HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-01 AGENDA BACKUP
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
No.: 3. a. CONSENT CAL ENDAR
Type of Action: ACCEPT GRANTS OF EASEMENT AND AUTHORIZE RECORDING
Subject:
ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER EASEMENTS WITHIN THE ROSSMOOR
DEVELOPMENT, PHASE 6, DP 5423
Submitted By:
David Baldi, Sr. Engineering Assistant
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Environmental Services
W. Brennan
A. Farrell
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
~r
#r
H. Thorn
WiA
0fJk-
ISSUE: Board of Directors action is required to transfer existing sanitary sewers from the
privately maintained Rossmoor system to the District's public sewer system.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the President of the District's Board of Directors and the
Secretary of the District to accept Grants of Easements for District Project No. 1001,
Parcels 124, 130, 133, 138, 140, and 143, and authorize the Grants of Easements be
recorded.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: Not applicable. Filing the easement documents is
part of the agreement between the District and Rossmoor.
BACKGROUND: The agreement between Rossmoor and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District (CCCSD) provides for the improvement and transfer of portions of the Rossmoor
sanitary sewer system to CCCSD. The agreement formalizes a process by which sewers
with diameters of six (6) inches and greater would become publicly maintained. To date,
six (6) phases of this project have been completed. The easements being submitted
represent those sewer lines that have been completed under Phase 6 work. The parcel
designations and grantors of the easements that are being accepted now can be found in
the following table:
PARCEL
124
130
133
138
140
143
GRANTOR
Second Walnut Creek Mutual
First Walnut Creek Mutual
Mutual 27
First Walnut Creek Mutual
First Walnut Creek Mutual
Golden Rain Foundation
3/29/01
Page 1 of 9
,
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
Subject:
ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER EASEMENTS WITHIN THE ROSSMOOR
DEVELOPMENT, PHASE 6, DP 5423
Once the easements are accepted by the Board of Directors, staff will record them. The
sewers within the easements will become part of CCCSD's public sewer system upon the
recordation of the easements.
Staff has concluded that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines, Section 18.6, since it involves a minor
alteration in land use limitations. Approval of this project is exempt from CEQA.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize the President of the Board of Directors to
accept Grants of Easements for Rossmoor Development Project, Phase 6, District Project
No. 5423, Parcels 124, 130, 133, 138, 140, and 143, and authorize the grants to be
recorded.
3/29/01
Page 2 of 9
c:
'"
""!
o
c
...,
N
....
of)
"
.<=
u
~
c 0
~ I
....
of)
-;;;
'"'
III
'0
u
"
:;, Central Contra Costa
8 Sanitary District
:i
o
o
N
~
::E
0,
N
-11'
~
M
-
TERRA
CAUFORNIA
DR
WALNUT
CREEK
c:::> EASEMENT
LOCATIONS
INSET A
N.T.S.
ALAMO
RD
~
-~-
DANVILLE
2
I
MILES
EASEMENT LOCATION MAP
ROSSMOOR SEWER PROJECT PHASE 6
D.P. X5423
Attachment
-
Page 3 of 9
::-~
N
,
,
\
I
I
I
I
/
EX.Hl ..
CENTRAL CQNt .'
RIGHT ....
t.......
........:
I
:".......
......................... :-.........
;.
.........,
..............:
........h
i............;
...J f........
:........ ......
...................
...............
..................J
c:
'"
"
ci
:2
u
C>-
o
o
;;
o
o
~
>,
..
o
"
/
.><
r..............)
DRAWN BY:
SDC
SCALE:
1"-200'
....
......;
1'..........
..............
...................
................i
{""1
.....;
r'",.
.....~
.............1
:......
..........
........................
...........i
........................~
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
........................~
CHECKED BY:
DB
DATE:
1-29-01
;......
.........................
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
...........................
.........................
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
..........................
r..................
.............i
..........\
.......\
..\............
\........
\"::\
.....~...
\....\
........~\
, ,
\j
.......
.., ....
\......................
THOMAS BRO.:
72E6
CO.ASSMT. NO.:
189-150-004
/
/.~
/./.--/
/0/
/"://
~ 1//'
j:j
//;
1//
, /, 1
L..!! I
I ................. ..........
............
r"1
......I
r---!-~~jT
i ;................i t
I [=:~_-
~ r.....:.!.~.......: t..
: :::
i !!!:
\ L......J......! \.
\;=I!\ \\
,.......
/" ,..--
1 /
( (~:::;
\! t=:j
I I ..
I l r........:.
\"""""":,, ..\ \ , i
\, ',~......./.....
, .....
............ --
../.........) -..........
./ ./...././....
O"l
4-
o
c::::t
Q)
en
to
0..
........\
... ......
.....
.........\
\\ \\
\ \
\......:.
JOB NO.:
1001
PARCEL NO.:
130
EX.Hl
CENTRAL CqNT ....
RIGHT ..'
~
N
,
-....
r..
0" ",
"-
"-
"-
,
.............~:.~.
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
,
, "-
" )
/ ,
/ /
/ , {......... ,....
, / i "t1 !
..........
f.......
11-.1.'
t......:
, , ......, i
........: I I .
n rl,l '-, ::::' 1..
I / J',
j / I', ...........
, / I
, / /
/ 1/' r.................................
, !, / i i
......i/ / i....... .......1
"
"-
,
"-
"-
"-
,
,
,
,
,
....
)
.......,i/
29 LSM
r.....!
: :
: :
:........:
i".........
...........
.......:
" .....~ ~......
:: :
:: :
: .......
z
w
o
-.J
o
CJ
................
...........................
....................i
c:
'"
..,
cD
:2
u
Q.
(;
o
;;
o
o
;;
"
'"
"
"0
u
..-
.;;
f.................
................. ...............1 ;-......
..........
r.......-..
.,...........,;,r.....,..,I....,
.,t.f.............,/
fL...... '"
r.......... ......: :.......
DR
:.......
.......................,/
............. .
r....... .................
...................... ..... !
.......;
O"l
4-
o
LO
Q)
01
ta
Cl..
j
........:
:......
.................,/
.................... .
(....)
DRAWN BY:
SDC
SCALE:
1"-200'
CHECKED BY:
DB
DATE:
1-29-01
THOMAS BRO.:
72E6
CO. ASSMT. NO.:
189-150-004
JOB NO.:
1001
PARCEL NO.:
138
EX.Hl
CENTRAL CqNt .'
RIGHT ..'
),\RY DISTRICT
....../.. SEWER
.........
:::'::;:':':::':'::::':::''::'" ,......... 'I
~~----:~"L~.~.~_ fl....... 40
....................,1 ~:~~.---==I/~~~---_/----~~~-~:: . · ),>
..,......,.,r................ ./ / ..
.. T ..... ......... ...;///'> ,..//"'/"">'
r '
./----\t~MP~rt/,,~-( :',:, -" J /<'::?/. .::
M66....1 .... .... :::...............'t~~~Jt!(B\.. ..// // <...././ ///
,....... ~a>--....:... ..........Mstt..............'} \:Y' '. ..'( / ....'Mk/
.... ..................148-::..0::.~~~~~ lrf..:...........~ <:'::.:,../~~..."'~,
..... i"o- ....... / >Ri "
A '<?'M3 ~ii,-~....'/" Y r.....................,
M2 II I
!f 8r~6;J
/ I I I '\
1----..... I I I '\
'-__ ---<--.1_
---
---
~
N
1
.........................
{~}
\
........\..
" .......
\.......
"
t......
j f
"''',.J
..'
....
j..................................
....
....
'.
". "
.....
-- '" .............1. .f.!...................................
c...,.._...._.....-:-... =-_ - -_,.--:-.....=-.......-_::: .r...........
- - - -- - - :.................. .........7! ..............
"-, [-7===~~==Z=..:.:..:::..:.:....;.;.717;;~-~]
1....../
<:......
\..\
....
....... ..>
...... "
.... ....
...........
..../ ")
,,' " .... ./...........~::. ........... ".
...... " ",
<:>' ......
(. .....
...... .....~..:>
.....
"
'"
"
ci
:!:
u
a.
<5
o
:;
o
o
:;;
~
"8
/"
.0:
.'
:............
..........
....
..................i
;"......
'.....1
.;.......~........
......
.....
......
r................
....
.....~\ '\. .......
....
......
O"l
4-
o
\.0
Q)
Ol
"'
a...
'y'-
..
o
;i; DRAWN BY:
8 SDC
....
~ SCALE:
~ 111-200'
....
CHECKED BY:
DB
DATE:
1-29-01
THOMAS BRO.:
72E5
CO. ASSMT. NO.:
189-140-007
JOB NO.:
1001
PARCEL NO.:
140
...................
..................
c:
'"
"0
.
!::!
u
Q.
o
o
:;;
o
o
~
~
8
"
:;.
DRAWN BY:
SDC
SCALE:
1"-200'
................................
~
N
,
"
"
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
1
,
,
,
,
,
1
,
,
1
,
,
,
,
,
1
,
,
,
1
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
1
,
,
,
1
.............:..
EXHl
CENTRAL CONT ..'
RIGHT ......
;;~ .... ..' -"'" . .
... .... ...................................... ~ ,. J
/" ,.s~~, (\,;;::~~;/'
"'~ ..:\:'~~:;,/ ";~, \~\ '
\ \ \ ~ :. ,,' \' \........:;......
\ \ I ...."
'. I I '., ,
,\ I@....\\
\1 \ 132 ...... .' \
\\ --- ......." ~/*
, ....\~--_, "M ~
~~EISURE ~ji; <. \\ (
, ... -0,..... .\,-;gv"'\,,}....,.. ......\ \..~\\ . <./;;:,\
, ":J:1' ,\ dM2" '. '. :. \ I .' . '''. '.
, . \~\ \&,\ \\2"'7 ....L....SM.... .;:'..7.'...... '\..
~\ ,," \ \ '. '. '..' .......
----,il.."~\......~"O \ ::..\ LOT\13 \"::' ".), '..,
----ffJ'- ,..\....\~3' IM:t@24..-....'...\\...
-- \ M41" " .' ..' ". \ \\ \
<?M6 M5\ ,\:or ..... '.'. \, \
.. ,,' .;0)\'(:;' ";\ \ \I~II <...'....MUT 2."\ \..... \~.v>
, ,.'Ul.~' 'mil" ....
-, \, .\ '\,~.1..A \......\V~ \\............... ..... './
- ~..... -!
S1 ANLEY DOLLAR DR
\\ ,
\.\ \
\\ \
\'" ...".:\ ".... ',-
.... ....
.... ,
RUNNING
,...........'1
1 11
i Ii
1 11
L.........! :
.............1
i iI
I 11
L........JlJ
1
I
1
1
1
I 1
1 I
LJ
.......
I!
L__J 1
\\ \ ....
.' '.
.:.,
\~... '..-.
~.,
i...
.....".
\.......-..
;'."
..'~
r-I
\ I
\ \
I \
\ I
\ I
I
\ .....
/':~~~:~~ '~ .'
/".......'\ \....
\\ \
\, \
\.\ \
.....\v.>
....- ...
\,.,.'"
....,....
.\.
\.,....
\
\ \
I \
I \
I I
lJCJ
I
,......., L. - - ~
.,. :
'" :
r......,l ;.................\
: :
\...::......r~....
~~:::::\
......
.......
\.....................................................................................................::~....
CHECKED BY:
DB
DATE:
2-05-01
.'
..........
.............
c;\\;
......... ....
........ ........ ....
.... '-...;:,
....\ ),'v
.........-.......
O'l
4-
o
r-....
Q)
01
."
CL
..............
.....
.......
....................
:"'....,
/ I
rl
I I
I I
THOMAS BRO.:
77A2
CO. ASSMT. NO.:
189-170-007
JOB NO.:
1001
PARCEL NO.:
124
EX:H'~,:
CENTRAL CONi ,," '
RIGHT ,/
r..........
\\\
.....
........
......::~
,,'
ARY DISTRICT
......./.. SEWER
~
--~ .
\
---..1
'"
"
"
"
"
..:;;....
.........../ j
................../
----.......
/
-) /.
/ /
/ /
I....
'/>""..!
/ .... ....
"
'"
'0
..;
:2
u
Q.
o
o
:::
o
o
~
'"
~
'0
u
-::
DRAWN BY:
SDC
SCALE:
1"-200'
/~~;::;:-----'--1
\ ...,., / ~ (\'., ~
/ \ ~~]11 \ ~I \:]. I.
..............:
I \ I !
\ I I ,'....J.., ~
I I I ~
I 1 ,
I \ I !
LJ~ ,..,......., !
I 1
98' EX M !........
'l_':,:.:_,..,:~_:::::_)Jt;:~;....................J ...................................................... 1\ \
'"' .1 < 1 \ '--- t..,,:
----~'z,. ....,.' !. LOT 1 ........... i "----::---_ i... .....'.:..
M1 12'~ ? .......~ j"""" '_ --.::::::: i
~ ~., ..', . ....~.'.'..'.! ......',",:--.'..,..,..........-- -~-
C1l-~4~ to? SU..81..............4.......'.....2.......S...............,.:......... - --
....................:.:.::............../:;... ....... ............~....: '" ...........
' '''' '. -- R1 "'.. 136 M 47 '.
I~~'--;:-(L:( @ t;~!~ C;; (- -".
7 /.( "'?~Y~'~~7':~~:~:~:~~{:~;~~J-
.............../ ../,/1
......,f
\.,.
~:'
\... ."
"
.; .....
./
......
.....
,......-f"""
..,.....,\
r....~.......~.:......
, ,
. .
, ,
. ,
. ,
, .
. .
: :
, ,
. .
....... .
.................i
" ....
.',
N
~
'\
"
.....~.:" ''-,
".::-" "-.
". ......,.~..,.....
" ...... ....
,-', v .:. ~..~.,
....... ~..~ ~ "" "-
.....'- " -',
....,~::--" ")
V
...,
/ "
.... ,
........... .......... : -',
)~'~,~~::~~,
......
~f~~~~~!~~~
. ,
t., :
, ,
~.............. . .... . .:'f
.......
...........
-~.:....,
...... ......../
:::::::c;::
...........;...
C"''''f-\
\ i \
\ i \
\ ! \ ,
L"",\ \::~ \....."".,
..... --
;::::-:"7 -:-
---
..... ...........-..... ......
?'~'~~~~}~~:;
t.......
;,
.~'...
~
\ L=:.=.~..j
0'\
4-
o
co
Q)
01
ltl
0...
CHECKED BY:
DB
DATE:
1-29-01
THOMAS BRO.:
77A3
CO. ASSMT. NO.:
189- 290
JOB NO.:
1001
PARCEL NO.:
133
"-
"-
"-
"-
'.......::::.~.
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
,
\ \
/ I
f /
/ /
I I
I f
/ I
- ...............
i
/ / t
..f /,,"'7 I /
,.......; "'" / /
(117 /
/ / il /
.J I i/ /
, if I
j fj / ,t........................... .
, L".......ij ,/ ''''''''''''
....................1
:.......~
: :
: :
: :
i........:
c
'"
"
,,;
:!
u
Q.
(5
o
:;:
(5
o
~
~
'0
u
/
,;<
(I
...........,.:
["..........
o
N
g DRAWN BY:
g SDC
N
~ SCALE:
g 1".200'
EX:.H'~::
CENTRAL CONt .":
RI G HT ./ ~~. :::~::.\
~
N
,
.....................
..............;
........
........ )
.......~
29 LSM
r.-./,,"'"'''' "'" "'" .....1"...... it--,
T' f1 J
;:::--'! (.o{! r', n
: "''''''''''''''''J """"" / W.. i '~__ ",
.............
.............:
r.......
........:
/..:......................
..................j
r...................
.............
z
w
o
--l
o
(!J
.........
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
............1
...........J
/..............
............... ...~
:..................
..................1
..................................
r...................
.............7
..............................1
/-................
DR
"::::::::::1
l""""
J
............!
/7
............!
0'\
4-
o
0'\
OJ
Ol
to
c...
/....................7
,......................1
r....~.7
f f
! !
: :
:......... I
........
r.........
...........
..~~~~:.]
{................
....................1
t..........
CHECKED BY:
DB
DATE:
1-29-01
THOMAS BRO.:
72E6
CO. ASSMT. NO.:
189-150-004
JOB NO.:
1001
PARCEL NO.:
143
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
No.:
3.b. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK
Subject: ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WORK FOR THE HARTZ AVENUE SEWER
RELOCATION, DISTRICT PROJECT 5451, IN DANVILLE, AND
AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Submitted By:
Alex Rozul, Associate Engineer
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Capital Projects
~
If(
H. Thorn
V1M
~
A. Farrell
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
W. Brennan
ISSUE: Construction has been completed on the Hartz Avenue Sewer Relocation ProJect,
(DP 5451) in Danville, and the work is now ready for acceptance.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for the Hartz Avenue Sewer Relocation
Project, and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None related to this action.
AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: Not applicable. Filing the Notice of Completion is
advisable under the California Civil Code Section 3093.
BACKGROUND: The old 30-inch trunk sewer at 110 Hartz Avenue, which ran along the
bank of San Ramon Creek, had considerable settlement during the past winter rains on the
uphill side of the sewer. A geotechnical investigation by DCM/Joyal indicated that any
further deterioration of the bank during future wet-weather events could potentially result
in failure of the 30-inch trunk sewer. This was a significant concern to the District since
this trunk sewer carries approximately four million gallons per day of peak dry-weather
flow and is adjacent to San Ramon Creek.
This project involved relocating approximately 120 feet of the 30-inch sewer trunk,
60 feet of which was bored and jacked under an existing structure; relocating 70 feet of
eight-inch main; and installing five (5) manholes. In addition, a 90-foot sub-grade pier
retaining wall was constructed to protect the new sewer and existing structure from
future movement. The plans and specifications were prepared by District staff with the
assistance of DCM/Joyal Engineering.
3/29/01
CPD-GL-I :\Construction\Position Papers\200 1 \5451 Acceptance. wpd
Page 1 of 3
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
Subject:
ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WORK FOR THE HARTZ AVENUE SEWER
RELOCATION, DISTRICT PROJECT 5451, IN DANVILLE, AND
AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
On October 19, 2000, the Board of Directors (Board) authorized the award of a contract
for the construction of the project to Kristin Construction. The Notice to Proceed was
issued on October 25, 2000. The work was completed on March 11, 2001. The
remaining items of work consist of minor punch list items which do not affect the project
acceptance.
The total authorized budget for the project is $491,864. The budget includes the cost of
engineering design, District forces, testing services, geotechnical services, contractor
services, etc. An accounting of the project costs will be provided to the Board at the time
of project closeout. It is appropriate to accept the contract work at this time.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Accept the contract work for the Hartz Avenue Sewer
Relocation Project, and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion.
3/29/01
CPD-GL-I :\Construction\Position Papers\2001 \5451 Acceptance.wpd
Page 2 of 3
c:
~
~
5
o
~
...
oJ")
,-
.c:
v
~
o
,-
~
...
~
>,
en
"0
v
,-
-'"
VALLEY
1'<'(~
"''7
RO
HARTZ WAY
~
'"'
,."
.--
:r
~
....
N
(")
a ....
'f>
INSET A
N.T.S.
C-;'l'
ALAMO
o
I
~ 0'0
-~-
I TASS4JMA
2
I
MILES
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
Attachment
oJ")
o
~
5
o
N
~
::0
'"
N
HARTZ AVE. SEWER RELOCATION
D.P. X5451
-
Page 3 of 3
-,
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
No.:
3.c.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: SET HEARING DATE
Subject: ESTABLISH APRIL 19, 2001 AS THE DATE FOR A HEARING TO CONSIDER
THE APPEAL BY PROPERTY OWNERS ON FLORA STREET IN MARTINEZ OF A STAFF
DETERMINATION REGARDING CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM
ELIGIBILITY.
Submitted By:
Curtis W. Swanson, Division Manager
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Environmental Engineering
REr;~~AND RECDMM?j;; BOARD A~. ~'
C. Swanson A. Farrell M
ISSUE: A group of residents living on Flora Street in Martinez has appealed a staff
determination regarding eligibility of their properties for participation in the District
Contractual Assessment District Program. A hearing is required for the Board to consider
an appeal of a staff decision.
RECOMMENDATION: Establish April 19, 2001, as the date for a hearing to consider the
appeal by the group of Flora Street property owners.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are minor costs for notifying the property owners of the
hearing.
AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: None.
BACKGROUND: In June 2000, a group of three owners of four properties along Flora
Street in Martinez applied for participation in the District's Contractual Assessment District
Program (see Attachment 1). This group of properties did not comply with the existing
criteria for CAD formation. However, the Board of Directors and staff deferred any action
related to formation of a CAD for the Flora Street properties until after a thorough review
of the CAD Program Policy. The Board conducted a review of the CAD Program Policy
and on February 1, 2001, adopted a revised CAD Program Policy.
Staff has determined that the Flora Street properties do not comply with the revised
formation criteria for Contractual Assessments Districts. Staff notified the property
owners of this determination in a letter dated February 20, 2001 (see Attachment 2). In
a letter dated March 5, 2001 and received by the District on March 12, 2001 (see
3/29/01
U:\PPr\SusanW\CAD Flora St.wpd
Page 1 of 11
-,
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
Subject: ESTABLISH APRIL 19, 2001 AS THE DATE FOR A HEARING TO CONSIDER
THE APPEAL BY PROPERTY OWNERS ON FLORA STREET IN MARTINEZ OF A STAFF
DETERMINATION REGARDING CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM
ELIGIBILITY.
Attachment 3), the Flora Street property owners appealed to the Board of Directors for
reconsideration of the staff determination regarding CAD Program eligibility.
In accordance with the District Code and the recently adopted revised CAD Program
Policy, a hearing must scheduled and conducted for the Board to consider the appeal of
the staff decision. The hearing must be scheduled within 45 days of receipt of the appeal.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Establish April 19, 2001, as the date for a hearing
to consider the appeal by a group of property owners on Flora Street in Martinez of a staff
determination regarding Contractual Assessment District Program eligibility.
3/29/01
U :\PPr\SusanW\CAD Flora St. wpd
Page 2 of 11
~
m
~
1
-J
<:(
c:
0>
"0
.n
N
6
~
"
/
a.
"
~
CI>
c:
c:
"
o
o
-;;;
a.
"
E
u
g.
~ Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
~
<:(
o
I
~
N
,
160
o ST
r---T---r-,
:;
~
;:;
o
N
~
:::E
0,
N
FEET
FLORA STREET PROPERTIES
IN MARTINEZ
Page 3 of 11
(f)
:r:.
tfl
\
Attachment
1
ATTACHMENT 2
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, Ca 94553 (925) 228-9500 . www.centralsan.org
FAX: (925) 676-7211
CHARLES W BATTS
Getl<ira/ Afanagt!r
KEIVTON LAUd
Counsel for the District
(925) 938-1430
February 20, 2001
JO!'CE E. MURPH!'
Secretary o/tl1e District
Mr. and Mrs. Albert A. Morris
700 Flora Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Morris:
PROPOSED CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR FLORA STREET, MARTINEZ
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) staff has made a final decision that the
proposed contractual assessment district (CAD) for Flora Street in Martinez does not meet
CCCSD's CAD formation criteria; therefore, your proposal must be denied. This letter
documents the history of this issue, the CAD policy criteria used in this decision, and the
procedure for appealing a staff decision.
HISTORY
In 1997, CCCSD initiated a CAD program for the purpose of assisting homeowners with
failing or inadequate septic tank systems to extend the public sewer system to serve their
properties.
On January 7, 1999, CCCSD's Board of Directors formally adopted a policy for the
formation and administration of CADs by Resolution 99-010. The policy included
formation criteria pertaining to the minimum required number of benefitting properties
(five) and the minimum required percentage of benefitting properties that must have
existing homes served by septic tank systems (60 percent). The policy also allows the
Board case-by-case basis discretion as to whether to form a CAD, taking into
consideration technical, economic, staffing, budgetary, environmental, or other factors.
In a letter dated June 20, 2000, you and your neighbors (Knisley and Bray) expressed your
willingness to participated in a CAD to provide sewer service to your properties on Flora
Street. The letter acknowledged that your request did not meet the District's requirement
P:\PUBLlC\LEA VITT\Staff Decision. wpd
Page 4 of 11
@ Rec.cled raper
Mr. and Mrs. Albert A. Morris
Page 2
February 20, 2001
of five benefitting properties and requested that an exception be made for formation of
a CAD with just four properties. That letter was presented to CCCSD's Board of Directors
at its July 6, 2000.. After some discussion, the Board directed staff to prepare a report
on your proposed CAD to be brought to the Board at a later date.
At the subsequent July 20, 2000 Board of Directors meeting, while considering the
formation of two other proposed. CADs (one of which also involved a request for an
exception to the CAD formation criteria), the Board decided that staff should hold any
further CAD requests until the Board could conduct a workshop to consider revising the
formation criteria and to discuss exceptions to the policy.
On November 30, 2000, the Board CAD Workshop was held and revisions to the CAD
program policies were discussed. As a result, at the February 1, 2001 Board of
Directors meeting, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2001-008 approving several CAD
policy changes. Included in the changes was an additional formation criterion that a
participant parcel may not have more than two dwellings to participate in a CAD. Other
changes allow owners of multiple properties to participate in the ten-year assessment
option with only one property at a time, and provide a specified process for property
owners to appeal staff decisions regarding formation and administration of proposed CAD
projects.
CAD FORMATION POLICIES
The proposed Flora Street CAD does not comply with the current CAD formation policies.
A comparison of the policies and the characteristics of your proposed CAD is presented
in Table 1.
PROCESS FOR APPEALING THIS STAFF DETERMINATION
According to the CAD policy and the District Code, to appeal this staff decision to the
CCCSD Board of Directors, you must file a written notice of appeal or request for Board
consideration of staff decision with the Secretary of the District within 30 days of
receiving this decision. Her address is:
Joyce Murphy, Secretary of the District
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553
P:\PUBLlC\LEA VITT\Staff Decision. wpd
Page 5 of 11
Mr. and Mrs. Albert A. Morris
Page 3
February 20, 2001
The Secretary of the District will schedule the matter for a hearing before the Board of
Directors within 45 day of receipt of your appeal letter and provide you with written notice
of the time and place of that hearing at least ten days before the hearing. Each affected
party will be given an opportunity to make an oral and/or documentary presentation at the
hearing. Any plans or documentation of more than two pages in length which the Board
is asked to consider at the hearing must be submitted to the Secretary of the District at
least four working days prior to the hearing. Any and all determinations of the Board
arising from a request for Board consideration of a staff decision are final and conclusive.
If you have any questions about this decision or appeals process, please contact
mental Services Division Manager Curtis W. Swanson at (925) 229-7336.
CWB/RBLlem
c: Mr. and Mrs. A. F. Bray, Jr.
600 Flora Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Mr. and Mrs. Dudley Knisley
61 5 Flora Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Page 6 of 11
P:\PUBLlC\LEA VITT\Staff Decision. wpd
Mr. and Mrs. Albert A. Morris
Page 4
February 20, 2001
TABLE 1.
COMPARISON OF CAD FORMATION POLICIES TO THE CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE PROPOSED FLORA STREET CAD
CAD POLICY
1. A minimum of five properties must
be directly tributary to the proposed
CAD facilities.
2. A minimum of 60 percent of the
properties directly tributary to the
proposed CAD facilities must have
existing homes served by septic tank
systems.
3. A Participant Parcel may not have
more than two (2) dwelling to
participate in a CAD.
P:\PUBLlC\LEA VITT\Staff Decision. wpd
PROPOSED FLORA STREET CAD
Only four properties would be tributary to
the proposed CAD sewer and two of
those would be ineligible to participate in
the CAD (due to Policy #3 below).
Criterion not met.
Three of the four properties are
developed with existing homes served by
septic tanks systems. One property is
vacant. Since two of the developed
properties would be ineligible to
participate in the CAD (due to Policy #3
below), only one developed and one
undeveloped property would be in the
CAD. This would result in a 50 percent
developed CAD. Criterion not met.
The Morris property at 690 Flora Street
and the Knisley property at 612-615
Flora Street each contain three dwellings
(one single family residence and one
duplex). These properties cannot be
included within the CAD boundaries.
Page 7 of 11
Mr. and Mrs. Albert A. Morris
Page 5
February 20, 2001
be: A. Farrell
R. Leavitt
C. Swanson
P:\PUBLlC\LEA VITT\Staff Decision. wpd
Page 8 of 11
ATTACHMENT 3
Mr./Mrs. Dudley Knisley
615 Flora Street
Martinez, CA 94553
u:ii[g@~D~~(0)
MAR 1 ;). 2001
Mr.lMrs. A. F. Bray, Jr.
600 Flora Street
Martinez, CA 94553
cccso
C:CRET ARY OF THE DISTRICT
Mr.lMrs. Albert A. Morris
700 Flora Street
Martinez, CA 94553
March 5, 2001
Joyce Murphy, Secretary of the District
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: Contractual Assessment District, Flora Street, Martinez
Dear Secretary Murphy:
Please consider this document as a Letter of appeal to the Board of Directors, the District
staff decision to deny our request to form a Contractual Assessment District (CAD) to
provide sewer service to our property on the portion of Flora Street in Martinez east of
Alhambra Creek.
We recognize that the current District policy, as adopted on February 1,2001, requires
District staff to deny formation of a CAD if the properties in a proposed CAD do not meet all
the adopted formation policies. The District CAD formation policy also provides for an
appeal procedure for proposed CAD's where the properties included do not meet some ofthe
listed criteria but do meet the overall intent of the Sanitary District when the CAD policies
were formulated. We hereby request that the Board of Directors grant that the necessary
exceptions be made in our case, and that the Board of Directors authorize the formation of a
CAD for our properties.
District staff denied our original request for three reasons specified in the formation policies.
We would like to examine the impact of each one of them and also to discuss other reasons
we feel the Board should grant our appeal.
The District's intent in creating the CAD policies was to assist homeowners with failing or
inadequate septic tank systems to extend the public sewer system to serve their properties. It
is an inherent good for properties to be connected to the public sewer. It is good for the
properties and good for the community. In the Flora St. case, it also would eliminate a
possible future source of pollution to Alhambra Creek.
Page 9 of 11
--
The Sanitary District also benefits. The District obtains connection fees and additional annual
service fees to help defray the costs of providing service to everyone in the district. The
District also makes some money on the district's investment, in that all district funds are paid
back with interest, at a higher rate than the district makes on their typical other investments.
The Flora Street owners certainly benefit, in that a home on the public sewer is always better
off than one on a septic system.
If the Flora Street situation were just a simple matter of extending the public sewer a couple
of hundred feet to serve our homes we would not be making this request. The Flora Street
homeowners would have paid the costs and fees and had the work done in accordance with
normal Sanitary District policies. Unfortunately, to serve our homes we need to construct an
expensive crossing of Alhambra Creek. None of us in the proposed Flora Street CAD have
the necessary deep pockets to finance the extension without some assistance. We would hope
that that assistance would be available through a secured loan from the Sanitary District
through the CAD process if the Board of Directors grants us our appeal.
Let us address the three specific policy items that the District staff used to justify denial of
our application, and why we think it is appropriate for the Board of Directors to allow
exceptions in this case and to grant this appeal:
Policy 1.
"A minimum of five properties must be directly tributary to the proposed
CAD facilities."
In the Flora Street case, there are only four properties. While granting our
appeal would form a CAD with fewer than five properties, it would not be
setting a precedent. The Sanitary District has approved at least one other CAD
with as few as three properties with no detriment to the District. By granting
this exception no harm would come to the District or to other properties that
are served or will be served.
Policy 2.
"A minimum of 60 percent of the properties directly tributary to the proposed
CAD facilities must have existing homes served by septic tank systems."
If our appeal of Policy 1 and Policy 3 are granted, this policy will be met. Of
the four properties in this proposed CAD three, or 75 percent have existing
homes served by septic tank systems.
Policy 3.
"A Participant Parcel may not have more than two (2) dwellings to participate
in a CAD."
In the Flora Street case, two of the four parcels are developed with three units
each, a single family home and a duplex. To grant an exception to Policy 3
would cause no harm while furthering the goals of the total CAD policies, that
general policy of getting older homes off of septic systems. If zoning codes
would allow it, those properties with three units would be divided,
Page 10 of 11
--
simultaneously making the proposed Flora Street CAD conform to both Policy
1, five parcels minimum, and Policy 3, no more that two units to a parcel.
There need be little concern over setting a precedent by granting an exception
to Policy 3. Probably over 95 percent of other properties in or adjacent to the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District that may be future prospects for CAD's
are single-family homes. The remainder is most likely duplexes or single-
family homes with in law units. It may be that the Flora Street properties are
unique in the District in that there are more than two units on a parcel and they
are served by septic tank systems. If there are others they are few. We do
know that Contra Costa County and the cities that are served by Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District are not allowing new multiple unit buildings to
be connected to septic tank systems, so new exceptions are not being created.
In summary, the undersigned Flora Street homeowners request that the Board of Directors of
the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District grant our appeal, approve the exceptions to the
three CAD formation policies above, and approve the formation of the Flora Street
Contractual Assessment District. Granting this appeal would do no harm and would advance
the Sanitary District and community goals of public health, pollution control and
environmental protection.
Your consideration of this matter would be most appreciated.
Sincerely,
;;;11. J
Cerraine Br';7 ·
~o'\\'~ ~"( ~
"DudleyKnjsleY d.L:kd,/;~
o..~~'(r/1' v- ~{ .''( --,.--- "/
Jackie Knisley
9'u~~'~
Albert ~ (/
(Jt:~
Jerry Anne Morris
j-"7~~~
Page 11 of 11
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER
THE APPEAL OF A STAFF DETERMINATION
THAT A PROPOSED FLORA STREET. MARTINEZ
CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
DOES NOT COMPLY WITH DISTRICT POLICY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
The Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (District). at its
regular meeting at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 19, 2001, at the Meeting Room of the
District Office, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez. California, will hold a hearing to consider the
appeal of a staff determination that a proposed Flora Street, Martinez Contractual
Assessment District does not comply with District policy.
For more information, contact Environmental Services Division Manager Curtis W.
Swanson at (925) 229-7336.
~ s: 2.0"/
Date
Se re ar of the District
Ce al Contra Costa Sanitary Di rict
Contra Costa County, State of California
. T:\ TP _ P1anning\Leavitt\CADS\Flora\Appeal Hearing Notice. wpd
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001 No.: 3. d. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: ESTABLISH DATE AND TIME FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Subject: ESTABLISH MAY 10, 2001, AT 2 P.M. AS THE DATE AND TIME FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND DISTRICT CODE
CHAPTER 6.12 "CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES AND CHARGES" (CONNECTION FEES)
Submitted By:
Jarred Miyamoto- Mills
Principal Engineer
REVIEWEr:;;D RECDMM€,~q;OR BOARD O;ON'.
J. "mo".MiII, C. SW,",,, A.~
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Environmental Services
ISSUE: The District Code requires that a public hearing be held prior to the Board of
Directors' consideration of amendments to the District code.
RECOMMENDATION: Establish May 10, 2001, at 2 p.m. as the date and time for a public
hearing to receive comments on a proposed ordinance to amend District Code Chapter
6.12 "Capital Improvement Fees and Charges" (Connection Fees).
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None by this action. If the staff recommendation for increasing
Connection Fees is adopted by the Board of Directors following the public hearing, it is
projected that approximately $1.0 million in additional annual revenue will be generated
beginning in fiscal year 2001-2002.
AL TERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: The Board of Directors may decline to establish the
recommended public hearing date or may elect to choose a different date. However, a
public hearing must be held if Connection Fees are to be increased. If the hearing is held
on May 10, 2001, the earliest the increased fees could take effect would be July 9, 2001.
BACKGROUND: Staff has reviewed the District's current Connection Fee Program and has
concluded that the basis for determining fees should be changed to comply with recently
enacted legislation. An ordinance to amend the District Code to provide for determination
of Connection Fees on a "buy-in-to-all-assets" basis has been drafted and is
recommended by staff.
3/29/01
U:\PPr\SusanW\Connection Fees. wpd
Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
Subject: ESTABLISH MAY 10,2001, AT 2 P.M. AS THE DATE AND TIME FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND DISTRICT CODE
CHAPTER 6.12 "CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES AND CHARGES" (CONNECTION FEES)
The proposal was presented and discussed during the General Manager's report at the
January 11 and March 15, 2001 Board meetings. A meeting for staff to discuss the
proposal with interested customers has been tentatively scheduled for April 24, 2001.
A public hearing to receive comments on the proposal has been tentatively scheduled for
the Board's regular meeting on May 10, 2001.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Establish May 10, 2001, at 2 p.m. as the date and
time for a public hearing to receive comments on a proposed ordinance to amend District
Code Chapter 6.12 "Capital Improvement Fees and Charges."
3/29/01
U:\PPr\SusanW\Connection Fees. wpd
Page 2 of 2
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
Type of Action: SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE
Subj9ct: SET PUBLIC HEARINGS ON JUNE 7, 2001 TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE 2001-02 SEWER SERVICE CHARGE RATES AND THE COLLECTION OF SEWER
SERVICE CHARGES AND PRIOR YEAR DELINQUENT CHARGES BY PLACING THEM ON
THE COUNTY TAX ROLL
No.:
3.e. CONSENT CALENDAR
Submitted By:
DEBBIE RATCLIFF, CONTROLLER
Initiating Dept./Div. :
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPART
REVIEWED AND RECOMM~ FOR BOARD ACTION,
,///f
D. Ratcliff P. Morsen
ISSUE: The District Code and State of California law require holding public hearings for the
establishment of the 2001-2002 Sewer Service Charge rates and for placing such charges
and prior year delinquent charges on the County tax roll for collection.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize a public notice to set public hearings on June 7, 2001 to
receive public comment on the establishment of the 2001-2002 Sewer Service Charge
rates and the collection of such charges and prior year delinquent charges by placing them
on the County tax roll.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: At the June 7, 2001 Public Hearing, the Board will be asked to
consider a Sewer Service Charge increase of $24 which would increase 0 & M revenues
by approximately $3.5 million.
AL TERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: The Sewer Service Charge could be collected through
direct billings by the District. However, this would require additional labor and benefit
costs. The Sewer Service Charge has been collected on the County tax roll since the
inception of the service charge in 1976. Staff believes that collection on the tax roll
provides the most economical and efficient means for the District to collect these charges.
BACKGROUND: The 2001-2002 Operations and Maintenance (0 & M) budget will be
submitted for initial review by the Board of Directors on May 24, 2001. Approval of the
2001-2002 0 & M Budget is scheduled for the Board meeting on June 7, 2001. The
majority of the District's 0 & M expenses are funded through the collection of Sewer
Service Charges. It is required by law to hold public hearings to receive public comment
on establishing the Sewer Service Charge rates and collecting such charges and prior year
delinquent charges by placing them on the County tax roll during the Board Meeting at
which the 0 & M Budget is presented for approval.
S:\ADMIN\POSPAPER\SWRSVC2001.wpd
Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
Subject: SET PUBLIC HEARINGS ON JUNE 7,2001 TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE 2001-02 SEWER SERVICE CHARGE RATES AND THE COLLECTION OF SEWER
SERVICE CHARGES AND PRIOR YEAR DELINQUENT CHARGES BY PLACING THEM ON
THE COUNTY TAX ROLL
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize a public notice to set public hearings on June
7, 2001 to receive public comment on the establishment of the 2001-2002 Sewer Service
Charge rates and the collection of such charges and prior year delinquent charges by
placing them on the County tax roll.
Page 2 of 2
S:\ADMINIPOSPAPERISWRSVC200 1.wpd
Central Contra Costa S - itary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board M88ting Date: April 5, 2001
Type of Action: APPROVE FUNDS
No.:
3.f. CONSENT CALENDAR
Subject: APPROVE EXPENDITURE OF EQUIPMENT BUDGET CONTINGENCY FUNDS OF
$14,200 TO ADD VACUUM CAPABILITY TO WATER TRUCK/JET RODDER
COMBINATION UNIT
Submitted By:
Don Rhoads
Initiating Dept./Div.:
CSO
"----;4k~~
0, Rhoads
~~
ISSUE:
Board approval is needed for expenditures in excess of $5,000 from the Equipment Budget
Contingency Account.
RECOMMENDA TION:
Approve expenditure of Equipment Budget Contingency funds of $14,200 to add vacuum
capability to water truck/jet rodder combination unit.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Approval of this action will result in $14,200 of the $60,000 Annual Equipment Budget
Contingency being expended.
AL TERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: Do not approve expenditure.
BACKGROUND:
The purchase of a water truck/jet rodder combination unit for $180,000 was approved
as part of the 2000/01 Equipment Budget. The option has been presented to add vacuum
capability at an additional cost of $14,200. The vacuum equipment can be used to
remove materials from sewers, clean-up after overflows, and to excavate in difficult
conditions. Staff recommends adding this capability to increase the flexibility for work
assignments and field productivity.
Recommendation:
Approve expenditure of Equipment Budget Contingency funds of $14,200 to add vacuum
capability to water truck/jet rodder combination unit.
Page 1 of 1
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
No.:
6.a. ENGINEERING
Type of Action: SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE
Subject: ESTABLISH MAY 10, 2001, AS THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER ADOPTING A REVISED SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES FOR
VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT-RELATED SERVICES
Submitted By:
Melody LaBella, Engineering Asst.
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Environmental Services
REVIEWED AND RECDMMENDED FDR BDARD ACnDN, <}-
~.~ ~ J. M; m.:, Q~",oo
ISSUE: The District Code requires that a public hearing be held prior to the Board f
Directors' adoption of an ordinance to revise Chapter 6.30, Schedule of Rates and
Charges, for various environmental and development-related services.
RECOMMENDATION: Establish May 10, 2001 as the date for a public hearing to consider
adopting a revised schedule of rates and charges, incorporating a 9.7% increase, for
District environmental and development-related services.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: If adopted, additional revenue generated by the proposed increases
would total about $64,000 in the 2001-2002 fiscal year.
AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS:
Option 1 - No change in fees. Impact - forego recovery of the 9.7% cumulative cost of
living increases and rely on other sources of revenue to partially subsidize these District
services.
Option 2 - Consider only the 2001 employee salary increase of 4.5%. Impact - forego
recovery of the cost of living increase from fiscal year 2000/2001 and rely on other
sources of revenue to partially subsidize District services.
Option 3 - Recover the entire 9.7% cumulative cost-of-Iiving increases from fiscal years
2000/2001 and 2001/2002 by increasing the rates and charges by 9.7%. This option
is recommended by staff.
BACKGROUND: Chapter 6.30 of the District Code includes a schedule of rates and
charges for environmental and development-related services provided to property owners,
contractors, developers, waste haulers and permitted industrial users. In accordance with
3/29/01
U :\PPr\SusanW\PP _Rev 1 . wpd
Page 1 of 9
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
Subject: ESTABLISH MAY 20, 2001, AS THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER ADOPTING A REVISED SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES FOR
VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT-RELATED SERVICES
past Board direction, these rates and charges were established to recover the District's
direct and indirect labor costs, other operating expenses and 75% of the administrative
overhead incurred in providing each service. This recommended approach ensures that
those businesses and individuals who require specific services, beyond those needed by
the general rate-payers, pay their share of the cost of each service provided. In some
instances special provisions were made to allow certain categories, such as septage
disposal of restaurant grease waste, to be partially subsidized through other revenue
sources.
Currently, these rates and charges generate approximately $685,000 per year ($437,000
for the 0 & M Fund and $248,000 for the Capital Improvement Fund), or about 1.3% of
total District revenue. Keeping rates and charges current with costs avoids the need to
subsidize services through other revenue sources. Last fiscal year (2000-2001), a review
of the schedule of Rates and Charges was not performed due to the need to allocate
limited staff resources to performing the work for key vacant positions and recruiting and
training new personnel to fill these vacancies. The general increase for 2000-2001 was
5% and the general increase scheduled for 2000-2001 is 4.5%. Staff is recommending
that the schedule of Rates and Charges be adjusted by the compounded sum of these two
cost-of-Iiving increases, generating an increase of 9.7% for the majority of categories.
Staff has previously identified the need to conduct periodic in-depth reviews of each rate,
fee and charge. To meet this need and to support strategic goals in the area of
responsible rates, staff proposes performing an in-depth review of the entire schedule of
rates and charges, commencing with the current review and continuing until the work is
completed. Staff began this process by identifying services provided in the Development
Plan Review and Inspection areas for which District costs are not recovered. In this first
phase of the review process, several new fees are proposed, and a revision to the
Reimbursement Administration Charge is recommended. In addition, this charge will be
retitled "Reimbursement Administration Fee" to agree with prior changes made to that
program. Attachment I provides an explanation of the proposed Commercial Plan Review
fee, Special Cut Sheet Review fee and the revision to the Reimbursement Administration
Fee, and the proposed Pipe Bursting Inspection and Construction Compliance Inspection
fees.
The proposed schedule of rates and charges will be distributed to the Board and,
subsequently, to representatives of the Home Builders Association of Northern California,
the Engineering and Utilities Contractors' Association and the Associated Buildings and
3/29/01
U :\PPr\SusanW\PP _Rev 1 . wpd
Page 2 of 9
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
Subject: ESTABLISH MAY 20, 2001, AS THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER ADOPTING A REVISED SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES FOR
VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT-RELATED SERVICES
Contractors Golden Gate Chapter, and others who have requested to receive the proposed
schedule. This distribution provides an opportunity for comments and questions to be
directed to District staff, prior to the public hearing.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Establish May 10, 2001 as the date for a public
hearing to consider a revised schedule of rates and charges, for environmental and
development-related services, for the 2001-2002 fiscal year.
3/29/01
U:\PPr\SusanW\PP_Rev1.wpd
Page 3 of 9
ATTACHMENT I
RATES AND CHARGES REVIEW
A-5 Reimbursement Administration Fee
This fee compensates the District for staff time spent managing reimbursement
accounts, including Quarterly updates of accounts, audits, and collection and
disbursement of funds. Currently staff time spent establishing reimbursements is
not included in this fee, and staff proposes that a separate fee be established in
upcoming Rates and Charges reviews to cover the costs of this service.
It is recommended that the Reimbursement Administration fee be increased to
$120 per transaction.
A-6 Commercial Plan Review
This fee is proposed for commercial buildings that require special plan review to
determine that proposed sewer installations will provide adequate slope and that
materials meet the special needs of large commercial sites. In many cases
multiple plan reviews are required through various phases of the construction
process (site grading, foundation work, underground utility installation). Staff
proposes a charge for these reviews equivalent to the rate for additional mainline
preliminary reviews (Category A-2). The initial Commercial Development Plan
Review charge would be $65 per hour, with a 1-hour minimum charge per review.
Additional plan reviews would be charged at the same rate, with a minimum $32
charge per additional plan review.
A-7 Soecial Cut Sheet Review
For some sewer mainline projects construction constraints make it necessary to
phase installation and inspection of the cut stakes. In order to facilitate a Quick
review and approval of the cut sheets for each section of mainline, staff will review
and approve the entire project per current procedure. After this approval, cut
sheets for portions of the mainline will be submitted for review and inspection as
each segment of the work is to be performed. This review differs from additional
final construction plan review (A-3) in that it does not require a full review of the
construction drawings each time, merely a comparison of the cut sheet submitted
to the plans already approved for the entire project. Staff proposes a fee of $32
per supplemental cut sheet submittal based on an estimated Y:z hour of work by
plan review staff.
Page 4 of9
B-7 Pine Bursting Inspection
To date, the District has charged inspections for pipe bursting at the same rate as
a standard sewer repair inspection. Pipe bursting is a relatively new technique for
repairing side sewers that involves "pulling" a new pipe through the existing side
sewer. Staff has found that this inspection type typically requires more staff time
than traditional repair inspections, including conferring with the contractor prior to
the start of the project and a pre-construction site visit. Accordingly, staff
recommends assigning a charge of $200 for this new category.
8-9 Construction Insnection of Non-Permitted Work
Staff proposes that this charge be applied to contractors, property owners, and
others found performing sewer work within the District without first obtaining a
District permit. The objective of issuing permits and inspecting sewer work is to
ensure the proper installation of all components of the sewer system to protect
public health and safety. The $270 charge for this inspection type includes
inspection and administrative staff time. (Contractors or property owners found
working to correct emergency situations that resulted in sewage leaks or
interrupted sewer service to a building will be treated as standard repairs provided
a permit and inspection are obtained as soon as service is safely restored but prior
to completion of the repair work.)
Page 5 of9
N
o
OUJ
NW
~W
OLL
o
N
~
C5(O('I')N..-O
OO'<:t(Oo>..-N
..- ~ 6'HfHf~ t;
~
~~~~~~~
--------mNN
~~:g~"":'"":o>
Lri-iMN~~t;
~~~~+++
+ + + + t-- '<:t "i;f"
"i;f"OO(O(O('I')ON
~ ~ r:: 8; ..-_ ('1')_ "i;f"_
~~~~t;t;t;
0>
'+-
o
(0
0>
Ol
CO
a..
..-
o
..-
~
c W
WUJ
UJ<( ~
Ow ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t--
O:::Z 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
0.-
-
o
OUJ
NW
oW
OLL
o
N
>-
0:::
wO
wC)
LLW
~
<(
o
or. or.
~ u U
"i;f"0 co COOLO
(0000>0>"-0>
(Ot--........,....,.
..-~LOroV7V7
~ ~~
3:
W
>
W
0:::
Z
<(
..J
D..
~
~
Z
W
:E
a.
o
..J
W
>
W
C
lil
3:
0>
";:;
0>
0::
C
co
a::
m
C
u::
..-
+
~
co
C
:~ ~ 0>
Q) 0> ~
....";:; co
a.. 0> or.
~ a:::~ ()
3: ~ "~ 5
0> ~a>3::;::;
";:; .- 0:: Q) l!!
a:::0> .E_ .;:;.....
m 0> "!!!
cO>~co::c
0> 0> a.. u:: C "E
Eu.. ~'O
c..Emma..<(
O::lcc~Q)
Q) E ~ ~ "E 15
a> :~ :g :g Iii ~
0:2<(<(a..0::
-
<(
-
..-
I
~
Nc;)~u)
I I i I
~~~~
--,...;,...;~~~
~~~~t--('I')LO
1e~~(O"!~t--
. . . . N ~ ~
"i;f"('I')('I')N~~~
~~~~+++
+ + + + (00)00
t--Nt--O('l')OOO>
~[;:;R~o_,,-_N..
~~~~t;t;t;
Z
o
i=
o
W
a.
UJ
Z
Z
o
i=
o
::J
0:::
~
UJ
Z
o
o
C
o
:;::;
U
0>
c..
l/)
c-o
O>~o
Cor."-
..... I
C g' 0
co 0>
:2....J
00000
00000
N('I')"i;f"LO(o
~~~~~~
000000
N('I')"i;f"LO(O
-
m
-
..-
I
co
---
or.
u
co
0>
N
0>
~
l/)
.....
l/) l/) a5
l/) <5 C E
cCi.2c
20>uo
uUO>'O
0> .... C C
c..2cco
l/)CO..c
C ()<(
'O~o>m
.... co l/) ....
co 0> ::l 0>
'0....0.....
cC>I~
co
en
N
I
co
---
N
o
Ot/)
NW
~W
OLL.
o
N
Ow
Wt/)
t/)<C
Ow
c..~
00
a::Z
c..-
-
o
Of/)
NW
oW
OLL.
o
N
>-
a::
wO
wC)
LL.W
I-
<C
o
^
l/)
....
l/) l/) oiij l/)
c: 0.0.0>
o ro 0> ....
~ I-O::~
.... c: 0
2 roO>(j
<i:~~~Jj
~~Q;(/).!:
.gL~ ~ 0> ~
roroo>:2....
...J...J (/)(/) I-
.!:
U ....
ro.!:"-"-
O>(;)~~
~~E>9-E>9-
E>9-
~~'*-'*-
0000
1'--1'--1'--1'--
0) 0) 0) 0)
.!: .!:
u.... u
ro.!:Nro
0> COO 0>
C")I'--C")N
..-E>9-E>9-0)
E>9- E>9-
;l::::
o
..-
E
:J
~ E
o c:
V ~ ~
l/) ~::::J
.... 0 "0 0
~ IO>::S
0>:> ,,,
l/) ~'-'O>
0> c: C:o &
"02 >>:+J Q)
Ow u ro u >
,;;~;g ~o
.... l/) 0 l/)-
Oiij c: I c: U
0.--- 0>
0>0>"00>"(5'
0:: EC: E....
0_ 0> a..
16~~:e(ii
.!:>~~O
(/)0>01-
C;:)~
I I
COCO
.........
~
:J
o
.!:
'-"
:::
"0
0>
....
l)
0>
E
:e
0>
>
o
L{)
I
CO
1.0
~
1.0
E>9-
~
o
o
I'--
0)
I'--
0)
~
E>9-
c:
o
:+J
U
0>
a.
l/)
c:
-
~
c:
OJ
c:
"0
"0
o
0::
--
0>
(5
.!:
c:
ro
~
<D
I
CO
.... ;l::::
:Eo--
NI'--~
0)1'--
~E>9-~
.... ....
.!: .!:
-- --
<0 N
C") 0)
~lX;~~
+~+..-
00 00 E>9-
~ ~
N N
E>9- E>9-
0)
.....
o
I'--
0>
OJ
ro
a..
0> 0> 0> 0>
l/) l/) l/) l/)
c: c: c: c:
0> 0> 0> 0>
~ ~<O ~..- ~
UJUJ;:UJ~UJ
(ii(iiE>9-(iiE>9-ro
:J:J :J :J
UU U U
<(<( <( <(
,*-,*-'Cfi!.,*-*-*-,*- '#. 'eft.
RRRRRRROORORO
0)0)0)0)0)0)0) 0) 0)
..c ~
i:ON:;::
I'--R~
..- E>9- 0
Y) Y)
::E
W
l-
t/)
>-
t/)
Z
o
i=
o
W
.J
.J
o
o
0>
EC-
~ oE
> ....
O.!:
I
c:~
o >>
t5~:::
0> 0_ "0
g- 0 ~
C:~l)
~ ~ ~ 2
(ii~~&
:g~oj:::
0-
-
.........
..-
o
-
NM
~~
....
.!:
--
~
N
..- 1.0
Y)C")
+ 1.0
<oE>9-
N
N
E>9-
.... 0>
.!: l/)
-- c:
1.0 0>
~ I"- a.
E>9-NX
(j)UJ
+Y)
<0
N
N
E>9-
0> 0> 0>
l/) l/) l/)
c: c: c:
0> 0> 0>
a. <0 a. 00 a.
UJxoxC") x
..-UJNUJ
Y)(iiY)(ii
:J :J
t5 1:5
<( <(
ro ro
:J :J
- -
U U
<(<(
c:
o
C ~
OE .... a:;
.... Oiij U
.!: c: a. c: _
I 0 0> ro c:
c: ~ 0- 0:: g 0>
:J;:U EoE
Q)CU~ Q)ZC:
0:::2l/) iijooO
oC: >>c:"O
~I> (/)2ffi
:e~1- g-_ c: ~.c<(
0> c: 0> I- l/) oQ a.
> 0> c.. .... 1-0> t) l/) (ii
o ~O> 0- 0> 0> c: ....
~::=O>= 0>
>~:J 0> >>o>iii
1->~(/)Ol)I-...J
.........
c:
oE
....
.!:
I
1.0
~
>>
ro
:2
o
:I:
--
\J
c:
0>
~
0>
~
~
~
.........
..........................__..-.0
1.0<01'--(00)..-
~~~~~~
N
o
O(f)
NW
~W
OLL
o
N
Ow
W(f)
(f)<C
Ow
0..0::
00
o::Z
0..-
-
o
O(f)
NW
oW
OLL
o
N
>-
0::
wO
wC)
LLW
I-
<C
o
Q)
f/)
(ii C
~ .c ~
~ j:::: I'- Iii
~L{);A.-
<o~ co
~ .a
U
<(
'*"'*"'*"
RRRo
(J) (J) (J)
Q)
f/)
(ii C
9 L- a>a.
-.!:<o
~ N 10 Iii
j::::1O;A.-
IO~ co
~ .a
U
<(
>-
~
LL
o
I-
J:
C)
(2
-
C
a>
C E
a> a>
E a>
f/) L-
f/) f/) Cl
a>"'O <(
f/) a> ~
f/) a> t
<(0 a>
o E g-
::::i 'ro a:
og ro
g:J a>
:o:J a ,!: 0:::
co f/) E f/)
Clf/)L-f/)
a> a> :J a>
C5>g!2pU
a> L- ~ _
U)o..c-?o..
o
-
;::--N
I I
00
cry
I
o
Q) Q)
f/) f/)
C C
a> a> L-
a. a. .!:
xx--
wwC;
"I
~
roro
22
U U
<(<(
'*"
ooR
(J)
a> a>
f/) f/)
C C
a> a> L-
a. a..!:
xx--
WW~
coro;A.
.a :J
uo
<(<(
(f)
::)
o
W
z
<C
...J
...J
W
(,)
(f)
:!
f/)
-
U
11 a>
uB
a> L-
Bo..
L- L-
0.. a>
L- 3:
a> a>
3:U)
~2
a> ~
- ,-
~a:
.C I
0..
C
I 0
C}:o:J
C co
'C .2 Cl
a> co C
a>>>-
C W a>
Cl= 2:
C 0 :J
WU)U)
w
-
~NM
I I I
WWW
'-"'-"'-"
-
'E .... Q)
L- 0 a>
~ (j) ,!Q LL
o f/) a>
a>u~f/)
f/) f/) co co
co:Jc......
co_col.U
NCO~.o~
..-a>.!l1N
riLL ER-
~
~
o
o
I'-
(J)
~
o
o
I'-
(J)
-
'E .... a>
L- 0 a>
~ iii ,!Q LL
o f/) a>
a>u~f/)
l{l f/) co co
co.2ffiCO
Na..oCO
co a> _co (J)
co Q) ..-
NU. ~
ER-
a> a>
..c .!:
- -
f/) f/)
"'0 "'0
a> a>
a> a>
u u
x x
a> a>
a> a>
E E
; ~
(f)
W
W
LL
!:::
:!
0::
W
0..
...J
<C
0::
l-
t/)
::)
o
z
:t:: :t::
CO_Q)CO
w.......Q)1;)
~ELL...._
L- C .- a>
"'0 ~ ,Q -0 $
~a>ro~a>a>
iil{l,giil{lLf
a> .0 a. a> .0
.0 a> a..o a>
.!:<( .!:
'3: - :'""E- '3: -
f/) .!: L- f/) ,!:
a> "'0 a> a> "'0
f/)Cla>o..~~
mro-gQ)~.2
LL-t5Uf/)UU
= ro ,!: => ro ,!:
06 OC ca> ro Co C
'C a>
f/)EE-EE
f/)"'O_~"'O_
co"'Oo"'O"'O..Q
C3~~c~ro
u:-
-
-
..-
I
U.
'-"
-
"I
I
U.
'-"
..c..c..c
u u u
co co co
Q) a> a>
('1):2;
<0('1)('1)
~~~
";f!.~?ft
000
1'-1'-1'-
(J) (J) (J)
.!:..c.!:
u u u
co co co
Q) a> a>
I'-~;:
10('1)('1)
~~~
-
'E
L-
a> C
0.. 0
:o:J
a> u C
Cla>O
L.. a.:.;::::;
co f/) U
.!: C a> a>
~ a. a>
i52~u.
'w
~ C:
~O
a.o
U)Z
a>-
~ en
I l{l
c_
au
cry
I
U.
'-"
~
I
U.
'-"
(J)
....
o
co
a>
Cl
co
0..
10
o
<0_
..-
~
~
o
o
I'-
(J)
('I)
<0
"<t_
..-
~
...J
<C
(f)
o
0..
(f)
C
W
C)
~
0..
W
(f)
a>
a>
u.
-
'E
L-
a>
0..
co
:J
C
C
<(
-
C)
-
-
..-
~
N
o
Oen
NW
~W
OLL
o
N
Ow
Wen
ene:(
Ow
1l.Q::
00
n::Z
Il.-
roro
C> C>
-- --
~~
T""" T"""
00
c:ic:i
~~
+ +
00 l"-
T""" LO
~~
?;'e.?;'e.
00
1"-1"-
en en
en
-
o
en
Q)
C>
ro
a..
ro ro
0) C>
-- --
LO LO
T""" T"""
00
c:ic:i
~~
+ +
00 l"-
T""" LO
~~
?;'e.?;'e.
00
I"- I"-
en en
ro ro ro ro
~ C> C> C> C>
-- -- -- --
0 N N (") (")
0 cn T""" T""" T""" T"""
N W 0 0 00
I W 0 0 00
0 ER- ER- ER- ER-
0 LL + + + +
0 <D N <D N
N T""" LO T""" LO
ER- ER- ER- ER-
>-
n::
wO
We:>
LLW
l-
e:(
o
Q)
-
(/)
~
Q)
-
- (/)
~ ~
00 >
~ ~
:a ro
Q) ~ ~ ~
U)g.Q<.9
ro ro ro I::
:0:::; C>C>ro
1::00.....
Q) 0 0 :::l
"OOO~
oi3 N N li1
a:: V ^ a::
N M
~ ~
(/) (/)
I:: I::
g.Q
roro
C> C>
00
00
00
N N
V ^
+-'
C
-c 0)
0) E
t.-
:J Q.
0'" 0
-
0) 0)
t.- >
~ 0)
t.- -c
0 "l-
S 0
c 0) CJ)
0 > 0)
.-
+J +J Q.
CJ CO $ >-
CO t.- +J
....., CJ) +J C
CO c CJ)
.- .-
"- CO e CO
....., t.- +J
CJ) +J E t.-
o- t.- O) 0)
c 0) 0) -c CJ
Q. "I- CO t.-
E 0 CJ) co 0
.- "I-
"'C N ..c C -c
<( +-' 0
or-- 0)
-<I> t.- .-
0 +J t.-
O "I- -c :J
+J ~ -c 0'"
LO CO 0)
LO t.-
en N e E 0)
-<I> 0
+J -c E E
E :J
0 0) 0 +J
0 ..c CJ) U "l-
t.- CO "I-
"I- CO ..c CO
E 0) +J
"I- CJ) CJ)
0- 0) 0
Cl) "l- e
a: 0) 0) 0) 0) 0
CJ) CJ) 0)
C) co co "I- -c
e 0) 0) s 0)
co t.- t.- CJ)
..c CJ CJ 0) co
U e e Z a:l
. . . . .
0
+-'
en
+-'
en
OJ 0
E CJ
OJ
+-' CJ
OJ ~
> '"C
-- OJ
+-'
CO "-
"- '"C
+-'
en c
$ -- CO
C
Q.) E (j)
en
-- '"C OJ
> CO CJ
Q.) 0
a: '"C "-
C a.
......, CO S
Q.) $
Q.) Q)
OJ --
..c -- >
CJ) > Q)
OJ "-
......, "- Q)
::J c c
U CO --
-
- E
C-
eo E CO
.- OJ
U "-
~ +-'
Q.) E en
c 0
CJ) +-'
E '"C
OJ "-
OJ c ..c OJ
0 '"C en E
OJ OJ --
-
\of- '"C "- ..c 0
S OJ ~ CO +-'
en C'" +-' en
Q) CO OJ en ~
Z CO "- UJ CJ
. . .
~
~ 0
"- en
0 en
~ S 0
~
c ...
0 Cl)
....., C')
CJ CO
~ Q) s
"- a. Q)
~ 0 en en
0 S c
C')
Cl) CO C
C a. CO .-
>- c c ~
....., 0 0 CO
Q)
en ....., .....,
.- c -
...c "C
....., Q) "C C/)
> CO C
C') C Z 0
c 0 "C .-
.- c .....,
~ CJ '+- CO
CO C 0 co :J
E .....,
Cl) co Q) en
- ..c C E
"C ..c ....., >-
en Cl) co ....., ....., CJ
"-
~ CJ en ..c Q) c
:J c Q) C') > Cl)
OJ co .- C)
> "C en .....,
"- co "-
"C ....., Q) "- Q)
CD co c > ....., E
en
en Cl) 0 .- Q)
E c
C- co Cl) "-
..c Q) "- E 0
>-CJ 0 ~
E "C
C')co co Q)
Q) o a. en Q) en CJ
- Q) Q) Q) c -
Q) o "- Q) co Q)
~ c~ "- ~ "-
s CJ
S ..c :J S :J .-
CJ co c- C c- O >
Cl) Q) a. Cl) Cl) Cl) - "-
Q) 0 - Q)
z ~ c:: z c:: <( en
"- U
. . . . . .
Central Contra Costa Scanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
No.: 6.b. ENGINEERING
Typtl of Action: AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PREPARE THE EFFLUENT
DISCHARGE LIMIT INCREASE PROJECT EIR, DISTRICT PROJECT 7176
Submitted By:
Russell B. Leavitt, Management Analyst
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering/Environmental Services
~D RECOMMEND; ~OR BOARD AC~iIb
R. L..~tt G. Ch,." ~ Sw,"",
0Jt/(j
A. Farrell
ISSUE: Authorization by the Board of Directors is required for the General Manag
execute professional services agreements for amounts greater than $50,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with
Environmental Science Associates, Inc. (ESA) with a cost ceiling of $65,125 for
preparation of the Effluent Discharge Limit Increase Project Environmental Impact Report
(EIR).
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Up to $65,125 would be spent on the consultant's work preparing
the EIR in addition to the $47,000 already under contract for environmental analysis and
documentation to this point, resulting in a cumulative total of up to $112,125.
AL TERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: Use an alternate consultant; defer or cancel EIR
preparation. ESA was selected based on a competitive process and offers the best
combination of experience, capabilities, and price. Deferring or canceling EIR preparation
will delay or prevent the District's compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and ability to discharge effluent flows greater than 45 MGD ADWF.
BACKGROUND: In 1995, the RWQCB issued to the District an NPDES Permit allowing,
among other actions, the discharge of up to 45 million gallons per day (MGD) of average
dry weather flow (ADWF) wastewater effluent to Suisun Bay. That permit, which expired
on May 24, 2000, has been extended until a new permit is issued. The permit must be
renewed to meet the wastewater utility service needs of existing and future District
customers. On November 30, 1999, District staff filed a Report of Waste Discharge
(ROWD) as an application for reissuance of waste discharge requirements. RWQCB staff
has reviewed the ROWD and is in the process of preparing a new NPDES permit for the
District. As part of the application process, the District has provided to the RWQCB an
anti-degradation analysis documenting that an increase in the effluent discharge limit
would not significantly degrade the water quality of Suisun Bay. The application contains
no request for relaxation of existing water quality standards.
3/29/01
T:\ TP _Planning\Leavitt\DISCHARGE EIR\Contract\Authorize ESA Contract PP. wpd
Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
BOIIrd Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
SubjflCt: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PREPARE THE EFFLUENT
DISCHARGE LIMIT INCREASE PROJECT EIR, DISTRICT PROJECT 7176
In anticipation of potentially reaching and exceeding the current 45 MGD ADWF effluent
discharge limit during the next several years, due to greater base wastewater flow from
population increases and higher groundwater infiltration levels, District staff included in
the ROWD a request for an effluent discharge limit increase to 53.8 MGD ADWF, the
anticipated base wastewater flow from buildout of planned development in the District's
service area with worst-case groundwater infiltration. An effluent discharge of that
volume can be accomplished without the need for construction of additional treatment
process facilities, according to a September, 1999 Treatment Plant Capacity Evaluation
that examined each unit operation for maximum and reliable capacity. This study,
prepared by the consulting firm Brown and Caldwell, determined that there is adequate
capacity in the existing facilities to treat in excess of 53.8 MGD.
RWOCB staff has concluded that RWOCB approval of this permit renewal application is
exempt from CEQA. District staff has concluded, however, that operating the WWTF
beyond the current 45 MGD ADWF effluent discharge limit in the future may be viewed
to have a significant effect on the environment. The District, therefore, will be preparing
an Environmental Impact Report to analyze such impacts prior to operating the WWTF
above 45 MGD ADWF.
A CEOA consultant selection process for this project was initiated by District staff in late
1999. The process began with an invitation for 37 environmental consulting firms to
respond to a Request for Qualification (RFQ). Of the six firms/teams responding to the
RFO, three were invited to submit cost proposals and be interviewed. As previously
stated, ESA was selected based on this competitive process and offers the best
combination of experience, capabilities, and price.
District staff and ESA have begun a phased approach to work on this project's CEOA
analysis. Technical memos on key issues have been prepared and an Initial Study to
identify potentially significant issues to be addressed in an EIR has been made available
to Responsible Agencies and interested parties. The District also has conducted two
scoping meetings for the same purpose. The time has come to begin the Environmental
Impact Report preparation phase. This proposed contract with ESA will cover that phase
of the work, which is expected to be completed by the end of 2001 .
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with ESA
with a cost ceiling of $65,125 for preparation of the Effluent Discharge Limit Increase
Project EIR.
3/29/01
T:\TP _Planning\Leavitt\DISCHARGE EIR\Contract\Authorize ESA Contract PP.wpd
Page 2 of 2
CCCSD's EIR process
Update
April 5, 2001
Introduction
. A request for 53.8MGD was included in
our NPDES Permit renewal application
. RWQCB -
- exempt from CEQA
- Anti de gradati on Report required
- Tentative Order
However CEQA still applies
. Before we discharge more than 45MGD
- The project is not exempt from CEQA
- Consider possible environmental
consequences from the official check list
. Initial project description
. Check list
. Scoping meetings
. Write the EIR - go through the process
e=-
m
::l
<:
m
...,
. mm
Gi
.0
E ....
Q) -
> ....
0 ~ ....
Z ......
. ....
Gi r-- ....
.0 .... !:::!
E en en
Q) .... .
c. ~ M .
Q) co
en ......
- m ....
Ul .
N
j::::
N .
>- j::::
"S
..., ......
~ ....
.... .
....
it;
>-
m .
:2
~
."""""""'''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ....." """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""',,......................... """""""""",,,,,...................,,...,,..,,,,,,, """"""""..""'..........................................................""",,,,,,,..,""'" """""""'",,,....................... """",.........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,.....
.r::
~
m
:2
e=-
m
::l
<:
m
...,
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ .... ~ (Q c:5 .... r-..: .... CO ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ....
t:: ';t' (Q 0, C> ....
m ;:, LO & l:: r-..: CO CO ....
U5 i5: & ~ ;:, l:: 'i::: l:: & .... ;:,
i5: ~ u.. ~ ;:, i5:
i5:
~ c..
0::
jjj ::E l!
LL. ::E CI)
<C
1/1 - C c.. :5!
0:: ~ 0:: <C 0:: c.. 1/1
E 0:: s::::
w 0:: jjj "C ::E 0
~ 1/1 s:::: ::E ::E
- ~ CI) jjj s:::: .~ c; CU ::E u
u l.! 'S; c CU :is s:::: 0:: ~ C)
l.! ... ~
CI) - ::::I u: CU s::::
- C ... s:::: - c. jjj ... CU .;:
s:::: 0 u C ...
CI) >. CI) LL. C CU
0 > CU 1/1 ';: CI) > <C "C CI)
U - .s::
; "C C) 1/1 - ; s:::: "C .s:: c..
- CU s:::: C CU s:::: CU s:::: 0::
s:::: ... It) ; E ... 0 CU .~
CU - ''It - 0:: ::E
.!!! CI) e .!!! 1/1 :is
::: ... CI) 1/1 - jjj 0:: ::E
::::I s:::: .2 E CI) .... s:::: s:::: jjj ::::I
1/1 1/1 "C CI) c; c. c;
s:::: E e;; ,~ 0 CI) E E c; J!!
0 "C U > "C s:::: s::::
u <C w :is '(j) <C E u: s:::: u u:
0:: C ::::I "C 0 LL. ::::I
~ C. 0 U ~ U ~ "C ~
jjj 1/1 ';: e 1/1 s::::
E CI) J!! E ~ E CI) 0 E
1/1 - CI) l! c.. -
J:l ::::I U C. J:l J:l ::::I U - J:l
CI) 0:: E u
> ::::I J:l ::::I ~ CI) ::::I ::E ::::I J:l 'E CI) ::::I
e 1/1 ';: "C ::: 1/1 1/1 1/1 .;: '-' 1/1
- - s:::: CI) .!! - ::E s:::: - - CU e -
c. s:::: ,!!! 0 'S; - s:::: l.! s:::: ,!!! 0 c. s::::
Q) C. CU "C U e s:::: CU ~ - CU "C m CU
E CU ::: - - CI) ::: CU - ::: - - "C :::
m 'E ::::I U U ,~ E ::::I ... U ::::I U U s:::: ::::I
Z 1/1 ';: ';: 1/1 C .;: 1/1 .;: ';: CU 1/1
~ CU s:::: - - :is E s:::: "C - s:::: - - 0:: s::::
'" 0 0 1/1 1/1 ::::I 0 0 s:::: .!!! 0 .!!! 1/1 0
m C C C jjj
I- m 0 c.. u 0 CU C 0 C 0
0 II II II II II II II II II II
~-- ~
1
r :
1--- -t-----
- .....
--..
/
-
/
........
,.......".
I
"-
I--- , -.
./
1-- f /"
.....
I-"'"
"- ~.
~ ...- ---
1---_. ---
1/
..........
1----- --- l"'o..
........... - jooo.-.
./
\
I
1\
"
\.
1-- [
I- ~
1/
---
---_._~ .
-- I. ........
.....
r
\.
\
"
I
!
'-
i 1
1-- ----- > \.
--.- \..
! '-
I
1 I
o
CD
o 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ N ~
(a8V\1) A'Va H3d SNOll'V8 ::10 SNOlllV\l
co
o
o
N
'V
o
o
N
o
o
o
N
CD
0>
0>
~
!:::
:2:
::J
UJ
C>
0::
<(
I
()
~
o
o
w
U)
o
C-
o
0::
0.
I
.
I
N
0>
0>
~
i:L
:s:
o
::S.
co
co
0>
~
:s:
o
...J
LL
0::
W
I
I-
<(
UJ
:s:
>-
0::
o
UJ
C>
<(
0::
UJ
;;;:
'V
co
0>
~
o
co
0>
~
CD
I"-
0>
~
N
I"-
0>
~
co
CD
0>
~
'V
CD
0>
~
o
CD
0>
~
CD
~
0>
~
N
~
0>
~
co
'V
0>
~
o
!:::
~
::J
UJ
C>
0::
<(
I
()
U)
o
I
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
No.:
6.c. ENGINEERING
Type of Action: Approve Contract Extension
Subject: APPROVE CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
SERVICES PROVIDED BY PHILIP SERVICES CORPORATION
Submitted By:
Timothy Potter
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Engineering
R~~ RECOMMe;r;;R BOARC;;'
T. Potter C. Swanson A. Farrell
ISSUE: The Board of Directors' approval is required for the General Manager t execute
professional service agreements of agreement revisions for amounts greater than
$50,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve two-year extension of the Service Contract with Philips
Services Corporation (PSC) until September 22, 2002.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The estimated cost of services to be provided under this
agreement extension is $1,220,000.
ALTERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: One primary alternative was considered: process a
Request for Proposals (RFP) for alternative service providers to bid on the service contract
in lieu of processing the two-year contract extension with PSC.
BACKGROUND: CCCSD's operation of the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection
Facility requires the services of a vendor for the transportation and disposal of hazardous
wastes collected from residential and business customers, the operation of Temporary
HHW Collection Events, and the provision of trained temporary labor support. These
services have been provided by Philip Services Corporation (PSC) since the facility opened
in 1997 under a service contract that had an effective period of three years with an option
to extend the terms of the contract for an additional two-year period. The original three
year contract term expired on September 22, 2000, and the services have been provided
by PSC on a month-to-month basis since that time.
PSC has provided satisfactory HHW services under a service contract (effective date
September 23, 1997) since the District opened the HHW Collection Facility in 1997. The
3/29/01
U:\PPr\SusanW\PhilipServ HHW.wpd
Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
Subject: APPROVE CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
SERVICES PROVIDED BY PHILIP SERVICES CORPORATION
service contract is formatted as a "fee for service" contract with rates established for
specified services that the District demands:
. Transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes collected through the permanent
facility and temporary events;
. Conducting Temporary HHW Collection Events in Lafayette, Danville and San
Ramon including siting, labor and supplies; and
. Trained temporary labor to cover seasonal fluctuations and District personnel
absences.
Staff recommends approving the two-year contract extension with PSC for the following
reasons:
. The original contract was awarded to PSC after completion of a competitive RFP
process in 1997;
. PSC has provided satisfactory services during the original three year term of the
original contract;
. The District and PSC negotiated price reductions for several service elements of the
contract (e.g. transportation & disposal charges for a variety of waste
classifications, technician temporary labor rate, fixed charges for Temporary HHW
Collection Events) during the initial three-year contract term; and
. District staff surveyed the results of two recent competitive RFP processes for
neighboring HHW Collection Programs [Alameda County (on-going program) and
West County Solid Waste Authority (new service)] and in both cases PSC was
awarded the service contract.
The Board HHW Committee has reviewed the proposed contract extension with PSC and
recommended that the extension be considered by the full Board.
Staff is planning to solicit competitive proposals for HHW Services in early 2002. A
contractor will be selected and a new agreement will be negotiated which will become
effective in September, 2002.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Approve two-year extension of the Service Contract
with PSC until September 22, 2002.
3/30/01
Page 2 of 2
Central Contra Costa Sallitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
No.: 7.a. TREATMENT PLANT
Type of Action: AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LANDFILL GAS
AGREEMENT WITH ACME FILL CORPORATION
~
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Plant Operations Department/
It!JJ
Submitted By:
James L Belcher, Senior Engineer
~
K. Aim
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
ISSUE: Board of Directors' approval is requested for this Landfill Gas Sales Agree
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager to execute a Landfill Gas Sales
Agreement with Acme Fill Corporation to supply landfill gas for one year.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Under the terms of this new contract, the 50 percent discount
could provide significant additional savings as an alternative to using natural gas. It is
estimated that the one-year savings could be up to $400,000.
ALTERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: Alternatives to signing this agreement would be to
discontinue use of landfill gas and purchase natural gas now for usage starting May 30,
2001, or continue negotiating.
BACKGROUND: NEO Martinez LLC (NEO) has the assigned ownership rights to the
current Landfill Gas Sales Agreement dated November 1, 1998. Under the termination
provisions of the agreement, NEO has given the District a 90-day notice of contract
termination effective May 29, 2001. The landfill gas rights of ownership will revert to
Acme Fill Corporation effective May 30, 2001, unless an earlier date is agreed to with
NEO. There is no gas sales agreement in effect for the period starting May 30, 2001.
Staff has been negotiating with the new owner of Acme Fill Corporation, Nicholas J.
Farros. An agreement has been reached with the following provisions. The draft contract
referred to as the NEO contract will be implemented with the following modifications:
1 . The term is proposed to commence April 1 5, 2001, and extend for one
year.
3/30/01
S:\Correspondence\POSPAPR\2001 \Landfill Gas.pp.wpd
Page 1 of 2
.. ..-.-... - -.....--1 --.--..--
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
Subject:
AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LANDFILL GAS
AGREEMENT WITH ACME FILL CORPORATION
2.
The landfill gas discount will be 50 percent (from burner tip natural gas
costs).
3.
The floor price will increase from $2.50 per decatherm to $3.50 per
decatherm.
4.
The price of landfill gas will have a cap of $4.00 per decatherm.
This proposed contract is essentially the same as the contract that the Board approved
at the Board meeting on September 7, 2000. The notable differences are in the increased
floor price and the newly created cap price. Minor changes include Acme's request to
provide Title V testing in lieu of paying $4,800 per year for an outside contract to perform
the Title V testing.
The District benefits from the upside cap. If natural gas prices are in the $8.00 per
decatherm range this year as projected, the $4.00 per decatherm landfill gas price cap will
reflect a 50 percent savings. An additional benefit to Acme from this contract is having
a raised floor price.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize the General Manager to enter into the
Landfill Gas Sales Agreement with Acme Fill Corporation to supply landfill gas for a period
of one year.
3/30/01
S:\Correspondence\POSPAPR\2001 \Landfill Gas.pp.wpd
Page 2 of 2
Landfill Gas Agreement
Board Of Directors Meeting
April 5, 2001
Jim Belcher
Contract Elements
.....
1 Agreement with ACME Landfill Corp.
~? Term - 1 Year
3. Discount - 50%
4. Floor Price - $3.50
5. Ceiling Price - $4.00
1
.taml~1I Gas Costs
ACM~posal
April, 2
Projected Usage 180,000 dth/yr
Natural Gas Burner Tip Cost Of $8/dth
Price
"NED" $5.00/dth
ACME 2001 $4.00/dth
Annual Cost
$900,000
$720,000
$180,000
Annual Savings
LANDFILL GAS PR~- ACME CONTRACT APRL2001
-"-..
$6.00
1'.'0
PROPOSED 2001-2002 BUDGET
~5.00
CD
js4.50
It:
~400
ACME CEILING PRICE
~]_50
lj
IsJOO
$1.50
U.OO
$2.00 $3.00 $4.041 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 SB.OO 11:9.00 510.00
PRICE OF NATURAL GAS
2
Central Contra Costa Sculitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
No.:
8.a. HUMAN RESOURCES
Type of Action: RECEIVE STAFFING PLAN
Subject: RECEIVE AND CONSIDER STAFFING PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002
Submitted By:
Cathryn Freitas, Human Resources
Manager
REVIEWED A.NO RECOM~EO FOR BOARD ACTION,
~ '
C. Freitas P. Morsen
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Administrative/Human Resources
ISSUE: Staff has analyzed its personnel needs for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 and is submitting
its requests for Board consideration at the April 5, 2001, Board Meeting. Board approval
is scheduled for the May 10, 2001, Board Meeting.
BACKGROUND: Each department has reviewed its staffing requirements for Fiscal Year
2001-2002. The Staffing Plan includes departmental overviews, personnel actions taken
during Fiscal Year 2000-2001, requested changes and their justifications, organizational
charts reflecting current staffing and proposed changes, and new job classification
descriptions.
The attached summary sheet highlights the effect of each department's staffing requests
on the number of total authorized positions in the District and the costs in salaries and
benefits. As shown in the summary, the total number of authorized regular positions in
the District will be one-half a position more than last year. Seven Co-op student positions
are requested this year which is one fewer than last year.
The salaries and wages in the 2001-2002 0 & M Departmental Budgets will increase from
the previous year due to the anticipated cost-of-living salary adjustments and any merit
and longevity increases scheduled in 2001-2002. Staff is recommending the salaries for
Co-ops be increased by $2.00 per hour to $18.00. Based on a survey of the colleges and
universities, the increase in hourly salary is necessary to attract candidates.
The Staffing Plan was approved by the Personnel Committee at their March 22, 2001,
meeting. District staff will meet and confer with the appropriate bargaining units on those
items that are applicable prior to the Board adopting the budget.
The departmental requests for positions are as follows:
3/26/01
H:\BUDGET\Budget 2001-pp.wpd
Page 1 of 4
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
Subject: RECEIVE AND CONSIDER STAFFING PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002
Administrative
1. Delete one Pollution Prevention Program Administrator (S-77, $5,562-
$6,740) position.
2. Add one Management Information Systems Analyst (G-72, $4,919-$5,955)
position.
Plant Operations
3. Delete one Assistant Control Systems Engineer (S-72, $4,941-$5,981)
position.
4. Add one Associate Control Systems Engineer (S-77, $5,562-$6,740)
position. Reclassify Assistant Control Systems Engineer William McEachen
to Associate Control Systems Engineer.
Collection System Operations
5. Increase the Vehicle and Equipment Services Worker from half-time to full-
time.
Engineering
None.
Secretary of the District
None
Co-op
6. Authorize the hiring of students to fill seven positions in the Co-op program
and increase salaries to $18.00 an hour.
3/29/01
H:\BUDGET\Budget 2001-pp.wpd
Page 2 of 4
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
Subject: RECEIVE AND CONSIDER STAFFING PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and consider the Staffing Plan for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 herein identified by
items 1 - 6. The Staffing Plan will be submitted for final approval at the May 10, 2001,
Board Meeting.
3/26/01
H:\BUDGET\Budget 2001-pp.wpd
Page 3 of 4
~
~ ~
0
I
= 0
u
rJ'J
~
~
~ C\I
0
0
C\I
rJ'J
Z ...-t
0
-< 0
~ C\I
~
~
z
~
~
~
-<
~
rJ'J
I/) I/) ^
Gl~ 0'1
<::I' <Xl <Xl
.... IH l' 0 ..-I
s.. Gl , ..-I M I
III s:I N , , 0
..-I Gl M 0'1 ~ I
~IQ (J). (J). M
V (J).
..
I N LfI
...t 0 l' M <::I' ~
0 0 . 0'1 <::I' l'
0 N ~
N <::I'
I ..-I LfI LfI
0 0 l' M . ~
0 0 . 0'1 M l'
0 N ~ <::I'
N <::I'
I N
...t 0 I I
0 0 0 M 0 <::I'
0 N I I
N
I ..-I I
~ 0 I
0 0 M 0 LfI
N I I
N
^ ^ ^
0 LfI ...t 0 LfI 0
<::I' LfI <Xl <::I' ~ M
~ l' 0'1 0'1 l' LfI ..-I
~ LfI LfI ~ ...t M
s:I (J). (J). (J). (J). (J). (J).
III I I I I I I
Ill: N 0'1 ..-I N <Xl LfI
t' ~ ..-I <::I' ~ 0'1 0'1 I
LfI 0'1 0'1 LfI N LfI 0
LfI <::I' <::I' LfI ..-I N I
III (J). (J). (J). (J). (J). (J).
..-I
III , , , , , ,
fI2 l' N N l' LfI LfI
l' l' l' l' <::I' <::I'
I I I I I I
tIl t!1 tIl tIl t!1 t!1
V V V
I/) I:
s:I 0 +l III ~
0 ..-1 III e QI
.... .j..l :>. QI ..!(
..-I .j..l nl ..-I +l ~
III .... e nl III '0 0
s:I I/) ~ I: :>. I: ~
0 0 0 II( QI tIl nl +l I
.... 111 IH +l ~ c: III 0
+J I: III nl ..-I QI QI QI QI I
.... s.. H e ..-1 0 QI ..-I e u
'tl III QI U ~ I: U PI..-I
'tl..-l .j..l+l 0 +J ..-1 ..-1 ..-1 >
.s: ~ &~ III I: 0\ .c g.~
III 0 I: ~
Gl ~ tIl II( UI>:l I>:ltll
11I\
..-I ..-I ..-I
I:
s.. 0
..-1
III +l ..-I
..-I I: 0 ~
&1/) Q) ~ Q) ~
Gl s:I > .j..l Q) QI
11I\ .~ QI ~ I: I: ..!(
~ 0 0 ..-1 ~ I
'tl~ III +l U 0\ '0 0 0
nl c: I: ~ I
Gl I/) I: ~ .j..l I>:l nl .j..l
+J 0 0 .j..l I: I: III
~11I ..-1 ~ III nl III QI QI QI
Gl .j..l ..-1 +l e ..-I e U
~ ::I ~ I: III Q) U PI..-I
..-I 0\ ..-1 ..-1 .j..l ..-1 ..-1 >
..-I 0 e III III .c g.~
0 ~'O III :>. QI
p.. p..II( II( tIl ::>I>:ltll
..-I ..-I ..If'
+J III
s:I
Gl I: I
II I 0 ~
+J III QI ..-1 QI
s.. ..-1 > .j..l . QI
~ I: ..-1 .j..l nl 0 I:
..-1 .j..l I: ~ . ..-1
e nl nl Q) tIl 0\0\
Gl '0 ~ ..-I PI . I: I:
~ II( .j..l p.. 0 U I>:l ..-1
Cl
falt.!>
NZ
HH
~~
~~
~rn
-=t
-
l' 0
l' q-
\D
Q)
N Cl
...t l'C
0 a..
In
l'
.
CJ\
LfI
N
In
N
CJ\
In
N
l'
co
....
III
+J
~
LfI LfI
LfI N l'
N M 0'1 0'1
LfI U'l
N N
N
0
0
"N
..-I
0 I
0
N ..-I
0
I 0
N
0
0'0
0 QI
N+l
III
O\QI
I: g.
..-1
IH Q)
.. IHP:;
III nl
c: +l 0\
.. 0 tIl I:
III ..-1 ..-1
~S::+l'tl IH
s.. 0 ..-1 Q) IH
III ..-1 III N nl
! .j..l 0 ..-1 .j..l
..-1 p.. ~ tIl
III 0
fI2 0 .... .c'O
p.. nl .j..l QI
+J I: ::I N
U'O o II( ..-1
.... Q) ..-1 ~
s.. .j..l .j..l ..-I 0
+J Q) ..-1 nl.c
1/)..-I'O+l.j..l
....QI'OO::l
~QII(E-4.s:
._--~-._----
April 5th, 2001
From:
Cathryn Freitas, Human Resources Manager
n/7
David Rolley, President CCCSDEA WJ:::..
To:
Subject:
RESPONSE TO 2001 - 2002 STAFFING PLAN
As per our conversation this morning of April 5th, 200 I I am submitting in writing my concerns
regarding the '01-'02 STAFFING PLAN. After speaking with the MIS section we have
determined that the proposal to create a Management Information Systems (MIS) Analyst
position at a G-72 causes no problems for the current staff members; However, we believe that
the candidate that fills the position may have concerns. We foresee that the position will fall
functionally between the MIS Administrator (S-83) and the Programmer Analyst, yet will be
paid between the Network Coordinator (G-70) and the Programmer Analyst (G-77) at the G-72
range. We believe that it will not be very long before the person filling this new position will
realize this and will either request a pay adjustment or seek other employment. We feel that it is
in the best interest of the District to look into this at this time before any recruitment begins.
My second concern is, after speaking with the HHW staff members, that the Staffing Plan makes
no provision for hiring another HHW Technician. Although, as a Union we appreciate the
progress made by going from more temporary staff to more permanent staff members, we still
feel that one more permanent staff member is justified. As you are aware, we have cut back
more temporary staff positions than we have increased permanent staff positions. The result has
been a juggling act to try and gauge the staffmg needs on a week by week basis and filling in any
shortages with temporary staff. Often this results in misjudging and consequently causes
stressful and unsafe working conditions for the HHW staff. The HHW staff informs me that
there is plenty of work that needs to be done which would keep another staff member busy, even
in the winter season. I propose that the District increase the HHW staff by one more Technician
and I would be willing to explore having this new person perform other duties elsewhere in the
District should things get too slow at the HHW facility.
In addition, and this almost goes Without saying, I strongly advocate a pay increase for the Plant
Operator Ill's. I have been here at the District 19 Y2 years. When I first came onboard we did not
have a furnace, UV Disinfection or Co-Generation. I am sure there have been other
technological advancements in plant operations of which I am not aware. We also did not have
Pumping Station Operator III positions (G-68). In addition, the plant operators were cut back
from 6 member teams to 4 member teams. (3 Operator Ill's and I supervisor) Through all of this
the Operators have forged ahead, learning new skills and technologies and taking it on the chin
when faced with cut backs and newly created and higher paid positions elsewhere in the District.
This issue in not going to go away and must be dealt with forthrightly, as the token 2 Y2%
increase the Operators received during last negotiations was not nearly enough to rectify the
discrepancies. We strongly recommend an increase in the Staffing Plan for the Operators.
~ ,
......
......
I am also attaching a copy of John Mercurio's memo to me about a suggestion that he made, and
that I support, for the Management Analyst position. It basically says that they should be raised
to a 0-70 or 0-72 level based on internal comparisons or that a Senior Management Analyst
position be created. I believe his memo speaks well to this matter.
Lastly, the Engineering Technicians feel that a pay adjustment is warranted based on faulty
Salary Survey data and internal comparisons, a position I strongly agree with.
CC: Roy Manes
Frank Favalora
Charles Batts
Engineering Technicians
Management Analysts
Plant Operator Ill's
\i l-i W T e<...~.s
. Central Contra Costa ~dnitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
No.:
B.b. HUMAN RESOURCES
Type of Action: HUMAN RESOURCES
Subject: AUTHORIZATION TO HIRE SEASONAL EMPLOYEES
Submitted By:
Cathryn Freitas, Human Resources
Manager
REVIEWED AND RECDMM~DR BOARD ACTION,
~
C. Freitas orsen
Initiating Dept./Div. :
Administrative/Human Resources
ISSUE: District staff has assessed its needs for seasonal employees in 2001.
BACKGROUND: Each year, the District hires students during the summer months for
seasonal maintenance, vacation relief, cleanup, and special projects; and during the school
year or semester breaks for additional assistance. Authorization was given for thirty
student positions last year. Approval is requested for twenty-four seasonal positions in
Fiscal Year 2001-2002.
The Personnel Committee approved the seasonal employees requested for Fiscal Year
2001-2002 at their March 22, 2001, meeting.
It is recommended that the hourly rates for seasonal employees remain the same as last
year:
Student Positions
Proposed Salary*
Clerical, laborer (No experience necessary)
Technical (Drafting, Graphic Design)
Professional (Chemist, Engineering, Network Support)
$ 1 0.00
$11 .50
$13.50
* For every year a student returns, add $1.00 per hour to a maximum of three additional summers.
For example, a student laborer who has worked here for the past two summers would receive $12.00
per hour this summer. The extra dollar an hour recognizes the experience and serves as an incentive
for returning students.
The approximate cost of this action will be $182,954 from departmental 0 & M Budgets.
3/24/01
H:\BUDGET\Summer 2001-pp.wpd
Page 1 of 3
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
Subject: AUTHORIZATION TO HIRE SEASONAL EMPLOYEES
Department Directors will be prepared to answer any questions regarding the following
requests:
Administrative
The Administrative Department is requesting five summer student positions in 2001-2002,
the same number requested last year. The positions are located in Materials Services for
inventory and vacation relief; Building Maintenance for vacation relief and general
maintenance; Communication Services for technical support, Management Information
Systems for project-related work; and Safety and Risk Management for assorted
administrative tasks including filing, inputting claims and training information, and
Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) work.
Collection System Operations
The Collection System Operations Department is not requesting any summer students
positions this year.
Plant Operations
The Plant Operations Department is requesting sixteen students, a decrease of four over
last year. Seven of the summer student laborer positions will provide vacation coverage
in Buildings and Grounds and do seasonal maintenance. The Plant is also requesting two
relief positions in the Laboratory, one drafter, two laborers at the Pumping Stations, two
shop assistants, one laborer to assist the maintenance staff, and one Web development
assistant to help build the Plant Operations Department's information site on the District's
Intranet.
Engineering
The Engineering Department requests authorization to hire one engineering assistant
summer student position. This is two fewer positions than last year's request. This
position will be assigned to the District's Planning Section working on corrosion
evaluations and regulatory issues for the collection system.
3/24/01
H:\BUDGET\Summer 2001-pp.wpd
Page 2 of 3
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5.2001
Subject: AUTHORIZATION TO HIRE SEASONAL EMPLOYEES
The Secretary of the District
The Secretary of the District is requesting one student to assist with records management
and one student for the Clerical Support Section to help with large projects, switchboard
backup, and vacation relief. This is the same number of positions requested last year.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the hiring of twenty-four students for seasonal
employment.
3/24/01
H:\BUDGET\Summer 2001-pp.wpd
Page 3 of 3
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: April 5, 2001
No.: l1.b. BUDGET AND FINANCE
TYIHI of Action: RECEIVE ANNUAL REPORT
Sub/fJCt: RECEIVE THE 2000 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION
PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Submitted By:
Debbie Ratcliff, Controller
Initiating Dept./Dlv.:
Administrative/Finance & Acco
~D AND RECOM~ FOR BOARD ACnOM
D. Ratcliff . Morsen
ISSUE: The Deferred Compensation Plan Advisory Committee (Committee) respectfully
submits its 2000 Annual Report.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the Annual Report of the Deferred Compensation Plan
Advisory Committee for 2000 and provide any comments to staff.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: None
BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors approved the establishment of the Committee in
January 1982. The scope of activities of the Committee includes:
· Establishing internal administrative procedures
· Educating participants regarding the Plan
· Reviewing emergency withdrawal requests
· Reviewing investment performance of the Plan
· Submission of an annual report to the Board of Directors and Plan
participants
The Committee is made up of the following Departmental representatives:
Debbie Ratcliff, Controller - Chairperson
David Rolley,. Accounting Technician III - Administrative
Jack Case, Associate Engineer - Engineering
Vacant - Collection System Operations
Bill McEachen, Assistant Control Systems Engineer - Plant Operations
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Receive the Annual Report of the Deferred
Compensation Plan Advisory Committee for 2000 and provide any comments to staff.
S:\ADMIN\POSPAPER\DeflllTlld Comp Rep. 2000.wpd
Page 1 of 11
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT
JANUARY 2000 - DECEMBER 2000
The Deferred Compensation Plan Advisory Committee (the Committee) was established
by the Board of Directors to facilitate the internal administration of the District's Deferred
Compensation Plan. The scope of the Committee's activities encompass the following:
· Establish internal District administrative procedures within the provisions of the
Deferred Compensation Plan document.
· Educate participants regarding the plan provisions by issuing a handbook which
summarizes the Deferred Compensation Plan and responding to questions from
participants.
· Review accountability by the Program Administrators, Hartford Life Insurance
Company (Hartford), National Deferred, and ICMA Retirement Corporation (ICMA)
and respond to participants' queries regarding accuracy or propriety of account
balances.
· Review participants' requests for emergency withdrawal of funds and make
recommendations for acceptance or denial to Board of Directors.
· Review investment performance of the Deferred Compensation Plan on an annual
basis.
During the period January 2000 through December 2000, the Committee addressed all
of the activities included in its scope of responsibilities through the conscientious efforts
of all of the Committee members.
The performance of Hartford, National Deferred, and ICMA in administering the Deferred
Compensation Plan during the 2000 report is considered to be satisfactory. The
performance results of the Hartford, National Deferred, and ICMA stock and bond
investments for the calendar year 2000 follow.
S:\AOMIN\POSPAPER\Deferred Comp Rep. 2000.wpd
Page 2 of 11
Please note the following when reviewing Plan results:
. Market index benchmarks have been provided for comparative purposes only. These indexes
reflect broad based changes in the market conditions based on average performance.
. Rate of returns quoted by providers and fund managers include reinvestment of capital
appreciation (depreciation), plus realized gain (losses), dividends and interest income.
. All rate of return performance results are net of annual asset-based fees, which include fund
manager fees and expenses, marketing fees and plan administrative fees.
. In general, plan administrative fees are charged by the carriers and differ between the
carriers. The basic plan administrative fees are as follows:
National Deferred An annual plan administrative fee of.29 percent is deducted from the
participants account and is based on the participant's account balance.
leMA An annual plan administrative fee and fund expenses are paid to the
retirement corporation and are as follows:
Plan Administrative Fee Percentage
Prior to April 2000 .55 ofthe average account balance
April 2000 .22 of the average account balance
April 2001 None
Hartford Depending on the fund, the plan administrative charge ranges from
.75 percent to .90 percent of account balance.
For additional information on fee charges consult with your plan provider. The above
information is general information. Additional fees may be incurred for other items such as
transfers and withdrawals. See Attachment I to this report.
. Results shown represent past performance and are not a guarantee of future performance.
Ask your Plan Representative for a current prospectus for each fund in which you are
interested. The current prospectus presents more complete information about the fund
including fund charges and expenses. Read it carefully before investing in that option under
the Plan.
Page 3 of 11
Helpful Definitions
. Dow Jones Industrial Average or DJIA is the best known U.S. index of stocks. It is
comprised of 30 stocks that trade on the New York Stock Exchange. The Dow, as it is
called, is an indicator of how the largest U.S. companies are performing. Measuring the Dow
Jones Industrial Average is used to gauge the direction of the stock market.
. Indexing is a passive instrument strategy consisting of the construction of a portfolio of
stocks designed to track the total return performance of an index of stocks.
. Lehman Brothers Bond Index is an unmanaged list of U.S. Treasury/Agency and
investment grade corporate debt securities. It is used as a general measure of performance
of fixed income securities.
. MSCI Europe, Australia/Asia, and Far East or EAFE index is the European, Australian,
and Far East stock index, computed by Morgan Stanley. This index is used to measure the
general performance of the international market.
. Mutual Funds are a company that pools money of individual investors and purchases
securities which become jointly owned by its shareholders. The funds portfolio is managed
by a professional money manager. Mutual funds can invest in equity, debt, cash, real estate,
options and futures.
. NASDAQ or National Association of Securities Dealers Automatic Quotation System is an
electronic quotation system that provides price quotations to market participants about the
more actively traded common stock issues in the over the counter market. This market
comprises of securities not listed on a stock or bond exchange. Large technology stocks have
a major effect on this index value. The NASDAQ market is an over the counter market for
U.S. stocks and includes approximately 4,000 common stocks in the system.
. Standard & Poor's 500 or S&P 500 is an index which measures changes in stock market
conditions based on the average performance of 500 widely held common stocks. The S&P
500 is one of the most widely used benchmarks of U.S. equity performance. This index
tracks industrial, transportation, financial and utility stocks.
. Treasury Bill or T Bill is a discounted government security that matures in one year or less.
Page 4 of 11
CCCSD Deferred Comp Jistribution
BY ADMINISTRATOR AND INVESTMENT TYPE
% ICMA 457 ICMA 401 (a) HARTFORD TOTAL
66.3% $10,737,010 $14,262,755 $4,304,295 $6,821,025 $36,125,085
2.6% 746,560 212,041 34,504 410,175 1,403,280
31.1% 4,076,150 6,556,869 727,487 5,566,673 16,927,179
100.0% $15,559,720 $21,031,665 $5,066,286 $12,797,873 $54,455,544
CCCSD Deferred Comp Distribution
BY ADMINISTRATOR
December 31,2000
HARTFORD
$12,797,873
23.5%
ICMA 401 (a)
$5,066,286
9.3%
NA TIONAL
DEFERRED
$15,559,720
28.6%
ICMA 457
$21,031,665
38.6%
[ - NATIONAL DEFERRED _ICMA 457 0 ICMA 401 (a) II HARTFORD I
CCCSD Deferred Comp Distribution
BY INVESTMENT TYPE
December 31,2000
SAVINGS
$16,927,179
31.1%
BONDS
$1,403,280
2.6%
STOCK
$36,125,085
66.3%
I_ STOCK - BONDS 0 SAVINGS I
Page 5 of 11
1"."'-'. --"-.----.-----------+-
eeeSD Deferred _omp Stocks and Mutual Fun ~
Calendar Year Ended
December 31, 2000
Rate of Return (%)
Market Index Benchmarks
Dow Jones Industrial Average
Standard & Poor's 500
MSCI Europe, Australia/Asia, and Far East (EAFE)
-5.07%
-9.11%
-14.16%
National Deferred - Source: Performance Results of "Core List" Mutual Funds (With Plan Charges) adjusted for
CCCSO's plan fee as of 12/31/2000.
Kemper Dreman High Return Equity A
Vanguard Windsor 11*
Mutual Beacon Fund (Class A)
Kaufmann Fund
Vanguard Wellington Fund*
Income Fund of America
Washington Mutual Investors
Fidelity Equity Income Fund
Fidelity Puritan Fund*
Growth Fund of America
Vanguard Primecap*
Investment Company of America
Neuberger & Berman Partners Trust
Fidelity Growth & Income Fund*
Nationwide Fund (Class A)**
DFA US 9-10 Small Company Portfolio
Templeton Foreign Fund (Class A)
Fidelity Contra Fund
Invesco Dynamics Fund**
Vanguard Institutional Index 500
Vanguard 500 Index Fund*
Fidelity Magellan Fund*
Invesco Small Company Growth Fund**
Dreyfus Third Century Fund
Janus Fund
Janus Aspen Capital Appreciation Fund**
Janus Worldwide Fund
EuroPacific Growth Fund (Class A)
American Century Ultra Fund
Vanguard US Growth*
Invesco Technology II Fund**
PBHG Growth Fund
40.87%
16.61%
13.56%
10.54%
10.11%
9.66%
8.73%
8.24%
7.48%
7.16%
4.21%
3.53%
0.18%
-2.27%
-2.78%
-3.87%
-4.04%
-7.10%
-8.03%
-9.19%
-9.39%
-9.58%
-12.43%
-13.14%
-15.13%
-16.87%
-17.12%
-18.08%
-20.12%
-20.49%
-23.00%
-23.20%
Info only: (Existing balances will remain in the phased-out funds until moved by the participant.)
Vanguard Wellesley Fund*
Fidelity Retirement Growth Fund*
American Century Balance Fund*
American Century Select Fund*
American Century Growth Fund*
Fidelity Overseas Fund*
15.91%
1.41%
-2.95%
-9.00%
-15.00%
-18.62%
*
Rate of return was obtained from the fund manager, less .29% National Deferred plan administration fee.
New fund offered by National Deferred as of July 2000.
**
Page 6 of 11
CCCSD Deferred ~omp Stocks and Mutual Fur. .j
Calendar Year Ended
December 31,2000
Rate of Return (%)
Market Index Benchmarks
Dow Jones Industrial Average
Standard & Poor's 500
MSCI Europe, Australia/Asia, and Far East (EAFE)
-5.07%
-9.11%
-14.16%
ICMA - Source: ICMA Retirement Corporation quarterly Investor Update adjusted for CCCSO's plan fee as of 12/31/2000.
VantaaeTrust Funds
Equity Income Fund
Growth & Income Fund
Asset Allocation Fund
Growth Stock Fund
500 Stock Index Fund
Aggressive Opportunities Fund
Broad Market Index Fund
International Fund
Mid/Small Company Index Fund
Overseas Equity Index Fund
17.37%
3.97%
-0.93%
-2.73%
-9.53%
-9.53%
-10.93%
-15.03%
-15.03%
-15.23%
VantaoeTrust Model Portfolio Funds
Conservative Growth
Traditional Growth
Long Term Growth
All Equity Growth***
4.67%
2.27%
-1.03%
N/A
Mutual Funds
American Century Value
Vanguard Wellington Fund
Fidelity Puritan Fund
Neuberger & Berman
Fidelity Growth & Income Fund
Fidelity Contra Fund
MFS Mass Investors Growth Stock
Gabelli Value
Putnam International Growth
Fidelity Magellan Fund
Fidelity Blue Chip
Putnam Voyager
American Century Ultra Fund
Invesco Small Company Growth Fund***
Lord Abbett Affiliated***
T. Rowe Price Small Cap Stock***
17.97%
9.87%
7.55%
-0.83%
-2.22%
-7.03%
-7.43%
-8.03%
-9.23%
-9.52%
-10.73%
-16.93%
-20.13%
N/A
N/A
N/A
***
New fund offered by leMA as of October 2000.
Page 7 of 11
CCCSD Deferred _ amp Stocks and Mutual Fun J
Calendar Year Ended
December31,2000
Rate of Return (%)
Market Index Benchmarks
Dow Jones Industrial Average
Standard & Poor's 500
MSCI Europe, Australia/Asia, and Far East (EAFE)
-5.07%
-9.11%
-14.16%
Hartford - Source: Separate Accounts Performance Plan Summary Statement as of 12/31/2000.
Skyline Small Cap Value Plus
American Century Value
Hartford Capital Appreciation
Hartford Dividend and Growth
Hartford Advisers
Scudder Growth & Income
Calvert Social Balanced
Putnam Vista
Fidelity Advisor Balanced
Hartford Stock
Hartford Index
American Century Income & Growth
Fidelity Advisor Growth & Income
Janus Worldwide
Hartford International Opportunities
Fidelity Advisor Growth Opportunities
American Century Ultra Fund
Janus Twenty
Putnam International New Opportunities
30.20%
17.27%
12.21%
9.96%
-1.64%
-3.27%
-4.00%
-4.81 %
-6.41 %
-7.88%
-10.31%
-11.29%
-13.60%
-17.57%
-17.85%
-18.86%
-20.59%
-32.99%
-38.25%
Page 8 of 11
CCCSD Deferred Camp Bond Performance
Market Index Benchmark
I Lehman Brothers Bond Index
11.63%
National Deferred
Vanguard Bond Market Index
Bond Fund of America
Kemper High Yield Fund A
11.08%
5.77%
-9.48%
leMA
VantaaeTrust Fund
Core Bond Fund
11.47%
Hartford
Hartford Bond
Hartford Mortgage Securities
Putnam High Yield Advantage
10.98%
9.29%
-9.81%
Page 9 of 11
CCCSD Deferred Comp Saving Performance
Market Index Benchmark
I 90 Day T -Bill 5.96%
National Deferred
Stable Value Fund 6.17%
5 YR CDs 6.11%
3 YR CDs 5.98%
Liquid Savings 5.30%
leMA
VantaqeTrust Funds
U.S. Treasury Securities Fund 11.77%
Cash Management Fund 5.77%
VantaaeTrust Model Portfolio Fund
Savings Oriented 6.37%
Plus Funds
Plus Fund (401a) 5.77%
Plus Fund (457) 5.77%
Hartford
Savings 6.28%
HV A Money Market 5.16%
Page 10 of 11
_" ______..____'......___-,--_.'.__ ._..._______n____.___________,_"__
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
SUMMARY OF FEES - ATTACHMENT 1
AS OF APRIL 7, 2001
PROVIDERS
NATIONAL
FEES CHARGED BY PROVIDERS DEFERRED ICMA HARTFORD
(Based on account balance)
Plan Fees
Annual Plan Administrative Fee 0.29% NONE .75% - .90%*
Fund EXDenses
Management Fee NONE NONE NONE
Savings Fee (Total Fee Charged) 0.49% N/A N/A
Stable Value Fund, 3&5 YR CD's, and Liquid Savings Fee
Plus Fund Management Fee (Savings) N/A 0.51% N/A
General Account (Savings) N/A N/A 0.00%
Model Portfolio Fund Fee (Total Fee Charged) N/A 0.72% - 1.08% N/A
Mutual Fund Services Fee (Partial Fee - See example below) N/A 0.25%** N/A
FEES CHARGED BY THE MUTUAL FUND MANAGERS
Mutual Fund Fee 0.24 - 1.40% 0.43 -1.72%
0.06 - 1.94%
These expenses are charged by the fund managers which include Advisory Fees, 12b-1 Fees, Operating Expenses and Other Fees
charged by the individual funds. These fees and expenses differ for each fund invested. As a general rule, the higher the potential
reward, the higher the risk, the higher the fee. The reverse is also generally true, the lower the potential reward, the lower the risk,
the lower the fee.
Example of fees on an annual basis:
Assume you are a plan participant and you invest in the American Century Ultra Fund, depending on the provider
you choose, you would pay the following annual asset-based charges:
Fund Expenses
Mutual Fund Services Fee
American Century Credit
Total Participant Fees Paid to the Plan Provider
Mutual Fund Fee (% charged by American Century)
Total Annual Cost
NATIONAL
DEFERRED ICMA HARTFORD
0.29% 0.00% 0.85%
N/A 0.25%** N/A
N/A -0.20%*** N/A
0.29% 0.05% 0.85%
1.00% 1.00% 100%
1.29% 1.05% 1.85%
Plan Fees
Plan Administration Fee
N/A = Not applicable
*
Administration fee differs for each fund invested.
** Currently the mutual funds offered by ICMA pay the following annual amounts calculated on assets invested by the Trust:
Fidelity, Putnam, Gabelli and Neuberger Berman pay 0.25%, and American Century Funds pay 0.20%. Consequently, the
Mutual Fund Services Fee is subsequently reduced accordingly for those funds featuring investment in these mutual funds. See
example above.
*** Because American Century pays an annual fee to the Retirement Corporation or its broker/dealer affiliate for providing certain
services (which in turn is credited in full to the American Century Fund offered by ICMA), your actual Mutual Fund Services Fee
would be 0.05% (0.25% standard fee minus 0.20%), for a total cost of 0.05% paid to ICMA. Therefore, a provider may charge
additional types of fees, but the total fees paid to the provider and in total may vary significantly.
Page of 11 of 11
S:IADMINIFINANCESISummary of Feesl.wpd
Central Contra Costa Sbllitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Dllte: April 5, 2001
No.:
II.c. BUDGET AND FINANCE
Type of Action: APPROVE EQUIPMENT BUDGET
Subject: APPROVE THE 2001-2002 EQUIPMENT BUDGET FOR INCLUSION IN THE 2001 -
2002 DISTRICT BUDGET
Submitted By:
Debbie Ratcliff, Controller
lnitillting Dept./Div. :
Administrative/Finance & Acc
REVIEWED AND RECDMM~ FOR BOARD ACTIDN:
/Lf
D. Ratcliff . Morsen
ISSUE: The District's 2001 - 2002 Equipment Budget is submitted for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the 2001 - 2002 Equipment Budget for inclusion in the
2001 - 2002 District Budget to be adopted at the June 21, 2001 Board Meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2001 - 2002 Equipment Budget totals $550,990 which is an
overall decrease of 6.6% from last year's budget
Al TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: None
BACKGROUND: The 2001 - 2002 Equipment Budget was submitted for review at a Board
Capital Projects Committee Meeting/Board Workshop on March 13, 2001 and is scheduled
for approval by the Board on April 5, 2001. The Committee did not suggest any changes
to the submitted Equipment Budget. As discussed previously with the Board, the PC
replacement program was not included in the Equipment Budget and instead, will be
included in the Information Technology Five Year Master Plan.
Approval of the Equipment Budget includes the authority to purchase a one ton truck cab
and chassis for $33,000 prior to the start of the 2001 - 2002 fiscal year.
The approved 2001 - 2002 Equipment Budget will be scheduled for adoption with the
2001 - 2002 Personnel, Operations and Maintenance, Self-Insurance Fund, and Capital
Improvement Budgets at the June 21, 2001 Board Meeting.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Approve the 2001 - 2002 Equipment Budget for
inclusion in the 2001 - 2002 District Budget to be adopted at the June 21, 2001 Board
Meeting.
S:\ADMIN\POSPAPER\Equip Budg ApprovalOl-02. wpd
Central Contra Costa ~ litary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board MtJtJting DattJ: April 5, 2001
No.: 11. d . BUDGET AND F I NANCE
TyPtJ of Action: APPROVE FUNDS
Subject: AUGMENT THE 2001/2002 EQUIPMENT BUDGET BY $50,000 TO PURCHASE
A REPLACEMENT POWER RODDING TRUCK
Submitted By:
Don Rhoads
Initiating Dept./Div.:
CSO
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
~d/LJ
D. Rhoads
f!f~o~
ISSUE:
Board approval is needed to augment the 2001/2002 Equipment Budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
Augment the 2001/2002 Equipment Budget by $50,000 to purchase a replacement Power
Rodding Truck.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
The approved 2001/2002 Equipment Budget would increase from $550,990 to $600,900.
AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS:
Do not augment the 2001/2002 Equipment Budget.
BACKGROUND:
The District purchased a power rodding unit in calendar year 1997 and mounted it on a
District owned truck (Truck #84). Extensive efforts were made by District forces to make
the equipment perform in the field; however, the power rodding unit never met the
manufacturer's performance claims. The manufacturer attempted to improve its
performance on numerous occasions over the past four years without success and they
have recently agreed to reimburse the District for all of its out-of-pocket costs, and to
purchase the truck chassis at fair market value. A copy of the letter from the equipment
vendor is attached.
3/28/01
F:\BUDG ET\200'_ 02\rodrpospap. wpd
Page 1 of 3
POSITION PAPER
Board M88ting Date: April 5, 2001
Subject: AUGMENT THE 2001/2002 EQUIPMENT BUDGET BY $50,000 TO PURCHASE
A REPLACEMENT POWER RODDING TRUCK
The District has four power rodding trucks and five are needed to meet the projected
sewer cleaning workload. Staff recommends purchasing a replacement power rodding
truck to bring the total number of power rodding trucks back to five. The additional
$50,000 would be used in conjunction with the funds received from the manufacturer to
purchase a truck chassis, purchase and mount a new power rodding unit, and to equip
the truck for service (tool boxes, lights, two-way radios, etc.) at a total cost of $140,000.
This action is being brought to the Board for consideration at this time because the
outcome of the actions by the original equipment manufacturer was unclear at the time
that the Equipment Budget was being compiled.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION:
Augment the FY 2001/2002 Equipment Budget by $50,000 to purchase a replacement
Power Rodding Truck.
3/28/01
F:\BUDGET\200'_ 02\rodrpospap. wpd
Page 2 of 3
Mar 23 at 02:U~p
!CO InaUST."1~5
(U (
ll::t>..:l':
I".C
=::::::=-~~Eca
.--.-
_.-
INDUSTRIIS
MlD'ch 23. 2001
Mr. Bill Echols, Superintendent
Centra! Contrd Costa Sanitary District
5019 ImboffPla.ce
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Bill:
Attached YOll will find II copy of the original invoice 035696 for the roddcr anu
mstallation onto your tmcl<. Wel;O lndusllics will issue a credit f,)r the rull amllUnt of
$79,300.70. tulY tools or rod thal you helve Ihar was purchased from Weco for the .461
rodder may be rctumed for full credit.
Uyou have any questions, please feel free 10 call file at 1-800-677-6661.
Sincerely, ~
CTS~ rr -
Tom Johnson
Oporations Manager
TJ:mlj
WECO INDUSTRIU.INC., no CORPOaAn PlAU. SUITE D. VALllfO, CA 94590 (707) 644-6661. FAX: (101) 644-1631
..
._ ~..~ ...._._~ ._.. _~ ,.._ .__~'~2~c:.r:_~. ~110'~ .
Ft,..,l.,::hl ." ..... '. .
l-I i :'l'~. CIEH'aee-' ..'
'\'hX e0l1l:.rCo8ta.:...e..m5'
TOTAL AMOUNT ..
e'l.eo
0.0~
6043. 7~1
Page 3 of 3