The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 03-19-98 ~- Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS i?II":':::::'''''IJ:::::::::'''':S'::::::::'':'I':':m::::':':::::'1:':::.:::::::::"".:$\::::::11:':::::':::.:;;:-::\:'".:'::::':::'.":':::::::.':':':::::'::\::::::::: BOARD MEETING OF ;:::;: .....: :;:;:;: ',"..", ;:;:; :;:; : ::;:;:: : : . :;:;::: .....::. . "; .....: ........; . -.;:;:;:;:;:;:; M h 19 1998 ~:::\::~:m:m::::::::::::(::::::::::i:::d\l:::::::~~::::::::::::$:::::::::~:~:::)::::\/:::::::::::::m:::::::::::::::::::::)::::::/::::::::: arc I Page 1 of 2 NO. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR b DATE TYPE OF ACTION March 9, 1998 ACCEPT GRANT OF EASEMENT SUBJECT ACCEPT GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FOR RECYCLED WATER-CUSTOMER CONNECTIONS PROJECT, PHASE I, D.P. 7181 SUBMITTED BY Ricardo Hernandez, Engineering Assistant INITIATING DEPTIDIV Engineering Dept./lnfrastructure Div. ISSUES: Board approval is required for Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) to accept Grants of Easements. BACKGROUND: The subject easement is needed to accommodate a portion of the recycled waterline serving the Diablo Valley College campus. Through this phase of the Recycled Water Project, CCCSD is planning to provide recycled water service to landscape irrigation customers in Pleasant Hill. In addition to Diablo Valley College, six other customers will be provided recycled water service. The College District granted this easement, located in a portion of the campus where previous easements have been granted to CCCSD at no cost. See the attached map for the location of the easement. The portion of the recycled waterline within this easement will be operated and maintained by CCCSD. On September 16, 1993, the CCCSD Board of Directors approved a Negative Declaration and determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A Notice of Determination was filed with the Contra Costa County Clerk on September 21, 1993. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Grant of Easement from the Contra Costa Community College District and authorize staff to record the same with the Contra Costa County Recorder. le~D== RH H:\INFRA\PP\dvc3.rh 9/16/96 : - !'RY DISTRICT -/far SEWER GOLF CLUB RD CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 1669 O.R. 403 ~ N , / . / / / / / / / . / / / / / / / / / / / / / . / / / / / / / ( / / I ! ( 10' '.. I !-- 20'--1 I ~ 1// I I ~/I I .....ri L I I "// C:s' I I /// 70' I I 1/1 I 11// I V I I EXISTING CCCSD I 1/ I EASEMENT I I )., SERIES 1196-1555/5 -r, (' / I I I I "I I !! I I !! I I !! I >- a: ~ :> o Cl -' o PROPOSED CCCSD EASEMENT@ DI ABLO VALLEY COLLEGE CAMPUS EXISTING CCCSD EASEMENT SERIES #96-155515 10 If (j ~ K> ~ (j o 50 r---------. FEET GOLF CLUB a: Cl DIABLO VALLEY COLLEGE w o w -' -' o () '" o '<' N ~ j; <Xl 0> ... ..- '" <Xl 0> " -;;; ;;, e ..- .. COLLEGE WAY ~ 1 N.T.S. SITE r-- ~ ~ DRAWN BY: <Xl 0> S1! ~ SCALE: '7 ... N JOB NO.: THOMAS BRO.: CHECKED BY: 7181 47A3 RH GAR DATE: CO. ASSMT. NO.: 153-040-009 PARCEL NO.: 2 1"-50" 2-23-98 ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS Page 1 of 2 March 19, 1998 NO. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR c. BOARD MEETING OF March 12, 1998 TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE QUITCLAIM OF SEWER EASEMENT DATE SUBJECT QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENTS TO UDC HOMES, INC., IN THE ROSSMOOR AREA; DISTRICT JOB 5259 SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT/DIV Engineering Department/Infrastructure Division ISSUE: d k Associates, Inc. the developer's engineer, has requested the District to quitclaim the subject easements. BACKGROUND: The subject easements were dedicated to the District at no cost when the maps of Subdivisions 7788 and 7789 were filed on July 29, 1992, and February 21, 1995, respectively. The subject easements are coincident with the private roads within these two subdivisions, which were never constructed. There are presently no sewer facilities within these easements. These subdivisions adjoin each other and are now being resubdivided into Subdivision 8054. The alignment of the subject easements does not coincide with the proposed roads and easements within Subdivision 8054 and would conflict with the new development's layout. New easements will be created when the map of Subdivision 8054 is filed. The District's quitclaim processing fee has been paid. The subject easements are no longer needed and may be quitclaimed. Staff has determined that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEnA) under District CEnA Guidelines, Section 18.6, since it involves a minor alteration in land use limitations. Approval of this project will establish the Board of Directors' independent finding that this project is exempt from CEnA. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Quitclaim Deeds to UDC Homes, Inc., Job 5259; authorize the President of the District Board of Directors and the Secretary of the District to execute said Quitclaim Deeds; and authorize the Quitclaim Deeds to be recorded. DH INITIATING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION H:\PP\Approve Quit Job 5259.wpd 9116/96 ~. I AREA OF EXISTING EASEMENTS WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE LAYOUT OF NEW SUB. 8054 QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENTS. JOB 5259 ROSSMOOR AREA ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS Page 1 of 2 BOARD MEETING OF March 19, 1998 NO. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR d. DATE TYPE OF ACTION March 6, 1998 ACCEPT ANNEXATION FOR PROCESSING SUBJECT AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 98-4 (WALNUT CREEK) TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT/DIV Engineering Department/Infrastructure Division Parcel No. Area Owner/Address Parcel No. & Acreage Remarks Lead Agency 98-4 Walnut Creek (5007) Helen M. McManus Monroe Trust c/o Gary A. McManus 620 Northgate Road Walnut Creek, CA 94598 APN: 138-050-001 through -004 (10.88 Ac.) The four parcels are approved to be subdivided into a nine lot subdivision to be known as Subdivision 8075. Negative Declaration by Contra Costa County Contra Costa County RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 98-4 to be included in a future formal annexation. INITIATING DEPARTMENT7 /1# DH JSM H:\PP\Annx98-4.dh.wpd 8/6/96 .__.....__.~._____.,_~""'M_.__,_'.~_.H__.._.~._._._,,~_..__'_.______.,..__.._...,."__,~____'"'_.__._.__.__~___._._,_.,._,,~,_._ DRIVE RANCHO SUB ESTATES 7296 ANNEX ----~- f I ) , ,- .\/ PROPOSED ANNEXATION P .A. 98-4 -,.._----~ ---.---- ---~-- - ~-----_.~- -- ---~>._.- ~ \,;entral Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS :::::t::::.iliiS::I':':I':':':':':':I':':.Ci::;:::n:iUii::I':':':':':':n::::::::::::::::;::::: iiilil:l::::::ii..,)itJlil::::.'lii:ii:mmi:::::::::;:;::11111111:1:1::::::::::: Page 1 of 18 DATE March 12, 1998 NO. 5. HEARINGS a. TYPE OF ACTION CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND ADDED PROVISIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 6.20 REBATE CHARGES AND CHAPTER 9.12 REBATE SEWAGE FACILITIES OF THE DISTRICT CODE SUBMITTED BY Jarred Miyamoto-Mills, Principal Engineer INITIATING DEPTItlIV Engineering/Planning ISSUE: The District Code requires that a public hearing be held prior to the Board of Directors' consideration of proposed revisions to Chapter 6.20 Rebate Charges and Chapter 9.12 Rebate Sewage Facilities of the Code. BACKGROUND: During the Board's recent deliberations regarding Contractual Assessment Districts, several questions about rebates for special facilities were raised. Additionally, work on financing arrangements for the Dougherty Tunnel and Trunk Sewer has identified the need to establish rebate accounts prior to facilities construction when interim sewer service is provided by a temporary means, such as a pumping station. In response to these issues, staff reviewed the District's rebate program which provides for reimbursement of costs to installers of sewage facilities which may serve customers other than the installer, and has drafted a revision of the District Code regarding rebates. The key components of this revision are: 1 ) Definitions of standard and special facilities eligible for rebates; 2) Submittals required for an installer to apply for rebates; 3) Added provisions to allow installers of special facilities, such as tunnels, microtunnels, creek or roadway crossings, deep sewers, or sewers in difficult locations, to apply for rebates from properties tributary to the special facility; 4) Added provisions to allow establishment of special facility rebate accounts prior to construction for properties which may receive interim sewer service by temporary means, and ultimate service is planned via the special facility. These charges would accumulate in a separate designated account for the particular special facility and would be available to be paid as rebates to the installer after acceptance and use of the special facility by the District. The costs associated with the temporary means of service would be excluded from costs eligible for rebate. ~ AND IE< FOR BOARJ ACTION INITIATING DEPARTMENTitIIVlS10N v JMM 9/16/96 DATE March 1 2, 1 998 Page 2 of 18 SUBJECT CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO REC8VE COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND ADDED PROVISIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 6.20 REBATE CHARGES AND CHAPTER 9.12 REBATE SEWAGE FACILITIES OF THE DISTRICT CODE 5) Clarification of the calculations for rebate charges, and procedures for administering rebate accounts. The proposed revisions were discussed with the Board's Ad Hoc Rebate Committee on January 8, 1998. Appropriate notices for the public hearing have been posted at the District Office and published in the Contra Costa Times, and the draft ordinance to implement these revisions is on file with the Secretary of the District. The proposed ordinance which includes the revised text of Chapters 6.20 and 9.12 is attached. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing to receive comments on proposed amendments and added provisions within Chapter 6.20 Rebate Charges and Chapter 9.12 Rebate Sewage Facilities of the District Code. Adopt the proposed ordinance to implement the amendments and added provisions. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT AMENDING AND ADDING PROVISIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 6.20 REBATE CHARGES AND CHAPTER 9.12 REBATE SEWAGE FACILITIES OF THE DISTRICT CODE WHEREAS, a comprehensive review of the provisions of the District Code related to the District's rebate program has recently been completed; and WHEREAS, after this review it was concluded that the costs for design and construction of certain special facilities, namely trunk sewers, interceptor sewers, pumping stations, or public main, local street and collector sewers which require special unconventional installation techniques, such as tunnels, microtunnels, creek or channel crossings requiring bridges, trestles, culverts, and/or channel modifications, greater than 20 foot trench depth requiring boring or other trench less technologies and/or unusually costly shoring or traffic control measures, or other non-standard appurtenances of unusually high cost are appropriate to include in rebates collected from customers who will use the facilities; and WHEREAS, it was further concluded that it is appropriate to reimburse those who install and initially pay for such special facilities from the rebates so collected; and WHEREAS, it was further concluded that it would be appropriate to establish rebates for special facilities prior to construction of such special facilities when properties receive interim service by temporary means, such as pumping stations, holding tank/pump-out/waste hauling systems or gravity sewers, and ultimate service is to be provided by such special facility; and Page 1 of 1 6 WHEREAS, Chapters 6.20 Rebate Charges and 9.12 Rebate Sewage Facilities of the District Code require amendments and added provisions to define standard and special facilities, clarify the calculation of rebate charges and procedures for administering rebate accounts, provide for special facilities rebates, and allow establishment of rebate accounts prior to construction of special facilities; and WHEREAS, District staff has drafted the required amendments and added provisions and proper notice has been given of the availability of the text of the proposed amendments and added provisions for public inspection and review at the District's office; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing to receive comments on the proposed amendments and added provisions to Chapters 6.20 Rebate Charges, and 9.12 Rebate Sewage Facilities was conducted by the Board of Directors at their meeting on March 19, 1998; WHEREAS, the Board of Directors finds as follows: 1 . That replacement of public sewage facilities for upsizing or construction of parallel sewage facilities to serve an incremental demand for capacity results in: a. Increased capital expense and increased maintenance and operation expense to the ratepayers of the District; b. Inconvenience to the traveling publiC; c. Reduction in efficiency of the collection process; and d. A potential hazard to the public health. Page 2 of 1 6 ~--~-,-"_.._,...,--_.~.~._. -"-.---.-.----"--..--.------."-- "--,-- 2. That proper design of sewer extension projects often requires construction of standard or special facilities which will serve properties other than those to be developed by the installer. 3. That the cost of both standard and special facilities should be fairly and equitably distributed among those customers who will use the facilities, so that cost to the installer is not a deterrent to the installation of proper public sewage facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District does ordain as follows: Section 1. It is the policy of the District that public sewage facilities be designed and installed to provide for service to their ultimate tributary service area, and that the costs for such facilities be fairly and equitably distributed among those customers who will use the facilities. Section 2. Chapter 6.20 Rebate Fees is hereby amended as is set forth in full in Exhibit II A" to this Ordinance, which is hereby incorporated in full by reference. Section 2. Chapter 9.12 Rebate Sewage Facilities is hereby amended and such provisions are hereby added as are set forth in full in Page 3 of 1 6 -~-----,---_..-_."-_.-~-,...._-~----'------_..._.----~-~-- Exhibit "B" to this Ordinance, which is hereby incorporated in full by reference. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be a general regulation of the District and shall be published once in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated within the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, and shall be effective April 1, 1998. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District on the 19th day of March, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: James A. Nejedly President of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California Joyce Murphy, Secretary Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California APPROVED as to form: Kenton L. Aim, Counsel for the District Page 4 of 16 EXHIBIT MA" Title 6 FEES AND CHARGES Chapters: ~ Permit and License Fees ~ Annexation Charges ~ Capital Improvement Fees and Charges ~ Special Condition Equalization Charges ~ Rebate ~ Charges ~ Sewer Service Charge ~ Annual Industrial Permit Fees ~ Use of Tax Roll for Collection ~ Schedule of Rates and Charges ~ Sewer Service Charges Page 5 of 16 Chapter 6.20 REBATE ~ CHARGES Sections: 6.20.010 Pee Charge for connection to rebate sewer line. 6.20.020 Rebate ~ charges established under Chapter 9.12 are in addition to all other fees and charges. 6.20.010 Pee Charge for connection to rebate sewer ~. A person who connects to a sewer line which was installed as a rebate sewer line under Chapter 9.12 shall pay to the District the rebate ~ charge fixed in accordance with Section 9.12.060. 6.20.020 Rebate ~ charges established under Chapter 9.12 are in addition to all other fees and charges. The ~ charges established under Chapter 9.12 for the connection to a rebate sewer line are in addition to all other fees and charges prescribed by this code. These ~ charges shall be levied and collected in accordance with Chapter 9.12. Page 6 of 16 ,..__~________w..___~___.__ Sections: 9.12.010 9.12.020 9.12.030 9.12.040 9.12.050 9.12.060 9.12.070 9.12.080 9.12.200 9.12.210 9.12.220 9.12.230 9.12.240 9.12.250 9.12.260 EXHIBIT "B" Chapter 9.12 REBATE SEWAGE FACILITIES Policy statement, definitions, findings and declaration of purpose. Appro" ~l of plaI~.5 aI~d cOlltpli~l~c:e wi tL Di.~tric:t regulatioh.5. Eligibility to establish rebate account. Installer submittals Application of rebate provisions only to those complying. Waiver. Rebate charges. Maximum recovery of project costs. Apportionment of rebate when more than one installer. Funds and accounts. Adjustment of rebate charges and maximum recoveries. Timing for ppayment of rebate charge ~ c:oI~di tiOh for cOI~I~ec:tioI~. District not liable. Recalculation of rebate charges. Board consideration of Engineer's determination. Effect of chapter. Page 7 of 16 9.12.010 Policy statement. definitions. findinas and declaration of purpose. A. It is the policy of the District that public sewage facilities be designed and installed to provide for service to their ultimate tributary service area7, and that the costs for such facilities be fairly and equitably distributed among those customers who will use the facilities. B. The following defini tions apply to this Chapter 9. 12 : 1. "Standard facilities" means public main, local street and collector sewers installed using conventional construction techniques, and ordina~ appurtenances to 'such public sanita~ sewer mains, such as manholes and rodding inlets. 2. "Special facili ties" means public trunk sewers, interceptor sewers, pumping sta tions, or public main, local street and collector sewers which require special, unconventional installation techniques, such as tunnels, microtunnels, creek or channel crossings requiring bridges, trestles, culverts, and/or channel modifications, greater than 20 foot trench depth requiring boring or other trenchless technologies and/or unusually costly shoring or traffic control measures, or other non-standard appurtenances of unusually high cost. 3. For the purpose of this Chapter 9. 12, "installer"means a person who installs, or is responsible for installation of a public sewage facili ty and is eligible to apply for establishment of a rebate account for such facility. B7C. The Board of Directors finds: 1. Tthat replacement of public sewage facilities for upsizing or construction of parallel sewage facilities to serve an incremental demand for capacity results in: a. T7 Increased capital expense and increased maintenance and operation expense to the ratepayers of the District; b. Z7 Inconvenience to the traveling public; c. 37 Reduction in efficiency of the collection process; and d. ~ A potential hazard to the public health. Page 8 of 16 2. Tha t proper design of sever extension projects often requires construction of standard or special facilities. 3. Tha t the cost of both standard and special faciliti,es should be fairly and equitably distributed among those customers who will use the faci~ities, so that cost to the insta~~er is not a deterrent to the installation of proper public sewage facilities consistent with the policy stated in Subsection A., above. €D. The purpose of this chapter is to require that tl.e cOI..5trtlctioI. of public sewage facilities hav~e adequate capacity and are configured to handle the sewage flow from then- property which may ultimately be served by the facilities tributary .5ervice area, wheI. .5tlcl. area i.!i ultin,ately aI.d fiI.ally developed and to provide for fair and equitable distribution of the costs of such facilities through a reba te program. The rules and procedures for establishment of rebates, and the collection and disbursemen t of reba te funds are governed by this Chapter 9. 12. 9.12.020 1\pproval of plaI..!i Elig-ibility to establish rebate account and con(Dliahce wi tl. Di.5trict regtllatiOI..!i . A. Standard Facili ties. The installer of a pub~ic sewage faci~i ty which is a standard faci~i ty may apply to establish a rebate account for the facility by making the post-construction submi ttals as required by Section 9.12.030 A. An insta~~er who fai~s to comply with Section 9.12.030 waives all claim to rebate funds under this chapter. The EieI.eral l1ahager Chief EI.giI.eer (a) detern,iI.e.!i tl.at tLe propo.!ied .!iewage facili ty n,ay pro v ide.!i .!iewer .!iet: v ice to propertie.5 otl.er thaI. tl.o.!ie oWI.ed or cOI.trolled by tl.e iI..!italler, aI.d (b) relea.!ie.!i tl.e plaI..!i for the propo.!ied .!iewage facili ty for cOI..!itrtlctiOI., tLe iI..5taller .5hall be eligible to e.!itabli.!ih a rebate. B. Specia~ faci~i ties. The prospective installer of a public sewage facility which is a specia~ faci~ity may app~y to estab~ish a rebate account for the faci~ity by making both the preconstruction submittals as required by Section 9.12.030 B. and the post-construction submittals as required by Section 9.12.030 C. An installer who fails to comply with Sections 9.12.030 waives all claim to Page 9 of 16 reba te funds under this chapter. C. The General Manager-Chief Engineer viII evaluate submittals from the installer and deter.mine vhether establishing a rebate is justified. If the General Manager-Chief Engineer deter.mines t:ha t the installed standard facility, or proposed special facility provides or may provide sever service to properties other than those owned or to be developed by the installer, the installer may be eligible to receive rebates. Rebates for standard facilities shall apply only to those properties vith side severs vhich viII be physically connected directly to the standard facility, and are not owned or to be developed by the installer. Rebates for special facilities shall apply to all properties vhich the General Manager-Chief Engineer deter.mines may ultimately be tributary to the special facili ty, except those owned or to be developed by the installer. D. The General Manager-Chief Engineer may establish a special facility rebate account prior to construction of the special facility for properties vhich viII receive future service via the special facility, but receive interim service by a temporary means such as, but not limited to, pumping stations, holding tank/pump-out/vaste hauling systems or gravity severs. 9.12.030 Installer submittals. A. Post-construction submittals for standard facilities. UpOl1 cont'pletiOll of cOl1structiol1 or 110 No later than six months after acceptance of the project work by the District, the installer of a standard facility ~ shall submit to tI,e GeIleral Uallager CI,ief El1gil1eer all of the following to the -for General Manager-Chief Engineer approval: ~ 1. A scale map delineating the project public sewage facility as well as all parcels which may ultimately be served by connected directly to the project public sewage facility; and B 2. A list of all parcels vhich may ultimately ~ be served by connected directly to the project public sewage facility including each owner's name, address, county assessor's parcel number and current zoning; and e 3. A statement disclosing any agreements regarding the sharing of the public sewage facility COllstruction costs which exist between the installer Page 10 of 16 _____________...___,______.___.______.__.M.4........__..."...._..._.._.._..__._..._.__ and any other party or parties; and B 4. Contracts and receipts documenting to the satisfaction of the Di~trict General Manager-Chier Engineer the actual costs ~ of engineering, right-of- way, ~ construction and securing or bonds for the project. B. Preconstruction submittals ror special racilities. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a District permit ror the construction of a special racility, the prospective installer shall submit all or the following to the General Manager-Chier Engineer: 1. A scale map delineating the project public sewage racili ty as well as all parcels which may ultimately be served by the project sewage facility; and 2. A list or all parcels which may ultimately be served by the project public sewage racility including each owner's name, address, county assessor's parcel number and current zoning; and 3. A statement disclosing any agreements regarding the sharing of the sewage facili ty construction costs which exist between the installer and any other party or parties; and 4. Estimates satisractory to the General Manager-Chief Engineer accura tely setting forth the costs of engineering, right-or-way, construction and securing or bonds for the project. C. Post-construction submittals for special facilities. In addition to the preconstruction submittals required by Section 9.12.030 B, no later than six months arter acceptance or the project work by the District, the installer or a special facility shall submi t all or the rollowing to the General Manager- Chier Engineer: 1. Contracts and receipts documenting to the sa tisraction or the General Manager-Chief Engineer the actual costs or engineering, right-of-way, construction and securing or bonds ror the project 2. Copies or the maps, parcel lists and statements regarding existing agreements for the sharing or public sewage racility costs submitted pursuant to Subsection B, updated to show any changes in parcels which may ul tima tely be served by the project public sewage racility, or in arrangements ror the sharing or project public sewage facility costs between the installer and any other party or parties. Page 11 of 16 9.12.040 ~pplication of rebate provisions only to those complyina. The installer shall comply with all la ws , rules, orders, regula tions , permi ts and specifications of the District. 'fILe belLefit~ of the~e rebate provi.5ioI.3 3hall OI.ly be available to aI. i1L3taller wlLo ~ubn,i t3 to tILe GeILeral Manager Chief ElLgineer, wi tILilL ~ix mOlLth~ after tILe acceptalLce of tILe propo~ed rebate ~ewage facilit~ b~ the Di~trict, all of tiLe ilLforn,atioIL required b~ the Di~trict to e.5tabli~IL allowable project co~t~ ahd rebate charge~, a~ li~ted ilL 3ectiolL 9.12.0JO. 9.12.050 Waiver. A per~on An installer who fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Chapter 9.12 3ectiolL~ 9.12.0JO alLd 9.12.040 waives all claim to rebate funds n,olLie3 under this Cchapter 9.12. 9.12.060 Rebate charges. A. Rebate charges are calculated by dividing the sum of all allowable costs of the project public sewage facility by the total number of connections or residential unit equivalents which may ultimately be connected to the project public sewage facili ty in the case of standard facilities, or may ultimately be served by the project public sewage facility in the case of special facilities. In addition, rebate charges shall include an appropriate District administration fee as established by the Board of Directors. .Ifhe actual rRebate charges that applie3 to al.:~ giveIL rebate ~ewage facili t~ ilL~tallatioh will be determined b~ tILe Geheral l1alLager Chief ElLgiILeer takiILg iILtO based on consideration of a combination of any or all of the following: tILe actual allowable co~t of COIL3 t ruc t i 01L, 1. Costs which are allowable for inclusion in the calculation of ~ rebate charges are those which are directly related to the planning, design and construction of the public sewage facility, including tILe CO.5t of a payments to contractors, and engineer~s, securing bond~s, and acquiring right~- of-way for the project. Ineligible costs include, but are not limited to~, attorneys' fees, ~ intere~t;financing costs, and coordihatioh, the installer's overheadT and office expenses related to the coordination and supervision of contractors engaged to perform project work. of tILe ilL~taller. the proportiolL of the rebate ~ewage facili t~'.5 capaci t~ Page 12 of 16 9.12.070 Maximum recovery of oroject costs. The maximum recovery for a rebate sewage facility will be calculated as the sum of all allowable costs of the Page 13 of 16 project pub~icsewage facility, as determined by the Di~trict General Manager-Chief Engineer in ~ his/her discretion, less the share of the cost for the installer's use of the rebate sewage facility based upon the number of installer connections or residentia~ unit equivalents cOllllectiol1~ as determined by the Di~trict General Manager-Chief Engineer in ~ his/her discretion. 9.12.080 Apportionment of rebate when more than one installer. Where there is more than one installer of a rebate sewage facility, rebate funds collected shall be disbursed in proportion to the allowable costs of the project funded by each of the installers and in consideration of the total number of potential connections or residential unit equivalents cOllllectioll~, as determined by the Di~trict General ~nager-Chief Engineer in ~ his/her discretion. Nei tIler tIli~ ~ectioll, nor 6.ll:Y otller pro v i~ioll, of thi~ Code ~116.11 be cOh~trtled to me6.l1 th6.t the ih~t6.ller of 6. dowll~tream rebate ~ewage f6.cili t:y i~ eIlti tIed to an:y portioll of 6. rebate charge ~terro.'uihg fron. cOllllectioh~ to a. ~tlb~equelltl:y ih~t6.lled rebate ~ewage facili t:y which i~ u:p~trea:n.L of 6.hd cOlillected to the dowh~tream rebate ~ewage facilit:y. 9.12.200 Funds and accounts. Funds collected by the District under this chapter shall be placed in ~ ~peci6.1 segregated accounts for each rebate sewage facility. Between January 1st and April 1st of each year, the District will review each account to determine which accounts have fund balances. The District will notify each account holder (installer)by u.s. mail certified letter to the last known address of the installer of any accumulated funds collected from connectors. Upon written request by the installer, the District will disburse the accumulated funds. Each account shall show the maximum recovery of the installer. When this amount is collected and paid, all payments to the installer shall cease. rf a request from an installer for disbursement of funds is not received yithin ~ three ~ucce~~ive years, after an initial the ye6.rly District notification, and after tyO additional year~y notifications have been sent, the funds shall become the property of the District in accordance with general law 6.fter required Ilotice, if not claimed, or if no verified complaint is filed and served. The District may cause said funds to be deposited in the District's Page 14 of 16 -----_._.__._._--_.,-----,-----------_._---~_._._.,-~--.--.---...-.----.---------.-.-..----------".-.-.--.---.- Sewer Construction Fund. Said notice and deposit dissolves any and all claim the installer may have had to the rebate money funds. 9.12.210 Adjustment of rebate char~es and maximum recoveries. A. The General Manager-Chief Engineer shall adjust ~ established maximum recoveries of installer rebate accounts at lea~t OI~ce each }lear from time to time over the usefu~ life of the rebate sewage facility as required to assure that an adjustment has been made on an account wi thin the year prior to collection of any reba te charges payable to tha t account. tl~ iI~g Tthe Engineering News Record (EIR) Construction Cost Index ~ shall be the basis for the adjustment. There shall also be an annual adjustment for depreciation based on the useful life of the rebate sewage facility. B. The useful life of a rebate sewage facility for purposes of this Oehapter 9.12 is fifty (50) years. The remaining maximum recovery of any rebate account will be zero (0) when fifty (50) years elapse from the date of District acceptance of the rebate sewage facility. C. All rebate sewage facilities constructed prior to July 1, 1979 will be assigned a useful life with a starting date of July 1, 1979. No additional modification to rebate amounts will be allowed for these rebate projects to cover the period prior to this date. However, rebate account adjustments added on July 1, 1979 will not be affected. 9.12.220 Timing for payment of rebate charge ~ cOI~di tiOI~ for COI~I~~ctio11. No p~r ~Oh who l~a~ beeh id~htified b}l the GeI~eral Hahag~r Chief EI~giheer a~ liable for paynLel~t of a rebate charge applicable to a r~bat~ ~~wag~ facili t}l nLa}l mak~ a COhh~Ctioh to or tributar}l to ~uch rebate ~~wage facilit}l e~tabli~hed tlI~d~r tLi~ cLapt~r UI~l~~~ tl~at p~r ~OI~ pa}l.5 tl~~ applicabl~ r~bat~ charg~(~). Payment of rebate ~ charge(s) shall be made prior to the time of the District's issuance of a Contractor's or Homeowner's Permit to connect to the public sewer. 9.12.230 District not liable. The District is not liable to any person for failure to collect rebate charges under this chapter or for failure to account for funds collected under this chapter. Page 15 of 16 9.12.240 Recalculation of rebate charqes. If at any time the General Manager-Chief Engineer finds that anticipated development will deviate from the assumptions used in calculating the rebate charges, he/she may recalculate the rebate charges to be collected from future connectors. If rebate charges are recalculated, future connectors may pay a rebate charge different from that paid by previous connectors. The District will not be responsible for collecting additional rebate charges from or refunding excess rebate charges to previous connectors. 9.12.250 Board consideration of Enqineer's determination. If a person is dissatisfied with ~ fil1dillg or deterr"illl~tion a final decision of the General Manager-Chief Engineer relating to allowable project costs, rebate charges, or rebate service area, the person may request Board consideration of such final decision in accordance wi th the provisions of Chapter 1.16., Board Consideration of Staff Decisions. filldiIlg or deterr"illatiOll witIliIl tell (10) day~ after recei v il1g llotice of tIle fil1dil1g or determil1atiol1 by filillg wr i ttell reqtle~t for Doard cOI1~ideratiOll wi trl the 3ecretary of the Di~trict. 'fIle reqtle~t for Doard cOl1~ideratiOll ~hall ~tate tIle grotllld~ for the reqtle~t. At a regular l'LLeetillg of tIle Doard of Director~, within forty five (4'::') day~ after tIle reque~t for Doard COIl~ideratiOll of ~taff deci~iOll i~ filed, the Doard ~11all llold a 11earil1g 011 tlli~ n.atter. 'fIle provi~iol1~ of 3ectioIl 1.1 G. OJO ~hall apply to ~tlcll reqtle~t for Doard cOl1~ideratioll of ~taff deci~ioll. AllY detern.ir:.atior:. of tIle Doard ari~ing fron. trle reque~t for Doard cOIl~ideratiOll of ~taff deci~ioll i~ fillal. 9.12.260 Effect of chapter. This chapter or any action taken pursuant hereto does not create any right, title or interest in any property. The Board may change or repeal any portion of this chapter at any time. No property right becomes vested by operation of this chapter and the District is not liable for damage of any nature related to any change or repeal of any portion of this chapter. Page 16 of 16 _____,_,_.______________"~,.___^_~._'__."__.....,.__..>__,__M__.~__.._.___~..._"..__~..~..__~...,_,__._____,._...,.........,-......-,,-..---. ~. ~entral Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS ::1:.111111111':1\11111\.\:"1111111 BOARD MErn~:;ch 19, 1998 Page 1 of 11 NO. 7. BIDS AND AWARDS a. March 12, 1998 TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE REQUEST FOR RELIEF OF BID; DENY BID PROTEST; AUTHORIZE AWARD DATE SUBJECT APPROVE REQUEST FOR RELIEF OF BID BY KAWEAH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; DENY A BID PROTEST FROM SCHRAM CONSTRUCTION, INC.; AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO KIRKWOOD-BLY, INC., FOR THE LIME INJECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, DP 7169 SUBMITTED BY Ba T. Than, Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT tOlV Engineering Department/Plant Engineering Division ISSUE: On February 10, 1998, sealed bids were received and opened for construction of the Lime Injection System Improvements Project, District Project No. 7169. The Board of Directors must decide whether or not to grant a request for relief from bid from the apparent low bidder based on alleged mathematical errors. Additionally, a bid protest was received. The Board of Directors must authorize award of the contract or reject bids within 50 days of the bid opening. BACKGROUND: Historically, lime was routinely added to the plant influent to co-settle secondary sludge and was later discovered to prevent solidification of ash in the furnaces. As a side benefit, lime also was helpful in limiting ash copper levels, allowing for landfill disposal and recycling. Prior to 1994, lime was injected directly into the Sludge Blending Tank to aid in the dewatering process. A Dewatering Process Redesign Team conducted a pilot study to investigate alternative improvements to the existing lime system. Based on this pilot study, modifications to the lime process were identified that will benefit the plant, including minimizing the amount of lime used, improving sludge dewatering, and improving furnace operations. The Lime Injection System Improvements Project, District Project No. 7169, will install a permanent system to inject lime slurry directly into the sludge dewatering process. The scope of this project includes the installation of two large lime slurry storage tanks, lime recirculation and injection pumping systems, and associated monitoring/control systems. The Centrate/Scrubber Water Improvements Project, District Project No. 7180, was merged into the Lime Injection System Improvements Project (see Attachment 1 for combined project locations) to minimize District administrative expenses. The centrate/scrubber water pipe conveys centrate from the centrifuges and scrubber water from the furnace pollution train from the Solids Conditioning Building (SCB) to either the Headworks or to the inlet of the aeration tanks. The materials carried in the centrate/scrubber water pipe accumulate as sediment in the pipe sections, which require periodic cleaning. The sludge dewatering and incineration processes have to be shut down to accommodate this pipe cleaning work. The Centrate/Scrubber Water Improvements Project will install a bypass pipe, which provides an alternative path for discharging centrate and scrubber water while maintaining normal operations. IlE\IE1MD AND RECQ FOR BOARD AC110N BTT &(lG.t WEB INITIATING DEPARTMENTtOlVlSlON BTT PED\L:\position\bthan\7169appr.btt 9/16/96 . .. .. . ........ .... ...... ........J ::II!I:I!II:IIII!IIII.I.I~I::::\:[I~II.lil.II.I.lililiiiiiiiil DATE March 12, 1998 I Page 2 of 11 SUBJECT APPROVE REQUEST FOR REUEF OF BID BY KAWEAH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; DENY A BID PROTEST FROM SCHRAM CONSTRUCTION, INC.; AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO KIRKWOOD-BLY, INC., FOR THE LIME INJECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, DP 7169 The designs of the Lime Injection System Improvements Project and the Centrate/Scrubber Water Improvements Project were done by G. S. Dodson and Associates and District staff. The Engineer's Estimate for the construction cost for both projects was $870,000. The projects were combined and advertised as one project on January 14 and January 21, 1998. Nine (9) bids ranging from $755,553 to $1,127,000 were received and publicly opened on February 10, 1998. A summary of these bids is shown in Attachment 2. The apparent low bid is from Kaweah Construction Company (Kaweah) in the amount of $755,553. On the morning of February 11, 1998, a representative of Kaweah telephoned District staff to advise that Kaweah had made a mathematical error in preparing its bid. On February 13, 1998, within five (5) days of bid opening, District staff received a letter from Kaweah providing explanation regarding the inadvertent mathematical error with respect to its bid and requesting that the bid be withdrawn (Attachment 3). Kaweah explained that in submitting the final bid on February 10, 1998, it inadvertently reversed the order of the tentative and actual bid prices resulting in a deductive, negative rather than positive, adjustment to the overall bid amount. This mistake was made in two separate mechanical equipment items. The total dollar amount of the bid error, as explained by Kaweah, was $37,506. Kaweah submitted a spreadsheet dated February 10, 1998, at 1 :51 p.m., showing the tentative and actual bid prices for mechanical equipment, which substantiates their explanation for the request. Although Kaweah would still be the apparent low bidder if the errors were corrected, the law does not allow for such corrections, and the only alternative is to allow the withdrawal of Kaweah's original bid. Under California Public Contract Code Section 5103, a bidder may request relief of bid within five (5) days of bid opening in the event of a clerical or arithmetical error in preparing the bid proposal. The law is stringent with regard to relief from bids and allows relief to be granted by the awarding authority only under these specific circumstances. Specifically, the law states that: UThe bidder shall establish...that: a. A mistake was made. b. He or she gave the public entity written notice within five (5) days after the opening of the bids of the mistake, specifying in the notice in detail how the mistake occurred. c. The mistake made the bid materially different than he or she intended it to be. d. The mistake was made in filling out the bid, and not due to error in judgment or to carelessness in inspecting the site of the work, or in reading the plans or specifications." Under the above Public Contract Code provision, staff and District Counsel believe that the mathematical errors, as explained by Kaweah, are clerical in nature and that Kaweah is entitled to relief under the above provision. PED\L:\position\bthan\7169appr.btt 9/16/96 ..--~--_._-~~--------_.,--_._-'-----,.._"._--_._."_.,....-"'.."-- 1~~~I:::I:I~l~lll:I!.I.III,,::~,'!I.I'lililllilillliliill:1 DATE March 12, 1998 I Page 3 of 11 SUBJECT APPROVE REQUEST FOR RELIEF OF BID BY KAWEAH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; DENY A BID PROTEST FROM SCHRAM CONSTRUCTION, INC.; AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO KIRKWOOD-BLY, INC., FOR THE LIME INJECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, DP 7169 A bid protest letter from Schram Construction Inc. (SCI) was received on February 24, 1998, claiming that the second low bidder's bid (Kirkwood-BIy) was nonresponsive due to the alleged invalidity of the bid bond (Attachment 4). SCI alleged that Kirkwood-Bly made a material mistake in its bid bond, because the notarial form makes reference to the County of Contra Costa, whereas the notarial stamp indicates the notary is a Solano County notary. Staff and District Counsel have evaluated the protest from SCI and concluded that the protest should be denied, because the cited variance is nonmaterial. California notaries may notarize documents in any county in the state. The Engineering Department conducted a technical and commercial evaluation of the bids and concluded that, in the event that Kaweah is granted relief from its bid, the second low bidder, Kirkwood-Bly, Inc., is the lowest responsible bidder with a bid amount of $889,937. District staff intends to administer the construction management and inspection and engineering functions for the construction contract. Staff recommends retaining G. S. Dodson and Associates (GSDA) to provide construction support services for this project because GSDA prepared the plans and technical specifications. Construction support services include shop drawing review, preparation of design clarifications, and office engineering. Staff has negotiated an agreement with GSDA in the amount of $45,000. Additionally, Woodward-Clyde will provide geotechnical engineering services. The allocation of funds required to complete this project, as shown in Attachment 5, is $1,330,000. This project is included in the Fiscal Year 1997-98 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) on pages TP-28 through TP-30 for the Lime Injection System Improvements Project and on pages TP-24 through TP-25 for the Centrate/Scrubber Water Improvements Project. Staff has cond ucted a cash flow evaluation of the Sewer Construction Fund and concluded that adequate funds are available for this project. Staff has concluded that this combined project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) under District CEOA Guidelines Section 18.2, since this involves minor alterations to existing sewage facilities with no increase in capacity. Approval of this project will establish the Board of Directors' independent finding that this project is exempt from CEOA. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Approve the request for relief from bid by Kaweah Construction Company, and direct staff to return Kaweah Construction Company's bid bond. 2. Deny Schram Construction Inc.'s bid protest. 3. Authorize award of a construction contract in the amount of $889,937 for construction of the Lime Injection System Improvements Project, District Project No. 7169, to Kirkwood-Bly, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder. PED\L:\position\bthan\ 7169appr. btt 9/16/96 Page 4 of 11 ~ N I , 0 500 I FEET z ~~ ~S o Central Contra Costa Sanitary District LIME INJECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT DISTRICT PROJECT 7169 PROJECT LOCATION ATTACHMENT 1 Page 5 of 11 ATTACHMENT 2 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District SUMMARY OF BIDS PROJECT NO.: 7169 DATE: FEBRUARY 10. 1998 PROJECTS NAME: LIME INJECTION SYSTEM AND CENTRATE/SCRUBBER WATER IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION: MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA ENGINEER EST.: $ 870.000 No BIDDER BID PRICE (Name & address) 1 Kaweah Construction Company P. O. Box 7780 755,553 Fresno, CA 93747 2 Kirkwood-Bly, Inc. P.O. Box 3339 889,937 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 3 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway 892,000 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 4 Auburn Constructors 730 West Stadium Lane 892,300 Sacramento, CA 95834 5 Pete Fuller Construction P.O. Box 1090 905,610 Vacaville, CA 95696 6 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P.O. Box 4041 919,900 Concord, CA 94524 7 Monterey Mechanical Co. 8275 San Leandro Street 944,00 Oakland, CA 94621 8 GSE Construction 1020 Shannon Court 999,400 Livermore, CA 94550 9 Pacific Grimm Construction 1500 Oliver Road, Suite K-300 1,127,000 ~ . ~ .. r A. <)4'\11 BIDS OPENED BY Isl Joyce Mw:phy DATE February 10.1998 SHEET NO. ...L OF...L. ATTACH~1ENT 3 Page 6 of 11 \. KAWEAH f CONSTRUCTION CO. '- , l~~@~OW~lW FES 1 3 1998 GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS cccso ~CRETARY OF THE DISTmcr 1'"1 NO. FINE AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 718tJ FRESNO. CA gg.-r CAUFORNIA CONTRACTOR"S NO.13086S PHONE (209) 2S2~ FAX (209)252-7377 February 12, 1998 District Board of Directors central Contra Costa sanitation District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California 94553 Attention: Subject: Joyce E. Murphy - Board Secretary L~e Injection system Improvements Project Bid Kaweah Construction Co. submitted the apparent low bid for the above captioned project on Tuesday, February 10, 1998 at the District's Office. We are now respectfully requesting release from our bid due to a mathematical error as allowed by Section 5103 of the Public Contract Code and referenced in the District's Instructions to Bidders, Item 16 Relief of Bidders. Our request for release from the bid meets all the Code mandated requirements in that 1) a mistake was made 2) wri tten notice was given wi thin 5 days to the District 3) detailed information on how the mistake was made was presented 4) the mistake made the bid materially different than we intended 5) the mistake was made in filling out the bid and not due to error in judgement, carelessness in inspecting the site, or in reading the plans and specifications. The mathematical error occurred during the bid day in making a comparison of the actual quotations received by fax and telephone with the "plug" numbers that we had put into the bid previously . Normally, the bid work sheet would take the input of the actual bid number and subtract the "plug" number in the bid to arrive an adjustment number for the overall bid amount. Because of a mistake made in the columnular arrangement of the "plug" numbers and the actual bid numbers, the comparison made was in reverse order. This mistake resulted in the adjustment number to ._-_._.~"....__._~-_...,"-~~-_._-----------_.~---'---- Page 7 of 11 Lime Injection System Improvements Project Bid February 12, 1998 Page 12 be of the opposite mathematical sign from what it should have been to a1low a correct adjustment to the total bid number. The total bid number that was incorrectly arrived at would result in negative profit for our bid and so made the bid materia1ly different than what we intended. We have attached Page 3 of our bid as an example of the mathematical error. We regret the mistake and would have preferred turning in a correct bid and performing another project with the District, but unfortunately must request that the District release us from this bid. Very truly yours, cott H. Richards Vice President Enclosures ~ Q J- f ~ i ! ~~li ~ .;;;i~ ~ ~ If r: :;;; i3 ~ ~ 0 0 - ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C'? c; .... .... ... ... .... .... ... ... ... .... ... ... en .. N r-. . cot! co .- I~ t! .... lJ;i I :6 ..... I _ CJ) r-. o~ !i N .. C'? I ;; -' I- W ~ ~~ w 8 :c GI) ~ . ~i v . ii ~ I .... .- .!: ;; l- I Z I i W I I l :lE Q. I f I 5 I (} (;; i I W ., ; , GI) ~ ~8 I l u i ! C') .., .... .... .., I GI) .... .... .... , ~ .. j ~~ C E E~ ~ ::J ., Q. ::J I! E Q.I~ i 0 '0'" I I~ ... ~ I .. ....2 a:: ...... U) I w .. ..... s ss ~ ~~ I Page 8 of 11 '!' =0 ~ ~ CO) .. 0) CIl 0.. Page 9 of 11 '\ KAWEAH f CONSTRUCTION CO. " I GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS 18'1'1 NO. FINE AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 7781J FRESNO. CA fI$l~ CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR'S NO. 13086S PHONE (.209) 252~ FAX (.209) 252-nTT RECEIVED February 18, 1998 Fm I 9 1998 Centra1 Contra Costa Sanitation District 5019 Xmhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Pt.ANT ENGINEERING Ref:LimeInj.002 ATTN: Ba T. Than SUBJECT: Lime Injection System. Improvements Bid A3 a follow-up to my letter of February 12, 1998, and at your request, the actual dollar value of bid error, as explained in the referenced letter, was $31,506.00. This amount is arrived at from the worksheet page of our bid sent previously. If you need additional infozmation, please let me know. Very truly yours, cott H. Richards Vice President SHR/lga ..:C., .... ~s ATTACHMENT 4 Schram Construction Inc. Page 1 0 of 11 RECEIVED 1 FEB2~~ 1 CCCSO PlANT ENGINEERING :> 162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa. Califomia 95403 (707) 545-3788 FAX (707) 545-1640 21 0 Fell Street San Francisco, California 94102 (415) 863-2542 FAX (415) 863-5901 .February 23, 1998 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 CERTIFIED MAIL Attn:. Ba T.Than Misc. 141 RE: PROJECT NO. 7169 LIME INJECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT: BID PROTEST GentJem~n: Schram Construction Inc. (SCI) understands that the apparent low bidder, Kaweah Construction, has withdrawn their bid as a result of a bidder error and now the apparent low bidder is Kirkwood-Bly Inc. (KB) and SCI is the second low bidder. SCI hereby protests the bid of KB as non-responsive due to their bid bond being invalid. KB failed to properly acknowledge their principal's signature. On Page DP #7169 - Part III - 12 under MAcknowledgement of Principal's Signature- KB notarized the acknowledgement in Sonoma County yet the printed acknowledgement states that is was notarized in Contra Costa County. This is a material mistake. SCI was specifically warned prior to bid to make sure we attached a separate acknowledgement, which we did, if the acknowledgement was notarized in any other county other than Contra Costa. We request SCI be awarded the referenced project as the low responsive and responsible bidder. Should you have any questions in this regard, please contact the undersigned. t Richard D. 'Schram President RDS/dm Page 11 of 11 ATTACHMENT 5 LIME INJECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 7169 POST -BID/PRECONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE PERCENT OF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST 1. CONSTRUCTION a. Construction Contract $ 889,937 b. Contingency at 1 5 percent 135,063 c. PLC Programming 25,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 1,050,000 100.0 2. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT a. District Forces . Construction Management $ 63,500 · Inspection 71,500 · Survey 5,000 · Project Engineering 27,500 · Plant Operations Department 25,500 · Engineering Support 2,000 · Materials and Supplies 10,000 SUBTOTAL $ 205,000 19.52 b. Consultants . Construction Support Services - G. S. Dodson and Associates, Inc. $ 45,000 · Geotechnical Engineering Services - Woodward Clyde Consultants 18,000 · Legal 2,000 · Materials Testing - Concrete, Compaction, Welding, Chemical 10,000 SUBTOTAL $ 75,000 7.14 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $ 280,000 26.67 3. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION PHASE COST $1,330,000 126.67 4. TOTAL PRE-BID EXPENDITURES a. Planning and Design $ 159,000 b. Equipment Prepurchase 9,000 SUBTOTAL $ 168,000 16.00 5. TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $1,498,000 142.67 6. FUNDS AUTHORIZED TO DATE $ 168,000 7. ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION NEEDED TO COMPLETE PROJECT $1,330,000 PED\L:\design\7169attc.no5 ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary Oistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS Page 1 of 2 BOARD MEE"TJIIG a: March 19,1998 NO. 9. ADMINISTRATIVE a. Df,TE March 11, 1998 lYPE a: ,tCOON APPROVE PROGRAM SUB.ECT APPROVE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DISTRICT-WIDE PROCUREMENT CARD PROGRAM SUMTTEOBV NTlAmG!EPTOII Ken F. Laverty, Purchasing & Materials Manager AdministrativelPurchasing & Materials Con1roI ISSUE: Board of Directors approval is requested to implement the District-wide Procurement Card Program. BACKGROUND: At the May 16, 1996 Board Meeting, the District Board of Directors authotized Purchasing to initiate a pilot procurement card program that had been a recommendation of the Goods and Services Requisitioning PRT. The District joined the S1ate cI California procurement card program through the State's master agreement with Rocky Mountain BankCard System. Tammy Fong, Buyer II, developed and produced the District's "Procurement Card User Guide" in January, 1997. Filly District employees were chosen by their departments to pilot test the Procurement Card System. The Procurement Cards were ordered and upon receipt, each person of the pilot group was giving a training session on the Cards use, limitations, and their responsibilities. During the past year and one-half approximately 500 procurement card transactions took place totaling $50,000. This means that the average value of the each transactions was $100. The savings in labor hours is estimated at 200 plus hours from not having to enter requisitions into the District's central computer system, obtain online approvals, buye(s placing these small dollar value orders, Materials Con1rol receiving and delivering the items, and Accounting processing only one invoice per month rather then the individual invoices. The District's Intemal Auditor has reviewed the operation and controls of the District's Procurement Card Program and concurs that it is effective and all proper controfs are in place. Staff will make a presentation at the Board Meeting explaining the results of the pilot program and what is anticipated from the District-\Nide Procurement Card Program. The District-wide Procurement Card Program that is being recommended, includes: o Obtaining the individual Procurement Cards for all District employees * Actual Procurement Card issuance will be made at the request of the applicable managers * Each Procurement Card has its 0Ml dollar limits and valid merchant categories that are based on the employee's job function * Non issued Procurement Cards will be secured in the vault for emergency/disaster uses PM AND IECOHlEMlIfD FOR BOARO ACT10N ea-EER H:\FORMS\PROCARD.PP1 9/16/96 DAlE Mard111, 1998 Page 2 of2 Sl.8ECT APPROVE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DISTRICT-WIDE PROCUREMENT CARD PROGRAM o Training all Procurement Card holders on Program guideline, reslrictions, and uses o Maintaining the audited con1roI procedures o Giving staff a small goods purchasing tool, while effecting a oost savings for the District RECOMMENDA11ON: Approve the implementation of the District-wide Procurement Card Program. ~ z ~ ~ ~o ~~ ~~ ~< ~u '" ~ 'S 0 Q)~ .~ ~ u 0 tt3000 ~~~ Q) cd a.E~ ~o~ Q) ~~. ~~~ Q) rT" $.-4 Q) ~ c\S Z~~ rJ:J~ 00 0 0 ;....UQ Q) rJ:J~= ~ae U Q) r" .~ ~ \I..J. ~ ~ rJ:J U .~ Q) Qr/1 o o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r./'1 ~ ~ ~ r./'1 rfJ. r./'1 ~ U o ~ ~ \0 rJJ. 0\ cd ~~ ""0 ~ ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ :-s ] ""0 ~ ~ '"0 r~ Q) ~ r~ Q) v ........ ..., V ~ $-I ~ $:l $-4 $-I ~ S .c; ~ e.~ 0 ~ ~ o""OU ~ ~ u ~ O~ ""OOU~ -\J Q)~ 0 .....-i $-4 0 ~ ~ 'J:j cd cd · ..... ..... ~ 1:) ;>U ~~se o ~ ..0 ~ Q) ........ $-4 $:l o~~~ ~Q)~~b1)U~ ~e Q)~~8~ ~ (1) ~;::::$""O ~ ~ ~ ~ sa tI a Q '> b n (1) ~~r:/J~ I.\J \oJ ;> "" ~ U $-I o 0 Q)~ t'Ju..o ~~QOOOU< . . . . . ~ .~ o o rfJ ~ ~ ~ rfJ r./1 ~ ~ o g H I ~ ~. ~> ~, ~~ ""O~ ~:= ~u~ (]) ~ ..d ~o ....-1 > .~ . ~ =-= ....-1 ~ ~~""O......-4 ~ ~~ '\j ~~~~ (]) ~ ~ ""0 ....-1 ""0 ~ rJJ. rJ) (1) > (1) Q) ~Q)t);.a""Ot)~ rJJ. S (1) ~ (1) (1) ~ ~ ~Q3~ SQ30 o Z 00 ""0 z~ 00 rn ~""O~2 CI'.l~ = (1)....-1 U ~.t= ~ o t ~ ~.~ S ~ u .a on (1) ~.~ u ~(1)ooS~ ~~~~O~'S :: 00 u · ~ ......-4 Q) \. V S on ......-4 U CI'.l ~.~ ~ 0 S [) a ~ .S: 0 (]) s on~ ;... 0 ~ ~ ,S~8~~gu rJJ.~(1)O~$-40 ~~~O~tI~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . _ ______ _~_ ~___ _____~__,~.,.___~~_,_'_~__m.._.._~'_._,..___>_...._.___~._____"'," -.-",."..'-- ~ ~ ~ (J) ~ ~ Q) ~ .~ ~ (J) (l) cd ~ rfj t).:b ~~~ ~o ~ ta~ ~15 oou~ o <l) rfj~U U 8 ~ ~ 00 "" 1\ <l) ~ ~ <l) ~ <l) ~ ~.> <l) .s ~ Q) ~..... ~ ~ 01)~ U] 0 .ca < 0 15 ~ "a ~~~Q)S8 ~~:= 8~j:i:l \,J ~ '-v <l) (]) ~ou~~t)~ .~ ~ ~;>.~ <l) .s ~ ~ u '.p .tJ t Q) ~ ~ 0 u.~ ~ QUj:i:l~<Qt;) .. .t:,.. ~ d ~ ~ rf1 ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ------_._-"-_.~-------~----- -------- --- ------~- -- -~. --- ~ d ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rfl ~ ~ ~ rfl ~ ~ Q) 0 '\j ~ 7H ~ ~ ~ U ...c:: ~ g ~ 00 ~ o~~~ Q) ~ ~ v ,..,... d 0 Q)~ ~ V)O~'\j Q) f/:)- 0 rJ:J ~ ~ ~ V) ~ ~ U ~ ~ trJ 0 o >.~ ~ ~ ~ ~'\j U trJ ~ ~~]~ g (]);::s U ~ V) ~~O (]) ~ .......... 00 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ rJ:J rJ:J ~ ~ .~ ~~~(])V)..o'\j cd 0 >'\j<3 S .~ ~ cd ~ ~ .~ ~ 0 ~ cd '\j ~ ~ U 1"""\ ~ t , ,..--, o cd ~ rJ:J ca cd ~rJ:J,...-4'\j~Ud ~~.a~~ ~ ~~OO~O~ ~~~UOZ~ rfl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ . . . . ___.".___.~,____,_,______"",_,".,__,,__,,_,___'_"_'__.._....__~,._,._'.._.__~.~.__.._.u.~,_..__.__'"___.._..._.___.._~__".____ C/'1 ~ ~ ~ < Q ffi ~ ~ o u ~ ~ (t) en ~ Q) 0 & Q r:rJ. Q) ~ ""' (\ ~~ ~ .,..-4 ~ ~ OS ~ "'0 ~ 0 .s ~ ~ Q) rJ:J "'0 .a o ~ ~~ Q) Cd ,....-.4 ~ u ~ rJ'.J ~ ~~ Q)Q)C\S ~ eo rntnCO "'0 rT'1 ~"' Q) cd Q) ~ ~ '-'-' co .~ co ~ c\S ,....-.4 = ~ ~ Q ~.9 ~ < :g &:::= ~:::= t) .a .E: cd ~ g ~ 9 s $...4"'OarJ:JQ)rJ:J Q) c.8 ~ ~ "'0 01).~ ~ ~ 1-4~~~s..o_ r:rJ. 0 Q) U Q)s. ,..-4 0 c; ~~- ~~..d ~~~~~"'O~rn U =U=~~Q)rJ'.J rn ~ rn c.S U ~o ~ rJ'.J ~ rn 0 +-t 1-4 ~ 1-4 ~ ..d - .!:i .B ] < 8 ~ ~ a 8 ~u~z>~~u o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d o ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ r/J ~ ~ Q I ~ ~ ~ u ~ .~ ~ C\S ~ e r:n ....rOO .~ Q ~ ~ ;... OJ) .~ c.8 ~ 0 u d rfJ. o ~ PI: ~ 5 ......-4~ ~ 0 ~~ 0 ~.-o ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < 8u · ,.-.4 Q rJ'1 ~ ~ ~ ;... u ~ ~~ Q)~ rJ'1~ < (1) ~ ~ ~~ .-oS ~~rJ'1 U ~ ~ 0) U rJ'1 Q) · ,.-.4 rJ'1 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ rJ'1U,..o u o u .,.-.4 U ~ ~ 0 Q]~ ~ ~ ~ Q)~~ r:n~ ~Q)$-c r/J (1) ~ Q) Q)~..:s ~ ~ cr.-o >u~ Q (1).~ · ,.-.4 Q) 0 ~~ OooQ . ~ ABBREVIATED INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROCUREMENT CARD CARDHOLDERS REVISED MARCH 10, 1998 (NOTE: These abbreviated instructions are for easy reference and do not take the place of the District's Procurement Card User Guide. The User Guide for the use of the procurement card includes policies and procedures which must be followed by the Cardholder.) . Take procurement card and the item(s) you wish to obtain to the sales register. Do not use your procurement card to place phone orders or to have items shipped in unless specifically authorized by Purchasing to do so. . Salesperson will ring up the item(s), and upon credit approval, will have you sign the receipt. Make sure the sales tag is itemized. If it is not, itemize the list and have the salesperson sign it. . Retain the receipt and keep it along with the log of procurement card purchases for your records. . When your monthly statement arrives, check it against your receipts. Clearly print in the spaces provided an adequate description of item(s) purchased and the correct account code for each charge. Sign off on the back of the statement, noting any discrepancies, and give the statement and receipts to your Approving Official within 5 working days. . Approving Official reviews the Cardholder's statement for accuracy. If the purchase, description, and account code are appropriate, the Approving Official will sign off on the back of the Cardholder's statement. Approving Official will forward the Cardholder's statement directly to Accounts Payable. The Cardholder's receipts and log, at the option of the Approving Official, can either be held by the Approving Official or returned to Cardholder for his/her retention, and shall be held for three months after the close of the fiscal year in which the transaction took place (normally through September). If you have a lost or stolen card, immediately call: 800-227-6736, and Tammy Fong, extension 312. ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS ::::::{)i5..::I.:...I:.:_.i::::::n:Wfrsiiil:::::{::::::::: BOARD MEETING OF I:I:::::I[::..::J::I::::::::.II::::::IMm'E:BB::::::::::::::::: March 19, 1998 Page 1 of 2 NO. 10. ENGINEERING a. DATE TYPE OF ACTION March 12, 1998 ADOPT RESOLUTION S\J6JECT ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE LOAN CONTRACT FOR $2,916,872 WITH THE CAUFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR THE ZONE 1 - PLEASANT HILL PHASE 1 RECYCLED WATER PROJECT SUBMITTED BY James R. Cae, Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT.aV Engineering/Planning ISSUE: The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requires a resolution from the Board of Directors authorizing the execution of a SWRCB loan contract. BACKGROUND: In 1995, District staff applied for a low interest loan from the SWRCB with an anticipated rate of 3.0% per annum. Recently, the District was notified by SWRCB that the loan has been approved and that the loan conditions would be 2.6% per annum over a 2o-year period. The loan covers 85% of the total as-bid construction costs for improvements to the recycled water facilities at the treatment plant (DP 71 62) and the pipelines, valves, and meters required to connect recycled water customers (DP 7181) in the Pleasant Hill (Zone 1) service area. A contract has been prepared by the SWRCB for the construction loan. The loan will save the District about $707,000 in finance costs compared to the District's current LAIF rate of 5.7% per annum. Annual repayments for this loan will be $188,020.04 per year beginning March 31, 1999, and will continue for 19 years thereafter until the last repayment is made March 31, 2018. The attached resolution has been prepared authorizing the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute the loan contract. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution authorizing the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a loan contract for $2,916,872 with the State Water Resources Control Board. ~ AM) REi INITIATING DEPARTMENTIDIVISlON 9/16/96 Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 98 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACTING FOR WATER RECLAMATION LOAN PROGRAM FUNDS BE IT RESOLVED that the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board of Directors hereby authorizes execution of a Water Reclamation Loan Program (WRLP) loan contract and all amendments thereto with the California State Water Resources Control Board in the amount of $2,916,872 to be used for the design and construction of the Zone 1 - Pleasant Hill Phase 1 Recycled Water Project. BE IT RESOLVED that Roger J. Dolan is hereby authorized to execute a WRLP loan contract for this project for and on behalf of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of March, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Members: NOES: Members: ABSENT: Members: President of the District Board of the 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 ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS Page 1 OF 92 BOARD MEE11NG Of March 19, 1998 NO. 11. TREATMENT PLANT a. March 2, 1998 TYPE Of ACTION ACCEPTANCE OF REPORT DATE SUBJECT BOARD ACCEPTANCE OF THE 1997 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE EUMINA TlON SYSTEM (NPDES), COLLECTION SYSTEM OVERFLOW MONITORING PROGRAM, AND THE RECYCLED WATER QUAUTY AND DISTRIBUTION REPORTS SUlIMlTTED BY Charles W. Batts, Director of Plant Operations ..ll1AllNG DB'TOV Plant Operations Department ISSUE: The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's (CCCSD) 1997 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Collection System Overflow Monitoring Program, and the Recycled Water Quality and Distribution Reports have been prepared for submission to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (AWQCB), San Francisco Bay Section. These annual reports, which are sent separately to the Board of Directors, are presented for their information and acceptance. BACKGROUND: Treatment Plant - There was a total of 15,878 million gallons of wastewater treated for an average daily flow of 43.5 million gallons. This flow is about five percent less than the 1996 average of 45.8 million gallons per day and is mainly because of relatively less rainfall in 1997 than in 1996. The treatment plant produced an effluent with an annual average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) concentration of 5 mgll each. This is markedly lower than our NPDES permit standards of 25 mg/l and 30 mg/l, respectively. The CBOD and TSS removal efficiency for the plant averaged 97 and 98 percent, respectively. Solids disposal during this year involved the incineration of dewatered sludge in the District's multiple-hearth funaces. Approximately 3,942 tons of furnace ash was produced. The ash met regulatory requirements for final disposal throughout the year. The Treatment Plant met all effluent requirements throughout the year except for 14 non-zero chlorine residual and five settleable solids exceedences. This compliance record was achieved as normal treatment plant operation was disrupted to accommodate the following construction projects: Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility, Aeration Basin Selector, and Aeration Basin Improvements. The number of chlorine residual limit exceedence events was 30 percent less than in 1996. Only four of these events exceeded the AWQCB's concentration threshold, and none exceeded the duration threshold. The RWQCB established the concentration/duration threshold approach for chlorine residual violations because they realized how difficult it is to have no chlorine residual all- of the time; the threshold approach allows the RWQCS to not take enforcement action against exceedences below the established threshold. In August 1997, the full-scale Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility came on-line. Consequently, chlorine and sulfur dioxide were phased out. '\ S:\SLFMON97\PosnPpr97.wpd DATE March 11, 1 998 Page 2 of 92 SUBJ ECT BOARD ACCEPTANCE OF THE 1997 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES), COLLECTION SYSTEM OVERFLOW MONITORING PROGRAM, AND THE RECYCLED WATER QUALITY AND DISTRIBUTION REPORTS On October 8 and 24, and November 3, 5, and 24, 1997, the final effluent peak flow grab sample recorded settleable solid concentrations in excess of the permit maximum limit of 0.2 ml/L/hr. Repeat samples were taken within two hours of the original samples on these days, and these samples recorded normal (< O. 1 ml/Llhr) settleable solids concentrations. There were no apparent process upsets that could be related to these exceedences. It appears that the algae/microbial growth slough off from the outfall pipe and/or the effluent sample pipe might have caused these exceedences. On December 1, 1997, the District changed its peak flow grab sample station (E-001), which was located at the Dechlorination Facility (post dechlorination to a station downstream of the Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility). No settleable solids exceedences were recorded since the change of the sampling station. Collection System -- The District was issued a new NPDES permit on May 25, 1995. The provisions of the new NPDES permit continued the requirement that the annual Self Monitoring Report cover the operation of the treatment plant and added the requirement to submit data on the operation of the collection system. The District's collection system had 35 overflows over 100 gallons during 1997. Eight of the 35 overflows exceeded 1,000 gallons, five of which exceeded 10,000 gallons. The three largest overflows resulted from flow surcharge during wet weather. Projects have been identified to provide added capacity to alleviate these overflows. Most of the remaining overflows were caused by roots, debris, and grease deposits in the sewers. An additional raw sewage spill occurred on September 24, 1997, at the District's Maltby Pumping Station. This spill consisted of about 30,000 gallons and was contained on the District's property. No spillage reached any state or federal water body. The spill occurred because of a pipe joint failure. The affected area was cleaned and disinfected within hours of the spill. Recycled Water Quality and Distribution Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) distributed over 17 million gallons of filtered effluent for recycling by distribution to customers near the treatment plant. Recycled water quality met all applicable Restricted Water Reuse Standards. There were six users of recycled water in 1997. CCCSD plans to add another seven users in 1998. Upon acceptance of these reports by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board of Directors, they will be submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. RECOMMENDATION: Acceptance of the 1997 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Collection System Overflow Monitoring Program, and Recycled Water Quality Distribution Reports. Page 3 of 92 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553-4392 . (510) 228-9500 FAX: (510) 689-1232 ROGERJ. DOLAN General Manager Chief Engineer KENTON L. AIM Counsel for the District (510) 938-1430 JOYCE E. MURPHY Secretary of the District February 24, 1998 Regional Water Quality Control Board 2101 Webster Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 ATTENTION: MR. EDDIE SO Board Members: Enclosed are the 1997 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Collection System Overflow Monitoring Program, and the Recycled Water Quality and D" ibution Reports for Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. CWB:sb Enclosures (1) Recycled Paper ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS ............................................................................................ ~!:i!ll.IllIl.ll!i!!!il.II::!!!!!!!i!i:1 BOARDMa~ 19, 1998 .;.;.;.;.:.;.;.:.:.:.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.;.;.:.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Page 1 of 1 NO. 12. HUMAN RESOURCES a. March 12, 1998 TYPE OF ACTlON PERSONNEL DATE SUBJECT AOOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING ROBERT HOMER TO THE POSITION OF SAFETY AND RISK MANAGER, M-33 ($5,751-$6,990JMo.), EFFECTIVE APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMIT1ED BY Roger J. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer INI1lAllNG DEPT/DIV Administrative/Safety and Risk Management ISSUE: Appointment of individuals to management positions requires the approval of the Board of Directors. BACKGROUND: Risk Manager Bonnie Allen announced her retirement effective March 31, 1998. Board approval was received to fill the vacant position. David M. Griffith and Associates was hired by the District as consultant to recruit for the new Safety and Risk Manager. After an extensive recruitmen~ oral interviews were held on February 24, 1998. A panel of the District's four Department Directors interviewed seven candidates and were very favorably impressed by their top candidate, Mr. Robert Homer of the Padre Dam Municipal Water District in San Diego, CA FoIlaMng those intervieYJs, Mr. Homer visited the District to meet with members from the District Central, CSO, POD and HOB safety teams, discuss issues with several staff members and managers, and was given tours of District facilities. Mr. Homer also had an opportunity to meet with the Board Personnel Committee. Mr. Homer obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Occupational Safety and Health from California State University, Sacramento and is currently completing his Masters in Public Health at San Diego State University. Following the attainment of this undergraduate degree, he vvorked as the Safety Engineer for Caterpillar-Solar Turbines in San Diego for two years and as Plant Safety Engineer for Ubbey-Ovvens-Ford, Inc. of Lathrop, CA for one year. He has served the Padre Dam Municipal Water District as its Safety and Risk Manager since 1993. In addition, he is an instructor for the San Diego Safety Council and the University of California, San Diego. Mr. Homer is a professional member of the American Society of Safety Engineers and the Public Agencies Risk Managers Association. He is an Associate Safety Professional and also possesses an Associate Risk Manager certification. A copy of Mr. Homer's resume is sent to the Board members under separate cover. Staff recommends appointing Mr. Homer to the position of Safety and Risk Manager effective April 6, 1998. RECOMMENDA TlON: Adopt resolution appointing Robert Homer to the position of Safety and Risk Manager, M-33 ($5,751-$6,990lmo.), effective April 6, 1998. ~ AID RECC:MIIENlED FOR BQllRD IICTION INITlA1lNG DEPARTMENTIDMSION C:\FILES\PERSMISC\SAFERISK.PP 9/16/96