.dst.ca.us.
~::t~-tB;-
Jarred Miyamoto-Mills
Principal Engineer
JM2:KD/ms
Enclosures
C:\Documents and Settings\RSC\Desktop\2008 Stakeholder's Notice.doc
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
Report Regarding the Capacity Fee Proposal
March 2008
INTRODUCTION
In September 1998, the state enacted S81760 that requires sewer connection fees to
be based on one of two methods: 1) a buy-in to existing assets, or 2) the cost of future
facilities expansion. This bill was enthusiastically endorsed and supported by home
builders' associations statewide.
In 2001, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's method for determination of Capacity
Fees was changed to a "buy-in-to-all assets" approach. This was done to provide a
rational, practical, equitable and defensible method to calculate the financial burden of
new connections.
The buy-in-to-all-assets approach is preferred primarily due to the "facilities-mature"
status of the District. In this context, facilities-mature means that the value of existing
assets (about $1.54 billion) is many times the value of future facilities expansion needed
to accommodate future customers. Stated differently, most of the facilities needed to
serve new customers have already been built and paid for by current customers. As a
consequence, most of the work envisioned in the District's Capital Improvement Plan is
for renovation, replacement or upgrading of facilities to maintain capacity for both
current and prospective customers. Charging a Capacity Fee based on a buy-in-to-all-
assets at the time of connection to the public sewer system equalizes the unit
investment of each customer as they move from being a "future" to being a "current"
customer.
The following sections present a discussion of the District's Capacity Fee approach,
staff-proposed increases, and a planned customer/public outreach program.
THE DISTRICT'S APPROACH TO CALCULATING CAPACITY FEES
The District's current method of calculation for Capacity Fees is based on a buy-in-to-
all-assets approach. The calculation estimates the "current value" of real property
(land), facilities, equipment and the balances in the Sewer Construction, Running
Expense and Self Insurance Funds.
In the calculation, the current value of each asset category is determined as follows:
o Land: The "current value" of investments in real property is estimated based on
the opportunity value of like cash investments deposited in the District's
temporary investments at the time of each purchase and held at interest to the
present, rather than by attempting to determine actual market value.
Capacity Fee Proposal
March 2008
Page 2
o Facilities: The current value of investments in physical facilities is estimated by
both escalating each year's facilities expenditures based on the change in the
Enoineerino News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay
Area (ENR-CCI-SF), and applying straight-line depreciation using the following
life cycles with no salvage value.
Please note that a category for "Mains (Renovation Program)" has been included
for the first time this year in the current value of facilities for determination of
Capacity Fees. This category accounts for the District's significant investment
since 1988 in life-cycle replacement and renovation of sewers 10-inches in
diameter and smaller. This work renews capacity in these smaller sewers for the
benefit of both existing and new connectors and reduces future maintenance
costs.
Averaoe Useful Life:
Gravity Sewers
Interceptors
Trunks
Mains (Renovated by District)
150 years
100 years
75 years
Treatment Plant & Pumping Station Facilities
Tanks/Foundations
Buildings
Mechanical, Electrical & Control Equipment
100 years
75 years
30 years
Recycled Water Facilities
Pipelines
Mechanical, Electrical & Control Equipment
50 years
30 years
General Improvements
Buildings
Mechanical/Electrical Equipment and Furnishings
Vehicles and other Equipment
50 years
25 years
10 years
Major Repairs/Replacements
10 years
Capacity Fee Proposal
March 2008
Page 3
D Fund Balances: Prior fiscal year-end balances for the Sewer Construction,
Running Expense, and Self Insurance Funds are used. The Sewer Construction
Fund Balance is reduced by the principal value of the District's outstanding debt.
After estimating the "current value" for an asset category, the component of the
Capacity Fee attributable to that category is calculated by dividing current value by the
current number of customers (number of Residential Unit Equivalents: "RUE"):
Value of Assets
Buy-in Fee = ----------------------------------------
Number of Customers (RUE)
RECOMMENDED CAPACITY FEE INCREASES
Staff recommends that the Board consider adopting Capacity Fees for the 2008-09
fiscal year by applying the valuation approach and facilities life cycles described above.
The proposed fees are:
Fee Cateaorv
Current
Proposed
% chanae
Pumping Service
$4,524 per RUE
$5,990 per RUE
$4,923 per RUE
$6,509 per RUE
8.8%
Gravity Service
8.7%
The calculation of these proposed fees is shown in Table 1. If the staff recommendation
to increase Capacity Fees is adopted by the Board of Directors, it is projected that
approximately $630,000 in additional annual revenue will be generated in fiscal year
2008-09, based on connection of 600 Residential Unit Equivalents (RUE) in the gravity
zone and 750 RUE in the pumped zone. The proposed capacity fee increases are
principally due to CCCSD's 2006-07 investment of nearly $40 million in additions,
upgrades, renovation, and replacement of capital facilities.
The fee calculation approach is a rational, practical, equitable and defensible method to
determine the financial burden of new connections. A comparison of the proposed
Capacity Fees to the fees charged by neighboring agencies is presented in Table 2.
JM2:ms
co
o
~
....
M
o
N
:E
..,
;::::-
o
o
N
o
O)~
90
CO.t:
OCl
o ::l
N e
>;;
LL :c
I ::l
r::::iV
.2 ~
... C
III QI
- ...
~ ~
_0
Ill'
0111
III a;
Gl lZ
Gle(
LL=
.... :>. e(
w:!::.s
..J CJ C
m ~.~
<{ Ill::l
~oe.
"'Gl
r:::: Cl
Gl r::::
~ III
Gl.r::::
0.0
Gl 'E
~E~
III 0 ~
.r::::~~
0"'0
W
::J
0:::
-
~
Gl
Gl
LL
Gl
~
III
>
'E <{
~
~
~
o
~
o
Cl
Gl
...
III
o
...
Gl
III
III
<{
..
m
<
II
o
~
o
o
N
It)
~
....
.....
N
~
"""
co
CD
o
.....
CD
1
~
1J
r::::
III
..J
J!!
'5
o
..
C
Cll
a::
c
III QI
Gl E
:2-;;
'0 ~
III I-
LL
~
o
o
o
o
~
CD
CD
Ol.
....
~
It)
en
.....
M
"""
CD
M
N
M
~
~
>-
o
M
@)
';ft.
It)
M
+
III
...
>-
It)
.....
@)
';ft.
o
N
+
III
...
>-
o
o
....
@)
';ft.
It)
::!.
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
cO
N
~
"0
QI
~~l!3~
~(JM.....
,: ~~
'0
C
....
CD
~
CD
N
III
....
~
M
N
CD
o
o
....
o
....
~
.....00)0
It) 0"'" en
1t)0MCD
ONcO'N
MOlt).....
....Olll:tt--
-r= to-" cD ~
It)lt)co.....
NCD~~
~~
Ul
...
>-
o
M
@)
';ft.
It)
N
+
III
...
>-
o
It)
@)
';ft.
It)
t::.
III
~
'u
Cll
u..
...
.l!!
Cll
~
"0
QI
U
>-
U
QI
D::
Ul
...
>-
o
M
Ul @)
~ ';/!.
>- Nit)
g QI M
.... 0+
"'" Z l!!
~.... CD >.
';/!..!CI)&n
00(1).....
..... Z .:..."",
+ QI III ~
I!! CD ~e;e
>-(1) 0
o I ~ N
~~@)~
@)~';ft.;'
rft."gg
g @)~....
-;';/!.~@
o g "; ';Ie
Q.~:e~
~~~-;
:>> 'n; -; S
~~:Ei;~
~-g~ ~;;;
(I) Cll ::l D:: Cl
lS.:!:@u'a,
;c-c:5e
u 2 0 III ::l
~l-oi5a..
o
o
?fl.';/!.
....It)
N"':
CD
It) CD
NCO
It) It)
~ .
....
~
It)
"""
....
.0
~
o
M
~
c.i~
Q) I!!
- >-
Co
QI....
~@)
'S ?fe.
0'1t)
w....
fIi+
Cllll
.: ;.
:E1t)
.- N
e@)
en"#'
c~
QI +
E III
QI ...
i; >-
"'0
c.1t)
.E@)
"ii';/e
"'0
~!!!.
QI
C>
~
o
"":
....
N
~
It)
co
....
~
~
o
CD
cO
~
.....
It)
~
.....
::;;:
r-:
M
M
ai
~
Ul
...
>-
o
....
@)
';ft.
o
o
~
III
...
'iij
C.
QI
D::
...
o
'iij'
:E
';ft.
M
'<i
....
....
~
It)
It)
N
~
....
M
o
rQ
co
Ol.
~
>;
:!::
JJ
.~
1J
r::::
o
JJ
...
o
...
Gl
r::::
-
Gl
CJ
r::::
III
'iij
m
1J
r::::
~
LL
r::::
o
;;
CJ
~
~
...
III
r::::
o
o
~
Gl
~
Gl
en
~
o
N
..;
~
iQ
N
~
en
It)
~
.....
"""
.....
r-:
CD
.....
ai
~
III
Gl
CJ
r::::
III
'iij
m
1J
r::::
~
LL
Gl
CJ
.~
Gl
en
...
JJ
Gl
C
~
1J
r::::
~
LL
Gl
III
r::::
Gl
Q.
><
W
Cl
r::::
r::::
r::::
~
0:::
~
o
....
N
N
"""
~
.....
....
~
CD
.....
en
r-:
"""
.....
N
~
Gl
CJ
r::::
III
'iij
m
1J
r::::
~
LL
Gl
CJ
r::::
III
~
~
III
r::::
...
(jj
en
CD
M
o
M
CD
o
ai
M
III
....
~
W
::J
..J
~
..J
<{
~
o
~
~
o
co
cO
en
en
M
~
M
N
en
i.
CD
~
rQ
co
N
o
....
co
~
Gl
CJ
.~
Gl
en
:>.
...
'S;
~
C)
Gl
Gl
LL
:>.
...
'0
III
Q.
III
o
~
~
cO
en
....
It)
~
en
o
It)
cO'
~
W
::::l
e.
III
-
C
QI
iV
>
.:;
0'
w
-
'c
::::l
:!
c
QI
"0
'iii W
QI ::::l
D:: D::
It) M
en It)
It) N
'i~
CD
M
C!.
....
CD
o
N
co
co
Ui
Ui QI
~ ~
'u ~
Cll Cl
u.. C
~ "a
'> E
Cll ::l
(; a..
~
Gl
CJ
.~
Gl
en
1J
Gl
Q.
E
~
Q.
Gl
Gl
LL
:>.
...
'0
III
Q.
III
o
o
o
o
C ~
.2 C
u Cll
::l co
... co
~ ~
o C
U QI
; ~
~ a;
QI .0
III "0
C QI
"co 1i)
E Q.
E
o
U
III
-
U
~ .~
... ...
~ c.
U QI
QI -g
; 13
o .5
- .s
c C
S ,2
U u
U QI
Cll ...
.s 0
Cl U
,: Cll
n; E
"0 0
C. .::
::l J!!
E ":i
o III
.:: QI
...
-
o
1ii
o
U
!! "en
~ .~ to:
~ i m
..~ s;
'iij Cll.!!!
:E > C
"0 g ._2
.l!! QI Cll
::l D:: ::l
:@ u iV
C .~ >
o 1ii QI
P p;;
_ _ E
o 0 e
QI QI-
::l ::l"O
iV iV QI
> >::::
,: ,: 'E
QlQIo
III 1Il~
= : c
tit;CD
,: ,: i
'C-E;
Cll Cll
~ .:
'c ~
ClQl
'(jj ~
QI -
.t: Cll
1-;;
-
C
Cll
U
lj:
'c
Cl
'(jj
QI
.t:
JI: N
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF CAPACITY FEES
Aaencv*
Dublin San Ramon Service District
Mountain View Sanitary District
Proposed CCCSD Pumped Zone
Pittsburg (Delta Diablo Sanitation District for Treatment)
Antioch (Delta Diablo Sanitation District for Treatment)
Current CCCSD Pumped Zone
Proposed CCCSD Gravity Zone
Current CCCSD Gravity Zone
Bay Point (Delta Diablo Sanitation District for Treatment)
City of Concord
West County Wastewater District
*Other Agencies' fees are for 2007-2008
C:\Documents and Settings\RSC\Desktop\2007-2008 CapacityFee 3-08.doc
Capacity Fee
$11,367
$8,289
$6,509
$6,298
$6,167
$5,990
$4,923
$4,524
$4,444
$4,542
$2,357
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
Report Regarding
Environmental and Development-Related Rates and Charges Proposal
March 2008
OVERVIEW
The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (District) Board of Directors will soon
consider adopting an ordinance to revise Chapter 6.30, Schedule of Rates and
Charges, for various environmental and development-related services.
If adopted, these increases in 2008-09 would total approximately $60,000 to $80,000 in
additional District revenue.
BACKGROUND
Chapter 6.30 of the District Code includes a schedule of rates and charges for
environmental and development-related services provided to contractors, developers,
septic and grease waste haulers, and permitted industrial users. These services
include permit counter assistance, plan review, inspection of construction for laterals
and main line extensions, addition of new sewers, parcels, and permit information to
District maps, source control permits and inspections, and septic and grease hauler
sampling and treatment.
These rates and charges are intended to recover the District's direct and indirect labor
costs, other operating expenses, and administrative overhead incurred in providing
each service.
These rates and charges were last reviewed in 2007. District staff annually reviews the
rates and charges to assess whether changes are appropriate. This year, as in the
past, the District has re-evaluated the rates and charges for the categories of
Development Plan Review, Construction Inspection, Collection System Services, Right-
of-Way, and Miscellaneous. The recommended rates and charges are explained in the
following pages. District staff has proposed that environmental rates and charges for
industrial user permits and septage/grease disposal remain unchanged.
PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES
The State of California mandates that revenues from these sources not exceed the cost
of providing services. Following its review, District staff recommended that rates and
charges be revised to include: 1) adjustment for increased salaries, benefits and
overhead; 2) adjustment of the mileage rate for those charges that include a mileage
factor; 3) an additional television inspection of new mainline projects at the one-year
warranty inspection. Table 1 presents a comparison of the current and proposed rates
and charges.
Proposal to Revise Development-Related Rates and Charges
March 2008
Page 2
Increases of 7.5% are recommended for most of the rates and charges to account for
higher salaries, benefits, and overhead. The District's Administrative Overhead rate is
calculated to go up in 2008-09 to 190% of salary, largely due to the new OPEB (Other
Post-Employment Benefits) expense of $3.0 million. Staff proposes that certain
inspection charges that include a mileage factor be adjusted so that vehicle depreciation
costs are not included in the mileage rate. Vehicle depreciation is already included in
Administrative Overhead. An additional television inspection of new mainline projects is
recommended at the time of the one-year warranty inspection in order to check the
integrity of the installation and the accumulation of any construction debris. This
additional television inspection will increase the mainline inspection fees by $0.67 per
foot.
TABLE 1
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
COMPARISON OF CURRENT & PROPOSED RATES & CHARGES (2008-09)
Fee Category 2007 -08 Fee Proposed % Change
2008-09 Fee
(A) DEVELOPMENT AND PLAN REVIEW
Review of new sewer plans and related documents; review of plans for and processing of residential and commercial
permit applications; installer reimbursement of sewer construction costs from subsequent connectors; identification of
right-of-way conflicts; and interest rates for District programs.
(A-1 ) Development Review:
Mainline Plan Review (2 preliminary + 1 final plan reviews):
Base Fee $441 $474 7.50%
Per Foot Charge (in street) $3.40 $3.66 7.50%
Per Foot Charge (in undeveloped land) $2.72 $2.92 7.50%
Each additional plan review:
Base Fee $147 $158 7.50%
Per Foot Charge $1.13 $1.21 7.50%
Special Cut Sheet Review $186 $200 7.50%
Manhole only design & plan review $653 $702 7.50%
Right of Way Document Review - 100 I Sub Map (each): $539 $579 7.50%
Right of Way Document Review - No Changes Required $350 $376 7.50%
Right of Way document review - Appurtenance (initial): $501 $539 7.50%
Appurtenance (each additional) $185 $199 7.50%
Commercial development plan check (new connections) $174 $187 7.50%
(A-2) Application Fees
Basic Application (side sewer work, easement staking) $83 $89 7.50%
Existing parcel - new sewer service $113 $121 7.50%
New parcel - new sewer service $182 $196 7.50%
Commercial Application $186 $200 7.50%
Capacity Use Program $166 $178 7.50%
(A-3) Reimbursement Accounts:
Set-up fee $685 $736 7.50%
Transaction fee $154 $166 7.50%
(A-4) Commercial Business Plan Review (added square footage, food service)
Added Square Footage, Food Service $114 $123 7.50%
Special Studies (minimum) $469 $504 7.50%
Source Control Review $177 $190 7.50%
Grease Variance Review (includes site visit) $266 $286 7.50%
(A-5) Private pumping system plan check
Pump with Outside Force Main $347 $373 7.50%
Pump Only $194 $209 7.50%
Additional Review $143 $154 7.50%
Pre-apporved Pump Systems $143 $154 7.50%
(A-6) Annexation Fee $534 $574 7.50%
(A-7) Special Approvals $192 $206 7.50%
2008-09 Rates & Charges Comparison (no links)
Page 1
TABLE 1
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
COMPARISON OF CURRENT & PROPOSED RATES & CHARGES (2008-09)
Fee Category 2007 -08 Fee Proposed % Change
2008-09 Fee
(B) CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
Inspection of new sewer main construction and new connections and other sewer work on private property (includes TV
inspection when appropriate).
(B-1 ) Mainline Inspection:
Base Fee $631 $678 7.50%
Per Foot Charge (in street)(incl additional TV insp @ 1 yr final) $7.93 $9.19 15.90%
Per Foot Charge (undeveloped landlincl additional TV insp @ 1 yr final) $5.29 $6.35 20.10%
(B-2) Inspections by type:
Side Sewer Installation / Repair per 100 feet: $130 $137 5.28%
Single Inspection Charge (e.g. sewer connection; encroachment verification;
side sewer cap on property; tap and lateral (new or replacement); side sewer $130 $137 5.28%
wye (new or replacement); air test; reinspection; trash enclosure wlo trap); side
sewer TV inspection
Manhole tap; lateral abandonment (main or manhole); pipe bursting $260 $274 5.28%
Manhole Alteration; Side Sewer CIPP repair; interceptor abandonment $390 $411 5.28%
New Manhole; New Rodding Inlet; Outside Pump Installation $520 $547 5.28%
Grease I Sand / Oil Interceptor / Trap; Trash Enclosure wi trap $780 $821 5.28%
(B-3) Overtime inspection:
First Hour $86 $90 4.15%
Every hour thereafter $56 $60 7.50%
Weekend/Holiday (New Year's Day, Martin Luther King, President's Day,
Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas)- $254 $273 7.50%
hr. minimum
(B-4) Inspection of non-permitted work (+ avoided charge) $390 $419 7.50%
2008-09 Rates & Charges Comparison (no links)
Page 2
TABLE 1
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SAN IT ARY DISTRICT
COMPARISON OF CURRENT & PROPOSED RATES & CHARGES (2008-09)
Fee Category 2007-08 Fee Proposed % Change
2008-09 Fee
(C) COLLECTION SYSTEM SERVICES
TV inspection of sewers conducted separate from a construction inspection activity; verification of sewer location and
sewer service connection.
(C-1 ) TV Inspection:
Weekday, hourly rate $177 $187 5.87%
Minimum Charge (2 hr min) $355 $376 5.88%
Overtime - First Hour $125 $131 5.20%
Overtime - Each Additional Hour $102 $110 7.50%
Overtime - Weekend / Holiday (4 hr min) $433 $465 7.50%
(C-2) Dye test $302 $322 6.55%
(C-3) Collection system repair Actual Expense Actual Expense
(C-4) Cancelled TV Inspection without prior notice $308 $331 7.50%
(C-5) Sewer locating and marking $258 $274 6.38%
(D) RIGHT-OF-WAY
Establishing right-of-way agreements and resolving conflicts.
(0-1) Process Quitclaim Deeds $844 $907 7.50%
Process Quitclaim Deed - plat and legal by others $513 $551 7.50%
(0-2) Process Real Property Agreement, License, or Easement
Base Fee (2 hours) $694 $746 7.50%
Each Additional Hour $108 $116 7.50%
(0-3) Right-ot-way Research / Encroachment Resolution Fee Actual Expense Actual Expense
(0-4) Right ot Entry / Encroachment Permit Fee $95 $102 7.50%
(E) MISCELLANEOUS
District services provided for private sewer projects.
(E-1 ) Engineering - private sewer projects Actual Expense Actual Expense
(E-2) Soil evaluation - private sewer projects Actual Expense Actual Expense
(E-3) Surveying Actual Expense Actual Expense
(E-4) Minimum annual interest rate tor CADs and Capacity Use Program 6.00% 6.00% no change
Document / Plan Copying Fees
81/2" x 11"; 81/2" x 14"; 11" x 17" (per sheet) $0.15 $0.15 no change
24" x 36" Plan (per sheet) $3.00 $3.00 no change
CCCSD Standard Specifications $20.00 $20.00 no change
2008-09 Rates & Charges Comparison (no links) Page 3
- --~---",-~.'_.'--'---"'-~"""'-".'-"~~-----''''--~-'-'---_._-~_.'-,.+_.~.._....._.._----,.._-~---,~.__.-._._--_.--.,,----. _._--"_._--_.__.__...._,.,+_.-..._..._~_._--
TABLE 1
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
COMPARISON OF CURRENT & PROPOSED RATES & CHARGES (2008-09)
Fee Category 2007-08 Fee Proposed % Change
2008-09 Fee
(F) INDUSTRIAL PERMIT FEES
Permiting and inspection of industries and other commercial dischargers to ensure availability and use of pretreatment
processes.
Base permit fee 0 Base permit fee
(F-1 ) Class I Fees $3,256 + cost of of $3,256 + cost no change
District's lab of District's lab
analysis analysis
Base permit fee 01 Base permit fee
(F-2) Class II Fees $3,256 + cost of of $3,256 + cost no change
District's lab of District's lab
analysis analysis
(F-3) Class III Fees 0 $0 no change
(F-4) Industrial user permit application fee 0 $0 no change
(F-5) Special discharge permit application fee (*)
No on-site inspection $65 each $65 each no change
On-site inspection Base fee of $345 Base fee of $345 no change
(G) SEPTAGE DISPOSAL(**)
Sampling and disposal of septic waste and grease.
(G-1) Annual permit fee $1,650 $1,650 no change
(G-2) Residential septic/toilet waste
< 2,000 gallons $18 + $0.14/gal $18 + $0.14/gal no change
> 2,000 gallons $58 + $0.14/gal $58 + $0.14/gal no change
(G-3) Restaurant grease waste
< 2,000 gallons $18 + $0.02/gal $18 + $0.02/gal no change
> 2,000 gallons $58 + $0.02/gal $58 + $0.02/gal no change
(*) Additional charges to be billed separately if staff time incurred is above that included in the base fee.
(**) Other approved waste will be charged at the residential septic and portable toilet waste rate unless actual strength characterist
are provided.
2008-09 Rates & Charges Comparison (no links)
Page 4
s.c.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
March 31, 2008
TO:
FROM:
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
JAMES M. KELLY. GENERAL MANAGER ~~ iff'
RANDALL M. MUSGRAVES, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION ~~\ r
\J
VIA:
SUBJECT:
GASB 45 TRUST ANALYSIS
At the March 17,2008 Budget and Finance Committee meeting, the Committee was
provided with additional information on Wells Fargo and Mechanics Banks, and their
ability to provide GASB 45 Trust administrative services. Based on this information, the
Committee appeared to favor establishing a GASB 45 Trust, have the trust administered
by a public sector group (PARS) or US Bank, and have a trustee who is not affiliated
with the District. A summary of the pros and cons of establishing a GASB 45 Trust,
analysis of Providers, and GASB 45 trust options are attached.
The Committee requested and received Board concurrence to evaluate the benefit of
establishing a GASB 45 Trust and to evaluate the options for a GASB 45 Trust. Based
upon the Committee's discussion to date, staff recommends forwarding the following for
Board consideration:
. Establish a GASB 45 Trust.
. Once the trust is established, place $6,000,000 in the trust for FY 2006-07 and
FY 2007-08.
. Implement AON's recommendation to place $5 million into the
trust and pay the retirees' annual medical premiums from the trust at the end of
FY 2008-09. Determine future payments to the trust through the budget process
each fiscal year.
. Contract with:
o (1) PARS for the administration, consulting, legal compliance, record
keeping and client liason;
o (2) Union Bank of California as the Trustee; and
o (3) HighMark Capital Management as the investment manager.
· Authorize the Budget and Finance Committee to provide quarterly review with
staff and an annual report to the Board.
Staff will be available to answer any additional questions the Committee might have.
Once the Committee has decided on the trust and the appropriate oversight, a Position
Paper will be developed and sent to the full Board for final action.
~DRAFT
GASB 45 TRUST
PROS
· Allows for more diverse investments and potentially a higher rate of return
. Protects funds from confiscation by others
· Bond rating agencies look more favorably if funds are set aside
· Higher rate of return would reduce outstanding unfunded liability and future
annual costs
. Funds are not included in District's reserves
· If healthcare becomes nationalized, money can be returned
· If District benefit levels change, can stop making contributions and reduce
balance in Trust
. Avoid a growing liability on District balance sheet
. Funding could be viewed as goodwill by employees
CONS
. Funds can only be used for post-retirement benefit payments
· Fees associated with Administration and Trustee services
· Potential negative impact on negotiations whereby Union seeks guaranteed
funding for all benefits at a high level
N:'ADMINSUP'ADMIN\RATCLlFF\GASB 45 TRUST.doc
GASB 45 Trust
Analysis of Providers
Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS)
Staff is recommending the establishment of a GASB 45 Trust with PARS. PARS
has specialized exclusively in governmental plan consulting and administration
since 1983, and administers over 700 retirement programs. PARS utilizes Union
Bank of California as Trustee, which has the second largest trust division in the
state, providing security.
The program is flexible with different asset allocation strategies to pick from as
well as a complete tailoring of an investment approach should the District wish to
design one. The fees for administration, consulting, investment management and
custodial services are very reasonable. Also, there are no restrictions on leaving
the trust and can be transferred to a new Trustee should the District choose.
CALPERS
Staff does not recommend using CALPERS for several reasons. CALPERS has
just recently approved the establishment of a Trust, which will be managed by
appointed staff members. The fees that will be charged (.4% to .6% plus fund
fees) are currently just an estimate and they reserve the right to adjust these fees
if needed. Very strict and inflexible rules apply that determine actuarial
assumptions. This would require the District to have its actuarial study
recalculated. CALPERS also requires a three-year commitment before
transferring to another Trustee if not satisfied with the trust.
US BANK
Staff does not recommend using US Bank even though the fees are attractive
(.35% to .15% plus fund fees). The reason for this recommendation is based on
past experience with banks for escrow services, which was slow and frustrating
and bank staff did not seem knowledgeable. It appears that banks in general do
not have the level of investment expertise that an Investment Manager with an
investment firm could provide. Also, US Bank was not as responsive as staff
would have expected, requiring several requests for information. The fund fees
vary depending on investments chosen. Staff is concerned that actual costs
could be greater than the other options.
Wells Fargo
Wells Fargo charges custodial fees of approximately .8% of the asset balance.
Additionally, there are fund fees that vary depending on the fund. The bank would
assign a Portfolio Manager to oversee the District's investments. Staff does not
recommend using Wells Fargo for the same reasons sited above for US Bank.
ICMA
ICMA is a more employer-directed program where the District chooses among
established model portfolio funds with differing risk levels. An employee, Board
member, or a combination serves as Trustee(s). It is not recommended that staff
or Board members serve as Trustees due to lack of expertise in this area, the
significant increase in workload and the potential liability involved. It is preferable
that a professional Investment Advisor and Custodian take on this role.
Independent Trust
An independent trust appears to be the most costly in terms of legal fees to draw
up documents, staff time to develop a program from scratch, higher fees than
some of the other options, and no guarantee that investment yield will be that
much greater. Staff believes that more time would be required to administer and
manage an independent trust. Staff also believes that they do not possess the
level of expertise required.
County
The County was included for informational purposes only. A trust is scheduled
for establishment in March. Monthly meetings are anticipated for the first year
and instead of staff directing the investments, the County plans on hiring an
Investment Manager. A Request for Proposal (RFP) will be going out in the next
few months.
zl-
00
_ct
~~
zz
-0
::EO
1I:u..
~O
CI'J
i:u
w
I.L
~
0::
0
0.
W
0::
(/)
I-
Z
W
::E
w
en
II:
::::>
en m
(/)
Z 0
0
i= II:
Q. w(/)
0 >1-
OZ
I- ...IW
en O::E
::) II: I-
I-(/)
a: zW
I- 0>
it) o~
~
m (/)
I-
en zw
W...l
<C ::Em
" I-ct
(/)...1
w-
>ct
~~
en
I-
z
w
::E
::EClW
::::>zII:
::Eo 5
-zO
~::::>w
::Eu..1I:
w
w
....
CI'J
:)
0::
....
LL
0....
wCI'J
0.:)
>0::
........
c ....
o Q)
-
c en
.Q ~
12.8~
~Q)Q)
~2~
.... en en
0:J:J
Z.=.=
0.... -.... -0
~ID~ C ~ ~ 0- mOen
~Uo Q)~o ~~-5 00Q)
o Co ET"""o . O=..lIl:: OcE
_ cooo-U; '00-000= Co O~I.O:J-
oCO ~I.O>- 0 ~1.O>-_o~EE OMenen
~~0~Q)Q)>-0~Q)~00 o~enQ)
1.0 1.0 > 0 1.0 > 0.... - o.c - Q)
C\J-Q)~~~e~~~~C\Jool.O~ T"""~~~
. C U - U') cu. "'"" T""" ~ .- ~ c
1~~coQ)~~~coQ),~~_I Ico5~
Q)cococ~e,coc~~Bcco"" ~c=5
Q)c oen~ oenQ) 000 Q)o=
LL 0 0.- Q) .., Q) 0.- Q) .., 0 .- 0 - "'.- E ~
O-....wG>o-....wo- ~ w_
e = G>LL = LL =0 -LL= ....
.-~oEc_ oEc~oE ~Q)en_Eoo
EID~ o~~~ 0 6 02~~ 1.0-
enC\Jo=j~C\Jo=eC\JOI.OCOc-O~~
~CO~T""".E-~~~T""".E-j~T"""M~:JOT"""_~
_~_~ ....~_~ LL_~~_~....~CO .
en
-
c
>-Q)
:EE
-ID
c_
o m
::;Et)
....
Q)
>-
o
~
E
ID
o
-
~
'(lj
a..
en co CD
o :t::: >-
.... 0. 0
co-
c~ 00.
Q)oe ....E
_UQ) ~Q)
coIDE.cco....~
oQ)-~EO~
o.1i)en:J.c .U
.... :J Q) 0 ~- Q)
0.... >....._~....
o I- .~ :S I ::;E :a
en
~ ~"E
CO'COQ)
_c-E
Q)OQ)
.;:: Z .;:: 1i)
o.~ ~ Q)
e e e >
a..ma..e
Q)
c
o
Z
-
o
.c ~..lIl::
- =c
_Q) '~ is co ctl
co Q) ~'w m 'c
o ~ .~ 5 5 0
0. en U 0.'- :!::
....:J:Jenc-
O....~Q)=>CO
Ol-~...._O
ID
I.O~~
T""".~ c-
T""" .... .- en
ca..:5,....
o-....!::=
-- +-' '-
t3enQ)E
ID2::s:::0
enl-ID~
c ....
o Q)
-
c en
o c
t50~
-- ...... +-'
~IDID
~2~
.... en en
0:J:J
Z'='=
G>
Q)
LL
e
o
;;
~
~
-
.!!!
e
E
~
ct
o
Z
o
00
0_1.0
O~_
o >-
~ I.O~Q)
G>~en~~>
Q) 0 ~
LL >-= ~ c U
_ Q) 0 co .Q Q)
c -""'" - ~
Q)CO-=o=en
E .~ 8. 8 E ~
_ x _ -0 C
~OIDOT"""O
Q)a.~0~=
>0.0T"""....=
.5coE~~E
....
o
-
en
c6 c
_co
cO~
~ Q)~CO
ID EUE
t ID m.:
~~E~8
aa..en~u
....
Q)
>-
o
0.
E
ID
o
-
~
. '(lj
a..
- Q)
Q)~
......uo
<D c E
en ~
-mQ)-
~ c~-o-
Q)~Q)-.8Q)~
~IDEen..lll::c=
0. t5 t) 5 .~ 0 to
Q) Q) .- .... ..lIl::
E >- U
W .: c 0. c .- 0
~._ 0 0 0. 0.
en
~ ~"E
CO'COID
ai5Q5E
.;:: Z .;:: t)
~ 0.
O~OQ)
.... e .... >
o..mo..E
Q)
c
o
Z
..........
Q) 0
~Q)
E Q)
Q)>-
::;EOo
~ 0. en
....Eo
~Q)o
moo
~
ID
>
to
co ....
a.. 8::
- co-
~-en
~t)C(
Q):J-
-....>-
EI-.c
0::
w
c
>
o
0::
0.
en
C(
<(
a..
<(
~
()
zt-
Q~
~~
zz
-0
:EeJ
a:
WLL
t-O
en
W
w
LL
o ....
-a>
>-a>-
en CO a> en
....E-c
CO enCO
a>....::J.;;
>-a>~ a>
('t) ~ a>
....-a>-
a> 0.. ~ en
.::=EC02
<(a>EI-
o --0
-c: C ctlOen
I .s g .2 ~ E ~ g oo~ Ea>
(1)00= co-:j:: 0
(1)0 -E >~a> _O::J
LLOOo =>c Olt)en
C 0 ~ .,.... .- C a> en 0 {fi- ~ Ci)
o "<t {fi- {fi- C 3: .- .... g>;;. "0 - a>
._ {fi- 0 I C co._ C C a>
--"0....=- 0 C'CO
C'CS co=>-... "0....... ou..
...~ -E-v,O)ccov,c=-
- &, co 0 ~ (I) C ctI a> (I) .2 = co
.!!! . 0 0 0 :;::; LL(I) ~ en _ LL(I) = E ....
coo It) U ....., en .-
.-.so -{fi-a>'tJ C ~ c- EO.E
E ~ 0 0..... a>._ .- C'CS It)
'tJcfoo"Oen:so..ococ;O{fi-cf
<C ~ ~~ @ ~ LL ~ -5 g>~;;. ~ ~
en en
-
~ >- C
II: -;:: a>
0 a> E
t
0. coc.E
w ::J co co
a: o 0.. 1i5
C/) ....
t- a>
Z >-
W 0
:E 0..
W E
C/) a>
a: 0
::J -
m "0
C/) .~
C a..
a:
Wc/) "0
>t- c:
Oz co
-
..JW (/) C en
O:E a: a> ....
a:t- UJa>E a>
0)
t-C/) a..:21i5 co
ZW ....Jena> C
0> <(-> co
eJ~ C) g.!: E
c/)
t- en
zw >- ~c
W..J ....
:Em CO I CO a>
t-c( CD5CDE
c/)..J .;:: Z .;:: 1i5
w- 0.."0 0.. a>
>c(
~~ e C e >
a..coa..c
c/)
t-
Z
W
:E
:EOw
::Jza: 0
:Ec5 0
-zO 0
~::Jw It)
:ELLa: {fi-
C
0
:;::;
w (/) co
w a:-.;;
~ UJ O.!Q
en a.. "0 .!:
::;) ....JroE
a: <(0"0
~ C)co<(
It)
LL .,....
.,....
O~ c:
wen .2 _
D.::;) -en
U ::J
>a: a> ....
~~ (/)1-
a: (/)
w
c a:
:> UJ
a..
0 ....J
II: <(
0. C)
C ....
o a>
-
C en
o C
.- co
~.8~
~a>a>
~22
.... en en
o ::J ::J
z~~
I .... - 0
C 0 en c_o
o - en a> coo~
Z 0 a>Ci) E o-E
.. 0 "0 - olt)
O~EEEO~55>.c~~ 0~~Ci)
;CEEE~{fi-~~~~ g{fi-~~
(I) ~ It) It) {fi- "0:;::; >- en .- {fi- "0 - u..
(l)LLO,-C\I"OCU....(I)C c:c
LL :-.'- {fi-{fi- C co a> co (I) 0 I co o-g
-C'CS "'C'CS {fi- _ .... co C g. CD LL 0) !! c: = ::J
- X a> 0 .- CWO .- LL
.- - en a> > 0.- a> 0...... C'I (I) .- E
'tJ .!.=: coo = .... 0 C '5 en LL = ....
o ... - 0 E C .- C a> E 0 0
- c. ~ ~ ~ ,^ 0 ;:;- 'tJ a> U "i It) -
en 0 0 0 0 ..., 0 .- ..... C 0.. '0- 0 {fi- 0
~...It)It)It)('t).,....=....~a>.!::c;,- c;:.
OO'~C\!"'-:~{fi-E.ELL"oU~{fi-~~
c C__
a> .2 ~
a>Ec~gCi)
.!: en 0::J E .!:: >-
-a> .... co
c>u.E"<t"O
O.!: ~.!: ~ I'--
o
-
>-
:Co
c....a>>-
Eo~gc
ococo
"0 0..::; o..E
.~ E en
a.. a>.!: 8
....
a>
0)
co
c:
co
~E
C
co 0
co '0
't
~o
:::::>0..
>- '>. ~
.... L"C
CO'coa>
CD5CDE
'8. Z '8. t)
o"Ooa>
.... C .... >
a.. co a.. .!:
a>
C
o
Z
0..
.!::
~ en_
c: c: ....
cooa>
,..,...- 0)
....-co
. co C
(/)a>co
::::i ES~
a>
It)--
.,....~O)
.,....._ C
.... .-
c:a.."S
0-....
--...... ~
-ena>
U::J_
a>....-
(/)I-a>
~
Z
<(
co
(/)
:::>
z....
Q~
~f=
zz
-0
:EO
a:LL
~O
U)
W
W
LL
~
a:
o
Q.
W
a:
en
....
Z
w
:=
w
en
a:
::J
m
en
C
a:
wen
>....
OZ
..JW
0:=
a:....
t-C/)
ZW
0>
O~
C/)
....
Zw
W..J
:=m
....c:(
en..J
W-
>c:(
~~
en
....
z
W
:=
:="W
::JZa:
:Ec5
-zO
~::Jw
:=LLa:
w
w
....
U)
:::)
a:
....
LL
0....
wU)
Q.:::)
>a:
........
C ...
o Q)
-
C 00
o C
UO~
.- ~ +-'
.::oQ)Q)
~22
... 00 00
o ::J ::J
z~~
~ C Boo ~ C~
ro ,~ 0 C oc
~ ...0 ~ o~ 0 0 =::J
Q)~Q)0 ~ 000= 0 =~
~~o~ ~o ci~-.E- q E...
roLri' Co ... C\IW- 0> 00
oOSw- 00 ~~w-...o oo~~-
-Cw (.) ~ -....-. 0 W- 0
, .- E ' 0":: - ~ - ~ cw-o::-
~; 00 -M _~cOW-~'ctl_~
-_ Cw- CO roO"O- ~ C ro .
~~cc ~, ~~oocQ)~ooOO
lfoQ)EQ)E Eo>'EC\!o ~ctl:6~=oQ)
U 0 ... 0 - ... _ 0 ~ u LL .- 0 E
(U -en Q)O ~o ~ ~ 'Lri'~ 5 Q)- Eci::J(j)
~en~~~~oc~~C\Iw-=~sooo~Q)
~::JcoO>cC\lCc~-O'E-Q)o-C\IroQ)
.J .::0 ._ ctl w- _ w- ro _ . w- _ ... .... w- w- - ~
.oQ) >. >.
- ...
"O.cQ)
--t
::J c: ro .
OO::JU
() E 0'" Q5
...
0>
>.
o
~~
E C
O>ctl>'
o...c
_:Jctl
OO~
"OC:E
.<<i': 0
o..ou
o
.c
-~
c-
Q)C
E-S
-:J
0000
0> C
> 0
C U
-
C 00
00 Q) ...
Q)EQ)
Q) _ 0
ooooctl
... 0> C
Q) > ctl
~.~ E
C ...
o Q)
-
C 00
o C
Uo~
.-..... ......
.::oQ)Q)
~22
... 00 00
o ::J ::J
Z~~
00
00 8
~ .0
-c.c
"OoU
50c
_CQ)
00 '6 E
:Jc_
.Q Q) ~
(ij~>
>Q)c
~.-
>.B"E
>'.0 0> ctl
.ctQ)O
coOOa:l
0~::JQ)
O:::::Q)....c
0:::;...1--_
...
Q)
>.
o
~~
E c:
Q)ctl>'
... C
o :J ctl
-OO~
"OCE
.<<i.: 0
o..ou
00>_
.coctl_
~ ro C C
oooOQ)'"
Q) c'w E Q)
Q) 0> 00 - g>
~ ~20 ~ c
... w ... > ctl
I- E ~.~ E
00
>. >.-
... ... c
ro I ctl Q)
Q55Q5E
.;:: Z .;:: en
~"O ~ Q)
o CO>
a:ctla:E:
_
w-
,
...
o x
:=: c: ro'"O ro
"0.- C .::0 c: f-;-
..:J...-E 15 o() ctl'"
15 00 <( 0> ~ ... oi'O> 0>'" ~ 0
~ >'0<( ...-0 U Q) ctl U O:J-
"O_~..._ Q)-u c:cr: U c:-u 00 uQ)
... 00 ..... - Q) U .- ro
ctl :J ::J C ._ .- Q) ctl () "0 ro Q) Q) =
o ... 0 0 .c :::: .: .~ Q) .~ .: ... 0
CDI--()()()OO~()~~OI--()
C
C 0
0:;:::;
.- u-
~O>oo
E en 2
.....-1--
.8 2-~
cc_
::::="0-
a:
w
c
:>
o
a:
Q.
00
~ >.-
~. ... C
ctl ' ro Q)
Q55Q5E
.;:: Z .;:: en
~ ~Q)
0"0 0
... C ... >
o..roo..E:
0>
C
o
Z
ctl
-
..... ro
o-'~
~Q)~C
Q)O>O>ctl
-"E>'O.o
"E .0 0 - 0
ctl ~ ~ ~ .~
o ~ E ... ctlE
CDctlo>l--
... C
~ Q) ~ c .Q
_.sQ) Q)-
_o~ E~
C 0= cen
o ro........ 0
:;:::;-_Q)Q)Q)C\1
U ~ 00 "0 0> "00 (0
Q)...:Jc M
enl--~:J(!)()~
I--
Z
W
o
Z
wI--
0.. en
w::::>
Ocr:
zl--
>-
I--
Z
::::>
o
()
zl-
0(.)
_<C
I-a:
'4:1-
zz
-0
:=(.)
a:u..
~o
!!'
w
W
lL
~
a:
o
D..
W
a:
rn
I-
Z
W
:=
W
rn
a:
::)
m
rn
C
a:
Wrn
>1-
OZ
...JW
0:=
a: I-
I-rn
ZW
0>
(.)~
rn
I-
Zw
W...J
:=m
I-<C
rn...J
W-
><C
~~
rn
I-
Z
W
:=
:=ClW
::)za:
~c5
-zO
~::)W
~u..a:
w
W
I-
en
:)
a:
I-
lL
0....
wen
D..:)
~~
I:: ....
o Q)
-
I:: en
o I::
UO~
-- ..- .......
':::Q)Q)
~$2
.... en en
022
21-1-
Q)I:: 0 c-o
I .2 .Q 0 g .Q 5
en eel = 1.0 -'- LL
>. Q)~>E~ C\IO)-oE....
'- ur::..-...... ""'00
eel .-.- Q) 0 eel T""".... -
> 0~.:x::T""" ~eell.O 0
I 1::..c:_....~0 I I::~~
oO....eel 0 0-1.0
~ 0l"E en E n5 ~ ~ :: eel ;,
Q) .S Q)E ! '0 8 ~ Q) E 8 Q)
lL -0 C 0 C') -lL 1.0 E
.,.. 1::..... ..,~o)~I::_O -:J-
...Q)en.... ,..;- 0(lST"""0) en
C 0.Q) >O)..n-o=_~"<:t en Q)
~Q)>Q)O)I'-I::=O menQ)
lL -0 .S a: I'-: ~ eel E .... CO ~ ~ LL
..... I:: --
I:: Oen
Q) .-....
Q)Ecco5w
.S 1i) :Jo E ..c: >.
- .... eel
c~O.E"<:t-o
O.S ~.s ~ I'-
....
Q)
>.
o
a.
E
Q)
o
-
-0
'co
a..
o
Ol
mOID
LL .- Ol
en 0 eel
=:el::
~ 8. ~
en
~ >.-
L" .... I::
eel'eelQ)
a>5a>E
.;:: 2 .;:: (j)
a. 0.Q)
0-00
.... I:: .... >
a..roa..E
Q)
I::
o
2
a.
o ..c:
2l en_
ro 1::....
LL .Q ~
en .:x:: CO ro
=1::-1::
Q) eel Q) eel
~ CO ~~
-
o ....
1.0';:: .... Q)
T"""_O.....
en-.....
T""" ._ Q)
OQ)-
5-~Q)-
+=,1i)1i)COg'
o :J :J.2: =
Q)....E....:J
WI- a.....
a:
w
c
:>
o
a:
D..
~
2
<t:
CO
000
~(!)
~c::
W<t:
~LL
.co
o
o
N
I
CO
N
~
ca
:::iE
"
S
c
oc
0..
~
ca
E
E
;::,
en
!
;::,
~
"'C
C
Q)
Q.
><
W
-
c:
Q)
E
>-
ctl
a..
V)
Q)
u en
o~ ~
~ o~
Q) en
c:: en Q)
oQ c: U
~ 0 o~
.s~~
~.sc::
0::: ~ oQ
'O:::~
== , 0
c@~-m
~tt:o:::
O~,
ITO ~
s: ro tt:
--0 Q)
.~ c: >
E oc 0
.....0_
"'-<..:>
~=s:
::;2~-
U 0 x
o ctl ctl
mo..N
0>
"I
N
"I
o
M
ER-
o
"I
I
~
T"""
T"""
0>
0>
,
o
o
o
o
,
C'?
o
o
-
c:
Q)
E
>-
ctl
a..
"E
Q)
E
Q)
:::::
Q)
en
a>
C>
ctl
E
ctl
o
Q)
C3
:2
Q)
>
Q)
E
ctl
o
LO
....J
(.9
c:
0
=
~
0
-
en
a>
0:::
L- L- Q)
Q) .$
- E
V) V)
ctl ctl ctl
U ~ 0
c: Q)
ctl U o~
....J o~ c: C
C ll::: c: Z
Q) Q) Q)
Z ...., en 0 ~
~ LL
LL 0 (0 0> W
~ 00 "I
W LO Lri N en
(,) T""" 00 "I Z
00 "I 0 W
Z ER- ..."f M c..
~ ER- ER- ><
~ W
en 00 0> 0 C)
LO LO (0
3!: 00 00 00 Z
"I "I "I -
LL 0 0 0 Z
..... T""" T""" T""" Z
W "I C'? ~ ~
en 0::
-
c:
a>
E
a>
:::::
Q)
en
==
o
<+=
Q)
>
o
c;::-
ctl
:::::!..
L-
a>
-
V)
ctl
U
c:
ctl
....J
0>
o C'? T"""
T""" T""" T"""
o
~
LO
T"""
00
ER-
(000
o (0 "I
C'?...t00
r-- 00 "I
Or--~
T"""- ER- "1-
ER- ER-
o
"I
,
~
T"""
T"""
0>
0>
,
o
o
o
9
C'?
o
o
"I
"I
,
~
T"""
T"""
0>
0>
,
o
o
o
o
,
C'?
o
o
V)
E
L- Om
~<..:>
~~
Z:C
C> .~
o ....J
....J _
E ~
Om ~
- a>
<":>(.9
,
=I:i:'
....J ....J
<..:>(.9
V)
E V)
Om .s
u ctl
>-<..:>
t:: 0
a>_
a.::;,
e<(
a..
'<..:>
0..<(
co
o
I
....
o
o
N
en
::::E
~
(.)
J-
Z
w
::::E
w
en
0::
::::)
m
::::E
jjj
0::
C)
z
in
::::E
::::)
..J
a..
C
z
<C
en
3:
o
..J
u..
0::
w
~
J!l
c
...
E
E
o
(.)
.l!l
~~
- -0
Cc
"'rn
~.~
.!2~
:c c.-o
g> ~.2
~ ~~
..2 c: (I)
o.rnc
cO:B~
Q>c::()..Q
5j~::;;al
~&.o::~~
.5 .E ~ ~
:c c 0 Q)
.g"'3::ti'
Q)~~~
<3Cl-COCO
~-g"E
~ rn ~
~ EO ~
o::.e12
E 0.
jfj.;
~ 0 ffi
~ ~:I::::::-
~ 16 ~ .~
N..o (!)--
~~J9~
-~~~~
c:: c:: ro 0 ~ v.i
~~~~2t9!
~~~OeO
:S:S5o~C
~~.~gg.~
~~1iiQ)t9o
==~~8.~
~ii~i~~
S~~~~~8
C>
.5
Q.
E
rn
en
<(
~
o
~~
~rs
l!!<:
~~
<:Cl-
~
~ c: "2:: Q) c:
:: ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ '-E Q)
~ ~ ~o::_Q)~",~
j....~ ~~E::E
~~c::g~asgc::
rn 2 28 E ...2
lijQ~-6a::e~S
-eE1iicn.9'>~1i)
~~~ffi~LDc53~
fil88~
aiciN~
~~~~
....
o
o
o
.n
N
....
:3
~
~
~I~I
.21
~
s
'"
c
.2
"a
";;;
a..
~~~
")C" <.0
.....00'"
...........
m ~Cl'" ClClClClClClC....J'"
W a........ a.. a... CL a... a.. a.. 0.. a.. ......
I-
jl
Jl1
~ ~
~ Ja TI
~ !:5 ~
.m c:: nJ 2: Q)
~Q).ffiggggcE.~~
fiju22222.f<.9LJ.J
~o C::~-f;i.c:.c:..c: ooa
~ E e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .ill ~
~..'?0[DOOCDCDCD~~Ci5
II
51
=1
l!!
"a
::l
81
....................................r---............,.....
oooooooo~oo
~~~~~~~~i:d~gj
.....COCO..............................................N
000..............................
=1 ~ooooooooooo
~ ~gsgsgsgsgsgsgsgs~gsgs
_I .......NMv
"'<.0 .....
.Sl
8_
a: c
rn
~~
a:u
00
....0
--=Lri
N<.o
~;:;t
.Q
'-'
c
~
rn
Q;
C>
c
<:
~
;r;
"-:
;;;;
Cl
Cl-
.Q
g
~
rn
Q;
C>
~
N
'"
~
rn
::;;
Ci5
.Sl
c;;
en
rn
....J
'"
00
'"
00
~
o
o
en
en
>.
o ~
Z -0
~o~
~~~
~ :~ ~
o'1:Jro
--0'-'
Oc-",
Sl rn .2>
:g~-::
>.!!1 :!l.
~S~
"S: () <<i
~~ ~
~]l~
l'i ~ 0
rn-SiJ
0..0 :!l.
-j~~
b '0 ~
~~~
g~~
cna>t5
u
::;;
a:
;2;
<f,
'"
M
....
Cl
Cl-
.Q
g
~
rn
Q;
~
N
'"
~
rn
::;;
Ci5
.!!1
c;;
en
rn
....J
'"
00
'"
00
~
o
o
en
en
'"
J
rn
.!II
1!l
rn
5l
is
-'"
'0
g-
c
rn
'"
"
.9
-0
~ "iii
~ :I:
~ ~
~ S
1:' ~c;!
~g!, >Q)~
~TI ~~.e
ro~ "E~-!
cO ~EQ)
:;:::Ie (f)E'2U)
~~~~~1iil
8-l3i!~:5'5b
~~~~:BiR
-=~.(ij05 s
men ~~a: .s:
.sa
'"
rn
'-'
c
rn
....J
ll=
.9l
.~ .~ .~
o~ ~ ~
uc
c.Q ,8
~~ l!
~& ~
~.9i I
c '" ..
g~-~I J
l!~ffi~-",
~.~.S.~E .
&~c3~~
~8?;l..... ~
g ~~ ~ ~
z;; ~t09-..
o
o
on
a;
....
8
~-
N
....
Cl
Cl-
l5: 5: f:r f:r ~ ~
(;j
c
~
'"
c
.Sl
~
c
rn
....J
~
I
:g
1ii
Cl-
O!
N
o 03
~ (f) -g ~
~ fij ~ ~ ~ Cl-
~~ro~~ W
~~ -fiE ~
~d5~~~ ~
~
~
.l!l
rn
....J
~
,..
.!!1
c;;
>
,..
0.
0.
rn
I
~
0.
::::>
o
'"
~~~~
~~~~~ ns
ro.s.s.s ~ -g
~~~~~ (5
t: t:
~88
~EE
~~ ~ ~ ~
I~~~...J B
~~~8.g i
~tgtg~~
~~~1i5;2;
......1.0 Il') C")...... l.C')
i
o
00
o
~
o
OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ
~~~~~
..............~~
o 00
NN
00000
o
en
en
00000 0
Cf) Cf) Cf) Cf) Cf) en
Cf)C/)C/)C/)C/) U)
'"
~
......N ~
00
o
o
N
;:::
~
M
~
<:>
wi
i
,..:
....
.....
~
...
:3
i
8
~
....
,.:
;z
...
..
,.
o
'E
'"
>
o
c;;
-0
....
c:::
W
:I:
I-
o
C()
o
I
,...
o
o
N
en
::E
:3
u
~
:::i
m "I
<( ~
...J III
...J &!
D1!
ffi ~
C)
J!1
c
..
E
E
o
u
.9 I
it ~ I~
I~ ~ I';,.;
h. '" i~ ~
1'0 0 ~ a
Ii 1;~ i-g
i,l~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~
,~ :ac: ~~s
IS 0 ~ E:g ~
,.5 :J:~cial9l"O
110 ~g!enffi11?ffi
I~ i ~ "i <5 ~.~
ffit;;_ii.~1518~l!!
ElJ~i6"O~_(I,)Q)
l'15"':>"'<>~E'5
I~~~~~~g
_E~ 0-
"". t;~"''iiig!()$
.c Q) "000 U)
l!i~:"81<ii-5~8
'" ~-ar.5E:;::l:l
~ :::so~4:'gC3~.9
~I~I
.21
~
2
&
.9
&.
.l!I
...
o
.2
"Cl
"ii
ll..
Ch
0;
N.
;;
'"
0>
M
on
'"
...
8
g
...
o 00 0
a.. a... a.. a...
~
~
en
i
'"
:::E
II
N
'"
~ i~ ~
"\.. ~b ~
i ~i ~
,f ()D.. ~
I ~
2 It ~
~ <5 ::;iO ;;:
i
i
~Jl
li!:! '" g!
.!~~ 8
II ~5~ ~
:9 J!~g~ li3
...... ~ t5 COi"lll" (5
I
601 ~ ~il~ ~
~ lH~ ~
....I=ol.....~;r! ,
~ '-' t5!~ ~
,
_I N:(I') "'It'
0>
'"
N
'"
o
M
...
o
0..
~
l;;
o
'"
'"
~
~
()
'5
c:
<ii
;;:
c:
.2
~
~
.sa
.5
'"
~
'"
::;
00
o
r:::
~
o
-'
C)
on
~
co
..;
~
....
N
~
co
..;
~
....-
~
c
c
c:i
c
~
...
l;;
5
-'
C)
~
.....
>-
~
w
a..
o
c:::
a..
J!1
c
..
E
E
o
u
EI II>
.- B
.!! 0
u.....
il
.l!I
...
o
.2
"Cl
"ii
ll..
II
~
II
~
II
::l
gl
~I~
-I
,.,
~
'"
b
en
()
()
() .
.9 ~
c: -
,- '"
'" ~
~ ~
~~
'10 ~
5"0
~&
is _~
~~
=0
.cen
5.8
~()
oE
~ '"
.8 E
~ .~
::;iif
~
....
'"
c:
F
'"
en
.<=
<>
'"
.c
3l
'"
I
o
en
()
()
()
'"
~
;0
00
('oj
;;
,....
....
M
;$;
M
~
o
0..
o
en
()
()
()
o
en
()
()
()
'"
-g
8
.c
'"
C3
~
"E
.3
'"
-g
8
.c
=>
C3
~
.3
'"
-g
8
,....
Q
~
'"
o
0..
o
a::
0..
"0
5l
o
U
E
'0;
U
~
'"
E
'"
w-
E
.g
~
'"
8
8!
o
0..
'"
"0
c:
8
,....
Q
~
'"
o
0..
o
a::
0..
~
N
~
...
~
~
~
c
c
c:i
...
,.,
~
'"
Co
e
0..
"ii
15
.....
en
::E
<(
...J
U
o
I-
~
<(
Ii iii !~g
I~ I'~ li~~
j5 18 ~ ~
II~ !ts II ~ ~
1== !~ -~~
I~ i-g I.Q ffi
il~)~ il~~
:0 ~I-~ . c: g.
~ ~I~ !~ c:
I Jg ~i:!;l i 2 ~
=> 1-= I;;;"'"
1~J!!i.!!l ",.8
~ ~io I ~ g
i~.<=i~ i%~
~~i~ 'I~ ~
..c ,.... . c.. Q)
qjl',.E ~ E:2:
~~~:2~~
:g ~ica ~I~ ~
t CI)!,~ -g1'ti:C
(3 ~ic( <3 (5 ~
J!1
c
..
E
E
o
u
.21
~
~
c:
'..
D..
.9
=>
<>::
'"
u
~
:i!
~I
II
II
o
en
()
()
()
c.i
II>
..
o
.c
~
00
'"
'"
..
.r=
~
'"
(5
.~I
1;j
<>
o
....I
o
o
0..
gl
,....
~
r:::
o
~I ~~
....I~<>::
- I~
: <>
I~
is
i .
Ii
o
()
'"
-g
8
N
'"
"0
c:
'"
, c:
103
I
1-5
-'
on
'"
cO
00
'"
",'
...
o
'0
:oq:
I-
i;;
I
I
I
I~
18
I
I
00
'"
'"
..
.<=
~
;;;
(5
o
en
()
()
o
,
it
,'"
:()
'0>
iCO
,~
,::;
i~
,()
'"
"0
c:
8
=>
,c:
:16
I;;:
i
,....
I~
12i
I
,0
,.....
=>
1<>::
I
1M
,....
o
N
as
o
o
.....
=>
<>::
'"
DO
o
o
~
I'-
~
M
<D
co
..;
c
...
..;
...
<D
co
..;
c
...
..;
...
c
c
c:i
...
'"
E
'0;
U
.s
=>
<
"ii
15
.....