The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-07-01 AGENDA BACKUP Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: June 7, 2001 No.: 4.a. CONSENT CALENDAR Type of Action: ACCEPT OFFER OF DEDICATION Subject: ADOPT RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR THE EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION NO. 8027 FROM SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, JOB NO. 5214, PARCEL 1, SAN RAMON AREA Submitted By: Molly Mullin Engineering Assistant Initiating Dept./Div. : Engineering/Environmental Services J. iyamoto-Mills A. Farrell REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION: ~* c~ Swanson vt~ ~M. Mullin "1/" ~ ISSUE: A Board resolution is required to accept offers of dedication and record easements. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution accepting public sewer improvements and an offer of dedication for an easement at no cost to the District. Authorize recording of the easement acceptance. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: None. BACKGROUND: The District routinely accepts easements and public sewer improvements through Board adoption of resolutions to that effect. The recommended resolution will accept an easement that is required for a recent public sewer extension at Glen Bridge in Gale Ranch, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley, Phase 1). The final subdivision map and public sewer improvements have been reviewed by District staff and deemed in compliance with District standards. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a resolution accepting public sewer improvements and an offer of easement dedication from Shapell Industries of Northern California, Job No. 5214, Parcel 1, Glen Bridge, San Ramon area, at no cost to the District. Authorize recording of the easement acceptance. 5/25/01 U:\PPr\Rflsol-MM\PPResolu5214m. wod Page 1 of 2 ./' /' '- V " "' / / -..,.,. "' I , HD + + ~ ~ % ~~ N ~ U'> , + + 0 300 FEET c '" "0 ,..: N o 00 I .0 iil ./ "0 > o a. C>- o I ~ ./ '" C>- o E U C>- '" ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District LEGEND: EASEMENT AR SUB BOUNDARY Attachment u'") N ~ ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT DEDICATION SUB 8027 JOB 5214 5 o N .;... ... "" :!: ~,.-_.__._--_._--_._--^----~-~-_."-~-'-"'-"-~'----'--'--._"-----,---_._~,._.,._----_.._-~-_._----_._-' Page 2 of 2 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: June 7, 2001 No.:4.b. CONSENT CALENDAR Type of Action: ACCEPT OFFER OF DEDICATION Subject: ADOPT RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR THE EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION NO. 8135 FROM SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, JOB NO. 5302, PARCEL 1, SAN RAMON AREA Submitted By: Molly Mullin Engineering Assistant REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD AC7\N: ~ V (Q~ .A/f M. Mullin J. Mi moto-Mills Y. Swanson Initiating Dept./Div. : Engineering/Environmental Services A. Farrell av2) ISSUE: A Board resolution is required to accept offers of dedication and record easements. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution accepting public sewer improvements and an offer of dedication for an easement at no cost to the District. Authorize recording of the easement acceptance. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: None. BACKGROUND: The District routinely accepts easements and public sewer improvements through Board adoption of resolutions to that effect. The recommended resolution will accept an easement that is required for a recent public sewer extension at Glen Bridge in Gale Ranch, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley, Phase 1). The final subdivision map and public sewer improvements have been reviewed by District staff and deemed in compliance with District standards. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a resolution accepting public sewer improvements and an offer of easement dedication from Shapell Industries of Northern California, Job No. 5302, Parcel 1, Glen Bridge, San Ramon area, at no cost to the District. Authorize recording of the easement acceptance. 5/25/01 U :\PPR\Resol-MM\Resolu5 302m. wpd Page 1 of 2 , + ~ N , 400 FEET EGEND: EASEMENT AREA SUB BOUNDARY ~ 6 o C> N >- ... ::E i! Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT DEDICATION SUB 8135 JOB 5302 Attachment Page 2 of 2 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: June 7, 2001 No.: 4. c. CONSENT CALENDAR Type of Action: ACCEPT OFFER OF DEDICATION Subject: ADOPT RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR THE EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION NO. 8132 FROM SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, JOB NO. 5317, PARCEL 1, SAN RAMON AREA Submitted By: Molly Mullin Engineering Assistant REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTf~ AI ~ J. 1/ ~W'"'O" Initiating Dept./Div. : Engineering/Environmental Services A. Farrell OJJK ISSUE: A Board resolution is required to accept offers of dedication and record easements. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution accepting public sewer improvements and an offer of dedication for an easement at no cost to the District. Authorize recording of the easement acceptance. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: None. BACKGROUND: The District routinely accepts easements and public sewer improvements through Board adoption of resolutions to that effect. The recommended resolution will accept an easement that is required for a recent public sewer extension at Crest Bridge in Gale Ranch, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley, Phase 1). The final subdivision map and public sewer improvements have been reviewed by District staff and deemed in compliance with District standards. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a resolution accepting public sewer improvements and an offer of easement dedication from Shapell Industries of Northern California, Job No. 5317, Parcel 1, Crest Bridge, San Ramon area, at no cost to the District. Authorize recording of the easement acceptance. 5/25/01 U:\PPR\Resol-MM\PPResolu5317m. wpd Page 1 of 2 o I 6 o lit ~ ~ HIGHlAND RD \ ~ \ \ i N .",' 9- , ", ~& , !!l \ . + '. , . ~ N ~ 400 800 I c: '" "0 N '" co I .0 " '" ..- "5 > o 5- 0- o I .0 " '" ..- '" 0- o E u &r ..- -'" Central Contra Costa Sanitary District FEET LEGEND: EASEMENT AREA SUB BOUNDARY ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT DEDICATION SUB 8132 JOB 5317 Attachment S!l ~ 5 o N >- << ::E ~ Page 2 of 2 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: June 7, 2001 No.: 4. d. CONSENT CAL ENDAR Type of Action: ACCEPT OFFER OF DEDICATION Subject: ADOPT RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR THE EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION NO. 8256 FROM SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, JOB NO. 5397, PARCEL 1, SAN RAMON AREA Submitted By: Molly Mullin Engineering Assistant REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTID~ -11!!:!!: J .m::', ~'""c Initiating Dept./Div. : Engineering/Environmental Services ~ A. Farrell ISSUE: A Board resolution is required to accept offers of dedication and record easemen s. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution accepting public sewer improvements and an offer of dedication for an easement at no cost to the District. Authorize recording of the easement acceptance. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: None. BACKGROUND: The District routinely accepts easements and public sewer improvements through Board adoption of resolutions to that effect. The recommended resolution will accept an easement that is required for a recent public sewer extension at Glen Bridge in Gale Ranch, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley, Phase 1). The final subdivision map and public sewer improvements have been reviewed by District staff and deemed in compliance with District standards. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a resolution accepting public sewer improvements and an offer of easement dedication from Shapell Industries of Northern California, Job No. 5397, Parcel 1, Glen Bridge, San Ramon area, at no cost to the District. Authorize recording of the easement acceptance. 5/25/01 U :\PPR\Resol-MM\PPResolu5 397 m. wpd Page 1 of 2 ~ B LUNGER , 1/1) HIGHlAND RD ~ + N , L.: CATION MAP N.T.S.o_o + ~ N , o I 300 FEET LEGEND: + SUB BOUND .... '" ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5 o ':" >- ... :::' 5 ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT DEDICATION SUB 8256 JOB 5397 Attachment Page 2 of 2 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: J un e 7, 2001 No.: 4.e. CONSENT CALENDAR Type of Action: ACCEPT OFFER OF DEDICATION Subject: ADOPT RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR THE EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION NO. 8309 FROM BRADDOCK AND LOGAN II L.P., A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, JOB NO. 5446, PARCEL 3, WALNUT CREEK AREA Submitted By: Molly Mullin Engineering Assistant REVIEWED AND RECDMMENDED FDR BDARD ACt /f ~. J. Mi =MiII. ~ SW'""" Initiating Dept./Div. : Engineering/Environmental Services A. Farrell dJk ISSUE: A Board resolution is required to accept offers of dedication and record easements. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution accepting public sewer improvements and an offer of dedication for an easement at no cost to the District. Authorize recording of the easement acceptance. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. AL TERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: None. BACKGROUND: The District routinely accepts easements and public sewer improvements through Board adoption of resolutions to that effect. The recommended resolution will accept an easement that is required for a recent public sewer extension off Geary Road in Walnut Creek. The final subdivision map and public sewer improvements have been reviewed by District staff and deemed in compliance with District standards. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a resolution accepting public sewer improvements and an offer of easement dedication from Braddock and Logan II, Job No. 5446, Parcel 3, Walnut Creek area, at no cost to the District. Authorize recording of the easement acceptance. 5/25/01 U :\PPR\Resol-MM\PPResolu5446m. wpd Page 1 of 2 +- g,- "0 0> o "" <Xl .J:> ii: /' ~ o a. 0.- o - \ ...., \ o ~ CO \: ~~~ /--\ ~ ~ '; r "'" ! ~ 1 I I I I I I I I : I 10- ~ Z I- ;> ..... ,J I I I I : , : N I I I , I I I I 200 I 004 FEET I -1...-"-- \ "- - ...., - LEGEND: ~ P::::::1 EASEMENT AREA /' g. - - SUB BOUNDARY E ~ /' -'" <.0 o ... J J Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ~ ~~c ~ i\ J WALNUT ~ ~ 1.\ CREEK..\ lQCATION MAP ~~ ~.T.S. 7; )p SANT H/U /lC SUB . LOCATION GENrf RO ) rr I~ \\ p---\ I I I ~ _J '" t' , \ '- - 00 ~~ "<1 SUB 8309 t---- GEARY + /1 I ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT DEDICATION SUB 8309 JOB 5446 o ~ >- ... '" ~ ,. ,. . ... 680 I I I I : I I .I. -;. \, ~~ )< 4 !, , / / / / / / / / , ( I ! / / " 'L-( J I ~ ~( I ; i ; ~i RD I \ I I I I I I I I : \ \ I Attachment Page 2 of 2 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: June 7, 2001 No.: 4.f. CONSENT CALENDAR Type of Action: ACCEPT OFFER OF DEDICATION Subject: ADOPT RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR THE EASEMENT FROM BRADDOCK AND LOGAN II L.P., A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, JOB NO. 5446, PARCEL 4, WALNUT CREEK AREA Submitted By: Molly Mullin Engineering Assistant REVIEWED AND :ECDMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/~ -if ~ J. V ~~W,""" Initiating Dept./Div. : Engineering/Environmental Services A. Farrell 0Jr/2{ ISSUE: A Board resolution is required to accept offers of dedication and record easements. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution accepting public sewer improvements and an offer of dedication for an easement at no cost to the District. Authorize recording of the easement acceptance. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. ALTERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: None. BACKGROUND: The District routinely accepts easements and public sewer improvements through Board adoption of resolutions to that effect. The recommended resolution will accept an easement that is required for a recent public sewer extension off Geary Road in Walnut Creek. The final subdivision map and public sewer improvements have been reviewed by District staff and deemed in compliance with District standards. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a resolution accepting public sewer improvements and an offer of easement dedication from Braddock and Logan II, Job No. 5446, Parcel 4, Walnut Creek area, at no cost to the District. Authorize recording of the easement acceptance. 5/25/01 U: \PPR\Resol-MM\PPResolu 5446. wpd Page 1 of 2 6 Q. /' g e Q. Q. o "'" " on -:;; Q. o E U Q. on /' :x - - ) P SANT HIL~ ,~B LOCATION ) ~ I~ GW:f RO ~ \ 6801 ~ 0 4 ~ ~ i ~, CIl ~ \\ ~N WALNUT ~ , ~ A CREfI\ L CATION MAP "'-~~ ~ ~~ .T.S. a ; II I I I (\ ~ : I / ~ I / -) I / / I / ~ '" / ~ "'" i' I / , .I. / I ;. I ( I \ I '- - \ I l l , / I I I ~ OO&~ I I I A:{ "'ll / I - ~ I I I I Z I I i I I- ;? ~ " - "c( I ) oj I I -- ~ i I I ~( ~i I : I ......, ~ : GEARY RD \ N I I I I - I I I , I + I +- I I I I -- : I I 200 I 004 : I \ FEET I / LEGEND: "\ f- '- - \ I p:e.:q EASEMENT AREA f- - SUB BOUNDARY /1 I I I I Central Contra Costa Attachment Sanitary District ACCEPTANCE OF ~ EASEMENT DEDICATION PARCEL 4 JOB 5446 .: . . . .. . ... c: C' "0 .... o ~ ;!: 5 o N >- .. ::E '" N Page 2 of 2 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: J U N E 7, 2001 No.: 4.g. CONSENT CALENDAR Type of Action: INITIATE ANNEXATION D.A. 156 Subject: INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORMALLY ANNEX TEN SEPARATE AREAS UNDER THE TITLE OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION 156 Submitted By: Lesley Klein, Supervising Engineering Assistant Initiating Dept./Div. : Engineering/Environmental Services Division A. Farrell REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ~;Jf;, ~ J. M;y 0':'" C. Sw.n,o" CJJrK ISSUE: The District has received petitions for annexation for the parcels as shown on the attached tabulation and maps. It is appropriate to initiate formal annexation proceedings with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution of Application for the annexation of properties to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District under District Annexation 156. BACKGROUND: The owners of the properties listed in Attachment 1 have petitioned the District to annex their properties. These properties are located in Alamo, Danville, Martinez, Orinda, and Pleasant Hill. LAFCO staff has indicated that adjoining unannexed parcels may be added to the separate areas the District submits to eliminate islands or straighten boundary lines. LAFCO will hold a public hearing to consider annexation of any parcel added to District Annexation 156. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None related to this action. AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: Not applicable. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a Resolution of Application for District Annexation 156. 5/18/01 U:\PPr\Annexations\Annex 156. wpd Page 1 of 10 Parcel PA No. Owners Address and Date Board Authorized for No. Location and Assessor's Parcel Number Annexation and Acreage Remarks 1 PA 01-02 Alhambra Venture LLC January 11, 2001 Martinez Mark L. Pringle Proposed 1 2 lot 10.48 Ac. 90 Camino Real subdivision. Burlingame, CA 94010 Negative declaration by 366-140-015 City of Martinez. 2 PA 01-05 Jules and Linda Agostini January 11, 2001 Orinda 339 EI Toyonal Septic system conversion. 0.28 Ac. Orinda, CA 94563 Project is categorically 265-090-004 exempt. CCCSD is the lead agency. 3 PA 01-09 Lisa Lane Development LLC March 15, 2001 Pleasant Hill 1250 Addison Street #113 Proposed 32 unit 1.1 Ac. Berkeley, CA 94702 condominium. 147-050-049 Negative Declaration by City of Pleasant Hill. 4 PA 01-03 R & S Homes Inc. January 11, 2001 Alamo Robert C. Waal Septic system conversion. 3.09 Ac. 974 Juanita Drive Project is categorically Walnut Creek, CA 94595 exempt. 1 93-030-009 CCCSD is the lead agency. 5 PA01-11 Coffey Family Trust May 24, 2001 Alamo 1488 Casa Vallecita Septic system conversion. 7.2 Ac. Alamo, CA 94507 Project is categorically 192-020-011 exempt. CCCSD is the lead agency. Stephen and Kathleen Septic system conversion. Armstrong (CAD 2001-1 - Entrada 1404 Entrada Verde Verde). Alamo, CA 94507 Project is categorically 192-020-045 exempt. CCCSD is the lead agency. John & Kristin Schinnerer 1405 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 192-020-041 ATTACHMENT I DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 156 TABULATION OF PARCELS 5/18/01 U:\PPr\Annexations\Annex 156. wpd Page 2 of 1.0 Parcel PA No. Owners Address and Date Board Authorized for No. Location and Assessor's Parcel Number Annexation and Acreage Remarks 5 Eugene & Kathleen Daly (Entrada Verde CAD cont'd) (cont'd) 1407 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 190-020-022 Sherman & Helen Odegard 1408 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 190-020-028 John & Jane Schnittker 1409 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 190-020-021 Marilyn Penland, Tre. 1418 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 190-020-029 John & Linda Knowles 1419 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 1 90-020-039 Judith Peterson Dobbins, Tre. 1428 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 1 90-020-030 Mary Lou Alexander, Tre. 1429 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 190-020-019 Fredrick & Ann Pier 1432 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 1 90-020-031 Richard & Sandrine Wright 1439 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 1 90-020-01 8 5/18/01 U :\PPr\Annexations\Annex 1 56. wpd Page 3 of 10 Parcel PA No. Owners Address and Date Board Authorized for No. Location and Assessor's Parcel Number Annexation and Acreage Remarks 5 Donald & Cheryl Pensotti (Entrada Verde CAD cont'd) (cont'd) 1448 Entrada Verde Danville, CA 94526 192-020-032 Andrew & Julie Sinclair 1449 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 1 90-020-01 7 Eric & Sonia Miller 1458 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 1 90-020-033 Harry & Bonnie Summers 1459 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 1 90-020-01 6 Marc & Susan Connelly 1468 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 190-020-034 Ferm McWhorter, Tre. 1469 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 192-020-015 Marion Henstrand, Tre. 1478 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 192-020-035 Thomas & Amy Souza 1479 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 192-020-014 David & Sari Garger 1488 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 192-020-036 5/18/01 U :\PPr\Annexations\Annex 1 56. wpd Page 4 of 10 Parcel PA No. Owners Address and Date Board Authorized for No. Location and Assessor's Parcel Number Annexation and Acreage Remarks 5 Mallory Montero (Entrada Verde CAD cont'd) (cont'd) 1489 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 192-020-013 Ted & Elenor Rusley, Tre. 1499 Entrada Verde Alamo, CA 94507 192-020-012 6 PA01-10 Taylor Woodrow Homes March 15, 2001 Alamo 1252 Danville Blvd. Proposed 5 lot subdivision. 3.0 Ac. Alamo, CA 94507 Negative Declaration by 197-040-010 Contra Costa County. 7 PA 01-07 Edwin and Tracy Croll March 15, 2001 Alamo 1 Corwin Drive Septic system conversion. 16.57 Ac. Alamo, CA 94507 (CAD 2001-1 - Corwin Dr.). 198-031-030 Project is categorically exempt. CCCSD is the lead agency. Lawrence and Carole Jewick 2 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-031-003 Jiro and Aya Kodama 3 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 1 98-031-004 Clark and Kathryn Gant 4 Corwin Drive Alamo, Ca 94507 198-131-029 Steven Coutches 5 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-031-005 John Prucha and Jane Dolliver 6 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 1 98-1 31-028 5/18/01 U :\PPr\Annexations\Annex 156. wpd Page 5 of 10 Parcel PA No. Owners Address and Date Board Authorized for No. Location and Assessor's Parcel Number Annexation and Acreage Remarks 7 Igor and Tania Gradov (Corwin Drive CAD cont'd) (cont'd) 7 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 1 98-1 31-006 Jeanette Rivero 8 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 1 98-1 31 -002 Colson Family Trust 9 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-131-007 Stephan and Suzanne Cross 10 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-131-008 Robert and Betsy Miner 11 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 1 98-1 31-008 David and Charlotte Speck 12 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-140-007 Gerland and Joanne Cunningham 20 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-140-008 Ralph and Dorothy Chase 25 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-140-019 John and Catherine Rubin 30 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-140-021 5/18/01 U:\PPr\Annexations\Annex156.wpd Page 6 of 10 Parcel PA No. Owners Address and Date Board Authorized for No. Location and Assessor's Parcel Number Annexation and Acreage Remarks 7 Steven Fleisher (Corwin Drive CAD cont'd) (cant'd) 35 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-140-018 Peter and Janecke Stauffer 40 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 198-140-009 Edwin and Jeane James Tre 45 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 1 98-1 40-01 7 Joel and Linda Goldman 55 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 1 98-140-020 Laverne Riley 60 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-140-011 Timothy Leach and Teresa Mattos 65 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 1 98-1 40-01 6 David Dena 11 La Sonoma Drive Alamo, CA 94507 1 98-1 40-004 Evan and Pamela Peugh 21 La Sonoma Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-140-005 Steven and Lorraine Dallons 23 La Sonoma Drive Alamo, CA 94507 1 98-140-006 5/18/01 U :IPPrlAnnexationslAnnex 1 56. wpd Page 7 of 10 Parcel PA No. Owners Address and Date Board Authorized for No. Location and Assessor's Parcel Number Annexation and Acreage Remarks 7 Timothy and Betty Ahlberg (Corwin Drive CAD cont'd) (cont'd) 10 Los Alamos Court Alamo, CA 94507 198-131-009 Frank and Linda Marasco 1 5 Los Alamos Court Alamo, CA 94507 198-131-019 James and Hedi Hill 20 Los Alamos Court Alamo, CA 94507 1 98-1 31 -01 8 Raymond and Marabelle Bennett 25 Los Alamos Court Alamo, CA 94507 1 98-1 31 -01 8 Robert and Susan Green 30 Los Alamos Court Alamo, CA 94507 198-131-011 George and Judi Barbarosh 34 Los Alamos Court Alamo, CA 94507 198-131-012 John and Gloria Campbell 35 Los Alamos Court Alamo, CA 94507 198-131-007 Charles and Claire Bisson 55 Los Alamos Court Alamo, CA 94507 198-131-015 5/18/01 U :\PPr\Annexations\Annex1 56. wpd Page 8 of 10 7 Joseph and Marcelle Roise (Corwin Drive CAD cont'd) (cont'd) 70 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-140-012 Chris and Christine Reder 75 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-140-015 James and Kathleen Strinz 80 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-140-013 James and Melinda Strout 85 Corwin Drive Alamo, CA 94507 198-140-014 8 PA 01-06 James Zygutis March 15, 2001 Alamo 322 Wayne Avenue Septic system conversion. 1.09 Ac. Alamo, CA 94507 Project is categorically 201-030-004 exempt. CCCSD is the lead agency. 9 PA 01-08 Lisa and Donald Fung March 15, 2001 Alamo 771 EI Pintado Road Septic system conversion. 2.72 Ac. Danville, CA 94526 Project is categorically 197-150-007 exempt. CCCSD is the lead agency. 10 PA 01-04 Kim and Bill Short January 11, 2001 Danville 282 La Questa Septic system conversion. 0.94 Ac. Danville, CA 94526 Project are categorically 216-1 82-003 exempt. CCCSD is the lead agency. 5/18/01 U:\PPr\Annexations\Annex156. wpd Page 9 of 10 "" :I: ~ '" !< o ~o,y, ~ ~....... 'fAt,. 8L vD ,:\.'<.. MOHR i <fl LN (j ~ o ALAMO C 0' "0 o ? u:> '" '0 "0 .-- a. o ~ '" c c o o o -;;; a. o E U a. '" :: Central Contra Costa ~ Sanitary District a. o c; o N .;... <( ::lE .0 N ~/ ~ LEGEND: CCCSD ANNEXATION NO. & LOCATION o I 8000 FEET Attachment C.C.C.S.D. ANNEXATION NO. 156 MAP Page 10 of 10 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: June 7, 2001 No.: 4. h . CONSENT CAL ENDAR Type of Action: SET HEARING DATE Subject: ESTABLISH JUNE 21, 2001, at 2 P.M. AS THE DATE AND TIME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND DISTRICT CODE CHAPTER 2.24 "COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT" Submitted By: Initiating Dept./Div.: Russell B. Leavitt, Management Analyst Engineering/EnVironmennal ervices REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD A~~/(r / r2r.?L- que-- ~ (jJJ{ R. Leavitt G. Chesler C. Swanson A. Farrell Charles W. Batt General Mana r 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 June 21, 2001, at 2 p.m. as the date for a public hearing regarding to receive comments on a proposed ordinance to amend District Code Chapter 2.24 "Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act" FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are minor costs for publishing a legal notice advertising the public hearing and for staff preparation and attendance. AL TERNA TIVES/CONSIDERA TIONS: The Board of Directors may decline to establish the recommended public hearing date or may elect to choose a different date. BACKGROUND: All public agencies within California are statutorily required to adopt local guidelines for evaluating projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The local procedures must be consistent with state law and the CEQA guidelines adopted by the State Resources Agency. The state has adopted comprehensive guidelines that specifically set forth the procedures to be followed in implementation of CEQA. The state guidelines are periodically supplemented and amended. Since the last revision of the District's local guidelines on May 18, 1987, several changes have been made to the state guidelines. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the District's local guidelines be revised to conform to the current law. Additionally, to streamline the local guideline update process in the future, staff will be proposing an amendment to the District Code to allow the Board to adopt future local guideline amendments by resolution instead of by ordnance.. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Establish June 21, 2001, at 2 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing regarding to receive comments on a proposed ordinance to amend District Code Chapter 2.24 "Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act" 5/25/01 H:\CEQA\Set Hearing Date-CEQA-PP.wpd Page 1 of 1 CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE 2001-2002 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET AND SELF-INSURANCE FUND BUDGET AND FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 SEWER SERVICE CHARGE RATES, ON PLACING THE SEWER SERVICE CHARGES ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLL FOR COLLECTION, AND FOR COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT 1997-1999 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLL SUGGESTED AGENDA June 7, 2001 I. President Hockett to indicate that separate Public Hearings will be conducted. The purpose of the hearings will be to obtain public .comment regarding: . Approval of the 2001-2002 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Budget and Self-Insurance Fund Budget and establishment of the 2001-2002, 2002- 2003 and 2003-2004 Sewer Service Charge rates. . Collection of the 2001-2002 Sewer Service Charges on the County tax roll. . Collection of delinquent 1997-1999 Sewer Service Charge on the County tax roll. II. President Hockett to call for staff report on O&M Budgets and Sewer Service Charge. A. Introduction B. O&M Budget C. Sewer Service Charge D. Board discussion III. President Hockett to proceed with the first Public Hearing -- Approval of the 2001- 2002 O&M Budget and Self-Insurance Fund Budget and establishment of the 2001- 2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 Sewer Service Charge rates. (Four votes required for approval.) A. Public Hearing 1 . Open Public Hearing 2. Receive public comment S:\BUDGET\2001-20020&MSELF.PH. wpd 3. Close Public Hearing B. Board deliberation, leading to: Approval of the 2001-2002 O&M Budget and Self-Insurance Fund Budgets and establishment of the 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 Sewer Service Charge rates, or Request additional information be assembled by District staff IV. President Hockett to proceed with the Public Hearing -- Collection of the 2001- 2002 Sewer Service Charges on the County tax roll. A. Public Hearing 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Receive public comment 3. Close Public Hearing B. Board deliberation and decision V. President Hockett to proceed with the Public Hearing Collection of delinquent 1997-1999 Sewer Service Charge on the County tax roll. A. Request Staff Report B. Public Hearing 1 . Open Public Hearing 2. Receive Public Comment 3. Close Public Hearing C. Board Deliberation and Decision S:\BUDGET\2001-20020&MSElF.PH.wpd Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: June 7, 2001 No.: 5.a. HEARINGS Type of Action: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING Subject: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE 2001- 2002 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET AND THE SELF-INSURANCE FUND BUDGET AND FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003- 2004 SEWER SERVICE CHARGE RATES, AND ON PLACING CURRENT AND DELINQUENT SEWER SERVICE CHARGES ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLL FOR COLLECTION Submitted By: DEBBIE RATCLIFF, CONTROLLER Initiating Dept./Div. : ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCE & ACCOUNTING REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION: ,~~ D. Ratcliff %9-' G. Davis ISSUE: The District Code and State law require holding Public Hearings f the establishment of the Sewer Service Charge rates for the next three years and on placing the current and delinquent Sewer Service Charges on the County tax roll for collection. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct three separate Public Hearings and upon their respective conclusions, take the following actions, if considered appropriate: · Approve the 2001-2002 Operations and Maintenance Budget (O&M) and Self- Insurance Fund Budget and approve an ordinance which establishes the 2001- 2002 Sewer Service Charge rate schedule of $224 per residential unit, and establishes an increase of up to $24 each year on the Sewer Service Charge for fiscal years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. · Approve a resolution authorizing collection of the 2001-2002 Sewer Service Charges on the County tax roll. · Consider any protest and, if appropriate, approve a resolution adopting the attached report pursuant to Section 5473 Health and Safety Code, for collection of delinquent Sewer Service Charges on the County Tax Roll. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The draft 2001-2002 O&M Budget is based on a $24 rate increase in the Sewer Service Charge allocating $19 to Operations and Maintenance and $ 5 to the Sewer Construction Fund to partially offset the $1 6 that was reallocated to O&M last year. This would result in a budgeted increase to O&M reserves at fiscal year end of $782,295 for a projected O&M reserve balance at June 30, 2002 of $4,378,512. S:\ADMIN\POSPAPER\O&MSELF01-02.BK!. wpd Page 1 of 65 POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: June 7, 2001 Subject: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE 2001- 2002 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET AND THE SELF-INSURANCE FUND BUDGET AND FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003- 2004 SEWER SERVICE CHARGE RATES, AND ON PLACING CURRENT AND DELINQUENT SEWER SERVICE CHARGES ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLL FOR COLLECTION Deficit spending would continue for the capital program with further reduction of the Sewer Construction Fund balance. A $24 Sewer Service charge increase each year for fiscal year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 would generate approximately $4,000,000 each year respectively in additional revenue to be allocated between O&M and the Sewer Construction Fund. At TERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: Sewer Service Charge rate increases for the next three years, as well as public input, will be considered by the Board. If a $24 increase in the Sewer Service Charge is not approved, the result would be a further reduction in the O&M reserves and the Sewer Construction Fund balance. The Board would have to consider further reductions in the Capital Plan which was approved by the Board at a previous Board meeting. The O&M budget would be modified as well to reflect the Board's decision and would be re-submitted for adoption at the June 21, 2001 Board Meeting. BACKGROUND: The 2001-2002 Operations and Maintenance Budget was submitted for review at the May 24, 2001 Board Meeting. A detailed presentation was made to the Board at that meeting, and a copy of the overheads that were used is attached. (See Attachment I) Projections of future District expenses for the years 2002-2003 and 2003- 2004, using Operations and Maintenance projections and the Capital Improvement Plan, are included as Attachment II. The same projections showing the impact of accelerating the San Ramon Pumping Station projects are show in Attachment III. Notice of the June 7, 2001 Public Hearing to consider changes to the current schedule of Sewer Service Charge rates was mailed to approximately 96,000 customers in our service area. Also, notification was included in the Pipeline newsletter as well as the District's web page. There have been less than 100 responses, and 5 of those supported the proposed increase. Notice of the Public Hearing was also given for collection of the 2001- 2002 Sewer Service Charges on the County tax roll, and to receive and consider protests to having delinquent Sewer Service Charges collected on the 2001-2002 tax roll. It is recommended that three separate hearings be held to consider the matters described. Hearing to receive public comment on the 2001-2002 Operations and Maintenance (O&Ml Budget and Self-Insurance Fund Budget. and for the establishment of the Sewer Service Charge Rate for 2001-2002 of $224. and up to $248 and $272 for fiscal years 2002- 2003 and 2003-2004 respectively: S:\ADMIN\POSPAPER\O&MSELF01-02.BKI. wpd Page 2 of 65 --_. '--~--"-----'---"----"'---'-'--------~""----------.-..---.,.-.---.....-.".---.---.------..'-.----..-.----~._._-------_.~.~ POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: June 7, 2001 Subject: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE 2001- 2002 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET AND THE SELF-INSURANCE FUND BUDGET AND FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 2001-2002,2002-2003 and 2003- 2004 SEWER SERVICE CHARGE RATES, AND ON PLACING CURRENT AND DELINQUENT SEWER SERVICE CHARGES ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLL FOR COLLECTION The 2001-2002 O&M Budget and Self-Insurance Fund Budget were submitted to the Board of Directors for initial review at the May 24, 2001 Board Meeting and the April 19, 2001 Board Meeting respectively, and are scheduled for approval at the June 7, 2001 Board Meeting. Upon approval of the 2001-2002 O&M Budget and Self-Insurance Fund Budget and determination of adequate levels of reserves, the Board must establish the 2001-2002 Sewer Service Charge rates. The Board will also consider establishing a Sewer Service Charge rate increase of up to $ 24 each year for fiscal years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. (See section 2 of the District Sewer Service Charge Ordinance). Hearing to consider collection of the 2001-2002 Sewer Service Charges on the Countv tax roll: The law requires that a Public Hearing be held each year before the Sewer Service Charge can be placed on the County tax roll. The Sewer Service Charge has been collected on the County tax roll since inception of the service charge in 1976. Collection on the tax roll provides the most economical and efficient means for the District to collect the charges for approximately 102,400 accounts. Effective with the 1982-1983 fiscal year, Contra Costa County imposed a fee for collecting the Sewer Service Charge on the tax roll. The County fee, which approximates $85,000 annually, is still more economical than the alternative of direct billing by the District. Hearing to consider collection of delinauent Sewer Service Charge account: During the 1997-1999 fiscal years, one business was delinquent in paying a revised Sewer Service Charge, which was based on a multi-use review. The business was contacted multiple times through both letters and phone calls. The business indicated they would pay the outstanding charges in December 1999, but to date have not. Information regarding the delinquent charge is contained in the report on the attached resolution. It is proposed that the delinquent charge is collected on the 2001-2002 County tax roll, unless there is a valid protest. The delinquent business owner was notified of the June 7, 2001 Public Hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct three separate Public Hearings and upon their respective conclusions, take the following actions, if considered appropriate: S:\ADMIN\POSPAPER\O&MSELF01-02.BK!. wpd Page 3 of 65 POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: June 7, 2001 Subject: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE 2001- 2002 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET AND THE SELF-INSURANCE FUND BUDGET AND FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 2001-2002,2002-2003 and 2003- 2004 SEWER SERVICE CHARGE RATES, AND ON PLACING CURRENT AND DELINQUENT SEWER SERVICE CHARGES ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLL FOR COLLECTION · Approve the 2001-2002 Operations and Maintenance Budget and Self-Insurance Fund Budget and approve an ordinance establishing the 2001-2002 Sewer Service Charge rate schedule at $224, and establishing an increase in the Service Charge rate up to $24 each year for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. · Approve a resolution authorizing collection of the 2001-2002 Sewer Service Charges on the County tax roll. · Consider any protest and, if appropriate, approve a resolution adopting the attached report pursuant to Section 5473 Health and Safety Code, for collection of delinquent Sewer Service Charges on the County Tax Roll. S:\ADMIN\POSPAPER\O&MSELF01-02.BK!. wpd Page 4 of 65 Attachment 1 O&M Revenues, Expenses, and Reserves Fiscal Year 1999-2000 through 2001-2002 (OOO Omitted) Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 1999-2000 Projected 2001-2002 Actual 2000-2001 Budget Revenues: Sewer Service Charge $23,166 $27,688 $30,467 City of Concord 5,342 6,300 7,150 Other 3,272 3,345 3,375 Total Revenues 31,780 37,333 40,992 Expenses: Total Net Expenses 33,579 37,662 40,209 Fund Balance-Beginning of year 5,725 3,926 3,597 Revenues Over Expenses (1 ,799) (329) 782 Fund Balance - End of Year 3,926 3,597 4,379 Sewer Service Charge Rate (O&M portion only) $157 $185 $204 Total Sewer Service Charge $188 $200 $224 Sewer Service Equivalent 149,346 S:\O&M Rev.Exp.OH.99-00.01-02 Page 5 of 65 Operating and Maintenance 2000-01 Budget Compared to 2001-02 Budget Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2000-01 Budget 2001-02 Budget % Increase Revenues $36,372,056 $40,991,600 12.7% Expenses 35,861,186 40,209,305 12.1 % Revenues over Expenses ~ $782,295 Fund Balance 6/30/02 $4,378,512 Page 6 of 65 Key labor-Costs (000 Omitted) Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2000-01 Budget 2001-02 Budget Increase (Decrease) Salaries & Wages $16,174 $16,484 $310 Retirement 3,256 3,298 42 Medical Insurance 1,944 2, 182 238 Dental Insurance 481 537 56 Workers Compensation 177 234 57 Vacancy Factor 0 (230) (230) Capitalized Adm. Overhead (1,287) (1,287) 0 All Other 1,787 1 ,822 35 Total Labor Costs $22,532 $23,04-.0. $508 Page 7 of 65 Key Increases 2000 - 01 Budget to 2001 - 02 Budget Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Dollar Increase % Increase 2000 - 2001 Budget $35,861,000 Salaries 310,000 1 .9 Benefits 199,000 3.1 Chemicals 102,000 12.2 Utilities 3,452,000 114.0 Repairs & Maintenance 144,000 6.0 Outside Services 21 7,000 10.5 Self Insurance 25,000 14.3 Materials & Supplies 121,000 10.3 All Other (savings) (222,000) (8.3) 2001 - 2002 Budget $40,209,000 12.1 S:\K.ylnef.....OO..()1.01~2.wpd Page 8 of 65 Attachment II Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Budgeted and Projected Revenue and Expenses Year 2001 - 2002 2002 - 2003 2003 - 2004 Sewer Ser. Chg. $224 $248 $272 O&M Expenses 1 $40,209 $41,999 $43,906 O&M Revenue $40,992 $42,097 $44,176 Capital Expense2 $26,404 $22,960 $23,654 Capital Revenue3 $20,514 $22,968 $26,225 Net Total ($5,108) $ 106 $2,841 Funds Available $40,129 $40,235 $43,076 Funds Required $29,327 $30,496 $31,727 "Funds Available" will meet "Funds Required" criteria for all future years, and the acceleration of the San Ramon Pumping Station projects will require the District to obtain funding from agreements with developers, or obtain bond financing for these projects. 1 O&M expenses are based on current budget parameters and 3% inflation per year There are no future considerations for energy costs, or labor adjustments. 2 Capital Budget expenses are inflated 3% per year from the 2001-2002 CIF 3 Capital revenue assumes 1830 sewer connections to the District each year, no adjustment for Concord capital contributions, and no loss of Ad Valorem taxes. Page 9 of 65 ~ ._ __._._._______.____..____,_.__~__,_,____.~,__.____________,_~.___.__,__________~,_._..___. _. -_ _. __....__..___"___._ ------._.______..__...._._-r--..._..__..___...__...___.___----.--..--.--,--- Attachment III Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Budgeted and Projected Revenue and Expenses (Includes San Ramon Pumping Station Projects) Year 2001 - 2002 2002 - 2003 2003 - 2004 Sewer Ser. Chg. $224 $248 $272 O&M Expenses 1 $40,209 $41,999 $43,906 O&M Revenue $40,992 $42,097 $44,176 Capital Expense2 $27,4043 $35,3593 $22,8794 Capital Revenue5 $20,514 $21,3526 $21,824 Net Total ($6,107) ($13,909) ($785) Funds Available $39,131 $25,222 $24,437 Funds Required $29,327 $30,496 $31,727 "Funds Available" to not meet "Funds Required" criteria for last two years only and will require the District to obtain funding from agreements with developers, TRANS financing, or bond financing 1 O&M expenses are based on current budget parameters and 3% inflation per year 2 Capital Budget expenses are inflated 3% per year from the 2001-2002 CIP 3 Includes $1 million for San Ramon projects moved into year 2001-2002; and $12,399,000 for San Ramon projects moved up to year 2002-2003 4 Includes a slight credit for San Ramon projects moved into earlier years 5 Capital revenue includes Sewer Service Charge allocation of$5 in 2001-2002; $18 in 2002-2003 and $18 in 2003-2004 6 Includes reduced interest on reserve balance due to San Ramon project spending Page 10 of 65 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT THE 2001-2002 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES BE COLLECTED ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLL WHEREAS, the District has previously developed and instituted a Sewer Service Charge Program for services and facilities furnished by the District to finance yearly Operation and Maintenance of the District; and WHEREAS, the Sewer Service Charge is collected through a direct charge to the users: and WHEREAS, the District Code provides that the District may elect to collect current and delinquent charges on the tax. rolls as provided by Sections 5470 and following of the Health & Safety Code; and WHEREAS, it is considered to be economical and efficient to continue the existing practice and collect the Sewer Service Charges for the 2001-2002 fiscal year on the county tax roll; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, that the 2001-2002 Sewer Service Charges are to be collected on the County of Contra Costa tax roll. Page 11 of 65 PASS AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June, 2001, by the District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following vote: AYES: Members: NAYS: Members: ABSENT: Members: President of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California Countersigned: Secretary of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California Approved as to form: Kenton L. Aim District Counsel Page 12 of 65 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS AND ADOPTING THE REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 5473, HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE WHEREAS, this Board elected to collect delinquent sewer charges with general taxes pursuant to Section 5473 and 5473a, Health and Safety Code, and Section 6.28.010 of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Code; and WHEREAS, a written report of delinquent charges was filed and a Hearing was held in the time and manner provided by law and notice of the filing of the report and date of the Hearing was given in accordance with Section 5473.1, Health and Safety Code. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District resolves as follows: 1. The written report filed pursuant to Section 5473, Health and Safety Code, was prepared and filed and thereafter notice of the filing of the report and of the Hearing were given in the form and manner provided in Section 5473.1, Health and Safety Code, and Hearing held on June 1, 2000 in accordance with Sections 5473.2 and 5473.3, Health and Safety Code, at which time the Board heard and considered all comments and protests. 2. The report heretofore prepared and filed by the Secretary of the District is adopted. 3. All protests are overruled. The Secretary of the District is directed to file a copy of the report with a Page 13 of 65 statement endorsed upon it over her signature that is has been finally adopted by this Board. The Auditor and Tax Collector respectively of the County of Contra Costa are requested to proceed in the manner provided in Sections 5473.4 - 5473.9, Health and Safety Code, to include the delinquent charges as contained in the manner provided in those Sections. PASS AND ADOPTED this Th day of June, 2001, by the District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following vote: AYES: Members: NAYS: Members: ABSENT: Members: President of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California Countersigned: Secretary of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California Approved as to form: Kenton L. AIm District Counsel Page 14 of 65 ~~,--------'-'~"--'--'--'-'-'"""'-"-'-"--'--'-~-'"._.._._--,_.,".,~-,,-,._,.__.._-,",._.__..,,_._--------"._-----_.._-_._~._._._,.._-"_..,_.-..'.,-_._--_.."._..._-_.__.__.,----~'--~._........,-_.__._._-_._-_..__._----_. c o E CO ex: c CO en .. o o (/) <.> c CO ~ (/)u- +-' C C CD CO Een +-'.t=, (/)+-' CD :J > 0 oS en "0 .. CDLO 0- ~ :=.q (/) ~ CD CD+-, o~ en o .. "0 ~ .. co CD > c: CD ~ :J o 0 CD CD CJ CO Q. ... CD ~ .. CO ~ o CO o .q 0> <( U 0> 0> 0> ~ .. LO N .t=, <.> ~ CO ~ >- .. CD > o CJ (I) .- C +-' C o a.. .... o CD ... CO C ~ CD +-' (/) > o o o o .q G) :s C (6... ... c o :s I- 0 E <( ... c > G)... :s- O"as c c 0- G) a;D.. c ... CO C G) M G) U :s C CO go! M = as 0> G)m C 0- ... G) 0 !G)G) .q (I) .2 ~ CO "C ~ as .q G) G).c 0> .~ (I) 0 N G) 0- a: C 0 3: ... G) o ... .S: "C 0 G) G) 0- a: CD'" ... D.. G) ., = (I) .c._~ om, )( 0.. (I) as- <(I-~ o Z >(1) ..... C ... :s 0 o (I) o~ (I) (I) c:( ... as G) > 16 u (I) u:: N o o M o .. ~ 0- .q CO M 0> 0- N o N ~ o .. N 0- 0> 0> 0> ~ I CO 0> 0> ~ ,..... o o , N o ,..... I M ~ N M ,..... 0> o N .. CO N M .q CX) .. N 0- ~ 0- CO 0> 0> o CO .q CO LO N 0- ~ 0- LO ,..... 0> 0> o .. o co .q CO LO .. N 0- ~ 0- M 0> M N o CO .q co LO .. N 0- ~ .. M 0- CO ~ o o o 0- .q N o .. N 0- CO 0> 0> ~ I ,..... 0> 0> ~ ,..... o o , N o ,..... , M ~ C\i LO Q; 0 .0 0 E- I :J&N Z cO Q)~""" uo I Co M e:. ~ N ,..... 0> 0> ~ I CO 0> 0> ~ ('I) o . ('I) CX) o .. It) -0 o .... . N CD V -0 ('t) en . o N CD r-i -0 M ~ o ,..... LO <0 .. CO 0- o N <0 M o .. .q 0- en ....I <t .... o .... Page 15 of 65 CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE CHARGE INCREASE OF UP TO $24 PER YEAR FOR UP TO THREE YEARS Page 16 of 65 SEWER SERVICE CHARGE PROPOSED INCREASE JUNE 7, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING 96,655 NOTICES MAILED Written Responses as of May 31, 2001 E-Mails and Letters of Support E-Mails and Letters of Opposition E-Mails with Questions Written Responses to Date Telephone Calls received as of May 31, 2001 Calls in Support/Accepting Increase Calls in Opposition Calls with Questions Hangups/No Message Left Telephone Calls to Date 3 35 -2 40 2 17 17 ~ 42 TOTAL RESPONSES AS OF MAY 31,2001 82 --_._---~_._.__.,-,-,~,-,._._-"._--_..__.".._-'-_....-- - ...__.._,.._-,-----,.._~--_..,._-,-_._----_.._---_._--..._.------------------- Page 17 of 65 I RA.:rE6 .--,ate increase response Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: <GSJakeESQ@aol.com> <webmail@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Wed, Apr 11, 2001 3:56 PM rate increase response your webpage is informative. although i am not happy about a rate increase. i think the information speaks for itself- a modern sanitation system needs to be adequately funded. therefore, i reluctantly support the proposed increase. Scott Jacobs 510 Kilburn Court, Clyde, 94520 ~ I~ ~\((~tG '4/J~rO( Page 18 of 65 [RATES=-Agree Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: <CatMM@aol.com> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Fri, Apr 13, 2001 7:49 AM Agree Yes. believe or not. I agree with the rate increases. Households are definitely getting a bargain. Everything else is going up, why not the CCSD rates. Besides upkeep & pipe replacement are a must. If one of your pipes break you can be assured you would get complaints - just like preventive medicine there should be preventive breakage coverage. Nothing is free. Thank you Catherine Mayes 408 Brandywine Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2166 925-676-9535 I ~ J~ /U<J.fJiJ-.uuV - ~ J , g) 0 I Page 19 of 65 lR1~(g~O~~(Q) APR 2 0 2001 1.JG S &WOv R ~,L"- r;;ZOOf 1/'f-(0/ GCC::>U SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT ci C3 C Cj) .. UX!.~. ;dJ-<ACX'~ 0b 1~ 0~ ~ 0 / 1> ~~-id /1 th--^---, /tVcc:~, G, Cj/JrJ f1>-.~x.Q~ ' I ! /(t-.~k: r~ (T'l/ ~-,-00~ f 7Yu\ c-" C~7? 1 rw ,4t~[ ;100 I ~4AL~ cf f/-~l~ , J Uq ~a.-l~cx.. Ie.... ~Cp 0(, r -;d.Y-. /-t.J(, (./Yl Cil.( ~ Q~<Q J!~ h rJV 1J rt~ ~ e. e. C $]):r ~'L Jb 0jf'y\-L~'dJ,~ P ;L(!..~ VM Cu ~ ~ 7 /~CJ2~ . co y:J,k~~), ~ <<D /::z. ,f!of~4 ~ ~&u.~ ~ (Dee Page 20 of 65 ~- ~ WE PRESORTED FIRST CLASS ADP..MANTLY OPPOSE THIS us POSTAGE INCREASE. t? //1 PER~~D#530 ~(~CONCORD.CA Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ~~@~D'Wl~[Q) lI.i...i ..t.l.luil....Ii. "lI.l..i...I.II.I..i1"lI.l.lI.l..t APR 1 2 2001 ...--- HANDLER BRUCE H & MARY 5 2 ORCHARD CT CvC~U ORJNDA CA 94563-3629 <:'=CRETARYOFTHEOISTAICT bce: C. Batts A. Farrell H. Heibel L. Klein M. Miyamoto-Mills J. Murphy D. Ratcliff C. Swanson Page 21 of 65 6r2/1 I/a /J1 R /t .. .. f am rerlr~./ cy (7/1 C r;~ c:/ ~c-c//1 e 4 [C/J/l <t/ f .t7 /~/~-.I/ 0/\ f/lCre'l5l? ) ~ &Z h /4//y I j e I 4-/c.?7e- 5';;"'7'" , r 5:5" //'6' - /~-X /"",02 <'/''''7>-1 )J' OJ i ;// [ru~@~OW~@ --/;:/;1 /? DU/I c: u ~ APR 122001 <':;7C ;;ej~rZ->//- ~//1,/f f,? r e E!- 0~I.i~U SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICl bee: C. Batts A. Farrell H. Heibel L. Klein M. Miyamoto-Mills J. Murphy D. Ratcliff C. Swanson ... Page 22 of 65 ~ ~~v~O~~[Q) APR 12 2001 1jr--/~~OI 0(,;(,;::;0 C C C S Si3ETARVOFTHEDISTRICT ~~~ Q~rcue~~ ~ ~1 {4J~ (L /;/6/~ / ~ th /uZPt' 0j~o ~th~.4eRt r ~U~'t-zMtMY~. Iki j; M- 1JvlyJ;W~ ~ ~ Mr. & Mrs. Dave Rasmussen . .... 1580 Siskiyou Dr. Walnut Creek CA 94598-2117 .... bee: C. Batts A. Farrell H. Heibel L. Klein M. Miyamoto-Mills J. Murphy D. Ratcliff C. Swanson Page 23 of 65 ",-,-"~",~----,-,-",-'----'--'-"------'~"-'-"-"'~--_.~----_._--~------_.~"---_.._------------,----_.-....-.----~.-.,.._----------- Ii II , I I! I I Ii April 11, 2001 CCCSD 5019 Imhoff PI Martinez,Ca 94553 mJ~@~o\'#~@ APR 1 2 2001 uut,;;:,\,; SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT Yesterday I received your notice regarding a rate increase. We don't need any increase. We have enough fear with the PG&E rates. You absorb the increase. The people of this area have enough "increases" in their monetary lives. And if you don't get the increase, will you go outof business? Hell, no. We pay more than enough on the current charge and to me that is out of line. ~ Make life better for all of us. bee: C. Batts A. Farrell H. Heibel L. Klein M. Miyamoto-Mills J. Murphy D. Ratcliff C. Swanson Peter R Curtiss ~Y.~ j{ curtisS reter . Valley Dr. 105 Pleasantk CA 94596 Walnut Cree . Page 24 of 65 -- 4-12-2001 (ffi~@~OW~[Q) APR 1 6 2001 Secretary Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 vvlJ::;O '?':r.r.r:r ARY OF THE DISTRlCi Re: Comment objecting to raise of annual Sewer Service Charge For Residential Customers. Dear CSD: I strongly object to any raise in the annual Sewer Service Charge for residential customers in Contra Costa County. It appears to me that the enormous community development that Contra Costa County is experiencing and allowing is a very detrimental process because you local authorities have failed/are failing to charge the developers the actual true costs created by their development impact on our community. .... The developers give the ruling politicians overly generous re-election campaign funds and in return the politicians place the developers impact costs upon the residential homeowners. A quid pro quo. It is wrong. It is not fair. But we homeowners have no real way in stopping the process - only to send you our comments, ultimately meaningless. Whether the political process is regulated or deregulated it always ends up with the homeowners paying more for no betterment in service. I respectfully request that the annual Sewer Service Charge not be raised whatsoever. bee: c. Batts A. Farrell H. Heibel L. Klein M. Miyamoto-Mills J. Murphy D. Ratcliff C. Swanson c~~. Curt J. Coer 2460 Whi e Oak Place Danville, CA 94506 (925) 837-0796 Thank you. Page 25 of 65 ~ //0200/ ifi3[g@~DW~[Q) cO,~ of~' . APR:~u 2001 ~rniwrn~= ;y~/?~~~~ . . ~ -:=~-~ ~.J dJ-:~ ~~ .~ ~~,//:Zo.o./ ~. '3~~~~ ~. ~ ~~ ~~~ . d-~~~c;-L-~ ~ 1::::::: . 7- ~~~~~~ /2%~~~/~ ~~~' } ~ a--3C.;J~~ 3~1 (/ ?7(~~~~ ~~ ~~~!7~~~~ ~~~;U. r- ;;L/~ .3?3~~~C. /~ 7~s-Y/ Page 26 of 65 Albert P. Simaz 467 Dalewood Drive Orinda, California 94563 u~~@~OW~[Q) MAY 11. 2001 GvCb'U :'":(':.'7TAnV OF i'P.E OI~mCT j_ /D-O/ f (}!6 P oS E I) f?/LIF-- ( we (fp/>.S f3, ; "') 0 uR F c(f( ~ I iV t-!::J=6>>S ~ (J-. T ~ 'I 0< Il Z ~ci. "-i e.a.-te '<.J I I ( ~ t:- J4- ~R "3 L 1<170< I AJ ce {OAS.E P \.fL-fL 't-Ic~ .3 '--IfiS. '1 ~ f,{ ) S --r (/ 0 {~RGR P. '\J / NC@Fi--JS;€' I Lv A t..e r;. J S 'rh e fVl O'(.e( (Ja/~b 4 L G R- { '1 (i ~ /;) c;nV ( C t V F. ~ D<.JI'- p/Vip,"7#r A'>f'1 yt-"A L,t/.:L r/7,.j ~ I).. IS E-. h1 '1 S' G' C J P= C . C. US U p iJ- p;, N r ,3 O}G fen y --et1-R · 'i (\<1 JA 0<1 ~ ~ V IV {'7 RB i.s;E 'ria.", (J.W1,..~T E QvIL L- To C' 6'fY1. S Uy11}:At r~ Ie/: 1~lJfi,f - (J 'V () C i 'v R ..,11 P- 7"'1" P /17;;' /H "3 o"..~ COrJ SIO;Cf2A;-Ic--~: 6' \J.€k' Page 27 of 65 r k E nevI kNOeJ lh 11ft! Pv. P/5A1J'fi r 'i- h ~ 'S f w~1( cAMe!:. J vc..UI?S - f3 u I FIV?~r "r~lC'fi A- U..MI) 1...00 Ie:: l-re/Pc. !JNf) 0' ~ e.. ~ ~~;- C v T5 c,.<);{) Bfi- m ().I:J~, \f /11/ ft-) I / 'l fL 3 c. ? (; I rv c(iJ,r..;l s-f:. rr:: o('L ~ Q. ~ \.J f2 p, P-/? to 1) /0' -- U Gt I (j) (). 4>15 - Qvuf~ Page 28 of 65 IFJ [g cg [g 0 WI [g [Q) MAY 25 2001 01..i1,;::iIJ 1')[:cr:l!:TARY OF THE DISTRICT 1990 Lazy Meadow Lane Prescott, Arizona 86303 May 21,2001 CCCSan\~:uy District Attention: Secretary of the District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California 94553 RE: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Rate Increase Parcel Number 173131042-9 Dear Mr. Secretary: I strongly object to any increase in the annual sewer service charge for non-residential customers. My property tax bill for July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991 shows a CCCSD sewer charge of $2,317.20. My tax bill for July 1,1995 to June 30,1996 shows a sewer charge of $3,326.40. My tax bill for July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 shows a sewer charge of $4267.54. This represents approximately a 90 per cent increase in ten years. You have indicated that over the years you have balanced costs while effectively treating the community's wastewater and protecting our environment. You have also indicated your "significant" actions to find savings. I, for one, think you are blowing smoke up the consumer's smokestack! The time has come for you and your bureaucratic constituents to realize that the property owners have had enough of your misleading statements. Once again, I object most strongly to your misleading reasons for another rate increase. If you have any questions, please call me at 928/776-7886. Yours truly, ~7' Barry Redfearne Page 29 of 65 .. ..'._ ._^.._~_.__,_...___._____.,,_..,_,.__~___~_____.,.N"~~_....._,_________,______~_____~___.~_,.._________.__.__._ s - ~ <t - '1.. G~ I ~'Q.'- ~~'-- t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~OV'-~"v"V'- o ~-x.__9....;._^..l-~_ c,.\. Q, y.,j,,-~ --'-;"\- C--.A.J'-. ~\,~ \J ^ ~__ ~.""-L-"-.Sl~~,g~),.~. ~..(:, r\...~ -,\~.-,--- t. . \ \ . ~ \ ~ ~~''- --t (.<'\... )'-.J.,,,~ ~ Q.s,_,,- ~ . ~ ~~ ~~~ r~~~~ ~~t~ s:L C) (), t} ,c ... c', ,~~_~~c.LI"- -~~<.:..l. ~)\_~ CJ....0G 0L,,~ /,-- G.~ ->V..... ~"-"- c,-<:L ~:\j-..;~(,--",,- .5c "'-o~ s:--L (\J~ Q..j~ ~c:kc...i ~). C'-- "1- (4. ~~ ~ \, _ >l ,- .. ~d " l J~~ J\~j'--C)~~-~~. ~,...... IJ--..SL ~~ r\." '..1.- \ ^ ,1. \ '. ~. . ~- (> - - \)- '-_____ ~__s:L. ~ J ~ \.)J-\;......, ~'-- ~ l' ~.-.:..o.....~ c.C--VV~''-Cii-~~.jr ~~'-'V~ ~~~ ~~"''-~ -~l \\ \. V . _ -X,.......::---c..." c"-. ~rL Q{:'-\r-J;.Jv",-~\.L./() ~~@~O\W~l!:v MAY 29 2001 LiL;~::)(J ~ECRETAR'I OF THE DISTRICT Page 30 of 55 K~ I ES ... Kate Increase rGl~t: I I From: To: Date: Subject: Gail Schwartz <galschwartz@yahoo.com> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Tue, Apr 10, 2001 2:06 PM Rate increase Dear Central Sanitary District As a non profit we are opposed to a rate increase. Our property taxes are greatly increased by the current CCCSD rate which for a church seems incredibly high already. What would the proposed increase be for? We are in favor of people receiving a fair wage for what they do and we agree that you provide an important service to us, but we are stretched to the breaking point with utility rate increases. Gail Schwartz Executive Director Temple Isaiah Lafayette,CA Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ /--:-dlt'f Jj~€l,~/U-!,~t~:{Z/ I I::j nt {~fL} l.C)) (I-- V'rl1~{U)')C, .4-/1 <-1../ (l / v Page 31 of 65 I RA T.ES.:: ra!e increase objection . , Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: Shing <shing168@yahoo.com> <rateS@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Tue, Apr 10, 2001 3:57 PM rate increase objection I am writing to protest your proposed rate increase of $24 per year in central contra costa country. Your rate increase is without merit, and will cause inflationary hazard to the local economy. There is absolutely no justification for your proposed rate increase, and hence should be denied. Michael Shing Annette Shing Brian Shing Residents of Walnut Creek Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com! Page 32 of 65 Jarred Miyamoto Mills - Re: rate increase objection ~ __". '-'__ .:...~ z ..J.:' _.'~J'.., .:':".::._:.~ .;;';.;.:..;.. :.;;;,':.'.;,.~:,;:':;,J.;..'V.'.','J.'.J,.t\t~':r:':.'v~:.ul.:i:":'<"~'.:;a.:'.:i'..&:\':::'<;":.. >..;~~ ~~.::-..;.<,:!!:. ,,;;;.,::;'::.'t~!:'~.:'':''.:;; ....... ~:~i ')',Z.~ol:;';'~~~{:'L.".:'..~~.:.:: ,;__,.:.. ,_;, ~- :..:."; ':';J~'~;',; _,~~,<~,:!..:.';::;:1:~.~~.,",o,;' .:.:;2_;;.'J.;.;~..:i:.~jJ.r:..:....'."':",:,':,_"",,_ ~-.,': ::.('..c.;':'~':" :.:;.... From: To: Date: Subject: Sh ing <shing 168@yahoo.com> Jarred Miyamoto Mills <JM2@centralsan.dst.ca.us> 4/23/01 3:38 PM Re: rate increase objection I am reiterating our opinion that your proposed rate increase is far beyond the rate of inflation. You are talking about double digit % increase here, at 3 TIMES the rate of inflation! As I said before, if all major companies start rate increase of this magnitude, it will push up inflation of the general economy. Now, I understand your cost im:rcasc, but if you can't control your cost increase to be in line with rate of inflation (hence proposed rate increase will be in line with rate of inflation), then it is your problem. Perhaps you should close do\\n your business, and let other more efficient companies take over. You can't just pass on uncontrollable cost increase to the general public. [n your example ofCA energy crisis, as you said, nobody is immune, so how do you expect me to pass on my increased costs to anybody else??? Last but not the least, it's corporations irresponsible way to pass on cost increase to customers that cause inflation jump. I have no problem with your proposing a rate increase, but I cannot accept your ridiculous magnitude of increase, by any standard. Page 33 of 65 1---------- RATES ~ rate increase Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: Tina Bartolo Simpson <makemelaugh@pacbell.net> <rates@centralsan.org> Wed, Apr 11, 2001 9:14 AM rate increase We recv'd a notice of Public hearing regarding rate increases. We are protesting. What is the reason for the rate increases? And 3 consecutive increases is unnecessary. We vote - NO. Page 34 of 65 rRA!E$ - Rate Increases Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: Dean Gettemy <DGettemy@Calex.com> "'rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us'" <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Wed, Apr 11, 2001 3:49 PM Rate Increases Greetings, I received your notice about a possible rate increase. Going from $200.00 per year to possibly $272 per year within three years seems like a very large increase. The government has already screwed up the energy situation and now it appears you have screwed up the water situation. Maybe the people that are making big bucks should be making much less. if not working elsewhere, since they can't manage what they are getting paid to manage. I know I'd loose my job if I created a situation where we needed an increase like this to be profitable. It's just my opinion based on statistics. Try giving that big of an increase in any business that isn't protected or run by the government and see if you still have a customer. Regards, Dean Gettemy 393 Ridgeview Drive Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Page 35 of 65 ----_.~"._.._------,"-"----_.-._~.~--_.-._------_._'----_..~_._----_._"- , From: To: Date: Subject: Dean Gettemy<dgettemy@Calex.com> 'Jarred Miyamoto-Mills' <JM2@centralsan.dst.ca.us 4/16/01 8:22 AM RE: Rate Increases Jarred, I wish there was some way I could get a 9.7-12% salary raise per year in any of the next three years. In most business that's not likely to happen. I received your newsletter about the explanations of how things have changed over the last several years. The claim about reducing the number of employees is weak. With the developments in automation over the last decade that kind of reduction was expected. If your pumps are aging and you didn't allow for repair in the budget it's bad budgeting on your part. The increased energy cost is a result of a government decision and extreme environmental regulations. Time and time again the government makes decisions that don't work and it's us that pays. The government caused it, let the government fix it through salary reduction and perk reduction for the fat cats. Did you see the spot on the news a couple weeks ago when the governors wife took the cameras on a tour of their residence showing how they had reduced their monthly electric bill from $530 to $380 per month? It also said they spend most weekends in LA. Why don't you send a letter to Sacramento and let them know they have to give up the perks they don't deserve because of the poor job they are doing and the money has to go to the things CCCSD needs? Page 36 of 65 Page 1 of 1 RATES - No rate increase From: To: Date: Subject: <Dnavarra@aol.com> <webmail@centralsan.dst.ca.us> 4/11/01 7:42 PM No rate increase As a owner of two homes in Contra Costa County I would like to protest the proposed rate hike of 12% per year for three years is outrageous. It is getting very expensive to live in this county and the operating expenses are going up much faster than our income. One of the homes we own is rented out to a family that receives Section 8 housing subsidies. We will have to raise our rent accordingly to offset our expenses, thus putting more stress on people that rent as well. Please NO INCREASE! Denise Navarra file://C:\ WINDOWS\ TEMP\GW}OOOOI.HTM 4/12/01 Page 37 of 65 0_ _.~. ___~,,__,_,,_,__,,_,,~,__,,__"__'______'____'_"'____.-----r-----.---.-..-------- I~TE~ \0 subject) From: To: Date: Subject: <ELEKA THAL@cs.com> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Wed, Apr 11, 200110:25 PM (no subject) To Whom It May Concern: I wonder whether your increase in rates has anything to do with the projected PGE increases. This is an untimely coincidence! I oppose additional rate increases at this time. Sincerely, E. Katherine Hall Walnut Creek, CA \ J, ;, J- f{L L L~ .I'Ll. '-' ,y~, Jj ,:!- "I- / I ~ /0/ '--1\_.-GO/\....--t.- .0 -1 i Page 1 I Page 38 of 65 _. ~.__'._'''M'.._~.___._>>____.,_"___.....__.._._...______-'---'--~~--'-----'---'-"------' .~~._,_..---_._,.__. ,-.-... ..- ...__.~._--<..,^., ~$~A.11.01 '. '"~ Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: <JRUBINMAIL@aol.com> <rateS@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Wed, Apr 11,200110:38 AM 4.11.01 CCCSD, I was shocked and surprised when I read your postcard yesterday explaining your desire to raise residential rates 24% a year for 3 years. That is a 72% increase in 3 years. I find it hard to believe you are serious. With the stock market down, unemployment going up, business leaving the bayarea and California, utility and gasoline rates through the roof, rents high, how do you think a person on a fixed income, retired, or unemployed to afford this increase much less struggling to stay in the bay area. If you truely feel you need more money to stay in business I suggest you take a long hard look at how you are spending your money. Are you giving bonuses each year? Most of us don't get bonuses. Do you think the people you give bonuses to would quit if you announced you could no longer afford to do so? I doubt it, especially in this economy. When my household costs go up I do not go to my employer and ask for more money because my PGand E bill has risen, I simply reprioritize my spending, do without catered lunches, vacations, retirement parties and raises !!!! I feel your desires are very out of line. Shame on CCCSD. Jill Rubin Page 39 of 55 I RATES - Annual Sewer Service Charge rare increase Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: <John.Sallay@clorox.com> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Thu, Apr 12,200112:31 PM Annual Sewer Service Charge rate increase If you think that throwing money at every problem or shortfall that presents itself is the ultimate solution, think again. This band aid approach is becoming our national pass time and bad habit. A vote by you to increase our sewer charge, will become a vote against you and all incumbents at the next election. Count on it! ~9~~ ~ D/\/AVAUA /r-e.-' ~~ Page 40 of 65 From: To: Date: Subject: <ALLENGE@aol.com> <webmail@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Thu, Apr 12,2001 9:55 PM residential units served To the staff: Could you tell me how many $200 residential connection there are in the District? Are there other types of connection, there fee and are they going to raised and by what percentage. Your present rate of $24 per year for 3 years adds up to, if my math is correct is an outrages 36 percent average Presently I see no written justification. Please send the info requested and other support that substantiates the raise. Thank you. George HAllen Page 41 of 65 ~---~--~-----t-" -- - -- ---- ~_. , IRATI:. e Hike Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: "James J. Rogan" <roganent@worldnet.att.net> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Fri, Apr 13,2001 8:41 AM Rate Hike Please be advised that we oppose any rate hikes. There are too many increases in living costs here in CA for senior citizens as it is and we urge you to take that into consideration. We are conserving as much as we can! Thank you. Rogans ,~Jf!-V;~~ 4- II 3 Y () ( Page 42 of 65 I RAJES - ~BJECTION TO RATE INCREASE PROPOSAL Page 1 1 From: To: Date: Subject: Joe Scardino <scardino@pacbell.net> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Fri, Apr 13,2001 2:30 PM OBJECTION TO RATE INCREASE PROPOSAL To: Board of Directors The card mailed to customers informs of a proposed $24 per year rate increase for each of 3 years, but it provides no support for such an increase. Such an increase amounts to 12% in the first year, an amount significantly higher than inflation (and which, of itself, will contribute to an escalation in the inflation rate). We hope that such an increase will not be approved without careful consideration of the impact on ratepayers, especially in a period when all sorts of "crises" are being perpetrated on the California public, through poor planning and worse leadership. Please consider the fact that you represent the people of this district, and that any rate increase should be levied only as a last resort, when the circumstances truly support such action, and only after all other alternatives have been evaluated. Mr. & Mrs. Joseph R. Scardino San Ramon lJ1&u'J f5!W.~ /VJ~jl{' '^ t4(1 4 / Ii;; J () ) Page 43 of 65 I RATES - $24.00 increase per yr.; up to 3 y~. Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: <komperda@silcon.com> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Fri, Apr 13,2001 3:33 PM $24.00 increase per yr.; up to 3 yrs. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Attn: Secretary of the District: We are in receipt of your yellow colored postal card this date regarding a meeting to be held 617/01 to increase the Sewer Service Charge. WE 0 B J E C T TO ANY INCREASES !! Where are people to get all the money for all these increases every time we turn around?? ie: PG&E, Water, Gasoline, Etc.etc.....IT'S TIME TO STOP ALL THESE INCREASES. Komperda, 11 0 Bahama Crt., San Ramon, Ca. P.S. We will encourage everyone we know to stop this increase, and or encourage them to forward this email with their own name and address or phone and object at 925-335-7739 - PROTEST !! , J~'~ ~L.~h.~~(Yo~,c/,-C{z.. 1 j J G Page 44 of 65 From: To: Date: Subject: "June Gidmal. _L.9idman@hotmail.com> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Fri. Apr 13,2001 1:03 PM Public Hearing Input The proposed rate increase seems too high (at 12%). A significant portion ( 16%) of the Central San revenue comes from the contract to treat wastewater for the City of Concord - yet the Annual sewer service charge in Concord is 10% less than ours (at $180). This implies that we are either . subsidizing Concord, or that they are a much better run organization or that they are fiscally unsound. I do not support a rate increase of the proposed magnitude. It is out of line with the increases proposed by other related organizations who are equally impacted, for example by increased power costs. Contra Costa Water are currently debating whether they should effect a 1 or 1.5% increase. Dr June Gidman . -_.-~-_.._--_.. ---- ---- _._-~-_._. ,~---_._.._---_." -----_._,-~ Page 45 of 65 !RATES - Rate Increase Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: Maurice <Maurie1201@webtv.net> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Sat, Apr 14, 2001 1 :26 AM Rate Increase We suggest you flush the rate increase down the sewer!!! M. J. Sandretto 1201 Alta Vista Dr, #106 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 '~o~0-'1r ~4- /'LUJ-fl1:-.uI-z0- -1 / i l, " page 46 of 65 I RATES: price increase Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: "Wickens Jim/Claire" <wick123@hotmail.com> <rateS@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Sat, Apr 14,2001 2:44 PM price increase It's bad enough that former corrupt politicians make those of us on septic tanks pay a sewer tax. Now you want to raise it. Never mind comparing your salaraies to IBM or Del Monte. You are public servants. Compare them to teachers and firemen. James F. Wickens Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ~'1- ~~. /uv'fU',,-clliZ- -1/1 Ie Page 47 of 65 fRATEs- Rate Increase Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: <RUK06@aol.com> <rateS@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Sun, Apr 15, 2001 10:40 AM Rate Increase Why are you all of a sudden increasing our rates at a time we can barely handle the increase in our gas and electric bills? Your timing is cruel. You are really squeezing your customers. I have checked with the city in which I live to see if an alternative is available such as a septic tank etc. NOTHING. You have a monopoly. What a shame for the people in this situation. Steve I would be interested in a reply. Page 48 of 65 fRAT-E-S - New rates for Sewer Services Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: "Thera Papa" <thepapa5@earthlink.net> <rateS@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Sun, Apr 15, 2001 1:49 PM New rates for Sewer Services To whom it may concern: It was great concern that I read about the new Sewer Service Charges that are being proposed for the Contra Costa County. When one is retired like I am, one has to be careful with his/her spending. Rate changes for anything are never nice, but somehow they seem to be inevitable. Some rate changes fall in acceptable ranges, but reading that an increase of 12% is asked for to be levied for the Sewer Charges for the first year seems rather extravagant. That is two to three times annual inflation rates, thus making our inflation significantly higher here. And then over three years this would amount to an increase of 36% over existing rates! I think some rethinking needs to be done before accepting these proposed rates. I can see them proposing annual increases of 4-5% over a three-year period. But 36%?1 My answer is a definite NO for the proposed rates. They are asking for too much! Thanks, Feitze Papa 922 Meander Drive Walnut Creek Page 49 of 65 I RATES - Proposed increase in rates ~ ,- From: To: Date: Subject: sabbre@postoffice.pacbell.net <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Mon, Apr 16,200112:35 PM Proposed increase in rates Of course we are against having our rates raised. We understand that you want (and may even need) more money. The problem is that everybody wants (and needs) more of our money. Well, nobody has come along and given us more money to give to you people, so the net result is that you are all bleeding us dry. Try to look at it from our perspective for just a moment. I receive my money from my employer. Then, before I ever get a penny of it, a very large percentage it taken out and distributed to others who I don't even know. Now, in most societies, that would be known as theft or slave labor. Here America, we are supposed to just roll over and be thankful that we are allowed to stay out of prison. In any case, let me go back to the problem. You see, I asked my employer for money in order to pay all of you, but my employer refused. I guess they just don't care about me either. So, the bottom line is that WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANY MORE MONEY TO GIVE YOU. I wouldn't worry though, I'm sure you will get more of our money anyway. Thank you, and take care. Page 1 I Page 50 of 65 W"." "-"--"'-"---'-"~~-"'.""---r-'-'.'~"""-'---------'- , I RATES - Public hearing 7 June, rate incre~se Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: <CMSAL TZMAN@aol.com> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Mon, Apr 16, 2001 6:56 PM Public hearing 7 June, rate increase To Whom It May Concern, I would like to add my response to the notice sent regarding the Public Hearing for consideration of rate increase. First, I would not like to have an increase in our rates as I believe the price we pay is sufficient enough. We Californians pay more than most States on all our Utilities and other bills. Secondly, we are all bombarded and hit hard with the rates increased in both gas/electric and pending water bills that will occur as a result of water shortages expected this year. This will cause more problems for both PGE and Consumers as we're forced to cut back even further than many of us are doing now. As a result, costs on everything we purchase from utilities, groceries and many expenses have increased. Thirdly, this truly comes at a bad time plus to pay more for another utility can force people to either leave our great State and financially burden many of us even further. I also think, if understood correctly form the notice, the increase would be $24 each year up to 3 years totaling $72 to $272 per year after 3 years? That's quite an increase. How much more are Californians expected to endure? Thank you for your time and consideration on my opinion. If you have any questions or would like additional information please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Carol Saltzman 925-930-8618 L41-f./Yr}V-t~ lct'JfJ (l,,( r;C( [z./ i ( 'J '-1) I ~ ) 0 I Page 51 of 65 I RATES - Sewer Service Charge Increase Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: Lois Tsang <sillyyou2001@yahoo.com> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Mon, Apr 16, 2001 11 :50 PM Sewer Service Charge Increase Secretary of the District: We received the postcard in the mail notifying us of the public hearing to consider a rate increase of $24 per year for three years. WE OBJECT TO AND PROTEST ANY RATE INCREASES for residential customers!! ! We can not afford any more increases as our utility bills, water bills, gas & electric bills, property taxes and gas for our cars are sky high and continually increasing!! R & L Tsang 3412 Lanai Drive San Ramon, CA 94583 Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com! ~j ~Li jct<1J'HcMvL ~/ t 0 )v I J Page 52 of 65 Page 1 I I RATES - Rate Increase , ,r From: To: Date: Subject: <Haug\NCr@aol.com> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Wed, Apr 18, 2001 4:39 PM Rate Increase Hello -Just received your notice of the public hearing to consider rate increase. Since I will not be able to attend your meeting, I called your info number and found out that you had gotten a rate increase just last year of $12.00. A year later you want to double that? For three consecutive years? I strongly oppose making rate increases a yearly event. Our household vote is NO. Sibylle and Karl Haug 3068 Bowling Green Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94598 I ' ~~ ;~~h~~ 4/18Yro ( Page 53 of 65 I RATES - ~te increase . '0 From: To: Date: Subject: Steve Swihart <Steve@swiharts.com> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Wed, Apr 18, 2001 8:48 PM rate increase Hello. I just read what your web site has to say regarding the proposed rate increase. 1) You site in the second paragraph under the colored table "increasingly stringent federal and state regulations, required new programs..... It VII'Ould be nice to know which regulations by which branches of government so that one could contact the appropriate parties to register complaints. 2) Back during the draught of the early 90s, you raised rates quite a bit, because of the scarcity of water. The next "el-nhio" years were quite wet with more than average rain but I don't think you lowered the rates when one assumes your costs must have dropped. As a result, I'm skeptical. =-Steve Page 1 I Page 54 of 65 I RATES - CCCSD Rate Increase(S)C>bJection From: To: Date: Subject: <LGELSTER@aol.com> <rateS@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Sun, Apr 22, 2001 2:06 PM CCCSD Rate Increase(s) Objection Dear CCCSD: As a residential homeowner, I protest the proposed CCCSD rate increases. To begin with, none of the arguments put forth (energy, operating costs, or capital improvements) justify a staggering 36% residential increase over three years. It appears to this reader, and customer, that CCCSD simply wants to structure its revenues and fees for parity among other districts. Well, no dice! Those other districts ought to be striving TO APPEAR AT THE BOTTOM of the list, in terms of unit cost, not trying to rise from it! The district's justifications for more than a one-third increase are unacceptable. What is this....??. reduced 40 positions since the 1980's!!! What have you done lately? Let's have an independent panel come in and review the district's need and justification for such large increases! Until then, no way! L.G. Elster 635 Skyline Drive Martinez Page 1 I Page 55 of 65 ..............-......---1--. -.-----.--- I RATES~9-~rrent residential Rate increase_ Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: "Mister CHUG CHUG CHUG" <toneconsultant@lycos.com> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Wed, Apr 25, 2001 2:36 PM Current residential Rate increase My question is that if you are considering this raise for 3 years, what will happen in three years? I also asked what is the downside of this increase to be 2 years or 4 years? Why 3 years? Sincerely, Langley Choy P.S. I didn't want to email why I don't think we should do this because I'm sure you'll get plenty of this. just want to understand how this consideration was developed. Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/ Page 56 of 65 .__....,_...,._______.."_.~_.u."________---"".------- , I'~ .._~ From: To: Date: Subject: "Sue Gibbons" <clearspeech@suegibbons.com> "Central Sanitary District" <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Wed, May 2, 2001 10:25 AM rate increase Board of Directors, I received the Pipeline newsletter information about the rate hikes that are planned. I do not see any information about how the district decided how much to raise the rates. What factors did you take into account? It sounded as if part of the justification for a rate increase is the increased cost of energy, but we don't know exactly how much that is going to be. How are you estimating that? If the power plants are built and the power situation resolved in the next couple of years, will you reduce your rates to reflect the change? Not having the information to justify the rate increases of $24/year for 3 years, I am not confident that this is necessary. The average homeowner has been hit with increases in all the basic utilities of life: waste, water, gas, electricity. These are not discretionary items.' Until I am convinced that this is a fair and needed increase, I am opposed. Sue Gibbons 1,-';"1)/': \j, t"'..\,( ~_../ t-~ "t ~ ~,"-l.:::. ",~ . I '( /) "".1"'-' r\ 1 r\ \... ,/:./ \.J ~;\ '_.. ..___ I S /3 / [) I Thank you for taking the time to respond to the notice concerning the proposed CCCSD Sewer Service Charge increase. Your input is important and appreciated. A copy of your e-mail message will be forwarded to the CCCSD General Manager and Board of Directors. Page 57 of 65 ---.-.-------r---.------.------ I IV ,.-- From: To: Date: Subject: Ed Bronsen <ebronsen@pacbell.net> <webmail@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Thu, May 10, 2001 11:29 AM Rate Increase Dear Board of Directors, I oppose the your 36 % proposed increase. Your have to consider your tax payers ability to pay. Many are on fixed incomes. Those who work are not receiving 12% annual raises. Utility increases are soaring and consuming an ever increasing share of household budgets. We hope you as managers will be reasonable and consider the financial burden you are imposing upon the people in your District. If increases are necessary, peg it to the rate of inflation so it is affordable to the taxpayer. Using comparisons to other Districts as justification is circular reasoning and results incredible increases such as the one you are proposing. Sincerely, Ed Bronsen l-i2:J l--'(~' ( -C,)( C\C 1- ) UI-y,-O \'-~_\;_\ ----. -, .-,- ,,-' '. 'i)\' \ ) ~~I<....-' ,_)"'~ 1../' .: \ _. - -; I ' --- , ) .:::J/:( [:' ,/ " ,-" . '-., :;:vn L'j~, " ___ " ' ' ,'). i \ ,,'1 ~ ~ ,r,., _,', '. \'.: '\) -t--' \ ,; \ , 'I, ,- " \ ,r.."r(~) \~: ,y,." ' I{ (' Y,;) f' ~IY.:.O--'l' 0: l,j',()d...l 1<,,'- '-,\ - \ . 1,,- , .{) '~.- ! ',-, .- \_; \~ :>--l' oJ,.4 -\-U r It r ,...- t( ,-.-' \ J~ I '--" ..../ , Thank you for taking the time to respond to the notice concerning the proposed ~CCSD Sew~r Service Charge increase. Your input is important and appreciated. ('- copy of your e-mail message w!1I be forwarded to the CCCSD General Manager and Board of Directors. Page 58 of 65 I RATE~~~g to Consider Rate Increa~ Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: "Jacqueline Gelder" <jgelder@longs.com> <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Wed, Apr 11, 2001 10:43 AM Hearing to Consider Rate Increase Why would you hold a meeting at 2:00 p.m. on a week day when most people work and can not attend the meeting? Perhaps by limiting the attendance you limit the opposition. Hold two meetings, one during the day and one during the evening (combine the input from both meetings). I have not determined if I am opposed to the increase but I am opposed to one option for the meeting time. Page 59 of 65 rRAT~ - proposed Rate Increase for Non-~esidential Customers Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: <CyndLMiller@150Pelican.com> <rateS@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Wed, Apr 11, 2001 11 :37 AM Proposed Rate Increase for Non-Residential Customers I received the Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Rate Increase card in the mail today. What is the proposed increase for NON-RESIDENTIAL customers? Cyndi Miller Syufy Enterprises 150 Pelican Way San Rafael CA 94901 (415) 448-8300 ~~ J~~~tL ~. ~/i I/O -rO-.-Xu{; .~tv .~~ ~ ~8 ~"-1 4/p-/ol Page 60 of 65 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT ESTABLISHING THE SEWER SERVICE CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001-2002, 2002-2003 AND 2003-2004 WHEREAS, the District has previously developed and instituted a Sewer Service Charge Program to finance the services and facilities furnished by the District, and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the District has reviewed the present sewer service charge rate schedule and has determined that the residential annual sewer service charge rates should be increased by an amount of $24.00 each year for three years beginning in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Non-residential rates will be increased proportionally based on Residential Unit Equivalents (RUE) factors. WHEREAS, in adopting this Ordinance, the Board of Directors finds: a. Written notices of the proposed increase in sewer service charge rates were sent by first-call U.S. mail to every owner of property in the District at least 45 days prior to the Public Hearing on the proposed increase conducted on June 7, 2001. b. All written protests against the proposed increase in the sewer service charge, including those provided by facsimile, email and mail, were considered and tallied at the Public Hearing conducted on June 7, 2001, and the District was not presented with protests by a majority of the owners of the identified parcels affected by this change. c. The amount of the charge imposed does not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the properties receiving service and that the Page 61 of 65 charge is only imposed on those properties actually receiving service or for those which service is immediately available. d. This action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Ouality Act (CEOA) pursuant to Section 15273-(a)-( 1) a, and (4) of the State CEOA Guidelines. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District as follows: Section 1. The 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 rates for Sewer Service Charges for users of the District System will be initiated for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2001, increased as indicated on July 1, 2002 and July 1, 2003, and shall continue thereafter in effect until further action of the Board of Directors. The following chart displays the residential and non-residential charges for the years indicated: CCCSD SEWER SERVICE CHARGE BY USER Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year User Group 2001 - 2002 2002 - 2003 2003 - 2004 Residential Rate per living unit: Single Family Dwellings, Mobile Home, Townhouses, Condominium Units, Multi-Family Units $ 224. 00 $248.00 $272.00 Residential Living Units served by West Branch Pumping Station $240.00 $266.00 $292.00 Page 62 of 65 Residential living Units served by $320.00 $355.00 $389.00 one or both of the Lawrence Rd. Pumping Stations Commercial I Non-Industrial (Rates per Hundred Cubic Feet) Bakeries $5.72 $6.34 $6.95 Supermarkets w/garbage disposals $4.32 $4.79 $5.25 Mortuaries $4.08 $4.51 $4.95 Restaurants $4.24 $4.70 $5.15 Others $2.07 $2.29 $2.52 Minimum Annual Charge $234.00 $259.00 $284.00 Industrial Flow per million gallons $1,141.00 $1,264.00 $1,386.00 Biochemical Oxygen (demand per 1,000 Ibs.) $477.00 $528.00 $579.00 Suspended Solids per 1,000 Ibs. $340.00 $377.00 $413.00 Demand per million gallons per day $ 1 37,211 .00 $ 1 51 ,91 2.00 $166,614.00 Minimum Annual Charge $234.00 $259.00 $284.00 Special Discharge Permits & Determined Determined Determined Contractual Agreements Individually Individually Individually Page 63 of 65 CCCSD SEWER SERVICE CHARGE BY USER Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year User Group 2001 - 2002 2002 - 2003 2003 - 2004 Institutional Churches $2.07 $2.29 $2.52 Schools $2.07 $2.29 $2.52 Fraternal & Service Organizations $2.07 $2.29 $2.52 Local & State Institutions $2.07 $2.29 $2.52 Other Tax Exempt (Except Federal) $2.07 $2.29 $2.52 Federal Institutions $2.07 $2.29 $2.52 Utilities with Special Tax Status $2.07 $2.29 $2.52 Independent Living Facilities, Rest Homes, & Convalescent Hospitals $2.07 $2.29 $2.52 Minimum Annual Charge $234.00 $259.00 $284.00 Section 2. The Board of Directors shall consider the District's proposed budget, the financial condition, projected capital and energy costs, as well as other factors which bear on the revenue requirements of the district during the Spring of 2002 and 2003 to determine whether the increases set forth herein for those years continue to be necessary. If the District Board concludes that lesser increases for either the fiscal year of 2002 or 2003 will produce adequate revenues for the respective fiscal years, the Board will take appropriate action at the time to reduce the rates herein for fiscal year 2002 or 2003, or both. Section 3. This ordinance shall be published once in the Contra Costa Times. a newspaper of Page 64 of 55 general circulation within the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, and shall be effective July 1, 2001. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June 2001, by the District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the follow vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: President of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: Secretary of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California Approved as to Form: Kenton L. Aim General Counsel Page 65 of 65 C'J 0 0 - f"".. 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 ~ C'J ... ... 0 ... C'J C'J ... 00 0') 0') 0 f"".. ~ 00 0 M r- ~ 0 .(J)- ... - ~ 0 .(J)- C'J 0 Z ::) LL r- 0 f"".. C'J - f"".. W 0 LO U 0 r- OO CO M CO 0 ~ Z C'J ... ... ~ ... f"".. M ... 00 <( C'J CO LO f"".. 0 LO 0') M f"".. a:: 0 .(J)- ~ ... 0 - ~ ::) C'J .(J)- (j) Z I LL -.J W (f) (j) Q) (f) C Q) Q) U 0- C X CO x W ~ CO N "- CO 9 Q) 0 > "'C ~ 0 lL C 2 (f) (f) (f) :J !i Q) Q) Q) LL ! :J (f) :J C) ;ji G: C C C lL C ::; Q) Q) Q) 0 .- i > 0- > "'C Q) X Q) C z ~ a: w a: w 0 ~ cii O&M Revenues, Expenses, and Reserves Fiscal Year 2001 - 2002 through 2003 - 2004 (000 Omitted) Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Proposed Projected Projected Budget Budget Budget Revenues: Sewer Service Charge $30,467 $31,647 $33,054 City of Concord 7,150 7,425 7,705 Other 3,375 3,025 3,417 Total Revenues 40,992 42,097 44, 1 76 Expenses: Total Net Expenses 40,209 41,999 43,906 Fund Balance-Beginning of 3,597 4,379 4,477 Year Revenues Over Expenses 782 98 270 Fund Balance - End of Year 4,379 4,477 4,747 Sewer Service Charge Rate (0& M portion only) $204 $210 $216 Total Sewer Service Charge $224 ~ $272 Residential Unit Equivalents 149,346 151,176 153,026 S:\AOMINIRATCLIFFIO&M.Rev..Exp.Re..200 1-2004.wpd * r.n S t) C\S .~ bh8 8~ ~ ~ o S .~ ~ ~~ u ~ "'0 C\S (])r:/l ~ ~ ~ . l ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ .~ ~ 000000 000000 ~oooooo o - - - - - .. I~O')('J<OLC")~ Mml"-L!)L!)I"-It) OMMM-r-MCD o --- - ... ... ... ... NCDM~~~M f:f7-r-f:f7f:f7f:f7N f:f7 ~ 000000 000000 000000 ... ... ... ... ... ~ O~~<OO~ cx)OO~M(Q ~M~OM(J) ... ... ... ... ... ... CD ~N f:f7 f:F7N ~ 00 00 ~ 0_10_ _ 0_ 0_ ~ I ~INml"-L!)~ -r- -r- I L!) ~ M ex::> 0 OOlml"-~N~ o -~... ... ... .... ft CDIL!)~~~<D f:f7!~ f:F7 N f:F7 ~ I I ~ I E 0 IE ~~a: I~ e ~ en I 0> a... g> C e L... 0), a... E a... i ci2 :0 ~Ic rol(/) +oJ 010) - ,~ ro 0..1 E ~ I~ s E ~ c;:: I 0 "C +oJ 0) j.- 0) I"I"'C 0) . E 10 C3 ~ 0::: ... +oJ! 0) ~ Q) +oJ <C ro;~ u a5~b o (901- c o .- +oJ co q:: c ~ o M en 0) "C :J - U C ofC v 0 I M 0 0 N S * rJJ M +J 0 ~ U I N 0 ~ Q) 0 N bI}.~ I o 0 ~ ~ N ~~ 0 I ~ ~ 0 I 0 ~ N 0 +J S .~ ~~ U~ ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ rfl ~ ~ ~ . I .~ ~ ~ 00 00000 00 00000 00 00000 ~ 0) Il)-- M cD ..0 a) en r--- I ...... LO LO r--- ...... M("i) "'("i)~("i)CO -... ~......... ~ (OM I ~~~N EA- ~ EA- EA- EA- N EA- ~ o 00000 o 00000 00 00000 ...... ~......... ~ Ov CO~(oOo) COO I CD 0 V Mil) ~ M ew') ~ 0 Mew') cOM, N~~~.n EA- ~ ! or- EA- EA- EA- M EA-I ~ ~ ~--l- <- 00000000 00000000 00000000 ~ N- ci<~-- 0) ,...: ..0 ~ ~ LO 0 <G) ~ ("i) co G) oenoor---~N~ cO Lei "":r-- ~ ~ ~- ..: EA-~~0EA-EA-EA-N EA- ~ c -- co :e G> I (J I a.. ! 0 ! I LL I ~ ~ EI~:Q)~E~ ~g>C:S~': c>s....~tn c>~ e a... c. e 55 a... E ~ E a... E +'" (1) ~ ~ s.... (l) +'" c: +'" c: D.. (1) ::> c: co en:J +'" 0 (1) -~s....ccos....E a... U) I- 0 S c. (1) C:~E Es.... ot co~ Q) +'" (1) IV COs.... a::: ..J o..cl.&.o(1) <C (1)g>c~c::E1- o 0 as (1) ,~ (1) 0 OOtnO::,-,OI- - - .<w s.... (1) C. 0 ~ Q) 0 ~ .c c: co 0 +'" +'" 0 co +'" q:: c: c: .- .- ~ "'C 0 Q) ("i) ~ en :J Q) .0 "'C E :J 0 (1) c: 0:: - ole ole ole G> C C ~ I- olJ ~ c ~ a.. I- o ....... ~ - <<.<<<<<<-.---.------...<<<<<-. .<<. - <<-..<<.<<.-.--..-.--.-------,.-- <.-.<..--.------ * d o S C\S S ~ C\S ~ ~ C\S ~\/J ~~ .~ ~ ~ C\S ~ .~ ~ U '""0 Q) d a ,......~ ~ Q) ~ d Q) > Q) ~ ~ o rJJ 0) U ~ ~ o \/J I. ~l ..,. ~ &; ~ g;l~ ~ ~(~ ~o l "I "I (W') ~ = C ; Ii" --- .- 181 II ~ ~ "I ! cvjE I N("f) (;F) (;F) ?fl.1?fl. ?fl. ?fl. ~Lt)o co OC " CO(()Q')("f) (W') "IN N~= ___._ C E~ - LO .- 'Cf:.1'Cf:. 'Cf:. ~COO~ ("f)N~ I I (/) ~I c ())I ())LL E ~l (/) I ~I~ ~ "Ell cc..~o -ICO E O! eft) c 01 ()) 0, I (/) So... ,., 1, +J I ()) 0 \"J' (/) - '+- I (]) ~ CO 0 So... So... == >! (]) Q) u ~..c CO"'O:!:+J LL<(OO .E ~ "I LO (;F) (;F) ?J. --. '-~-' Lt)OO N ._ ~~= --- .- E ()) LO C ("f) 0 (;F)C ()) o C CO CO OJ U) "'C CI) C C)--.::J '-+ILL C'CS C .s:: CD c o c 0 CDO+J Co) C. g -- E So... c= 0 en CD 0 c (/)-8- =sSo...~ w .- (]) t ~Q.~o CD co Q) ..c (/) 2. CI) CI) +J C ()) E Q) ~ ::J ..c E .- Q) ~ Q) C C ~ ~ ~ C ::J ~ ~ ~ ()) ..c C) ::J o o (/) ()) "'0 ::J - U X W of( c. CD ..... tn ..... tn CO ...I '. ~ ~ ~ ~ ..~ ~ (I) '-.. ~ ~ Cb S ~ ..~ ~ ~ 't.... ""C ........ C) C ~ ~ co ~ :s e (\')~~ ~ g ~ i en~ NOt: (j)~ .~Nk~ C') ~ .... 0 L.L. <Il "'0 ~ ~ 0 C')~~.~ ~ ....~~.~ N.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ""-Ii; en L.. c::: C'I ~ (J)~~-g rom()~'~ > ~~ (])I~~~ e ,,~~ ~ >. <Il :::l a. <Il C'Il.Q - () ~ ~ Q.; a.~~~ CO:.::.Q~S co '"i :::i ~ ()..o <Il II) '"i () .~ ~ ~.S ~ "'0 .l!:!......... ...... a.. :;:: II) ~ C ~Q~ L.. ~U) co l..;: ~ ~ 0 co l::: ~ .a c::: c::::: ...... ~..c C) 'I ~ en C) ~ e (]) .~ e Q) (J) .... <Il:':::: __ C') 13 Q. :t:: -- t::' <Il ,... ~ ~ ~ co .~ ~ <b \V 0 ~ 1I~ L.. l..;: 10;: II) L.. 1:) l::: .::::: ~ ~ ~ +-II L.. ,II;:: U) (j)~~~ (J)..c ~~<Il en ....t!l u en -- ~ <Il ~ .~ <Il'S _ -.::t ::t l..;: o ..... ~ == 0 <Il U <Il __-g-g~ 3:0~~S "E Q...Q ~ "'0 ~ ~~ ~ CO I I L.. (\') .... l.C o CO 0 I I a:l 00 CON . . ~ ~ ..... ~ ..... 2> -~ c; N 5- 0 ..... (j; 0 e 0 N 0> ~ ~ 0 0 N 5 co C !2 Q) I"- ~ W 0 J5 0 It: N .!2 "" 5 on; ~ ~ a I"- ~ ~ w ~ l/) OJ -~ It: 0 "0 (f) 0 r:: C N ::l .... u.. c -5: z CI) ::l Cl ~ ~ -- u."O Oc.. -c ~ o&l 0 ro 0 N'-- N t) 'e ClI I!J C e c(w:a. III WIt:ClI !2 ca It:c(o g ~ ::lo..c 0 C) :!E .- N ..J -0"0 t::: U.o~ g Q) ~ w C/) M J5 .1 · ..J .!a 0 .!2 ~ 10 C/) 0 on; ~c( N ~ 0 t::: ~ M l/) ~ ~ "0 en c( r:: 0 ::l (f) 0 u.. N 'II CU C ::iE 'II Z N <<S ::l !2 0 ~ u. ca ..... l!J 0 0 N C) e ..... !2 0 C ~ 0 0 N -- "" ,.., 0 ca ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 00> ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 w..... ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 co III ~ M N ..... -~ w w w w w c: spU8snOlU U! SJ8110a (1) t: ~ C) tn CD tn ca CD ... (.) r: - CD .. ca a:: -c CD tn o Q. o l- e.. ~ ~ -5: '5 t: ~ 't:: Q ....fI) .... c W D:: ::J a_ We D::CD'E Cl)CD~ c c C Z 0 ::J~.2 u.co"O OE,!! 1-"- .2:c c c W'- III D::1;:J!J <QlCJ D.. t Ql :E ::s '[ O~D.. o :g c ~ E ~ to c co ~oD:: <c'g:; >IIlCl) <~ CI) C Z ::J u. o o o o LO o o o .0 ~ o o o o ~ o o o .0 M o 0 o 0 o 0 .0 0 N N o o o .0 ~ --..- ---~-~-_._~--_._~-----------_._----_._._._..... . ~'. ..__.~--~-_..__.._~----------_..,-_._--_...._"._. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ e u spU8snOLU UI SJ8nOQ o o o o ~ ~ c; ~ o c; N o c; N d, o o N 0) o o N th Q) o :0 ~ ~ CD 'ffi 8 ~ N r-:. III o "t:l o C N ::s I'- U. o (ij o _ ~ '0.. CD ro 8 U N I!! CD o o ~ LO o o N LO o o N c! ~ ~ ~ C!; 'ffi ~ ~ cJ, III o "t:l o C N :J M U. 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ I!I N o o ~ c; o N o o o .0 ~ o o N 6 ,0 o N ~ ..0 t:: Cb ~ ~ ~ . Cb tn e C ~ 0 Cb -- .... ~ (.) '-.. G) ~ -~ 0 0 ... CI) a.. t:: - ..0 ca ~ ~ (..) ..~ ... (.) e <C ~ -.:t 0 0 N <0 <0 ~ 1.0 <0 I'-- I 0 ,...., 1.0 N r- """N (W') N 0') r- eo N ~ 0,...., ~ ~ ~ CO ~ ~ 0 t-- ('l') ~ ('l') eo ('l')r- 0 N ~ ~ N N N ~M N ~ f:I7 f:I7 f:I7 f:I7 f:I7 f:I7 f:I7 M 0 0 N Q) I'-- 0 CO l.{) <0 I Q) Q) <0 <0 M Q) N CO Q) 0 Q) Q) <0 N~ 0 ~ r- N N N 0 00 0 N ~ ~ N N r- ~M N vt f:I7 f:I7 f:I7 f:I7 f:I7 f:I7 f:I7 N 0 0 ...-.... N Q) N ~ ~ CO Q) I'-- I 0 Q) 0 -r- 0 NN -r- ~ N Q) ~ 1.0 -r- -r- M 0 N 0 0 CD 0 l.{) o Q) 0 N ~ ~ N N f:I7 ~N N vt f:I7 f:I7 f:I7 f:I7 '-'" f:I7 f:I7 N M 0) .... CIJ CIJ en en :J 0) '"0 J: CIJ CIJ C C ..0 0) U en :J CIJ CIJ 1- C C C\j .- Co > ::J a.: CIJ CIJ >< CIJ C\j 0' CIJ C. > W ~ - > Q) en >< CIJ J9 <(0::: w ~ - - L- eu eu ~ C/) en CIJ ~ .... L- :E :E .- "C"C eu ;: c. c. - c: c: CIJ Q) ~ ~ eu eu ~ ::J ::J >- en 0 0 U U LLLL 1- o en 1- C\j - ~ Q) := Q) >'~o.. ~en.Q ::J ..... Q) ..... () > ::J .~ Q) ~e"C CO o....c:: 1-C::=: .E .2 ~ C\jro~ 'C ..... c: Q) Cf) Q) =Co>E () c: 0) = '0.. ~ "CEo> ~ ::J C\j .- 0.. ::J E. O'c:oen 0)01-<::5 0:: E'+-O) Cf) C\j ~'o -g 0:: :0 0. ::J ceO) l.L C\j ::J Cf) :: Cf) '+- 0) +-' C ..c 0) Q) .- +-' 0)..c.81- E +-' ..0 0 aO'+- 'S: C .8 ~ > 0 .- =:.;::;t)() Q) C\j 'C C -1-......C\j ..0 Q) en c C\j - .- <+= :=Q)O co () ," "C > () ~ c: <(co..c::o enQ)~..o "C :5 .= .~ c: "C ::J co ::J c: 0" 15 't-co~o tn s::: o -- ,.., u CD -~ o L- a. - ns ~ ,.., CJ <C ~ .~ ai ~ ~ ~w ~t CbCb ~ '0' ~rt Cb t:: ~O '---E: ~ ~ Ot\: fI) t:: ~&1S ~~ U~ Cb~ .O'~ rt .q- o o N '<t <.0 <.0 0> .q- o I'- I'- N N 0> ~~CO CO ,... M ~ N ~ N ~ ~ N N ~ EI7 EI7 EI7 EI7 <'"J 0'> N ~ ~ o 0'> 0 ..-- .q- N 0'> ~ L() NOOI'-O - N ~ ~ N N ~ th EI7 EI7 EI7 EI7 '-" M o o N M o o N N o o N N o o N "('- o o N ~ C'O Q,) >- co "'l::t ~ N ~ th f:A- Cl J: U ~ Q,) en ~ Q,) :: Q,) en 0'> 0'> 0'> - <'"J (l) 0'> I'- 0'> N 0 0'> L() L() 0'> o ('f) ('f) ('f) N L() ..-- ..-- ~ ('f) N f:A- f:A- f:A- f:A- '-" .... (/) Q,) (/) c: Q,) a. >< w ~ ~ o N Q,) (/) c: Q) a. >< w Q) ::::J c: Q,) > Q,) a:: ~ ~ o - C'O - .- a. C'O U - L() CO I'- EI7 '-" - I'- o ..-- If) Q,) ::::J c: Q) > Q,) a:: - .s ~ C'O - .- a. ..... C'O Q) U c:: 1'-1'- ('f) N "'l::tl'- ~~ NM EI7 EI7 N<O NO'> N~ L() 0 N ('f) f:A- f:F} ..-- I'- ('f) N ..-- ('f) 0'>0'> ('f) N f:A- f:A- Q.)-o .0 ~ CU .- = ::J CU CT > Q.) <(0::: (/) (J) -0 -0 C C ::J ::J u..u.. (/) '- CU.c Q.);t:: >-3: o (/) ~C -- Q.) (J) E CO Q) '- ~ .Eo> ro ro .~ E ;t:: 0 '- '- ()'+- = 0>0> -0 .~ c ~-oT; .- c c ::J ::J CU CT '+- C Q.) C .- 0::: . - '+- CU-o (j) ...... c -0.00 CO...o ::J 0 '- ':1-::0 - () ...... .- C> Q.) .;:; c Q.) (j) .- E (5 g ...... Q.) CU o C cf;\;:: OQ.)U) -:: .= z -Q.) ::J <( - CT t'Y' .oQ.)u.... CU'-I- 'co = (j)- > 3: '- <(-00.> (/)co. -oCUO c >- 0.> ::J - > u..Co.> :: 0-0 Sewer Service Charge Comparison Annual Sewer ~ency Comment Service ChargL Berkeley (EBMUD for Treatment) old rate $481 Oakland (EBMUD for Treatment) old rate $391 Benicia recent increase $384 Livermore recent increase $379 Pleasanton old rate $360 Crockett-Valona Sanitary District old rate $332 Stege Sanitary District (EBMUD for Treatment old rate $319 Dublin San Ramon Services District old rate $310 Vallejo Sanitation District recent increase $286 Napa Sanitation District no increase planned $274 Rodeo Sanitary District old rate $265 Mt. View Sanitary District recent increase $268 Pittsburg (Delta Diablo Sanitation District) old rate $256 Brentwood old rate $227 ICentral Contra Costa Sanitary District proposed increase $224 Antioch (Delta Diablo Sanitation District) recent increase $223 Concord (CCCSD) recent increase $198 Union Sanitary District no increase planned $191 West County Wastewater District recent increase $125 Orc Lorna Sanitary District old rate $113 ----~--~._..._._---,_._-,-------_..__._--"-_._--_._--'_.<-----"..,--_...,."-_..._._---_._--~'--_.._-"_.._.----_._..,_.~-~._--.-_._-_._._-~.._--;-_._._"'._--------._."-,-- . . c o .- ..... CO -c c CI) E E o (.) CI) Q:: ~ o o N .. I' (1) t: ~ -, I -q- 0 N N+-'O fF7 c..N 0 ~ ::JON o ~O ~ 0) ONro en O)eO) ro en.- ~ 0) ro +-' _ s-. 0) 0) ro (.) s-. en (.) .S g (1).~ 0) .- ..c ~ C) 0)00) s-. C) +J ..c ro s-. +-' ..c ro 0) s-. () · ..c+J 0 s-. () ro-.p;.. ro s-. ...-... ~ (1) (1) CO (/) .- ~ (.) ::J C) 2: co .- +J e 0) (.) 2: U.C . C/) en O)~ro~ .- Cf) 0) 0 s-.~ ~IO ~N (oN u~ > 0 :> Y7 .- C"') (1)0 >-::00 C/)~ O)O::JO ro~ C/) ECl.N 0) g (\j::J ('f) -c N "'. 0) E 0 e .C '-"I >._ 0 ro 00) O~NC"') 55 Q.E-eJO :J s-. c.. e 0 <(J2 <(roroN .. .. ai ~ CI) ~ u ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ <b ~ . . e o 0) C) s-. ro ..c () 0) U .~ 0) C/) s-. 0) ~ 0) C/) ~ o e o .G · O)Jg =0 Os-. Ux O)ro N+J .- ~ s-.+J Oe ..c:J +Jo ~O . SEWER SERVICE CHARGE PROPOSED INCREASE JUNE 7, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING 96,655 NOTICES MAILED Written Responses as of June 7, 2001 E-Mails and Letters of Support E-Mails and Letters of Opposition E-Mails with Questions Written Responses to Date Telephone Calls received as of June 7, 2001 Calls in Support/Accepting Increase Calls in Opposition Calls with Questions Hangups/No Message Left Telephone Calls to Date 3 37 ----3. 43 2 17 18 ---6. 43 TOTAL RESPONSES AS OF JUNE 7, 2001 86 ***************** TOTAL SUPPORTING 5 TOTAL OPPOSING 54 TOTAL QUESTIONS/NO MESSAGES 27 "----_._--------^~_.. ._-,-,,-_.._~..__....~--,-"-_._-,---_._.,-'"--_._~-.-,-.-_._--,---~.,--_..__.".._,--_..~-_._.._._--,---'--~"._.._-~,_.._-_._---~------,...__._._._----_.__._--'_._---..-........'......,.-.-.-- .---- , JUN-07-2001 12:12 PM 63e=~22537 925 372 5514 P.01 A~Y\~-n; 'To~CR. ~t' f'^~ . ~~-~ Facsimile ro: C.C .C. ~.\) bl~ Fax # ~L~ ~-\""2\' From:~{)\.~ Z \I~o..\ol~Fax # 925..:372..5514 #Of pages including cover: DatelTime ael'1t: \0\\\ 0\ c::::>1')e.,. \'21\\::2fM ~ MESSAGE ~~" ~~~~~d ~-.l'ti:' ~\CQ.. 1'"",\;",- ''{\~"''-<3..~~_ \ :i-..J~~",-~t: t.h~t ~ M~,{\15~~~~1 d.\~i:t-, bu.:t::t>l's., C'~l~~ ~-{\.d ~~~M~~ (wk~ p0.Sc.~:s~ 0..\\ ~\.h ~'l\ M ~ V\, tQ..LL"j d.~ ~~ c.i: \A/~ ~ ~d.u.. c..'k ') ::5 ~~ \..)(d. b~ \'''~~C>(\':::adot~ ~<' ~'{\~. {'a...~ \ f\<..('~~~. C:o...\\.. \"t ~ -t.o..x I \~~ o.~ ~h~"t~~JU"'. \ h~\l~ \~G.t'-(\~d d\Jl"fI~ ~ h~ 'th<3...t, ~n~'(\ M.,~(\.'t~ \ ~ \:~~'Y\ ~~t.. t:>~ ~ ~~\' r (X:.~t t.,^<!!t...~ ,'~ ~\t\,~V'l ot\.~ f ~ ~ ~\t-~-(\~~Il, , \ ~ ~{'~, ~~~t 't,^v~' M~~ . ~~ ~'" lV\\.. ",\.L 0.... ~~ ~ ~ 1 't: ~ ~l'f\<:~(,~~ \~(\'-~~ L "e(LC3...~~ MONICA E. VENABLES 7ee CONDOR DRIVE MAImNEZ. CA 94653 f'RA TES-Re:. jcrte incr~Clse . .,~ .---"." .._~ ~. ~-- , . ._ .., . .~~ge.1J From: To: Subject: RATES "cookroesj@hotmail.com".GWIA.GW5_HOB_DOMAIN Re: rate increase Mr. Roesler, Thank you for taking the time to respond and share your views on the proposed CCCSD rate increase. A copy of your e-mail message will be provided to the CCCSD Genaral Manager and Board of Directors for their consideration prior to the June 7, 2001 public hearing, and your protest vote will be registered. >>> "Sharon Cook" <cookroesj@hotmail.com> 05/31/01 07:50PM >>> Dear Board of Directors, I do not agree with a 10+% increase for the next three years on sewer costs. It is time for government agencies and other similar organizations to take the same road that Corporate America is faced with every year. If costs are going up in certain areas, you become more efficient. This means making hard decisions....not just passing on the increase to consumers. This state is riddled with the consumer taking the brunt of cost increases for inept and inefficient organizations that are as close to being "government" as can possibly be. I protest strongly that this increase will be unacceptable. I believe that if this type of mentality continues, the only recourse is to just vote out every incumbent in every office regardless of party affiliation. Hard to believe a Republican would ever utter those words, but this has to stop somewhere. Jim Roesler San Ramon, Ca. Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at httD:/IexDlorer.msn.com ___~_~_,~~___"_,,,__,,_,__~"____,'__'_._~'____"_'_~'_'.___...__..___._..,.__.""__.______.__.__.._._______.___"'_......_._____~_._...____,___..__,,_..._~_."_____~______m'_._..,.____._.._~--.-_..__.._.__._____u_____ .. _ _ _ dO"'_ ~__~_ _ ... _ _. P~ge1 .;1 RATES - Rate Increase .' ,- - - . ,.~, From: To: Date: Subject: "Mills, Bob" <BMills@BrwnCald.com> "'rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us'" <rates@centralsan.dst.ca.us> Wed, Jun 6, 2001 8:03 AM Rate Increase <<cccsd.doc>> Please respond to the attached letter. Thank you. RATES - cccsd.doc , ."'3 .'.. -.. _,'~.'.'=.~=' ...-..:....-.=~~.~=~.__.. _~_ '..-.H '. '. --':'-'_--=-._~~~-=:~~_:.__..f~9.€i.1 :1 June 5, 2001 Secretary of the District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 50191mhotTPlace Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Rate Increase Dear Sir<>r Madam: With regard to the proposed rate increase, I want to be certain that existing rate payers are not being asked to subsidize new growth and development. Existing rate payers should only pay for operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating existing pipelines and facilities as well as providing treatment improvements necessary to meet more stringent discharge requirements. Existing rate payers should !!Q! pay for increases in capacity required to serve new development. Capacity increases should be paid solely by the developers who will profit from being allowed to build their projects. For example, if an aging sewer is replaced with a larger sewer with more capacity, the incremental capital cost for the larger sewer should be paid by developers, not existing rate payers. Nevertheless, revenue bonds sometimes are used to pay for new, larger pipelines and facilities to provide increased capacity. Investors in these bonds often want the backing of higher rates rather than connection fees (i.e., capacity charges) to provide security for their investments. By the way, it is misleading for you to state that you want to raise the Sewer Service Charge by 12 percent (The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Pipeline, Volume 5, Number I, page 2). You are really considering a $72 increase spread over.]. years, which is an increase of 36 percent. Please reply to my concern by mail to the address shown below. Very truly yours, Robert L. Mills 36 Crest View Drive Orinda, CA 94563 I -, . ; RATES - Re: Rate Increase 1. ". ,.,....:..... _.__ ..'. ., ,,- ,-. .. .-" "- ....... '. '. H..__: .. ~.'L'H.-'-: .....~ ._..E~.gEu!1 lR/7/01 IO:lSa..m. From: To: Subject: RATES "BMills@BrwnCald.com".GWIA.GW5_HOB_DOMAIN Re: Rate Increase Dear Mr. Mills, You are correct, existing rate payers pay the costs of operating, maintaining and renovating existing sewer facilities. The sewer service charge is based on staff projections of funds required to meet these needs for each upcoming year. However, existing rate payers are not expected to bear the cost of construction of the new facilities required to support growth. New facilities are funded through the Capacity Rates and Charges and by private developers. The construction of new sewer mains (pipes) falls under CCCSD jurisdiction, which means these facilities must be constructed to CCCSD standards and that CCCSD staff reviews sewer plans and inspects the work. However, the costs for engineering and construction, including all material and labor costs, permit costs and costs for right of way, where needed, are borne by the private developer of each sewer project. Once the projects are complete, CCCSD may accept the facilities for public use. Capacity fees are paid by each property owner at the time of connection to the sewer system and when changes of use to existing connections are made that will increase the volume or characteristics of the waste discharged to the sewer system. The capacity fees provide funding for upgrade and expansion of the existing sewer system and the treatment plant as well as contributing funds used for replacement, treatment, special programs such as wastewater recycling, and upgrades or changes needed to meet legal and regulatory requirements. CCCSD does not routinely use bond funding to finance operations, maintenance and renovations. This funding mechanism has been used one time only to fund a large capital expenditure (I believe the treatment plant head works replacement project). If you are interested in more information about that project and the District's use of that type of funding please contact Mr. Jarred Miyamoto-Mills (you can do so via this e-mail address or by telephone at 925-229-7335). He could answer any questions you may have. Finally, the 12 percent increase mentioned in the notices sent to customers was intended to address the first year only, fiscal year 2001-2002. I agree, though, that it could be misunderstood and will share your comments with the staff that produced the notices and Pipeline article. Thank you for taking the time to send your response, and to read this one (I am sorry it is so long!). The CCCSD General Manager and Board of Directors value your input, and your letter will be forwarded to them today. Sincerely, Lesley Klein Supervising Engineering Assistant >>> "Mills, Bob" <BMills@BrwnCald.com> 06/06/01 08:06AM >>> Please respond to the attached letter. Thank you. <<cccsd.doc>> .~_ __,___""_",__,,__,_,,,_,__,___'_"_'__~_'___'__'_"___,~...._,_.,____.~'_~_n'____'_"'_~'_____'_"__'__"~'-__"____,_.,.__.~_,..._..__ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: June 7, 2001 No.: B.a. ADMINISTRATIVE Type of Action: AUTHORIZE AGREEMENTS Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS FOR CALIFORNIA SANITATION RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND POOLED LIABILITY PROGRAMS Submitted By: David J. Clovis, Safety & Risk Manager Initiating Dept./Div. : Administration/ Safety & Risk Management 0J~J D. Clovis ~<er G. Davis REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION: ISSUE: Board of Directors' authorization is required for execution of partici ation agreements for California Sanitation Risk Management Authority (CSRMA) Workers' Compensation and Pooled Liability Programs. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager to execute participation agreements for CSRMA Workers' Compensation and Pooled Liability Programs. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The annual deposit premium for the Workers' Compensation Program for 2001/2002 is $272,572 and the deposit premium for the Pooled Liability Program is $103,000. ALTERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: The District could continue to purchase Workers' Compensation Insurance and General/Auto Liability Insurance from Commercial Insurance Companies. BACKGROUND: Workers' Compensation: The District has financed its Workers' Compensation Liabilities by purchasing insurance from State Compensation Insurance Fund. Over the last three years, the rates for this program have continually risen. The quotation provided by State Compensation Insurance Fund for Fiscal Year 2001/2002 is $272,143. This is a 22.9% increase from FY 2000/2001. The State of California Workers' Compensation Insurance Marketplace has 5/30/01 C:\My Documents\SI FO 1-02\CSRMA WCPP. wpd Page 1 of 14 POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: June 7, 2001 Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS FOR CALIFORNIA SANITATION RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND POOLED LIABILITY PROGRAMS reflected significant increases in premiums and the industry has predicted continuing increases over the next several years. Many carriers have reported increases of 15% to 30%. The District has also pursued additional quotations for workers' compensation insurance. Submissions for rate quotations were submitted to an additional three insurance carriers and one insurance wholesaler (see Exhibit A). Three of the carriers declined to provide a quote. The insurance wholesaler, Crum & Forster provided an oral indication for a quotation in the amount of $415,000. An alternative to traditional commercial insurance has also been evaluated. The CSRMA Workers' Compensation Program has submitted a rate quotation to the District for F/Y 2001/2002. The quotation was based on the District's State of California Experience Modification factor of .78, District Payroll and based upon the District's historical safety record. The quotation provided was $272,572 an increase over State Fund of $429. The participation agreement for CSRMA requires a minimum of three years participation in the W.C. Program. Program participants share pooled liability up to $300,000, commercial reinsurance is purchased to cover all loses exceeding the primary limits up to statutory limits. Deposit premiums are re-evaluated six months after the close of the policy year and every year thereafter until all applicable claims are finalized. Premium deposits are retroactively adjusted at that time and the amount shall not be greater than 125% of the deposit nor less than 75% of the deposit. The District, based on its historical loss history, has the potential of receiving the full 25% refund on its deposits. The program is managed by Driver Insurance Services, the CSRMA Board of Directors and the CSRMA Workers' Compensation Committee. All claims are handled by Gregory Bragg & Associates Claims Administrators. The Bragg Firm is a State of California approved Workers' Compensation Third Party Claims Administrator who specializes in Public Agency Claims Administration. The service level to District Employees will be significantly improved through the Bragg Firm in comparison to State Fund. The Bragg Firm will provide timely reporting which will have a positive impact on the overall program. The CSRMA Workers' Compensation program was created on July 1, 1990. The original program was created for 24 Sanitation Agencies and today there are 34 members in the Workers' Compensation Program. The total pooled deposit for fiscal year 2000/2001 was $2,101,361. Over the programs eleven year history, there has been an increase in 5/31/01 C:\My Documents\SIF01-02\CSRMAWCPP.wpd Page 2 of 14 POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: June 7, 2001 Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS FOR CALIFORNIA SANITATION RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND POOLED LIABILITY PROGRAMS membership based on the cost of insurance in the marketplace, the value of pooling and the increased value provided by participating in the CSRMA Workers' Compensation Program. Excess Liability Insurance: The District purchases excess liability insurance from the commercial insurance market. The current insurance expires June 30, 2001 and is provided by Specialty National Insurance Company through Public Access Underwriting Services (PAUSE). This policy provides coverage in excess of the Districts' $500,000 self insured retention and provides per occurrence limits of $10,000,000. Driver Insurance Services on behalf of the District, pursued insurance quotations from Discover Re, Genesis, Specialty National through PAUSE, Munich-AmRE, AIG and CSRMA. The District also submitted information to the Special Districts' Risk Management Authority (SDRMA) for a quotation. To date, we have received quotations as indicated on Exhibit B. The current carrier Specialty National, provided a quotation at the current limits for an amount of $101,200. This represents a 10% increase over the current policy. CSRMA provided a quotation for their pooled liability program and the amount of the quote is $103,000. This program provides a pooled limit from $500,000 to $750,000. Commercial excess insurance in the amount of $10,000,000 is purchased by the program providing members with a total insured value of $10,250,000 per occurrence limit with no annual aggregate. This would be an additional $250,000 per occurrence coverage limit over the current insurance in place. The CSRMA Pooled Liability Program will provide the District stable rates for excess insurance. The current predictions indicate a hardening of the excess insurance market and a continuing of increased rates over the next few years. The CSRMA program also offers a potential for deposit premium retroactive refunds, which is currently not available through commercial insurance. The program requires a minimum of three years participation and provides for retroactive adjustments to deposits at a maximum of 150% and a minimum of 75%. This program is overseen by the CSRMA Liability committee, the CSRMA Board of Directors, of which the District is currently a member, and managed by Driver Insurance Services. The program was created in 1987 in response to the hardening of the insurance market and the lack of available insurance for public agencies. There are 5/31/01 C:\My Documents\SIF01-02\CSRMAWCPP.wpd Page 3 of 14 POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: June 7, 2001 Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS FOR CALIFORNIA SANITATION RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND POOLED LIABILITY PROGRAMS 39 sanitation districts participating in the pooled liability program. The pooled premium contribution for calendar year 2001 is $1,726,130. The proposal from CSRMA provides additional coverage limits to the current policy and will provide the District with long term stability for excess liability insurance costs. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize the General Manager to execute participation agreements for the California Sanitation Risk Management Authority Workers' Compensation and Pooled Liability Programs. 5/31/01 C:\My Documents\SIF01-02\CSRMAWCPP.wpd Page 4 of 1 4 Exhibit A July 1, 2001 Marketing Results Workers' Compensation Zenith Declined Will not write accounts with Public Entity e osures. Hartford Specialty Declined Will not write stand alone WC Kemper Declined Will not write this class of business Safety National Declined Too small for their underwriting minimums Discover Re Declined Couldn't meet pricing target. Crum & Forster Preliminary Oral $415.000 Indication CSRMA Quoted $272,572 State Fund Quoted $272,143 Page 5 of 14 Exhibit B July 1, 2001 Excess Liability Quotations No Submission Discover RE $71,890 $1 mil xs SOOk SIR Genesis Specialty National $101,200 Munich-Am Re Declined AIG No Submission Special Districts Risk Management Authority CSRMA $103,000 Page (3 of 14 PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM This entity, signatory to the California Sanitation Risk Management Authority ("CSRMA") Joint Powers Agreement, have agreed by action of our Board of Directors on , 20_, to participate in the CSRMA Workers' Compensation Program. As evidenced by the authorized signatures on page 7 of this document, the above mentioned entity shall become a participant in the Workers' Compensation Program and referred to s a "Program Participant." It is understood that this Participation Agreement pertains only to the Workers' Compensation Program, and that a separate Participation Agreement is required for each CSRMA insurance program. By completing the following steps for CSRMA and Workers' Compensation Program membership, Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage shall begin on which is the date that is acceptable to either the CSRMA Board of Directors and/or the Workers' Compensation Program underwriter, and if applicable: 1) Receiving an underwriting/loss evaluation for qualification purposes and deposit (annual premium) calculation; 2) Receiving a facility physical inspection, if required; 3) Meeting CSRMA underwriting guidelines and obtaining approval of the CSRMA Underwriting Committee; 4) Being recommended by the Executive Committee for acceptance by the Board of Directors and receiving such acceptance; 5) Executing the CSRMA "Joint Powers Agreement," the "Notice of Intent' and "Resolution to Join"; 6) Completing the "Application For A Public Entity Certificate of Consent to Self-Insure" and receiving approval to self-insure from the California Department of Industrial Relations; and 7) Executing this Workers' Compensation Program Participation Agreement, whereby the Estimated Annual Deposit is accepted and remittance for such is due by Coverage Inception. CSRMA Workers' Compensation Program New Membership Information TOICSGIDOCIPERM\DOOO939.1 Pa~e 7 of 14 MINIMUM PARTICIPATION PERIOD FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE PROGRAM: It is understood that the CSRMA Workers' Compensation Program requires an initial three-year commitment in order to participate in the program. Withdrawal from the Workers' Compensation Program cannot occur until not less than three years of participation has occurred; that is, from the coverage inception date until the end 0 the third consecutive program year, and only then if a four-month prior notice was provided. After the initial three-year participation commitment has been met, withdrawal can occur at the end of the program year provided a four-month prior Notice of Intent to Withdraw as provided the Authority, as noted above. Program Participants remain subject to the "Termination" provisions of Section 22 in the CSRMA Joint Powers Agreement, despite the three-year participation commitment. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: Program Participants shall maintain an open and ongoing flow of data and information to the Authority staff, committees and/or Board of Directors, as required, in addition to the following: . Provide the Workers' Compensation Program with such statistical and loss experience data and other information as is necessary to carry out the purposes as outlined in the CSRMA Agreement, Bylaws or as set forth during official meetings of the Executive Committee and/or Board of Directors; . Pay the Workers' Compensation Program when due and all Retrospective Adjustments and assessments for each Program Year. Withdrawal does not relieve the entity from liability for such retrospective adjustments and assessments; . Cooperate fully with the Workers' Compensation Program staff and/or representatives in determining the cause of losses in the settlement of claims; and . Comply with all provisions, policies and procedures of the CSRMA Workers' Compensation Program as set forth in Section 23 of the CSRMA Joint Powers Agreement. CSRMA Workers' Compensation Program New Membership Information Page 8 of 14 TOICSGIDOClPERM\D000939.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE PROGRAM EXPENSES: Workers' Compensation Program members are responsible for their pro-rata share of all program expenses to include: incurred losses, margin for contingency, claims adjusting and legal fees, loss control services, general administration, excess premium costs and costs for any other services as identified by the Executive Committee per authority vested by the CSRMA Agreement and/or Bylaws. A Program Participant's pro-rata share of the program expenses shall be based upon the Workers' Compensation Program's budgetary needs and any other expenses deemed necessary by the Board of Directors, as well as the Program Participant's premium volume. The cost allocation formula may be subject to change by the Board of Directors. The withdrawal or termination of any Program Participant from the Workers' Compensation Program shall not terminate the responsibility to continue to contribute to its share of financial obligations incurred by reason of its previous participation (refer to CSRMA Agreement, Section 23). RETROSPECTIVE PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT: In accordance with the above section (and Section 19(b) 3 of the CSRMA Agreement), a financial reconciliation or audit of each program year will occur in order to determine if enough funds were collected as Deposits (annual premiums) for each program year. In general, any deficiency or surplus in each Program Participant's Deposit amounts shall be adjusted by a Retrospective Adjustment. The Retrospective Adjustment process examines each individual participant's claims and expenses for the program year in review to dtermine if Deposits were adequate. If these Deposits are not adequate to meet costs of incurred claims and expenses, an "adjustment" to make up the difference, subject to minimum and maximum amounts, can take place (refer to CSRMA Agreement, Section 19(b) 3). Specifically, Retrospective Adjustments for the Workers' Compensation Program shall be calculated within six months after the conclusion of each program year and annually thereafter until all applicable claims are finalized. In addition, the Board of Directors may have special assessments calculated at any time if, in its opinion, it becomes advisable. The results of the calculations shall be communicated to the Program Participants within one month following each calculation. The adjustments resulting from special assessments authorized by the Board shall be due as specified by the Board. The Retrospective Adjustment of each program year shall be calculated for each Program Participant by adding the sums of (A) and (B) below, less the Deposits on hand: CSRMA Workers' Compensation Program New Membership Information Page 9 of 14 TO\CSG\DOC\PERM\DOOO939.3 (A) An amount equal to the individual Program Participant's incurred losses and share of expenses, provided, however, that such amount shall not be greater than 125% of the Deposit nor less than 75% of the Deposit. (B) Each Program Participant's proportionate share (based upon the amounts determined pursuant to (A) above) of the difference between the sum of the individual amounts calculated pursuant to (A) above, and the total of all incurred losses, reserves, expenses and interest income. Retrospective Adjustment formulas are subject to change by the Board of Directors. ******* The above Participation Agreement conveys an accurate and complete representation of all obligations of Workers' Compensation Program Participants, as generally stated in the CSRMA Agreement and Bylaws. Any amendments to the Workers' Compensation Program Participation Agreement shall require a two-thirds vote of the entire Workers' Compensation Program membership and shall generally conform to CSRMA Agreement, Section 26. In recognition of the above, this Participation Agreement is hereby executed on , 20 , and shall remain in effect until said entity noted below provides written withdrawal notification or is terminated from such Workers' Compensation Program. Signed Title Entity ATTEST: Title Name Date CSRMA Workers' Compensation Program New Membership Information Page 10 of 14 TOICSG\DOClPERM\D000939.4 yicjQIQyi!?: CS~rJI.t- P~r:!iciQ~tion A.E' ;Ied Lia Pro rarn.doc ~.~","''''''''''~ ."",."",,,",,,,.>>>>>>,.,.<<<.M,V-'~.-'.'" ",.." """AA"_~h.->:~ CALIFORNIA SANITATION RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (CSRMA) PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR THE POOLED LIABILITY PROGRAM We, , signatory to the California Sanitation Risk Management Authority ("CSRMA") Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, have agreed by action of our Board of Directors on 20_ , to participate in the CSRMA Auto and General Liability Program, hereinafter referred to as "Pooled Liability Program." As evidenced by the authorized signatures on page 4 of this document, we agree to become a participant in the Pooled Liability Program and be referred to as a "Program Participant." It is understood that this Participation Agreement pertains only to the Pooled Liability Program and not to any other program operated by CSRMA. We understand that provided the following requirements are met, Liability Insurance coverage shall begin on , following approval by the CSRMA Board of Directors: I) We have paid the Underwriting Fee, and, if applicable, the inspection fee per the established fee schedule; 2) We have received an underwriting/loss evaluation for qualification purposes and Deposit Premium calculation; 3) We have qualified and been recommended to the Executive Committee for approval by the CSRMA Underwriting Committee; 4) We have been recommended by the Executive Committee for acceptance by the existing Liability Program Members, and have received such acceptance; 5) We have executed this Pooled Liability Insurance Program Participation Agreement; and 6) We are a member of the Joint Powers Authority. This means we: a) have been approved for Joint Powers Authority membership by the Executive Committee; b) have executed the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement; c) have executed a "Resolution to Join" in accordance with the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement; and G:\Share\csg'doc\penn\Alpha\CSRMA\CSRMA Participation Agr Poo~ Lia Program.doc.1 May, 01 Page I r () p [Q~y^i~~9iy~~g^~]ME,piill9IpaHonAgIi . j~~Lb.i.~>~!Qir:~mA2.~_, .,^...,.'~:,:'=:',:,'" p d) have paid the initial membership fee. MINIMUM PARTICIPATION PERIOD FOR POOLED LIABILITY PROGRAM: It is understood that the CSRMA Pooled Liability Program requires an initial full three-year commitment in order to participate in the program. Withdrawal from the Pooled Liability Program cannot occur until three full years of participation have occurred, that is, from the coverage inception date until the end of the third consecutive full program year, and only then if a six-month prior notice is provided. Our initial commitment to the Pooled Liability Program will expire on December 31, 20_ , unless the program renewal date is modified by the Liability Program Participants. After the initial three-year participation commitment has been met, withdrawal can occur at the end of a program year provided a six-month prior notice of intent to withdraw is provided to the Authority, as noted above. Program Participants remain subject to the "Termination" provIsIOn of the CSRMA Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, despite the three-year participation commitment. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: It is understood that as a Program Participant, we are obliged to do the following: { take such action, including providing the Pooled Liability Program with such statistical and loss experience data and other information, as is necessary to carry out the CSRMA Pooled Liability Program required by the CSRMA Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, Bylaws and the policies established by the Executive Committee and/or the Board of Directors; { pay the Liability Insurance Program when due any and all Deposit Premiums and Retrospective Premium Adjustments (assessments) for each program year. Withdrawal or termination does not relieve a Program Participant from liability for such retrospective adjustments; { fully cooperate with the Pooled Liability Program staff and/or representatives in determining the cause of losses and in the investigation, adjudication and settlement of claims; and { comply with all provisions, policies and procedures of the CSRMA Pooled Liability Insurance Program as set out in the CSRMA Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. 2 G:\Share\csg\doc\perm\Atpha\CSRMA\CSRMA Participation Agr Pooled Lia Pcogram.doc.2 May, 01 Page 12off4~'-' ~><:l ht~>E[2g~~m:~_~,.w...~, Pa >....<<,>".~">,,..,"+,<<"'>>--~ _'"4"""'_''''' RESPONSIBILITY FOR POOLED LIABILITY PROGRAM EXPENSES: It is also understood that Pooled Liability Insurance Program Participants are responsible for their share of all Pooled Liability Program expenses: For the self-funded layer: projected losses; margin for contingency; claims adjusting and legal fees, loss control services, general administration and costs for any other services as identified by the Board of Directors and Executive Committee per authority vested by the CSRMA Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and/or Bylaws; For the excess laver(s) expenses: excess insurance premium cost (first layer: excess of the Authority's Self Insured Retention) and premium costs for any other layer(s) of excess insurance which may be purchased. A Program Participant's share of the program costs shall be reflected, as accurately as possible, within its Deposit Premium which is based upon the Pooled Liability Program's budgetary needs, prior claims experience, actuarial projections for future years' losses and any other expenses deemed necessary by the Board of Directors. The cost allocation formula may be subject to change by the Board of Directors. The withdrawal or termination of any Program Participant from the Pooled Liability Program shall not terminate the responsibility to continue to contribute to its share of assessment on prior Program Years or other financial obligations incurred by reason of its previous participation. RETROSPECTIVE PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT It is understood further that in accordance with the above section, a financial reconciliation or audit of each Program Year will occur in order to determine if Deposit Premiums collected were adequate to cover all costs. In general, any deficiency or surplus in the Deposit Premium amounts shall be adjusted by a Retrospective Premium Adjustment. If Deposit Premiums were not adequate to meet costs of all expenses, an assessment to make up the difference will be made. If there is a surplus, a refund or a credit against Deposit Premiums for the following year will be made. The Retrospective Premium Adjustment for the self-funded layer for each Program Year shall be calculated for each Program Participant in accordance with the formula found in the CSRMA Manual. Retrospective Premium Adjustment formulas are subject to change by the Board of Directors. I \ I i L~ 3 G:\Share\csg\doc\pennlAlphaICSRMAICSRMA Pan~ipation Agr Pooled Lia Program,doc.3 May, 01 page 13 of 14 .~SIbi.~.flcigE~m.d2~=::==~=:=:<::':::=.==~" * * * * * * * * We acknowledge and agree that this Participation Agreement shall automatically conform to any amendments made to the CSRMA Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement or Bylaws, which affect the conditions of participation in the Pooled Liability Program. Any other amendments to this Participation Agreement shall require a two-thirds vote of the Liability Program Participants. In recognition of the above, this Participation Agreement is executed on ,20 Program Participant Signed Name Title ATTEST: Signed Name Title 4 G:\Share\csg\doc\perm\Alpha\CSRMA\CSRMA Participation Agr Pook:d Lia Program.doc.. May,OI 1 I I L.......... '~---~~~'"oT'T4--J June 7. 2001 10.a. CORRESPONDENCE Page 1 of 2 Note receipt of memorandum dated May 24, 2001 from David Rolley, President of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Employee's Association, concerning Plant Operators' pay May 24, 2001 To: Joyce Murphy, Secretary of the District David Rolley, President, CCCSDEA j)L From: Subject: REQUEST TO BE PLACED ON THE BOARD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING ON JUNE 7, 2001 I hereby request to be placed on the agenda for the June 7, 2001 Board meeting. The subject matter is to request that the board take action to resolve the issue of the Plant Operators' pay inequity. cc R. Manes F. Favalora C. Egbert S. Bennett Page 2 of 2 ------~_...__.._.-. ._...._------------,-------".__._._-----_.~_._------_.-...._--~-_.._..----~._-_."_._-,._....,-_._.._~.._,....,-.._~_.__._---_._--_.,- .--_._.._'--_..__._--~._.__._,,---,-,_._.- AGENCY MONTHL Y ANNUAL Plant Operator III City of San Francisco $5,772 $69,264 EBMUD 6,530 78,360 City of San Jose 5,093 61,110 CCCSD* 5,389 64,671 * Includes C.O.L. effective 4/18/01 June 7. 2001 10.b. CORRESPONDENCE Page 1 of 5 Note receipt of California Special Districts Association, Board of Directors - Call for Nominations, Seat B - Term will expire in 2004 CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS - CALL FOR NOMINATIONS SEAT B - TERM WILL EXPIRE IN 2004 The California Special Districts Association (CSDA) Board of Directors is the governing body responsible for all policy decisions effecting CSDA's member services and legislative programs. Its functions are crucial to the operation of the Association and to the representation of the common interests of all California's special districts before the Legislature and the State Administration. Serving on the Board requires one's interest in the issues confionting special districts statewide. In addition, it means traveling to all Board meetings, usually eight per year. CSDA reimburses directors for all related travel expenses as outlined in Board policy. The Board's most important function is directing CSDA's Legislative Advocate in Sacramento. Board members are intimately involved in responding to pending legislation and other public policy documents that may impact the operation of special districts. The Board is also responsible for direction to CSDA staff and consultants on all member service programs. CSDA has recognized significant growth over the last five years and remains committed to expanding our membership base and member services. The Board will be responsible for guiding that future. Election Rules Each of CSDA's six (6) regional divisions has three seats on the Board. Candidates must be affiliated with a member district located within the geographic region that they seek to represent. Directors are nominated and elected by region by regular members. In 1999, the CSDA membership passed an amendment changing the election from in-person at the annual meeting to an all mail ballot. The officers of the Board of Directors are elected from the Board membership. Directors elected from the six (6) regions will hold staggered, three (3) year terms. Individuals elected to fill an unexpired term, will be up for reelection when original seat term expires. Page 2 of 5 Nomination Procedures Any independent special district with current membership in CSDA is eligible to designate one person, such as a board member or managerial employee (as defined by that district's Board of Directors) for election as a director of CSDA. A copy of the member district's resolution or minute action must accompany the nomination form. The 2001 deadline for receivina nominations is Fridav. Julv 20. 2001. Nominations and supporting documentation can be mailed or faxed. Election ballots will be mailed out prior to AUQust 5. 2001 and must be returned and received in the mail by CSDA no later than September 14.2001. A committee chaired by the Elections and Bylaws Committee Chair will count the ballots. Successful candidates will be announced at CSDA's 32nd Annual Conference, September 19-21, 2001 (watch your mailbox for registration materials) . Nominees will receive a candidates' packet in the mail once the nominations deadline has passed. The packet will include campaign guidelines. If you have any questions, please call Melissa Soria at (877) 924-CSDA. Expiring Terms (see enclosed map for regional breakdown) Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Seat B (1999-2001) Seat B (1998-2001) Seat B (1998-200;) Seat B (1998-2001) Seat B (1998-2001) Seat B (2000-2001) Pete Kampa Michael Glaze Sherry Sterrett Bill Miller Gerald Smith Arlene Schafer CSDA 1215 K Street, Suite 930 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 442-7887/(916) 442-7889 fax Page 3 of 5 - ~ , , , , ... /.... '" , / " -" ... .... I i - " .... ,. , , t;V ~ Sl~~ \ " \ \ / \ I " - J , ( ~ / , ' I , , / ,_ - \........, I '" \",'~": ... ... - I \"" ... .... I i I \ I ~ J I I, /.... _-1/'/ / ... ... , ' r .... _,,' ...... , - ... - I'" ~ ,shasta" I ' ... " - - , ..... i ~ I " I ... _ I I ; ~ '(!fY Calaveras Marin Contra Costa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Cruz @ @ CURRENT page 4 Of 5 CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS Name of candidate: District: Region: Address: Telephone: Fax: E-mail: Nominated by (optional): Return this form and a Board resolution/minute action supporting the candidate by fax or mail to: CSDA Attn: Melissa Soria 1215 K Street, Suite 930 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 442-7887/(916) 442-7889 fax DEADLINE FOR RECEIVING NOMINATIONS - JULY 20, 2001 Page 5 of 5