Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 04-14-05 199 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD ON APRIL 14, 2005 I The District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in an adjourned regular session in the Board Room at the District Offices at 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, at 2:02 p.m. on April 14, 2005. President Hockett called the meeting to order and requested that the Secretary call roll. 1. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Members: Boneysteele, Lucey, Menesini, Nejedly, Hockett ABSENT: Members: None 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 3. REPORTS~NNOUNCEMENTS None 4. CAPITAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE MEETING/BOARD WORKSHOP a. PROVIDE OVERVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET AND DRAFT 2005 TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN I Mr. Batts introduced Ms. Ann E. Farrell, Director of Engineering, who stated that she will present a budget overview, including revenue and expenditures and the sewer construction fund balance; a summary of the expenditures by program, focusing on the major projects; discussion of Joint Powers Agreements with cities and counties; and a preview of the Collection System Operations Division yard improvements. BUDGET OVERVIEW Ms. Farrell stated that, since 2000, spending had slowed down because of concerns regarding loss of the ad valorem tax. This year, due to an increase in reserves, spending has been increased in order to accomplish projects, and is projected to be approximately $27.5 million. The estimated FY 2004-05 revenue is projected to be approximately $5 million more than budgeted at $27.5 million, due to increased connections in the Dougherty Valley. Therefore, the Sewer Construction Fund balance is projected to remain at approximately $55 million at the end of fiscal year 2004-05. I She stated that the expenditures recommended for this year are $27.7 million. The majority of those funds will be spent on the Collection System, where renovations are necessary to control and reduce overflows. The total revenue projected is somewhat lower, primarily due to the fact that the District will lose its ad valorem tax this year, about $6 million of which will come out of the capital program, resulting in spending down the Sewer Construction Fund by approximately $7 million in FY 2005-06. The connection fee revenue is based on 1800 connections in the Dougherty Valley, which is a fairly aggressive number. She discussed the question of what is an appropriate Sewer Construction Fund balance, stating that the fiscal year 2005-06 end balance is projected to be $48 million. $33 million is needed to meet cash flow needs, which means the available balance for projects at the end of fiscal year 2005-06 will be approximately $15 million. The Capital 4-14-05 200 Improvement Plan recommends spending $250 million over the next ten years. Unfunded projects of up to $374 million, and large projects outside the ten-year window of approximately $90 million, are not included in the planned $250 million expenditures. She described unfunded projects, including mercury removal at the treatment plant, or possibly effluent filtration if side stream mercury removal is not successful. Projects outside the ten-year window include the future A-line Interceptor and Lamorinda Interceptor projects. COLLECTION SYSTEM PROGRAM Ms. Farrell reviewed the collection system program and specifically the eight collection system projects budgeted to spend more than $500,000 in fiscal year 2005-06. The total Collection System Program expenditures are budgeted at $16,123,0000 She said that the Lower Orinda Pumping Station is an ongoing project, planned to be completed in FY 06-07. $2.6 million has been budgeted for the project this fiscal year, and upon completion the District will have spent approximately $8 million. The remainder of the large Collection System Program projects should be completed this year, including Vessing Road Renovation, South Orinda Sewer Improvements, and Walnut Creek Renovations. The M4-A Force Main Replacement project is a one-year project, the cost of which has been reduced by approximately $0.5 million. She briefly described the many issues in addition to design and construction that impact the schedule and costs of collection system projects including: public relations, property rights, permits, and partnering agreements. Ms. Farrell then discussed partnering agreements in some detail and asked for Board direction. Partnering agreements take two forms, agreements with private parties and agreements with other public entities, such as cities and counties (Joint Powers Agreements or JPAs). Within these two forms of agreements there are routine issues, such as pavement restoration, and non-routine issues, such as the JPA we will be negotiating with the County on the Treat Bridge Sewer Relocation and the agreement we recently negotiated with private parties on the St. Stephens slide. She stated that, currently, all non-routine agreements and JPAs with cities or the County are presented to the Board for approval. Routine agreements, such as for restoration of pavement, mailboxes and or landscaping damaged by District projects on private property are currently negotiated by staff and, as with claims, approved administratively if less than $25,000. This process has worked well, she stated. Recently several JPAs brought to the Board for routine pavement restoration have resulted in significant discussion at the Board level. By the time such agreements reach the Board, staff as often reached an understanding with County or City staff on a recommended course of action. If the Board chooses not to approve the JPA, it results in significant rework on the part of both staffs. Staff is looking for direction from the Board on how to negotiate the routine agreements, such as the paving agreements, so that the Board will be comfortable approving these agreements when they reach the Board level. Currently, staff attempts to negotiate a lump sum payment equal to what it would cost the District to do the work. The benefits of this method include that the city or county assumes future risk and undertakes any necessary public interface. Alternatives include negotiating to pay for the work in the future when it is to be completed, but that may expose the District to the risk of inflation or changes in the scope of the work. She requested input from the Board. Member Lucey reiterated his objection to the District being assessed the negotiated cost of repaving, for example, several blocks of a street, when the actual cost of repaving of the street when constructed in the future would be shared by other entities, which could potentially reduce the District's portion of the cost. Member Nejedly stated that, while a repaving project is underway, signage indicated that the project is being funded by the City. This does not give sufficient credit to the District for its participation in the repaving project. 4-14-05 I I I ---~----_. ------ - ---------'-----'------' --.---- I I I 201 Member Menesini stated that, in his opinion, a blanket approach may not be possible. Ms. Farrell stated that staff currently has authority to approve up to $50,000 in change orders, encroachment permit fees and construction contracts. She recommended that staff be given authority to approve jPAs for up to $50,000 without Board approval. General Counsel Kent Aim said that a resolution authorizing such delegation would be necessary. Members Menesini and Nejedly expressed a preference that all jPAs be brought to the Board for approval, perhaps on the Consent Calendar, since there are not that many per year. President Hockett and Member Boneysteele supported the recommendation of staff, including the negotiation philosophy, with the $50,000 approval limit. Following discussion, staff was directed to bring the matter back for Board consideration as a Position Paper. TREATMENT PLANT PROGRAM Ms. Farrell reviewed the treatment plant program for 2005-06. The total Treatment Plant Program expenditures are budgeted at $7,493,000. She described the six treatment plant program projects expected to spend more than $300,000 in 2005-06. The largest of these projects is the Ultraviolet Disinfection Expansion which is anticipated to take approximately 2 years at a total cost of $2.5 million and will expend approximately $1.5 million in the next fiscal year. Other large projects include the Treatment Plant Protective Coating, Phase 3 at approximately $1 million and the POD/HVAC Improvements which are projected to cost approximately $900,000. The Plant Control System Improvements were discussed with the Board at the April 7, 2005 Board meeting. This project is significant and is projected to cost up to $4 million total project cost, somewhat more than the $2.6 million currently contained in the CIB document. There is also a significant project planned to improve the HV AC and Roof for the POD buildings that have reached the end of their useful life. She went on to describe projects in the Recycled Water Program and the General Improvements Program. RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM The primary activity in the recycled water program will be the continued expansion of the Pleasant Hill Zone 1 Project. New users will continue to be added as they are found to be cost effective. A budget of $406,000 is recommended for 2005-06 and then about $300,000 per year for the remainder of the ten-year plan for this purpose. GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM The General Improvements Program budget has been increased significantly for the next several years to fund a number of important and needed projects. In addition, it will continue to fund the Equipment Budget, which includes District vehicles, and the MIS Plan. District building assets have not received significant investment for many years. There is a significant project needed to improve the Headquarters Office Building HV AC, Roof and Electrical system. These improvements are expected to cost over $2 million. With regard to Collection System Operations Division Facility Improvements, Ms. Farrell stated that the District has budgeted $500,000 this year to continue the study and a total of approximately $8 million for the complete project, although this figure is just a planning level estimate. She described the history of the facility, stating that a consultant contract was approved in April 2004 to develop a needs analysis and conceptual plans. 4-14-05 ----------- ---- -----_.- ---. 202 She stated that the identified 20-year requirements include a building 20,000 square feet in size that would house approximately 77 staff. She stated that the projected cost of $400 per square foot is high because of the need to address the three different levels of the corporation yard. The cost to build a new facility would be approximately $10 million. To refurbish what currently exists, with no increase in square footage, would cost approximately $3 million. To add on to the existing building would add 3,000 square feet, for a total of approximately 13,000 square feet, at a cost of $6 million. Ms. Farrell showed three site plans and circulation options, and stated that the City of Walnut Creek has expressed a preference for Option 2. She stated that staff had looked at selling the property and moving the facility to Martinez, but it was prohibitive and not a central location to the service area. In response to a question from Member Boneysteele regarding potential interest from Caltrans in the property, Ms. Farrell concurred that it would be a good idea to contact them before building anything close to the right-of-way. I She described recent District projects of similar cost, stating that $10 million appears to be a reasonable estimate. Member Nejedly inquired why no fuel island is shown on the plans. Ms. Farrell responded that staff is still considering whether a fuel system is needed, or perhaps just small diesel and gasoline tanks for emergencies instead and continuing with the contract fueling of the diesel vehicles in the evening. Ms Farrell stated that there is $500,000 in the Capital Improvement Budget for this project, $100,000 of which has been spent on architectural services to date. She asked for Board direction on how to proceed. Member Nejedly stated that his preference is to proceed no further, adding that he would not support the $7 million price tag. Member Menesini requested that a project workshop be held at the CSO facility. Member Boneysteele asked about the possibility of moving the vehicles to some other location. He stated that, in his opinion, staff is on track and the project could be financed out of the Sewer Construction Fund. Member Boneysteele stated that the District should not have a deteriorating yard. He confirmed the need for the District to maintain a presence in the central part of the County. Member Lucey stated that he will not support the $7 million project. He asked what it would cost the District to lease flat space for the vehicles. I President Hockett expressed concern about the Boardmembers' reluctance to spend District reserves, when the high level of reserves had previously bßen cited as a problem by several of the Board members. She stated that this pjresents an opportunity to invest in the District. President Hockett stated this iß a needed facility and that is what the reserves are meant to be used for. Motion was made by Member Menesini to direct staff to schedule a workshop on the matter at the CSO facility. President Hockett and Member Boneysteele concurred that staff should schedule a workshop on the CSO facility. Ms. Farrell concluded that staff will return to the Board in June and ask for authorization for the $41.9 million for the FY 2005-06 Capital Improvement Budget, which includes the total project cost for multi-year projects. b. REVIEW DRAFT MIS/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BUDGET FOR 2005-2006 I Mark Greenawalt, MIS Administrator, provided an overview of the Information Technology (IT) Development Budget, which is broken into four sections - Current 2004-05; Proposed 2005-06 Budget; Future Projects; and 2001-04 Accomplishments. 4-14-05 I I I 203 He stated that, for the 2004-05 budget, it is projected that $416,000 will have been spent for the yearly PC replacement program. He stated that completed projects include installation of a Board Room audio recording system, as well as an e-mail spamming system and network equipment upgrades. The upgrade of the laboratory information management system and the Groupwise e-mail upgrade are almost complete. He stated that the proposed 2005-06 budget of approximately $580,000 includes the PC replacement program, expansion of the computer network in remote areas of plant, upgrade of the mainsaver software, purchase of GDI field laptops, and replacement of the internet firewall. c. SUMMARY Ms. Farrell stated that staff will bring back in June the request for ~oard authorization of the Capital Improvement Budget funds for the coming fiscal year, 2005-06. She stated that a position paper on the JPA approval staff authority limits will be scheduled for Board consideration on an upcoming agenda, and a Board workshop will be scheduled on the CSO Facility project at CSOD in Walnut Creek in the May time frame. 5. REPORTS~NNOUNCEMENTS a. PROVIDE DETAILED PROJECT DISCUSSION IF REQUESTED BY BOARD No additional information was requested. b. ANNOUNCEMENTS Member Menesini announced the meeting of the Environmental Alliance scheduled for Monday, April 18, 2005. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, President Hockett adjourned the meeting at the hour of 3:18 p.m. 7 ) // i]£!/(øJ. / / II>~ President of the Board of Directors, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, !State of California COUNTERSIGNED: ~~ Secretary of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California 4-14-05