The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 05-04-95 ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 BOARD MEETING OF May 4, 1995 NO. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR a. DATE April 17, 1995 SUBJECT ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK FOR THE 1-680/SR-24 SEWER RELOCATIONS PROJECT, PHASE 3B (DP4956) AND AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION TYPE OF ACTION Accept Contract Work SUBMITTED BY Thomas A Trice, Sr. Engineering Asst. INIIlATIf\lG DEPT,/DIV. . t:nglneenng Dept.llnfrastructure Dlv. ISSUE: Construction has been completed on the 1-680/SR-24 Sewer Relocations Project, Phase 3B (DP4956), and the work is now ready for acceptance. BACKGROUND: The 1-680/SR-24 Sewer Relocations Project, Phase 3B, was required in order to accommodate the 1-680/SR-24 freeway widening and interchange improvements by CalTrans. Major elements of the Sewer Relocations Project consisted of microtunneling 365 feet of 36-inch steel casing under the freeway with a 12-inch PVC sewer line installed through the casing, concrete encasing 210 feet of the EBMUD Mokelumne Aqueducts, replacing 750 feet of 8-inch sewer pipe along Sherman Drive and abandoning 28 laterals for homes that were demolished by CalTrans. The general location of the project site is shown on Attachment 1. Additional information on the project is given beginning on page CS-48 of the 1994-95 Capital Improvement Budget. On June 2, 1994, the Board authorized the award of a contract for construction of the project to Vadnais Corporation of San Diego. Notice to proceed was issued on July 11, 1994, with a specified completion date of December 7, 1994. The contract work was substantially completed by November 15, 1994 and the new sewer lines were under full operation as of that date. However, a low spot in one of the new sewer lines was discovered during the Final Inspection of the project and delayed the project acceptance. The deficiency is now corrected and all work is completed and acceptable. The total authorized budget for the project, including engineering design, District forces during construction, consultant services, testing services, etc is $1,254,000. A detailed accounting of the project costs will be provided to the Board at the time of project close out. It is appropriate to accept the contract work at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for the construction of the 1-680/SR-24 Sewer Relocations Project, Phase 3B (DP4956) and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. l#JB ---r~ 1302A-7/91 TRT HT Orinda Q Project Location(s) Central Contra Costa Sanitary District I 6aD/SR 24 Sewer Relocations, Phase 3.8 District Project 4956 Attachment 1 PAGE 1 OF 1 NO. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR b. DATE SUBJECT SET PUBLIC HEARINGS ON JUNE 1, 1995 TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 1995-1996 SEWER SERVICE CHARGE RATES, AND THE COLLECTION OF SUCH CHARGES AND PRIOR YEAR DELINQUENT CHARGES ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLLS TYPE OF ACTION SET PUBLIC HEARING DATES SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT.IDIV. Debbie Ratcliff, Controller Administrative/Finance & Accounting ISSUE: The District Code and State law require holding public hearings for the establishment of the 1995-1996 Sewer Service Charge rates, and for placing such charges and prior year delinquent charges on the County tax rolls for collection. BACKGROUND: The 1995-1996 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Budget will be submitted for initial review by the Board of Directors on May 18, 1995. Approval of the 1995-1996 O&M Budget is scheduled for the June 1, 1995 Board Meeting. It is required by law to hold public hearings to receive public comment on establishing the Sewer Service Charge rates, and collecting such charges and prior year delinquent charges on the County tax rolls, during the Board Meeting at which the O&M Budget is presented for approval. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize a public notice to set public hearings on June 1, 1995 to receive public comment on the establishment of the 1995-1996 Sewer Service Charge rates and the collection of such charges, and prior year delinquent charges, on the County tax rolls. ~EPT.lDIV 1302A-7/91 DR REWEWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON PM ADS/PosPaper#1 /DelinqCh. PH PAGE 1 OF 1 NO. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR c. DATE RECEIVE THE DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET/1995 TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND ESTABLISH JUNE 1, 1995, AS THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THE DOCUMENT TYPE OF ACTION RECEIVE DRAFT CIB/CIP; ESTABLISH HEARING DATE SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. John J. Mercurio, Admin. Analyst Engineering Dept./Planning Division ISSUE: The District's draft Fiscal Year 1995-96 Capital Improvement Budget/1995 Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIB/CIP) has been prepared by staff and is ready for Board review. A date for a public hearing to receive comments on the document should be established. BACKGROUND: The Fiscal Year 1995-96 Capital Improvement Budget will establish near-term project priorities and authorize budgets for the Treatment Plant, Collection System, and General Improvements Programs. Detailed information for projects that are anticipated to be active in Fiscal Year 1995-96 is presented in the Capital Improvement Budget document. The 1995 Ten- Year Capital Improvement Plan will provide the basis for policy decisions concerning the District's Capital Improvement Program and management of the Sewer Construction Fund. The Capital Improvement Plan also serves as the framework for fee analysis. On March 21, 1995, the Capital Projects Committee met with District staff in a workshop session to review the draft Capital Improvement Budget/Capital Improvement Plan. It is appropriate to receive comments in a formal public hearing prior to consideration of the Capital Improvement Budget/Capital Improvement Plan for approval. This public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for the Board's regular meeting on June 1, 1995. RECOMMENDATION: Receive the draft Fiscal Year 1995-96 Capital Improvement Budget/1995 Capital Improvement Plan for review. Establish June 1, 1995, as the date for a public hearing to receive comments on the draft CIB/CIP. RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON I ITI\~"D1V 1302A-7/91 r CftB JJM JMM RAB ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District , BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OFMay 4, 1995 PAGE 1 OF 1 NO. 4. CONSEr-IT CALENDAR d. SUBJECT DATE April 21, 1995 APPROVE THE 1995-1996 EQUIPMENT BUDGET FOR INCLUSION IN THE 1995-1996 DISTRICT BUDGET TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE EQUIPMENT BUDGET SUBMITTED BY Debbie Ratcliff, Controller INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Administrative/Finance & Accounting ISSUE: The District's 1995-1996 Equipment Budget is submitted for approval. BACKGROUND: The 1995-1996 Equipment Budget was submitted for review at the April 20, 1995 Board Meeting, and is scheduled for approval by the Board on May 4, 1995. The Board's Capital Projects Committee reviewed the 1995-1996 Equipment Budget with District management prior to the submission of the budget to the Board on April 20. The approved 1995-1996 Equipment Budget will be scheduled for adoption with the 1995-1996 Personnel, Operations and Maintenance, Self Insurance Fund, and Capital Improvement Budgets on June 15, 1995. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the 1995-1996 Equipment Budget for inclusion in the 1995-1996 District Budget to be adopted on June 15, 1995. REWEWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON 1302A-7/91 DR PM ADS/PosPaper #1 /FinEqupB. PP INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ( Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE OF 12 POSITION PAPER NO. 5. HEARINGS a. SUBJECT DATE CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1995 TYPE OF ACTION CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Steven A. Elsberry, Senior Accountant Administrative/Finance & Accounting ISSUE: A public hearing is required to obtain public comments on the proposed schedule of rates and charges, effective July 1, 1995. BACKGROUND: Chapter 6.30 of the District Code describes various fees assessed for services provided to contractors, developers, and other users of the District's wastewater collection and treatment system. These fees are intended to reimburse the District for labor and operating expenses incurred in providing the services. The fees are reviewed annually, alternating between a detailed analysis of each fee and adjusting the rates for the effect of any across-the- board salary increase for that year. Last year, a detailed analysis was completed on each fee. Beginning July 1, the fees will be adjusted to reflect the 2.1 percent salary increase for District employees. The current and proposed rates are presented as Attachment I. As indicated in the attachment, the fees are proposed to be increased between 0 and 2.1 percent. The proposed schedule of rates and charges was distributed to representatives of the Building Industry Association of Northern California, the Engineering and Utilities Contractors' Association, and the Association of General Contractors which provided an opportunity for comments and questions to be directed to District staff prior to the public hearing. The District's proposed schedule of rates and charges is presented in comparison with similar fees of neighboring sanitary districts on Attachment II. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing on the proposed schedule of rates and charges, approve a revised schedule of rates and charges, and adopt an ordinance to implement the new schedule effective July 1, 1995. INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. ~ ~ RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD AcnON 1302A-7/91 SE DR PM A DSlPo s Paper#3/Schr ates. pp CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT RATES AND CHARGES Attachment I Page 1 of 5 CURRENT REVISED % CATEGORY RATES RATES CHANGE (A) DEVELOPMENT & PLAN REVIEW (A-1 ) Development Review and 2 Preliminary + 1 3.5% of est. 3.5% of 0.0 Final Plan Reviews cost est. cost Basis for Determining Estimated Construction $41/ft. $41/ft. Costs . Minimum Fee $600 $600 (A- 2) 3rd & Add'l Preliminary Reviews $48 each $49 each 2.1 (A-3) 2nd & Add'l Final Reviews $71 each $72 each 1.4 (A-4) Building Plan Review $10 $10 0.0 (B) CONSTRUCTION-.INSPECTION (B-1 ) Mainline Inspection See Table See Table A-1 A-1 (B-2) Lateral, House Connection, Side Sewer Repair $77 each $78 each 1.3 > 10ft, Alteration, Manhole Alteration, Sewage Pump, Grease Interceptor, Lateral Abandonment, and Sewer Tap Inspection (B-3) Side Sewer Repair Inspection < 10ft $12 each $1 2 each 0.0 (B-4) Overtime Inspection $63/hr $ 64/hr 1.6 Weekend/Holiday (4-hr min) $252 $256 (B-5) Overtime Inspection Credit See Table See Table A-2 A-2 (B-6) Manhole or Rodding Inlet Inspection $407 each $41 5 each 2.0 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT RATES AND CHARGES Attachment I Page 2 of 5 CURRENT REVISED % CATEGORY RATES RATES CHANGE (C) COllECTION SYSTEM (C-1 ) Initial TV Inspection: Overtime $146/hr $148/hr 1.4 Weekend/Holiday (4-hr min) $584 $592 (C-2) Overtime Credit . $0.27/ft $0.27/ft 0.0 (C-3) TV Rerun $200 + $200 + 0.0 $103/hr $105/hr 1.9 Weekend/Holiday (2.5-hr min) $458 $462.50 (C-4) TV Overtime Rerun $200 + $200 + 0.0 - $146/hr $148/hr 1.4 Weekend/Holiday (4-hr min) $784 $792 (C-5) Multiple TV Inspection Actual Actual Expense Expense (C-6) Sewer Tap Actual Actual Expense Expense (C-7) Dye Test $89 each $90 each 1.1 (C-8) Collection System Repair Actual Actual Expense Expense (C-9) TV Inspection: Noncancellation $206 each $ 210 each 1.9 (C-10) lateral Abandonment Actual Actual Expense Expense (D) RIGHT OF WAY (0-1 ) Segregation of LID Assessment $48/parcel $49/parcel 2.1 (0-2) Process Quitclaim Deeds $43/hr $44/hr 2.1 (3-hr min) $129 $132 (0-3) Process Real Property Agreement Actual Actual Expense Expense CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT RATES AND CHARGES Attachment I Page 3 of 5 CURRENT REVISED % CATEGORY RATES RATES CHANGE (E) MISCELLANEOUS (E-1 ) Engineering - Private Sewer Projects Actual Actual Expense Expense (E-2) Soil Evaluation - Private Sewer Projects Actual Actual . Expense Expense (E-3) Surveying $152/hr $155/hr 2.0 (F) INDUSTRIAL PERMIT FEES (F-1 ) Class I & II Fees Base permit Base permit 2.1 fee of fee of - $2,308, plus $2,356, plus laboratory laboratory costs of costs of District District analysis. analysis. Additional Additional charge to be charge to be . billed billed separately if separately if extra-ordinary extra-ordinary staff time is staff time is incurred incurred above that above that included in included in base permit base permit fee. fee. (F-2) New Industry Permit Fee Actual Actual Expense Expense (F-3) Special Discharge Permit Fee - No On-site Inspection $48 each $49 each 2.1 - On-site Inspection $268 each $273 each 1.9 (F-4) Class III Fee $256 each $261 each 2.0 (G) SEPT AGE DISPOSAL (G-1 ) Annual Permit Fee $1 200 each $1225 each 2.1 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT RATES AND CHARGES Attachment I Page 4 of 5 CURRENT REVISED % CATEGORY RATES RATES CHANGE (G-2) Residential SepticlToilet Waste < 2000 gallons $13.75 + $14.00 + 1.1 $0.097/gal $0.098/gal > 2000 gallons $43.50 + $44.50 + 1.3 . $0.097/gal $0.098/gal (G-3) Restaurant Grease Waste < 2000 gallons $13.75 + $14.00 + 1.0 $0.012/gal $0.012/gal > 2000 gallons 43.50 + $44.50 + 1.5 -. $0.012/gal $0.012/gal ADS/PosPaper #3/RecRates.l TABLE A-1 Attachment I Page 5 of 5 MAINLINE INSPECTION Length (Ft) Current Rate Revised Rate 0-1 00 $365 + $3.55 1ft $370 + $3.60 1ft 101-200 $430 + $2.90 1ft $435 + $2.95 1ft 201 - 300 $520 + $2.40 1ft $535 + $2.45 1ft . 301 - 400 $655 + $ 1 .95 1ft $670 + $2.00 1ft 401 - 500 $775 + $ 1 .65 1ft $790 + $1.70 1ft 501 - 600 $875 + $1 .45 1ft $890 + $1.50 1ft 601 - $965 + $1.30 1ft $980 + $1.35 1ft TABLE A-2 OVERTIME MAINLINE INSPECTION CREDIT Total Project Overtime Hours Overtime Credit (Hrs) * <4 1 > 4 but < 8 2 > 8 but < 1 6 4 >16but < 32 6 >32 8 * To compensate the contractor for the straight-time portion of inspection time included in the Mainline Inspection Fee. ADS/PosPaper#3/RecRates.1 ... ~ .!!! Q)O :> ~ . 10 i ''2 10 en ... o .~ ... I/) i5 > ... 2l 'c 10 en 10 ... I/) o o 10 ... ... c: o o < i= < a: < 0.. :E o o c: o E ..: 10 .!!! a:o c: I/) 10 Q) en .~ o > c: ... := Q) .gen o ~ 'OenO Q)~en '0100 ~a:o EIO~ E ~ I/) o .... Q) o ~ ~ ~O)~ ~o > ... 10 ... 'c 10 en c: o 'c ::l o :0 <<l C? 2l Gi o > ... o OJ ~ <<l o 2! en ... 0 Q) 0 ~ c: Q) 0 en 'il ~ '0 2'e <ft.Uio ~5~ ..0_ c: 'e . N E .~ ": 101/)0) 100110 '0.10 OQ)</Io </IoJO _ ... :E ... ... ::::. CD ;;~ o +10 ,.... o 0.... N ... 'ft' ~ </10 0 o 10 N </10 '0 CD_ iti c: E .- .- E <;;0 CDo o~ "#-: 10 ~ (') 0 ~ w 5 w a: z < ..J 0.. o Z <I: r- z w :E 0.. o ..J W > W o ~ 3: CD .:; Q) Na: '0 ~ ~o: 3:< E ... o.~ .s2 'e CD ._ ~Gi Oll: - .... ~ CD Q) - ! :E - o <ft. o (') ... 'c ::::l - ... g 'c </10 ::::l ... + ~ 0::: o ... N ~ </10 0 Q) CD - ~ :E '0 <ft. o (') ! - 10 Cl. '0 OJ +:0:2 00.0 ge~ 00;;: 3: CD .c .:; o CD <<la: CD;- 0'0 10'0 </10< .c o 10 Q) 0) 'ft </10 .c o 10 Q) N ,.... </10 c: ltl 0: > ... III c: :~ Gi ll: c CD :l 0- Q) I/) .0 ::::l en 3: ~ .!!! "E ~ (')a: c: III 0: < c: Q) Na: N ~ c;; ~ c: .2 i:) ::::l ... ... Ul c: o o - o <ft.~ 10 en c-.i 8 Q) ... ::::l ... ~ .E ~ E 0.110 IIO~ ,.... ,.... ~~ :;;e ... Q) > ~ ~ c~~ Q)-oa; '0 </10 - '0 "in + i ..... Q) Q) CD a:o-E o (') '0 E 1O'ftlOo </Io</loNo .c o ltl Q) o .... </10 3: CD .:; CD a: c: III 0: Cl c: 32 'S 110 ~ ~ II> ... I/) ... 0 Q) 0 3: c: Q) 0 (/) "';: _ 0 c o ::::l 'e *~o ~5~ 'ftO_ - o ! 10 c: 'E o I/) "';; Q) o .s ,I/) I/) 0 c: c: gw ... Ul o o '0'0 *~ ~ .~ .... ... I/) 10 CD ... - - o lOa; .... CD </10- 0) +0) N o ... 10 Q) 10 > </10 0 r.:: i 'e - 100 1100 .(') 0</10 </10_ .... - <l::c Q) CD :0 E ltl.c r- 0 :l~ en< z o i= o W 0.. en z c: o .;:; o Q) 0. I/) c: Q) .S c 'a; :E - .... e m Attachment II Page 1 of 6 .... ~5 CD 5~ ..: :!! ~ .~ (/) .... .g o is ~ ~ .... .c ~ (/) ~ .... '" o o ~ ... .... c o o "ii ... C CD o (/) w Cl a: <( :r: o o z <( (/) w ~ <( a: LL o W -' ::> o w :r: o (/) w > i= <( a: <( 0- ~ o o c o E .... ~ '" a: is C fD ~ CD (/) () .5 .~ :c CD ::::l(/) o ~ "tl",6 CD ~ (/) "tl~O ~a:o ElOo E 8l '" o _ CD ()-l~ CD..... ~ a:Ol.c ~o > ... ~ .... 'c ~ (/) C o .c ::> o ~ ... ::::l o .c -- N co N co ~ CD o .c C a:l ~ E a:110 l!:co 0)<1> ~ ~ ~ S .!!!.c lOO NCO o :c ~ is .g .... Q; o .c () ~ CD lO N ... e .e ~ "tl .0 ~ Q. 15 05 CD ~ tT.5O CD~C co '0 .ij ~zE > ... o 0) CD .... ~ o o i5. C CD o () .:.~ CD rJ) .~~~c.~ (,)~.:t::Q)t) CDO<(fDCD ~:~:ft o 0'" C o~.cCl- CDo~cilij- ~o~~E~ og.c~~ J:a::OGl~ (ij ... .~ ell (/)CD ... CD ... to ~~CD~"tl j~~~~ CD "tl (jj N a:. c: .e lO N N ... ::::l o .c -- lO " ... ::::l o .c -- I') Ol I') Ol .c () a:l CD o eo <J> 1: o co ;; o + .co ON co I') .c () ~ CD lO N >c ~ CD CD E .~ ~ - C E ~ 02 ~ ~ .2 Q: Q. .c () ~ CD N - C ;; .e o .ceo ~~ ~~ ~ "tl C ::::l C oS! ti CD ~ '" C ... a:l ~ CD a: ~ ~ CD .... (/) CD CD.! ~e M a:. C Oe 1: -- ~ '" C ~ .g :2 ()O ~:r: ~~ - '" Gl"tl .~ ~ Q;~ > CD 03: ~ a:. CD C o Z '" - '" o .50 - () O"tl ~~~ -g~E g ~ .~ .c () ~ CD ...... lO "" ... CD C o Z fD '0 ~~ ~ CD ~ ~.5O E lO ~.t; ,,"WCD N <1:- c CD CD :c E a:l.c ~ () CD :!! ~< .c () a:l CD lO ~ C .S! tl CD c. '" C - :c CD U C .S! ti CD ~ fD C q; c 0) C :c "tl o a: o CD o .c C a:l ~ CD E .f CD > o LO !!? <0 !!? - - -- I') - - co - co i -- I') Ol ~ .~ ... o o Il) " '0_ ...- !Li> a:lN CD ... ... Cl<l> - - in co 0": <1>- o +0 01') lO ~ N > 0 C 1: Oe QJ~ ~Il) :;~ ~ W l- (/) > (/) z o i= o W ...J ...J o o c o .;; () CD ~ '" C > CD ~ E - .f .! CD ~~ - - ~ u '" > ~ :2 o :r: ~ ~ c ~ .e ~ ... CD.c ~~ Attachment II Page 2 of 6 .... - -- I') - CD C o Z CD C o Z i -- "" N o 1: -- - Il) . 0.50 - E <1>0 +lO 8~ N~ ~ .... '6 CD U CD E .f CD > o .f c: E 2 ~ CD.c a:lO ~c-i N U M U ... lIJ ~i5 :> ~ ..; ~ ~ 'c II) l/l ... o .t: ... lIJ i5 ~ :! 'c II) l/l II) ... lIJ o o II) ... ... c: o o Iii ... ... c: Q) o l/l w Cl a::: < :I: o o z < l/l w t- < a::: u. o W ...J ::l o w :I: o l/l w > ~ < a::: < Il. ~ o o c: o E ... II) lIJ a:::i5 c: lIJ II) Q) l/l 0 .5 .~ :gl/l o ~ "ClIJO Q)~l/l "Cli)O ~a:::o ElOo E ~ lIJ o ~ Q) :5 ~ ~ a:::CD.c: ~o > ... :! 'c II) (/) c: o 'c ::l ... - (;) .... .... o ::c II) i5 ~ Gi o ... lIJ ~8 II) lIJ Q.::J 00. ~ .i ] c a; o > a; o 0 Q. ..: .c: ii) 'It ;: c + 'E ON OCD N" ~ ~ o Cl Q) ... III o II> > c: II) ::J:s1 Q;O a::::I: Eoll 0;: UJ c a; -g 'E > Q) O~.2 >Q)..... t-~~ ~ U Q. :! lIJ Q) .:>L. II) E o ... o ., II) Q) ... - E 0 o c: O. : . II> CD .:>L. II) E CD O~ tl 0 ~ c: E o Q. o ~ II> CD .:>L. II) E ~ ~.~ ~ 0 t) C t Q) Q.lT; 8 ~ .f (ij ::J tl II) c: o ~ "C c: Q) CD lIJ Q. II) X !Xl CD II) ~ o II) c: o ~ "C c: CD Q) II> Q. II) X !Xl Q) CD ~ II) .c: o :; (/) c: o .;:; o Q) Q. II> c: > t- Q) ~ ::J ~ Q. II) t- a; ~ Q) l/l in U co U .c: o II) ., o M N Iii ::J ... o II) I: II) o II) "C I: Q) Q) II> Q. II) X !Xl Q) Iii ::J ... o II) c: o ~ "C c: Q) Q) II> Q. III X !Xl II) ... II> ~ o Z Q) I: o Z .c: o II) Q) o CD Iii ::J ... o II) I: o ~ "C c: Q) Q) II) Q. II) X !Xl Q) in Q) t- CD > o ;:: co U U ... 'iij Q. Q) a::: E ~ II> > l/l c: o .;:; o .!! o o Q) El ., .c: o o Z o o .... o .... N c: o .;:; ..!!! Iii o c: II) o C: 01: Z ::J ... c: CD .2 a::: tl-g ~Ill ID E .! > 'c t- 0; u Q) El ., .c: o o Z Q) El ., .c: o o Z 10 Q) ~~ o (I) C tl l5 .2 ~"Oo E c: ~ o II) II> o ~.f (ij ::J tl II) c: o ~ "C c: Q) CD lIJ Q. II) X !Xl Q) (ij ::J ... o II) c: o ~ "C c: Q) CD lIJ Q. II) X !Xl Q) c: .2 ~ Gi o c: II) o C: o Z Q. II) t- E CD E c: o "C c: II) .c < iii a; a; ...J ... Q) ~ CD l/l o .... .... U .... U Attachment II Page 3 of 6 ... ~5 0) 5~ III i "2 III en ... .g .... III is ~ ~ 'c III en III .... III o o III ... .... C o o en w c:l a: <l: ::r:: o o z <l: (/) w I- <l: a: u. o w ...J ::> o w ::r:: o en w > ~ <l: a: <l: e.. ~ o o c o E .... III III a: is c III III 0) en l..l .5 .~ :g(/) o ~ c 0) o ~ "0 III 0 ~~~ ca:O 0) It) ~ Eo> E 0> III 0_& ~ ...t ~ a:0>J: ~o > ... ~ 'c III (/) C o 'c ::> o :0 III 9 ~ Ci) o > ... o Cl 0) ai () > <l: ~ u.. o ..:. ::r:: c:l a: e III 0) o "0 ... Cl ~.~ o III Ci) ~ ~ ~ o Q. Ci) ~ III Q. -- 0> ~ <J> c 0) E III III 0) III III <l: o :J - o c o .;:; III Cl 0) 0, 0) en - .... e J: l..l III 0) o It) <J> 0) '" c Q) Q. X w "iii ~ l..l <l: -: o :J o z ~ III III ... ~ III B E"O - ~ III ... ClO) ~~ lii J: '0 -g B III >"0 lii Q)2fr E:ECi) B Q) ~ ;-!-c Q) III C Q) Q. X w "iii ::l '0 <l: 0) III C Q) Q. X W III ::l '0 <l: c 'E- ..: J:N ~~ :~ Q) III C 0) Q. X w "iii ~ l..l <l: III "0 Q) Q) o E 'Iii "B '5 o '0_ III ClQ) .5: a: III 0 ~ .... l..l Cl o .~ c: III "OCi) ~a: c III .2 E .... Q) > ~ E t III 0) Q) IiI '0 Cl l: III III Q) l..l o ... e.. N e C'i e - .. - 0a>:! ~ Q) U) :c .~~ ... c "0 ~Q)O) .20) ! ~ III Q) > > .- Q) .- > o Q. ~ > c o ~ .S! > ~ C III a:: III ::l '0 III l: III o ~ "0 C Q) 0) III Q. III X al Q) lii ~ Q) en ~ III > ;t .E (/) ::l o w z <l: ...J ...J W o en ~ Cl l: .~ U) ~ tl .5: '" Cl'- c: ~ we.. .... w w Gi > o J:l III III III '" E III en III C ~ :; III c: o l..l Q) ... i: "iii ::l ... l..l III c: III o 5l "0 c: 0) Q) III Q. III X al Q) III E ~ :; III c: o l..l 0) ... i: ~ LO It) .... <J> lii ~ Q) en ! '" .~ c: ... .2 c: .g '" .2 to > III w'O .!!! Q) '0 'e- ene.. N !f! Attachment \I Page 4 of 6 Cl c '> Q) > :; en C'i !f! ..; ~c5 CD :> ~ III i .~ III en ... .g (jj o ~ III ... 'c III en III ... Ul o U en w Cl a: et :J: U o z et en w I- et a: lL. o W -l ::l o w :J: o en w > i= et a: et c.. ~ o o c: o E ... III Ul a:O c: Ul III CD en (.) .~ .~ :c CD ::len o ~ ... c: o U ~ "CUlO Ql!en "CIllU ~a:O EIDU E ~ Ul 0.- Q) (.) ~!:l CD... <<l a:m.t: ~U ~ ... c: CD o > ... III ... 'c <<l en c: o '2 ::l ... "C~ ~ III III 5Q.]~ -=00 ~~Q)tQ 1Il1ll ~ ~ -->"ii UU"'::l-:; ; ; '~ ti g> OLD c.ca...~ '<t.-IIlC: ."."UOUl iD > o ..0 III Ul III CD E III ~ '<to '<tC'l ai ' 1D'<t COC'l <1>"":. "ii C'l E CO . '<tc:C'l~> <0 .!!l C'l -:; :i< .-E'<tC:~ I'Ql'-O:> <l>en<l>~:> - ~m "C ! en ~ ~>"C.2(.) III ... Q) Q. ~ ~ .5 Ql ._ ::l Ul "C (.) ... c: "C 0 .- CD III - ... == .... ..0 X CD CD Ql .~ ..0-... 0;: CD 'W ~ -:; CD Ul III ..0 .E ,!!l CD > o ..0 <<l Attachment II Page 5 of 6 CD Cl lij .t: (.) o Z Q) (5 .t: c: III E -. ID C'l CD Ul III ..0 ~ Ul ::l "C .E o z Cl .E Q. E <<l Ul c: ~ o c: ~ "C Q) III CD ::l ::l Ul C" c: III CD c: co.=et o :c III o ~ ... Q; o 5 'iQ ~ ~ 10 ".: C'l(jj .- ::l ":"C .E 5 .E Ul ~ '5 ID Ul C'l ::l .-"C .E E ~ CD c: CD Cl ~ o .J:. B '0 '0 Q) Q) en .~ ~ ~ Cii U'J m Ul 0 >.t: ....:JuG;u EQ.~1,3"ii :Duio c: ~~~.~.g Ul N 2 .!/! :g ~llloet Qi c: o Z ... 5 ID ~ .E C'l I' ~;;~ iD c: o Z c: 'E "iio ::lo tilD III c: o III "C c: CD CD Ul Q. III X co Q) mC'l '<t~ .- <0 C'l Q) Q) CD lL. Q) ... lL. '~ CD .... Ql 'E c: Ql lL. ... 0 c.. .... CD .;; c: Ui = 'E c.. (.) .51 CD w ... CD Q) Ql W Ul CD !:l Q. i3 lL. > Ul Ul ... lL. III c.. .E Ql .... 0 III Q. Cl I- U ~ .t: ! Ul E ! ~ (.) .E :D "C Ul Ul 'iij III a: c: ::l 0 ~ c.. 0 W III '0 C: - c.. - E: ] 0 '~ = -l Ul ~ (.) 0 c: Ul et Ul ~z 0 f1> <<l CD III a: u z en , , U I- en ::l - N M ~ 0 .- ~ u.. u.. ~ u.. ~ > ~ .c G:I (/) c: o .c ::l ... ~ .!1! GlO :> ~ . G:I i 'E III (/) .g ... III o > ~ ~ 'c III (/) (/) w Cl a: < J: U o Z < (/) w ~ < a: IL. o W ..J ::l o w J: U (/) w > ~ < a: < 0- ~ o U c: o E ... III III a:o c: III III Gl (/) .2 .5 c: :c Gl :l(/) o ~ III o U III ~ E o U "iij ~ ... C Gl U all "C~~ ~'tOu Ca:U E 10 ~ E ~ III 8.... ~ Gl .,t :0 a:Cl>.c ~u E Gl '" ~Ci. .. .. '0 : c: Cl III G:I Gla. o Gl o III E Gl '" .:>LoCi. ~ ... III '0 Gl c: Cl III '" Gla. o Gl G:l III ... c: Gl G:I .:>LoCi. ~ ... G:I '0 Gl c: Cl III '" Gla. o Gl o III o :c III 9 '" .. Q; o o o + ~ Cl>CX> ....0 ....0 00 Attachment 11 Page 6 of 6 Gl III '" Gl Cil Gl .:>Lo ~ '0 C III Gl o o Gl .:>Lo III ... '0 c: Gl III III Gl III o Gl o Cil Gl .:>Lo ~ '0 c: Gl III III Gl III o Gl o Cil Gl .:>Lo '" .. '0 c: Gl III III Gl '" o Gl o Cil + ~ + ~ oNoN 0....10.... .t~.t~ ....OvO 0000 Gl :c ~ ~ 0 E 0- III "C '" c: ~ '" .:>Lo .:>Lo .:>Lo .:>Lo Gl .2 l.l l.l Gl l.l l.l Gl E :l III 2 E > IL. a. ~ G:I .. 0 '; Gl '; '; .:..i .. Gl (; Cl 'E (/) E "iij "iij "iij "iij Gl < Cl Cl Ol Cl 'to (/) lii .!!1 III E 0 U 0 0- '" 0 0 0 ~ E ~ 0 0 III 0 0 0- ~ .i. (/) "iij Gl O. ~ :l 0 ~ :l "C .. N N ~ N N U i5 .!!1 oil c: 'iii III : w c: Gl '0 Gl V ^ < a: ~ V ^ a: i Cl IE < ~ - N M 0; 0- .... iD w Cl 6 Cl 0- (/) II - c- .. 0 ~ Q: III 0 <( .... o 10 N N - + ~ + ~ OCX>OCX> OCl>IOCl> .t~.t~ ....0 v 0 0000 - o Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 7 BOARD MEETING OF May 4, 1 995 NO. 7. BIDS AND AWARDS a. AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO MCGUIRE AND HESTER AND AUTHORIZE CONSULTING AGREEMENTS WITH MONTGOMERY WATSON AND WOODWARD CLYDE CONSULTANTS FOR THE PLEASANT HILL RELIEF INTERCEPTOR PHASE 3, DP NO. 5031 DATE A ril 28 1995 TYPE OF ACTION SUBJECT AUTHORIZE AWARD AUTHORIZE AGREEMENTS SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Tad J. Pilecki, Senior Engineer Engineering Dept./lnfrastructure Div. ISSUE: On April 26, 1995, sealed bids for the construction of District Project No. 5031, Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project, Phase 3 were opened. The Board of Directors must authorize award of the contract or reject all bids within 50 days of the opening of bids. Authorization of the Board is required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute professional services agreements in amounts greater than $50,000. BACKGROUND: On September 4, 1 991, the Board passed a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project and approving the majority of the alignment. The Board also passed resolutions at the September 4, 1993, and March 2, 1995, Board meetings approving the remainder of the alignment. At its September 16, 1993, meeting, the Board approved a Negative Declaration and the Recycled Water Pipeline Project. Construction on Phases 1 and 2 of the project was completed in December 1994. Phase 3 of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project includes construction of 4,900 feet of 48- inch diameter pipe (2,850 feet by microtunneling) and 5,200 feet of 18 and 16 inch reclaimed water line. Construction of the project includes crossing Grayson Creek, the Kmart Shopping Center, Diablo Valley College and Valley View Middle School. The alignment generally follows the west bank of Grayson Creek. The project also includes rerouting and abandoning some local collector mains, trunks, and siphons in order to take full advantage of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor. The project has a restricted construction schedule to avoid major construction activity on school property when school is in session. Once completed, Phase 3 will provide overflow relief to Baylor Lane, the site of major overflows in 1982 and 1986. Virtually all the necessary permits, agreements, and regulatory requirements have been obtained or met, including all the construction access and right of way documents. Plans and specifications for the project were prepared by Montgomery Watson (MW); the Engineer's Estimate for the construction was $5,300,000. The project was advertised on April 4 and April 10, 1995. Four (4) bids ranging from $5,746,666 to $6,489,000 were received and publicly opened on April 26, 1995. A summary of bids is presented in Attachment 1. ;:;7~~~' ::-~m 1302A-7/91 ~~ MENDED FOR BOARD ACTION M~NG ROGER J. DOLAN SUBJECT AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO MCGUIRE AND HESTER AND AUTHORIZE CONSULTING AGREEMENTS WITH MONTGOMERY WATSON AND WOODWARD CLYDE CONSULTANTS FOR THE PLEASANT HILL RELIEF INTERCEPTOR PHASE 3, DP NO. 5031 ................................................................................... ::IIIIIIIIIIIII:III:llml_i PAGE DATE 2 OF 7 April 28, 1995 The Engineering Department conducted a technical and commercial evaluation of bids and determined that the lowest responsible bidder is McGuire and Hester, for the amount of $5,746,666. The funds required to complete this project, as shown in Attachment 2, are $6,700,000. The total project cost is anticipated to be $7,150,000. Construction of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor, Phase 3 is included in the fiscal year 1 994-95 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) on pages CS-23 through CS-29. The current balance of the Sewer Construction Fund, minus unspent prior allocations plus projected dependable revenue, will be adequate to fund this project. A funding summary is presented in Attachment 3. District staff plans on administering the construction contract and providing inspection services with office engineering services, including shop drawing review, provided by MW. MW prepared the plans and specifications for the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor and also provided office engineering services during the construction of Phase 1 and 2. Because of satisfactory performance and knowledge of the project, MW is recommended to provide office engineering service for this phase of the project. A Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $101,000 has been negotiated with MW. Periodic inspection services and office engineering associated with the microtunneling portions of the project are recommended to be provided by Woodward Clyde Consultants (WCC). WCC prepared the plans and specifications for the tunnel portions of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project and also provided construction support for Phases 1 and 2. Because of previous satisfactory performance and knowledge of the project, WCC is recommended to provide periodic field inspection and office engineering for the microtunneling portions of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project Phase 3. A Professional Services agreement in the amount of $60,000 has been negotiated with WCC. In addition to the construction support services agreements, staff has negotiated with Montgomery Watson five amendments to the design contract. Four of the amendments, totaling $ 87,730 have been authorized by staff and are for additional work performed during Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the project. This work included additional geotechnical work needed for design of the microtunneling portions of the project and the Grayson Creek Crossing, the design of a corrosion protection system for the reclaimed water line, and assistance in dealing with regulatory agencies. Due to the total dollar amount, Board concurrence is being requested. A fifth amendment to incorporate more microtunneling into Phases 4 and 5 and to complete the design package for Phases 4 and 5 has been negotiated in the amount of $63,770, bringing the total of the amendments to $151,500. 13028-7/91 ----------r ------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO MCGUIRE AND HESTER AND AUTHORIZE CONSULTING AGREEMENTS WITH MONTGOMERY WATSON AND WOODWARD CLYDE CONSULTANTS FOR THE PLEASANT HILL RELIEF INTERCEPTOR PHASE 3, DP NO. 5031 ..........................................-........................................ ::.11111.111111:11::11111111111: PAGE 3 DATE OF 7 April 28, 1995 CEOA requirements for this project have been met by the Board's approval of the Final EIR for the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project at its September 4, 1991, July 1, 1993, and March 2, 1995, meetings and the approval of the Negative Declaration for the Recycled Water Pipeline at its September 16, 1993, meeting. The Final EIR requires the District to implement a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program. Staff has included sufficient funds to insure that the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program is adequately carried out. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of contract for construction of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Phase 3, District Project No. 5031, in the amount of $5,746,666 to McGuire and Hester as the lowest responsible bidder. Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute Professional Service Agreements with Montgomery Watson ($101,000 and 151,500) and Woodward Clyde Consultants ($60,000). 1302B-7/91 --------1 ----------...----------.--.----0--.--..---- -.----.--.-------------------------.----------------.------.--...-..----.- ------------.--- Attachment 1 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District SUMMARY OF BIDS PROJECT NO. 5031 Pleasant Hill Relief Interceotor Phase 3 DATE 1 0/4/94 LOCATION Martinez/Pleasant Hill ENGR. EST. $ 5.300.000 BIDDER (Name, Telephone & Address) BID PRICE 1 McGuire and Hester (510) 632-7676 $ 5,746,666 9009 Railroad Avenue, Oakland, CA 94603 2 Vadnais Corporation (619) 481-6242 $ 5,992,120 12760 High Bluff Drive, Ste. 379 San Diego, CA 92130 3 Stacy and Witbeck, Inc. (415) 285-7570 $ 6,186,915 P. O. Box 883063, San Francisco, CA 94188 4 Bay Pacific Pipelines (415) 897-6958 $ 6,489,000 214 Pacheco Avenue, Novato, CA 94947 $ $ $ $ BIDS OPENED BY Paul Morsen DATE 04/26/95 SH EET NO ---1...- OF---1..- '-1" --.-..-..--------.--,."---.-.----~" ATTACHMENT 2 PLEASANT HILL RELIEF INTERCEPTOR PHASE 3 DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5031 POST BID/PRECONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE PERCENT OF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST 1 Construction Contract (Assumed) $ 5,746,666 2 Contingency at 6% 341 ,334 Subtotal 6,088,000 100 3 Construction Management . Project Management $ 45,000 . Inspection/Administration 203,000 . Design Support 7,000 Subtotal $ 255,000 4.2 4 Consultant Contractors . Design Consultant (MW) $ 101,000 . Soils Consultant (WCC) 60,000 . Tunneling (EPC) 5,000 . Corrosion (V &A) 5,000 . Material Testing (Kleinfelder) 1 5,000 . Arborist (Atlas) 5,000 Subtotal $ 191,000 3.1 5 Miscellaneous . Legal $ 10,000 . Permit/City Inspection/Flood 50,000 Control Inspection . Collection System Operations 5,000 . Survey 31,000 . Community Relations 20,000 . Record Drawings (by District 10,000 staff) . Portable Personal Computer and 5,000 Software . Disputes Review Board 20,000 . Temporary Clerical Assistance1 12,000 . Field Office Support 3,000 Subtotal $ 166,000 2.7 ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL PERCENT OF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 6 Prebid Expenditures . Predesign2 Final Design Phase 33 $ 200,000 250,000 3.3 4.1 . Subtotal $ 450,000 7.4 7 8 9 Total Project Cost Estimate Funds Authorized to Date Total Allocation of Funds to Complete Project $ 7,150,000 $ 450,000 $ 6,700,000 1.17 1 A temporary secretary will be hired for a 10 month period to assist with the secretarial activities associated with construction management and public relations on this large project. 21ncludes portion of predesign expenditures attributable to Phase 3 of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor. 31ncludes the $87,730 in amendments with MW. IDle: Infra/DP/5031/Attach. 2 ATTACHMENT 3 PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD 04/1 0/95 THROUGH 05/09/95 SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND BALANCE AS OF 03/31/95** $66,600,000 MINUS UNSPENT PRIOR ALLOCATIONS (39,100,000) PLUS DEPENDABLE CURRENT YEAR REVENUE (4/95 THROUGH 6/95) 6,800,000 PLUS DEPENDABLE FUTURE REVENUE (7/95 THROUGH 12/95) 8,200,000 $42,500,000 $42,500,000 > $6,700,000 (ALLOCATION REQUIRED) **Balance includes the unspent proceeds of the 1994 Capital Tax and Revenue antici- pation Notes (TRANs), and the 1994 Revenue Installment Certificates (COPs). Out- standing debt as of 4/30/95 is projected to be $35,898,822 ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ~ BOARD OF DIRECTORS :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. :'::)::::::)) BOARD MEETING OF ::::~"U~'I'''I...:kI}'I'.:::::'AJl.'=.'.l/ May 4, 1 995 :.:.:.:r:~\iilg flf ~:I'.:.:. :.:.:.:PlF?Iii:R.:.:.:. .........:::.:::::..:.:.:.:::::.:.:............:.:::::.:.:::::.:.:.:::::.:.::.:........::...:.::..............::::..;..............:.:.......... PAGE 1 OF 1 NO. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE a. APPROVE EMPLOYEE COMPUTER HARDWARE PURCHASE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM DATE April 19, 1995 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE PROGRAM SUBMITTED BY Andrew Sniderman, MIS Administrator INITIATING DEPTJDIV. Administrative/M IS ISSUE: The MIS Committee is recommending a District sponsored Employee Computer Hardware Purchase Assistance Program. BACKGROUND: With the increasing presence and importance of Personal Computers in the workplace, many government entities have established programs to assist their employees in acquiring a computer for home use. These programs are structured around low or interest free loans. Programs are currently in place at the following agencies: Delta Diablo Sanitation, Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control, Dublin San Ramon, Union Sanitary and the City of Vacaville. These programs increase employee computer literacy. Employees are quicker to learn and apply new software systems in the workplace as they become more confident and efficient in utilizing this new technology. The programs also reduce internal training costs. Employees are likely to learn on their own and are motivated to seek additional training outside of the workplace. Program Overview The MIS Committee and the Finance Office will work together to specify the technical and administrative structure of the program. The Finance Office will have the responsibility of administering the program. It will have the following key features: .. Equal opportunity to participate for every Central San Employee. .. Individual loan limit of $2,000. The loans will be repaid via monthly payroll deductions with a maximum payback period of two years. Should a participating employee leave the District, any outstanding balance becomes due immediately and will be deducted from the employees final paycheck. .. Initial loan fund of $70,000. At the maximum amount of $2,000 per loan, this will initially accommodate 35 employees. .. Two year program sunset review. The program will be reviewed at the end of two years to evaluate its success and determine if it should be continued. .:. The District will charge participants at the LAIF interest rate, and will get the same rate of return as it would if the loan fund were invested rather than extended to employees. .. Purchased Computers must be compatible with District Standards, and will require the review of the MIS Administrator. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the Employee Computer Purchase Assistance Program effective July 1, 1995. L// DR Ipc/comploan.pp Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 14 BOARD MEETING OF May 4, 1995 NO. 9. ENGINEERING a. SUBJECT DATE May 1, 1 995 ADVISE THE BOARD OF STAFF ACTIONS RELATED TO ALLEGED PAYROLL DEFICIENCIES ON THE HEADWORKS FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (DP 20069) TYPE OF ACTION RECEIVE AND COMMENT SUBMITTEDAY Id SKI' k Iiona . Imcza Senior Engineer INITIATING DEPT./QIV., , t:nglneerlng Department/ Plant Engineering Division ISSUE: Both the District Council of Carpenters in Morgan Hill and the Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 152 in Martinez, have made allegations that Humphrey Construction, Inc. has failed to pay prevailing wages and benefits on the recently completed Headworks Facilities Improvements Project (Headworks). District staff, working with advice of District Counsel, have taken various actions related to these allegations. These issues are presented for the Board's review. BACKGROUND: The Headworks Project work was completed and accepted by the Board of Directors on February 2, 1995. The Notice of Completion was recorded at the Contra Costa County Recorder's office on February 3, 1995. A dispute has broken out between the contractor and two labor unions. The District is maintaining a cooperative but neutral stance in this dispute. Beginning in late January 1995, two carpenter organizations (the Central California District Council of Carpenters located in Morgan Hill and the Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 152 located in Martinez) began contacting the District asking to see copies of certified payrolls submitted by Humphrey Construction, Inc. Over the last three months, District staff has cooperated with numerous requests for information and has met with Carpenters Union representatives to answer various questions. When appropriate, these representatives were advised to contact District Counsel to pursue specific legal interpretation issues. Correspondence and discussions with representatives from these organizations have focused on three primary issues. These interrelated issues and staff actions taken to date are outlined on Attachment 1. Basically, the Carpenters Union representatives allege that Humphrey Construction, Inc. has underpaid employee's wage and fringe benefit payments in an amount up to $200,000. The contractor maintains that all required wage and fringe benefit payments have been made and no underpayments have occurred. No legal Stop Notice was submitted during the 30-day lien period (February 3, 1995, to March 6, 1995); the statutory period specifically provided to identify any payment disputes. Although no Stop Notices were received, District staff reviewed the Carpenters Union allegations and determined that only an unexplained missing step increase of 44C per hour for journeyman carpenters in July 1994 was specific enough to justify withholding funds from the planned retention release. Consequently, a total of $39,570 ($2,156 underpayment + $29,500 penalty at $50 per worker-day + 25 percent contingency) was withheld with all remaining retention funds released on March 28, 1995. Failure to release RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON wt ffr4B 1302A-7/91 RSK WEB RAB KLA I.-.---.---.-.-..-....--.----".------.-~_.__K._~__~.._.-..,..-,--~-----"._~-.~,.._..'.,..-_.--.- ADVISE THE BOARD OF STAFF ACTIONS RELATED TO ALLEGED PAYROLL DEFICIENCIES ON THE HEADWORKS FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (DP 20069) SUBJECT PAGE DATE 2 OF 14 May 1, 1995 unencumbered retention funds within 60 days of the recorded Notice of Completion (i.e., by April 4, 1995) would have potentially exposed the District to payment of 2 percent interest per month on these funds to the contractor. The Carpenters Union continues to maintain that up to $200,000 in wage and benefit underpayments exist; however, no precise amount could be determined from the information available. The State Labor Commissioner's office (State) is currently investigating all of the Carpenters Union allegations. Consequently, District staff has deferred any further action pending completion of the State's investigation. All information requested by the State has been provided by District staff. A determination of findings is expected to be presented to the District in the near future. Negotiations are proceeding with the contractor to resolve outstanding change order issues. Additional monies may ultimately be due Humphrey Construction, Inc. when the outstanding issues have been resolved. Consequently, adequate funds are expected to be available over the next month or two to cover any verified prevailing wage deficiencies identified by the State. It would be staff's intent to follow the direction of the State in this matter. RECOMMENDATION: Refer the issue of possible' payroll deficiencies on the Headworks Project to staff for further coordination with the State of California Labor Commissioner's office for resolution. 1302B-7/91 A:\PAROLLDE.RSK ---,..__._------_._---~.._.....----~ ,..~--~_.__.._------~--_._~'_..,._....._.~._..~-_._,.-,--"...,-,-,--+_.~._+ ATTACHMENT NO.1 PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF ACTION REGARDING ALLEGED PAYROLL DEFICIENCIES ON THE HEADWORKS FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Issue No. 1 - Prevailina Waaes and Benefits After reviewing copies of payroll documents in the District's field office, the Carpenters Union representatives alleged in a February 24, 1995, letter that the contractor's payroll submittals are incomplete since they do not provide a full and complete itemized disclosure of fringe benefit payments (i.e., training, health and welfare, annuity, pension). The Carpenters Union representatives believe that up to $9.00 to $12.00 per worker's hour is unaccounted for, which they claimed at the April 20, 1995, Board meeting could represent up to two hundred thousand dollars in underpayment. (Contractors typically provide an annual or semiannual updated fringe benefit breakdown listing for each worker classification. Humphrey Construction's last routine statement submitted to the District covered the period June 15, 1992 to June 15, 1993. All missing fringe benefit statements have now been provided to the District which the District has, in turn, shared with the union representatives). In addition, the Carpenters Union representative maintains that the required $0.44 per hour July 1994 step increase ($23.56 per hour to $24 per hour) for journeyman carpenters was not paid. A formal request was made that the District provide a copy of all Humphrey Construction, Inc. payrolls for the 2 % year duration of construction and that no final progress payment be made until the Carpenters Union representatives had been satisfied that the contractor has been found to be in full compliance with the prevailing wage and reporting requirements. The District's March 6, 1995 letter to Humphrey Construction advised them ofthe allegations and required that they provide a complete breakdown of the missing fringe benefit information, as well as an explanation for the apparent failure to pay the July 1994 step increase for journeyman carpenters. On March 16, the District was contacted by the State of California Labor Commissioner's office in Oakland (State) indicating that they were investigating a complaint by Local 152 of the Carpenters Union of alleged Humphrey Construction, Inc. prevailing wage and benefit violations. Numerous contract documents were subsequently requested by the State and provided by the District to assist the State in their investigation. In late March and early April, Humphrey Construction, Inc. provided copies of all payrolls with the fringe benefit information added, as well as their explanation for not being required to pay the July 1994 journeyman carpenter wage step increase. All payroll information has been provided to the Carpenter Union, as requested, for their review. (The State is obtaining the same information directly from the contractor.) District staff is awaiting direction from the State as to whether or not any final specific wage violation issues have been identified. If specific underpayments and penalties are presented by the State to the District within 90 days of the recorded Notice of Completion (i.e., by May 4), the District may be required to withhold funds from any monies remaining due Humphrey. If submitted after May 4, the State may independently pursue a claim against the contractor's payment bond. Issue No. 2 - Retention Release/Validitv of Carpenters Union Stop Notice Upon the District's recording of the Notice of Completion on February 3, 1995, subcontractors, suppliers, and others with valid claims of non-payment by the contractor have A:\PAROLLDE.RSK 1 30 days (i.e., by March 6, 1995) to file a Stop Notice with the District per California Civil Code Section 3184. As the Board knows, a legal Stop Notice has the effect of requiring the District to withhold sufficient funds to cover the alleged payment dispute from monies due a contractor. Final disbursement of the disputed funds may ultimately occur as a result of legal action or a negotiated resolution between the parties. Specification Section GC-41, FINAL PAYMENT AND RELEASE of the contract documents states that "Upon expiration of the statutory period for filing of liens and stop notices and provided no liens or stop notices have been filed, the District will pay to the Contractor the amount remaining after deducting from such amount all such amounts as will have been previously paid to the Contractor under the Contract, and also any amounts which, by the terms of the Contract, the District is or may be authorized or required to reserve or retain." Failure to pay unencumbered retention funds to the contractor within 60 days of the recorded Notice of Completion subjects the District to a charge of two percent per month per Public Contract Code Section 7107(f). During the 30-day lien period, District staff evaluated the alleged prevailing wage discrepancy issues as presented by the Carpenters Union and determined, with confirmation by District Counsel, that only the potential $0.44 per hour underpayment of journeyman carpenter wages had enough specificity to justify calculating an amount to be withheld from the $918,400 in retention funds tentatively scheduled for release. Despite the fact that the Carpenters Union now claim up to a two hundred thousand dollar underpayment, District staff could only find sufficient justification to withhold funds to cover the potential missing step increase for journeyman carpenters. Therefore, District calculations resulted in $39,570 (including potential penalties) being withheld, with the balance of retention funds ($878,830) subsequently released on March 28, 1995, since no Stop Notices had been received. The State was advised of the District's pending action and had no comment. Also, during a conversation between Mr. Klimczak (CCCSD) and Mr. M. Sakata (District Counsel of Carpenters), on March 22, 1995, Mr. Sakata was advised of the pending District action and he stated "our action sounds fair enough." On April 4, 1995, the District received a Stop Notice in the amount of $44,226.79 from the Bay Counties District Council of Carpenters for alleged wage underpayments to six individuals hired by Humphrey Construction, Inc. On April 7, 1995, the District received a letter from an attorney representing Humphrey Construction, Inc. challenging the validity of the Stop Notice in terms of timing (after the statutory 30-day lien period) and authorized claimant (labor Organization vs Affected Workers). Under advice of District counsel, the Stop Notice was determined to be late (by approximately one month) and the Carpenters Union was so advised. Issue No. 3 - Release of Worker Names and Other Confidential Information Various representatives of carpenter unions have taken exception to the District's policy of obliterating contractor employee's names, addresses, and social security numbers when providing copies of certified payrolls to the public. labor Code Section 1776(e) states, "Any copy of records made available for inspection as copies and furnished upon request to the public or any public agency by the awarding body, the Division of Apprenticeship Standards, or the Division of labor Standards Enforcement shall be marked or obliterated in a manner so as to prevent disclosure of an individual's name, address and social security number." All copies of certified payrolls provided to the Carpenter's Union have had the specified information deleted. A meeting is currently being arranged between District Counsel, District staff and attorneys representing the Carpenter's Union with this issue as the main subject for discussion. A:\PAROLLDE.RSK 2 AFFILIATED LOCAL UNIONS Piledrivers Local 34 Oakland Lathers 83-L Fresno Millwright Local 102 Oakland Lathers Local 144-L San Jose Millmen and Industrial Carpenters Local 262 San Jose Carpenters Local 405 Santa Clara/San Benito Counties CENTRAL CAUFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS Affiliated with AFl-C1O AFFILIATED LOCAL UNIONS Carpenters Local 505 Santa Cruz County Carpenters Local 605 Monterey County Carpenters Local 701 Fresno Carpenters Local 1109 Visalia Millmen and Industrial Carpenters Local 1496 Fresno Floorlayers Local 1861 Mt. View WM. GARY MARTIN Executive Officer 365 Woodview Avenue. Ste. #300 Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Phone: (408) 779-0312 Fax: (408) 778-1381 IRH~~~n~~lQ) MAY 011995 April 28, 1995 CCCSD SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT Fred King, Construction Manager CH2M Hill 1111 Broadway, Ste. 1200 Oakland, CA 94604-2681 SUBJ: Martinez Headworks Facilities Improvement Humphrey Construction, Inc. Dear Mr. King: On April 6, 1995 this office received a parcel (12x12x12) from you under your cover letter dated April 5 stating that the certified payroll reports that I requested in my letter of February 24 were enclosed and that the charge for providing the certified payroll reports was $249.75 payable to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Words cannot describe my disappointment to fmd that the parcel consisted of computer printouts which are no closer to complying with the public works payroll reporting requirements of Labor Code Section 1776 and California Code of Regulations Section 16401 than the computer printouts reviewed at your jobsite office on February 14. In blunt terms, the computer printouts of Humphrey Construction just do not provide us the answers regarding workers fringe benefits that we are entitled to by state laws. Labor Code Section 1776 requires the employer to keep accurate .~.. T ..---.-.----.---,---..-....~.~,...-'- Fred King April 28, 1995 Page 2 accounting per worker, per hour, per classification and that such accounting must be disclosed, including the whereabouts of funds, via certified payroll reports submitted on the state for DIR A-1-131 or on equivalent format containing all the data required by Labor Code Section 1776. If the contractor fails (or refuses in this case) to provide the required data, penalties must be assessed by the awarding body and withheld from progress payments as per Labor Code Section 1776(q). The assessment of penalties and withholding of same from progress payments due the contractor is the only viable and immediate insurance (the only alternative is a lawsuit) of compliance with the certified payroll reporting and record keeping requirements. Once the final progress payment has been made, the awarding body has surrendered its foothold on the contractor for all intents and purposes including making it very difficult, if not impossible, for the State Labor Commissioner to recover the workers' unpaid prevailing wages and penalties against the contractor. You were advised of the importance of withholding the final progress payment several times commencing with our meeting of February 14, 1995. Needless to say, due to the lack of data on the computer printouts submitted, it is impossible to perform an audit to determine if Humphrey Construction paid the statutorily required fringe benefit amounts in behalf of the workers nor do the printouts indicate where the funds were spent. However, we were at least able to determine that the bulk of the fringe package was not paid directly to the workers and that the workers did work under several different craft classifications on a daily basis. Of course, this means that the workers are entitled to varying amounts ($9.00 to $12.00 per hour) of fringe contributions based on the actual work hours spent under each classification and that Humphrey Construction must (by law) have kept time keeping records (ie: time cards, daily logs, etc.) to account for said multi-classification of workers. Mr. King, prior to the recent release of the final progress payment to Humphrey Construction, both Rick Harrington (Carpenters Local #152, Martinez) and I advised you that numerous workers employed by Humphrey Construction on the subject project have submitted written complaints alleging serious underpayment of prevailing wages via routine misclassification of workers (ie: doing carpentry, plumbing and pipefitting, operating heavy equipment, etc. but classified and paid as laborers), not paying overtime or holiday pay, not providing fringe benefits such as medical plans but subcontracting costs from workers' prevailing wages, not paying wage increases required by law, as well as numerous serious safety and health violations committed. You were also informed that the Bay Counties ___._._.._______.____....__...........,_.___...._._._____"_,,__._.,.____.._,,~_.___"___._____._~___"__._A_'_._._.M.__._._._._.__~_.___.,__,_____..m'..~_'. 'm""""__'__"'" Fred King April 28, 1995 Page 3 District Council and the Central California District Council of Carpenters, having signed legal representation authorization cards, represent the workers who are claimants in this matter. You were told that based on the workers' statements, Humphrey Construction made it standard practice to underpay all workers in the same manner. You were also aware that the State Labor Commissioner was and is investigating the workers' complaints. You were clearly aware of the importance of this office obtaining certified payroll reports and of our statutory rights under the law as well as your responsibility to enforce the reporting requirements per Labor Code Section 1776. Despite your having the above information well in advance, the final progress payment was made to Humphrey Construction. The truly disturbing thought that I take issue with stems from the fact that for the entire two and a half year duration of the subject project, there has been no identifiable effort on your part or anyone else representing the awarding body to ascertain if the workers were being paid the required prevailing wages or if Humphrey Construction was pocketing the workers' fringe benefit monies and submitting bogus payroll reports to conceal the violation or whether the workers had any safety or health concerns. In fact, other than accumulating stacks of computer printouts which are worthless because no one bothered to analyze them or verify any data, not a single ounce of effort was expended toward complying with Labor Code Section 1726, which states that "The body awarding the contract for public work shall take cognizance of violations of the provisions of this chapter committed in the course of the execution of the contract." I believe this responsibility was contracted out to you and CH2M Hill by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Consequently, be advised that should the State Labor Commissioner not be able to recover 100% of the workers' unpaid prevailing wages (inclusive of unlawfully withheld fringe related funds) pursuant to Labor Code Section 1775 because the final progress payment was made prematurely leaving insufficient funds to attach, or because the ninety day time limit for recovery action has expired, or for other reason traceable to your neglect or error, the workers may seek recovery action against the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. I regret having to write this letter, however, your failure to properly protect the prevailing wage rights of the workers and their rights to recover said wages in behalf of the awarding body, as well as your failure to provide the statutory certified payroll reports in a timely manner is extremely serious and cannot be l'"--"---'--'---'-~~'--'''--''-''-''.'-''--'--'-''-----.____.__...__''''._.______......_____.___n___h.__.___..-",',,"._-,---"-- Fred King April 28, 1995 Page 4 ignored. I must also decline to submit payment for the computer printouts, as they are seriously deficient and not what the law states we are entitled to. Very truly yours, M. Sakata Special Advisor MS :pkr opeiu#29/afl-cio cc: Ron Klimczak - CCCSD Board of Directors - CCCSD Board of Supervisors - CCC Robert J. Campbell - Assembly Member Carol SHlick - Deputy Labor Commissioner Paul Supton - VanBourg, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld Rick Harrington - Carpenters Local 152 Rich Wright - Assistant Over Field Operations, eeDe ~ B, OQQI( FI(lNIW) W. I!IAl)WfC JOHN W. -. JR. ACIIERT L ReIJIGSl 0BJfAIIEY F._ ~\lE6r.. M\;!SM~f1 tlORC1TlfY BM:l5I\I\I ~ 1'lI'IM"tl.IlEFmlS!ilA nRI'IY A. WlOI;N TI'lACEY L. Tl,IOtIV CICIIlERNE Y. CCFlFEE Cook, Brown7 Rediger & Prager Attorneys at Law 5SS CAPITOL I'YW.L . SUITE 425 SACRAMENTO. CAL.IFORNIA 95814 (V'l6) 442-8100 FAX (916) 442-4227 May 1. 1995 V1A.F.ACSIMlLE (510)676-12U Joyce E. Murphy, Secretary CENTRAL CONI'RA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT 5019 Inhoff Place Martinez, California 94553 Re; Martinez Headworks Facili:t:ies Imorovements Protect IOJ CMC CSfII!JIl;lfIIve ~.4IlO MHJl'. AHA.; ~ IIJI)1 U1111iCi!-'" f'Alc (rl4~ $41-14lQt RI!lIPOM) 10: Sacramento 3256 Dear Ms. Murphy: This law finn represents HlIlI1phrey Chnstruction, Ine.. with respect to the issue of. its payment of prevailing wages on the above referenced project. It is OUI undeJ5tanding that this matter will be an agenda item for the Board meeting on 'Thursday, May 3, 1995. We request that th.e enclosed Position Statement of Humphrey ConstmctioD, Ine. be attached to the Board Agenda for distribution to tbe Board members prior to the meeting, The company also requests time on the agenda to respond to any questions that may arise on tbis issue. Very truly yours, COOK., BROWN. REDIGER & PRAGER ~~ DENNIS B. COOK DBC:ltj Enclosures cc: Fred King (with enclosure, via facsimile) Mark Cornelius (witb enclosure, via facsimile) Bernie Conley (with enclosure, via facsimile) M,\LTJ\32S6\~ cV2'd d~'8'J P0:Pl S6, l0 ^~w HU~EY CONSTR.UCTlON, 1Ne. POSITION STATEMENT During the two and Ifl yeus of construction on the Headwaters Project, Humphrey Construction, Inc. employed worken who performed work as pipefitters, laboters~ operath1g engineeIS~ cement masons, iron workeIS~ field surveyor, and carpenters. The only prevailing wage issue that arose during construction was whether the company was properly paying its employees when performing operating engineers' and field surveyors work. This matter was audited by the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) in 1993 and the Division found the Humphrey Construction correctly paid its employees (see attached). Humphrey Construction e~rienced no problems with its employees or any labor organizations during the COUIBe of construction on this project. For example, the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 159 and Humphrey Constntction, Inc. negotiated a project-only conective bargaining agreement for this project. The Carpenters Union made no such request and none of the employees who performed aupentefs work ever requested to be represented by the .Union. If Humphrey Construction's employees wanted representation, they or the Union could have filed an election petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This was never done. Nor did the Union have any cause to file unfair labor practices charges against Humphrey Construction. The major contention raised by the Carpenters Union is that Humphrey Construction should not have paid the I'predetermined rates" issued by the Division of Labor Statistics and Research (DLSR). but should have paid new wage and fringe benefit rates that were not in existence at the time that this. project was bid. This has never been the position of the DLSR. and Humphrey Consbuction is confident that the DLSE and DLSR will come to the same oonclusion in the current audit. Furthermore~ Section 16204(b) of Title 8 of the CaJifomia Code of Regulations provides a clear answer to this question. That section states in part that: Prevailing wage determinations with dQuble asterisks (**) after the expiration date indicate that the basic hourly wage rate, . . . for work perfonned after this date ha[ s l been predetermined. If work is to extend past this date~ the new rate must be paid and should be incorporated in oontracts entered into now. "The contractor should contact the Prevailing Wage Unit, DLSR, or the awarding body to obtain predetermined wage changes. In keeping with this regulation, Humphrey Construction contacted the OLSR and obtained by predetermined wage changes (see attached) which it incorporated into its wage and fringe benefit payments on this project. It is extremely unlikely tbat the DLSR will reverse itself on this issue. Therefore. Hwnpbrey Constru.ct.ion, Inc. respectfully requests that the District defer to the DLSR and the DLSE and refrain from taking any action wbicb would jeopardize Humphrey Construction"s financial standing on this project. .!/E . d d~~(8'J S0:Pl S6, l0 ^~w ~'~'f' __.,...... .:......... . ' .' . u. ......'._ 'Or" I. ...., ~-21-1S9S 12=17 OR' _, . .., I..: ..... -~.. 'l-I.JI"FHREY CD-lST . ~ Q)mm;ssonsr. Stale of CaJik:W!1ia Oepanrnantof InCIU!lIriII ReIafiotIs 0M$ian of t.aDOr~ ~e1l\ )' autNU.of ~ E:l1folcemelK 100 ~ de San AnlDn1o. Am ,26 I Sat! Jose. CA. 95113 - ..-.. - - \ . ......-. .. I i".:' _ . . h. . - ...... . ~~':: TO~' ..... . . ...."... ~ -:]. I, ......... I . BUMPSilEX CONS'r!tUC'!ION, !NC. P.o. Box 9Q1 Wood~nv1~la, WA 98072-090; .J L t ....f'C. i COMP\...AINT C1..OSEO NOTICE [~....; .-< ~=.::,~~ twpj ""~ p~rev construcUoG, IDC. - ...... ..-" :~,:;."".- ,:':': .~.'l'.';;~1.-':.'.-<,~, :12064SB10B9 P. Z3/03 7' Sei\;'to T"f"- t,:'. .... I \ I UII .Ch.Y. ..II:JI"ClIIl1'O'~'" ......-. . - 'h. 31-Q6&39DP; . "! ~ -~ :- 'rite C;Ofnl)laint against the aacwe-narned C'C)ntractor{~} is being dosed for ttte fallowing- reason(s): \ ~ .Subject firm has ~ti~tcrUy paid all .." and/Qr pena.t~ due. . '" o Sbblle Of limlta~gns.odor the P-"b1ic '"""", '-"'" (1..oIXlt c- SoclI<>n$ 1m tlIt1lUgI1lli61) hillS expired. Iii} ln~ffir;ient l!N'iden~1! to confirm Public 'Narks L..i'rWS were violateC1. C Subject flnn not within the juti5dictiol'l of the l'ub'ic WorkS :-a~ o Othet; STATE l-ABOR COMM1SSl0NER !i ~.....~~~.,:) DENISE PAPdS Peputy I,al:)Or Commi.s.s:i..cmer l"N..!./17 . d If:.... ~ y [ :L':'. :~:.:;:: .::' c:: ;:T. " i: :: ;'-t ~. ~. .. . .. --.. "- U' ",:;".; ~c.QS&D Nl"ITIC d~~'8'J S0:17~ S6, 10 ^~ _........ ,... r")~ ~~1'?-1~95 17:215 ruP:-IREY COHST 12~1~~ ~.~/~~ " . . _OFCAUFORNIA . 0 ARn.t~NTOF INDUSTRIAl RELATIONS DIVISION OF lABOR STAl1STICS & RESEARCH 45S Golden Gab!- A"enue~ 5Ih Floor. Rm. 5184 San Franc:isw. CA . 9410" PETE WLSON. e:NEROf .. r AllOIlelSIIB'LYTO: (it P.O. BQK 4tD603 San Francisco GA 94142-06C3 June 3. 1994 ';.0 Julie Kanning j Human Resources Supervisor Humphrey Construction, Inc. Pest OffICe Box 907 WoodinvUle, W A 98072.0907 RE: CITY OFMARnNEZ · CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BID ADVERTISEMENT DATE: MAY 19, 1992 Dear Ms. Kanning: This letter Is tn reply to your May 5, 1994 correspondence .wherein you reques.t the appropriate prevailing wage rates for the Crafts of Carpenter, LabOrer, Iron Worker. Operating Engineer, Cement Mason, TeamSter and Plumber/Pipefitter for the project referenced above. When referencing our prevailing wage determinations. please note that if the prevailing wage rate determinatiOn which was in effect on the bid advertisement date of a project has' a single asterisk (ft) after the expiration datet the rate will be good for the life of the project However. if a prevailing wage rate determination has a double asterisk (......) after the expiration date. the rate must be updated on the following date 10 reflect the predetermined rate change{s). 2ARPENTI:R Determination #NC-2S.31-1-91..3 was the prevailing wage determination which was in effect 00 ttJe bid advertisement date of this project and has .an": expiration date of June 15. 1992(.....). . . . . . . ~. " Effective June 16t 1992 there was a 50~ increase to the Basic Hourly Rate. @ ----.........-...._,,~.-: - ~ --. .. .. . -.. .- .. us . d TOTAL PO. 02 d~'8'J 90:p~ S6, 10 ^~ /'1AR-17-19'95 14:29 f-I.JI'IFlHF'E'( ~5T 12e6.aea1089 P.02/03 Ju~ie Kann;ng Page 2 of 3 Effective July 1, 1992 there was a 6S~ increase to the Pension. hourly payment. a 25tD increase to the Health & Weifare hourly payment and a 25e increase to Other Payments (Annuity Trust Fund). lABORER Determination #NC-23- t 02-1-91-3 was the prevaHi ng wage rate determination which was in effect on the bid advertisement date of this project and has an expiration. date of June 28. 1992(*.). Effective June 29, 1992 there was a 10e increase to the vacation/Holiday hourly payment for all classifications. .. Effective June 29, 1992 there was a 65q; increase to the Basic Hourly Rate for Construction Specialist. a 55tt increase to the Basic Hourly Rate for Groups 1 through 4 (and Group 6) and a 1Sfl: increase to the Basic HDurly Rate to Group S. . e,eUENT MASON Determination #NC-23-203..i-91-1 was the prevailing wage rate determination which was in effect on the bid advertisement date of this project and has an expsration date of June , S, 19S2.r40). Effective June 17, 1992 there was a ~2~ increase to the Basic Hourly Rate. Effective June 29, 1992 .there was a 30e increase to the Health & Welfare hourly payment and an 18e increase to the hourly pension payment. lBPtl WORK~H Determination #C-20~X.1-91-1 was the prevailing wage determination which waS in effect on the bid advertisement date of this project and has an expiration date af June 30, 1992("); therefore, the rate wiH remain in effect fer the life of this project.. PRE Determination # NC.23..63-1-9'.1 was the prevailing wage determination which was in effect on the bid advertisement date of this project and has an expiration date of June 1 5, 1 992{....'. Tne predetermined increase are as follows: 2/9 . d d~~'8'J ~0:vl S6, 10 ^~ ... ..... ~ .' ,.'. "1~1 "'6. 0. p""''''''' ,." ~ . ",,.,,,,,,,,,:' MAR-~7-l995 1.;t:30 H..M"HRE'f caNST June Kanning Page 3 of 3" Aria 1 Effective June 16. 1992 the Basic HQurly Rate$ ate as follows: Group 1 . $27.69; Group 2 ... $26.36: Group 3 - $25.08; Group 4 . $23.85; Group 5 .. $22.13~ Group a - $21.56; Group 7 8 $20.57; Group 8 - $19.56; Group 1 A .. $28.27: Truck Crane Oiler - $22.35; Oiler .. $20.36; Group 2A .. $26.91; Truck Crane Oiler . S22.14~ Oiier $20.15; Group SA - $25.42~ " Truck Crane OHer .. $21.90; HydrauliC.. $21.56; Oiler - $19.92. Note~ Our office received updatsd wage allocation information on June 12, 1992 from the Associated Generat Contractors stating that 62e of the scheduled increase to the Basic Houriy Rate from all groups will be . reallocated to the Health & Welfare Hourly payment- This Inf9rmation is reflected on Determination #NC-23-63-1-92-1. ~ IJ;AMSTER Determination 'NC-23-26' ..1-9 ~ -2 was the prevailing wage determination which was in effect on the bid advertisement date of this project and has an expiration date of June 15. 1992r}; therefore, the rates will remain effective throughout the life of this project. P1.UM"EB/STEAMFlrr~B Determination ,cON.92-1 was the prevailing wage determination which was in effect on tne bid advertisement date of this project and has an expiration date of June 30j 1992{-'). Effective July 1; 1992 there was $1.00 allocation to wages and/or fringes. Our offICe never received the breakdown for this allocation; however, this amount must be included in the total hourly rate. The determinations referE!nced throughout this letter have. been enclosed for your review. If you have any further questions, please contact the Prevailing Wage Unit at the address above Of calf (415) 703-4281. Sincerely. ~~~;~ Dorothy Vuksich Chief md:cy Enclosures .!../ 2.. . d d~~'8'J 80:vl S6, 10 ^~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE OF 18 BOARD MEETING OF May 4, 1995 NO. 9. ENGINEERING b. SUBJECT DATE May 1, 1995 REVIEW STAFF PROPOSAL FOR A POLLUTION PREVENTION COMPONENT OF THE COMMERCIAL SEWER SERVICE CHARGE TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE FEE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY Timothy Potter Supervising Source Control Inspector INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Plant Engineering Division ISSUE: Staff proposes to shift part of the cost of funding the Commercial Pollution Prevention Program from residential customers to commercial customers. This is a total revenue neutral proposal. BACKGROUND: Over the last several years, the District's pretreatment program has grown and changed from a focused industrial source control program that deals with relatively few permitted industries to a pollution prevention program that will ultimately deal with over 4,000 commercial facilities of various types. This change in the program is the direct result of mandated actions by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The District's Pollution Prevention Program is prioritized based upon regulatory agency limits for land, air, and water. Currently, the District's top priority pollutants are copper and organophosphate pesticides. The balance of the pollutants of concern are: chromium, mercury, cyanide, and methylene chloride. Grease is a concern due to its adverse impact on the maintenance of the District's collection system. This focus on copper and pesticides is caused by several technical issues. In the case of copper, there are regulatory requirements for both the plant effluent and ash, which are of concern. With regard to effluent issues, the RWQCB has determined that copper is a major water quality concern throughout San Francisco Bay and has been attempting to impose more stringent copper effluent standards. The District has been mandated to reduce copper levels through an approved pollution prevention program. The District is regulated by the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) for ash disposal. The ash produced by the treatment plant incinerators is monitored to ensure that it does not exceed the standards that would classify it as a hazardous waste. Typically, the ash will test between 30 and 50 percent of this standard in the case of copper. Both RWQCB and DTSC regulations make it important to reduce influent copper loadings to the treatment plant. TP WEB RAB REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIA~PTIDIV. ~ 1302A-7/91 REVIEW STAFF PROPOSAL FOR A POLLUTION PREVENTION COMPONENT OF THE SEWER SERVICE CHARGE SUBJECT PAGE 2 DATE OF 18 May 1, 1995 For pesticides, the concern is driven by the plant effluent being routinely toxic to water fleas (Ceriodaphnia dubia). The District's laboratory has conducted a Toxicity Identification Evaluation which has determined that the cause of this toxicity is organophosphate pesticides. In lieu of having the RWQCB set an effluent standard for acute toxicity for Ceriodaphnia dubia, the District has implemented a Pollution Prevention Program and continues to monitor the toxicity impact upon Ceriodaphnia dubia. The commercial sector is a significant source of pollutants of concern. The pretreatment program has been successful in controlling discharges to the sewer from permitted industries. The balance of the pollutants has as its source the commercial and residential sectors. Commercial sources will be targeted on a prioritized basis for an inspection/enforcement program, as determined by the emission of pollutants of concern. Since there are over 115,000 homes in our service area, an inspection/enforcement program is not feasible for the residential sector. Consequently, the District plans to rely on public education and product restrictions to accomplish the reduction of pollutants of concern from the residential sector. At present, 20 percent of the pretreatment budget is funded by permitted industries (through permit fees) with the balance coming from the City of Concord (through contract billing) and residential users (through the sewer service charge). While the program has been changed so that more time, effort, and expense are being allocated to commercial pollution prevention, the majority of the revenue is still being collected from residential customers. Staff proposes to shift the costs of the commercial pollution program to the commercial rate base. Unlike our practice in the industrial sector, staff does not recommend the use of permit fees to recover the cost of the Commercial Pollution Prevention Program. The use of permit fees for over 4,000 commercial accounts would be cumbersome and costly and would require additional staff for processing and administering permits. The funding of the commercial program by initiating a pollution prevention component of the commercial sewer service charge is recommended by staff as the most economical way to recover revenues proportional to where costs are expended. This approach is being used by other neighboring agencies, including East Bay Municipal Utility District and the City of San Francisco. A number of attachments that detail various alternatives for this cost shift are provided for the Board's review. The revenue generated by a cost shift would offset the sewer service charge to residential customers. A summary table presenting the different alternatives is included as Attachment 1. Attachment 2 presents the impacts of these possible cost-shift alternatives for commercial customers of varying sizes from the largest to smallest businesses. Attachments 3A and 3B (Scenario 1) present a one-year phase-in period of the 1302B-7/91 SUBJECT REVIEW STAFF PROPOSAL FOR A POLLUTION PREVENTION COMPONENT OF THE SEWER SERVICE CHARGE PAGE 3 DATE OF 18 May 1, 1995 pollution prevention component of the sewer service charge that fully shifts the direct and indirect costs of the Commercial Pollution Prevention Program from residential customers to commercial customers. This would amount to a 7.6 percent increase in the commercial sewer service charge. Attachments 4A and 4B (Scenario 2) present a two-year, phase-in period of the full amount. This would result in a 3.8 percent increase in fiscal year 1995-96. Next year, the Board of Directors would be asked to consider a comparable rate increase. Attachments 5A and 5B (Scenario 3) present a one-year, phase-in period of a 40 percent shift in the cost. This alternative shifts direct program costs to the commercial rate base but leaves indirect costs (i.e., administrative expense) in the residential rate base. It would amount to a 4.6 percent increase in 1995-96. The fraction is calculated based upon a review of the program costs of fiscal year 1994-95 to date and by projecting the program effort for fiscal year 1995-96. Attachment 6 presents a breakdown of program activities that show the split between direct and indirect costs. Attachments 7 A and 7B (Scenario 4) present a two-year phase-in of this 40 percent shift in costs. This would result in a 2.3 percent increase in fiscal year 1995-96. Next year, the Board of Directors would be asked to consider a comparable rate increase. In summary, staff proposes that one of the following four alternatives be adopted for shifting Pollution Prevention Program revenue to more fairly represent actual costs: 1 . A one-year, phase-in period which fully shifts direct and indirect program costs for the commercial sector from residential to commercial customers 2. A two-year, phase-in period which fully shifts direct and indirect program costs for the commercial sector from residential to commercial customers 3. A one-year, phase-in period of a 40 percent shift in cost (direct cost only) 4. A two-year, phase-in period of a 40 percent shift in cost (direct cost only) RECOMMENDATION: Consider the alternatives for reallocating revenue for the Commercial Pollution Prevention Program, and provide staff with input that will be used to prepare the 0 & M Revenue Budget and Rate Recommendation on May 18, 1995. Staff recommends Scenario No.2. 1302B-7/91 Page 4 of 18 ATTACHMENT 1 POLLUTION PREVENTION COMPONENT OF THE COMMERCIAL SEWER SERVICE CHARGE SUMMARY TABLE PROPOSED POLLUTION NET PERCENT INCREASE PREVENTION IN THE COMMERCIAL OPTION GENERAL DESCRIPTION' COMPONENT * SSC (FY 1994-95) Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Scenario 1 A one-year, phase-in period $0.127 - 7.6% - which fully shifts direct and indirect program costs for the commercial sector from residential to commercial customers Scenario 2 A two-year, phase-in period $0.065 $0.065 3.8% 3.8% which fully shifts direct and indirect program costs for the commercial sector from residential to commercia Scenario 3 A one-year, phase-in period $0.077 - 4.6% - of a 40 percent shift in cost (direct cost only) Scenario 4 A two-year, phase-in period $0.038 $0.038 2.3% 2.3% of a 40 percent shift in cost (direct cost only) * Rate, dollars per hundred cubic feet 1Review Attachments 3A, 38, 4A, 48, 5A, 58, 7A, and 78 for more detailed presentation of each scenario. C:\FILES\PP\SOURCONT. TP TP:pk 5/'/95 en "; >- ca c <t - C,) ca Q. E N 110 m B c > * .., 0 ;: I-- - III C CD () ....110 en m B c > * C") CI) 0 .... .... U) ;: ... .... ca III III 0 CI) c CD C ... CD > * CJ () c en - " ~ N 8 CI) .- m 0 c ... D- C\! > * 0 ;: I-- - III C CD 8 () .... en ... III CD C > * .,.. 0 .... .... ";: ... N III III .... C CD C ~ > * en C ! ::J ...... 0 * E in .... 0( CD (L - 0 III ::J: a: -.. * .... c 0 ;:: ! a.(L E 0 in ::J ::J: !.... 0 0 CI) a. ~ ~ - 'u ca LL C\I - c CD E .c C,) ca ~ ~~----,.._--------,. Page 5 of 18 ~~ v N.... ~ m ~""NOV~~m~m~MOMm""~OOVVOO~ON....~mMM....oo~gv~oo .tltlOOV . . . .10 .....oomIOMltl~v....MOOltlNOOlOmltlv...,;o. . . . ....,; ....m.. .~OM.....ltl................. .v, ~ltl~NV' ~M~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~i~~i~~~~~re~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ v N.... ~ m .........NOV~~m~m~MOMm....~OOVVOO~ON....~mMM....oo~mV~oo .tltlOOV . . . .~ .....oom~Mltl~v....MOOltlNOO~mltlVaic . . . .ai ....m~ci~wOM....ciltl~~~~.tN~~Nci~ci~ci~ciciNltl~~ltlmN.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ mO voo om m.... ~OOltlNM~....OOltl....OMOO~ltl~oomMVltl""N~""""mOOM~~m""ltlO"" ~ .t\!~m . .~~vC!~~C!ll:!oooMmltlOO""OV...."":oom~ltl~~ . . . mmltl . .mMoov .OMMNM . . . . . . . . . .~ . . .MMvNooom ....m~~NN~NM....ltl~~~~OOltlNNltl~M~N~~OO~VMOMltlm~~ N....~~~ltl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ltl~.... ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~oo .M ;i'i.t C\!.~ ~~ v ~Nm~8~~~~~reM~ltl~ltlmV~mMNltlmNOOM~~~~N~m .~~N.t . .~ . . .~ .t\!~C!~Il:!~C!~C!"":~~~C!m~ . .ci"':ai N~NMMMOO~~~~m~""V~NVltlMON~m~ovov""MOOMN ~~~v~~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .oo~av~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ mOO. vO v.... ~....~ ~M~Nmmo~~~~~reM~ltl~ltlmV~mMNltlmNOOM~m~~NvOO ;i'i.t .~~N.t . .~ . . .~ .t\!~C!~Il:!~C!~C!"":~~~C!~~ . .ci~ai ltlN~NMMMOO~~~~m~""V~NVltlMON~m~ovov""MOOMN ~~~~~v~~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oo~av~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ vM . .ltl....M....~ ~m~~oo . . ~c;:;~N.t~~ . .~~~OON a~~ ~~ ltlm m N OOltlNltlOOM~ltl~OOVMVONOO~NNVOOM~~m....O~~ "":~~C!"":~~~~MmOO~~N~omC!~""~~~~~.t...:m ~""NMNNmNV~ci.tai~~~.tNOOM~~ ~~........ altl~OONN~N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C\!.~~OOmNC\!. ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~OilB~~ MM~vM v....NM~ O~M Nm ltl ~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~ Mci~"': "':M~~Nciai~ciai"':~~M~~VM~ai OON....VwmmmltlmmOltl~~VOONltlMV....NO~ mvN.... ONNNN ~ ~ N~ 00 M.... 00 N N VONOO "":t\!~1l:! ~~~~ ~""~N ~NMM ~ ~ ~~ ...:~ ~M M.... N N 000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000 ~~~~~mmm~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IO~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~",,:",,:",,:~~~~~~IO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MMM 0000000 000C!0C!0 ~~~~~N~ ltlOOmNM....N ~8 lBN M 00000000000000000000000000 oooC!oooOC!OC!OC!OONOC!OOC!C!C!OC!O ~~~~~~~~~~c;:;~~m~~~~~~~~~~;~ ....M ~ ~ 000 000 ciN~ ....oom ~~m ....Nm Iii Iii ~ .:!:::: en Q. Q... III III C o 0 Q) IICl E ~~ Iii .... Q) E j:2C/) ~ ..:. ~ ~ o :ii iii ~ "'~:;:;:J lIlg.sss E.!::: (/) CI) en Q) .J: Q) Q) Q) ClOO:O:O: Q) o Q. Q. 00 g.g.~~~ ~~~~g~ >- >- .iij .iij (!) .9 "'C "'C Q. Q. Cl C/) SS~~.!:"E 0000158 "5 'S 'S 'S a. Q) <(<(<(<(C/)o: Q. o .J: C/) Cl ] Cii '0 ~ ~ g. 0.9.9 Qi .1Il C/) C/) g. ~ [ji~~~Cl$1Il ;g:E:E;s:::.9 .J:~~~~Q) OOOl-a..~ ...... .e ~ .... c _ (ij ~ :gj!l~ .a ~ ; ~ g e5i~ '5 - 0 0 C !E,...cnCd I :JIIl:2 'E:2!.!:~"'C III Q) III 0 Iii III >-3:.... 0 III III , Q. lD Q) CiS en.9 ... a:: ...J .!: ~ .S Q) Q) :2 a.. e III III .S Iii C:3 ::J ::J lD .;:: "'C Q)~~~~J!! '0 .~ .~ ;: "'C .2 I:2:20.!:a.. .... .!! ~ .iij Q) 1ii ClCl o 0 'S'S <(<( Q) o !! - 0 C/)C15 >- "'C.loI: C 0 III 0 OlD Q. C Cii 0 .Q C .J: III 1IlC/)C/) Q) .... ~ o ~ :J -_Q) ~ Iii :ll 0 CllDlDI C C o .2 ~1U 0000 III III III III (!)(!) "'_,__._,.__._."_"_.._.~_,__.,_.__..."__'..._._._._'~___.._"e"""___"'_'_~'__'_'_________""_____"^_~_"'-"~ .-.--------...--.--.-- Page 6 of 18 ATTACHMENT 3A POLLUTION PREVENTION COMPONENT OF COMMERCIAL SEWER SERVICE CHARGE SCENARIO NUMBER 1 I II FY 1995-96 I Revenue Information (FY 94/95) 1) Number of Commercial Accounts 4,387 2) Billable Consumption (HCF) 2,234,457 3) Revenue per Dollar Sewer Service Charge $138,357 4) Minimum Commercial Sewer Service Charge Rate ($/HCF) $1.66 Source Control Budaet / Revenues 5) Source Control Budget $605,000 6) Industrial Permit Fees + Other Source Control Revenues ($122.000) 7) Source Control Budget Currently Funded by SSC and Concord) $483,000 Calculation of Residential Share 8) Source Control Budget $605,000 9) Residential Program Effort (11 %) 0.11 10) Residential Share of Source Control Budget $66,550 Calculation of Pollution Prevention Component 11) Source Control Budget Currently Funded by SSC and Concord $483,000 12) Residential Share of Source Control Budget ($66,550) 13) Commercial Budget Funded by SSC and Concord $416,450 14) Flow-based Concord Share of Source Control Budget ($130,410) 15) S.C. Budget to be Funded by Pollution Prevention Component $286,040 16) Grease Control Budget $75,000 17) Pollution Prevention Component Budget $361,040 Pollution Prevention Component Information 18) Targeted Pollution Prevention Component Revenue $361,040 19) Net Change in Commercial Pollution Prevention Component / HCF $0.127 20) Percent Increase in Commercial Sewer Service Charge 7.64% Sewer Service Charae Information 21) Shift on Sewer Service Charges $283,504 22) Sewer Service Charge Shift / RUE $2.05 - ,.~_."~_.._._---_.._-_..._-----~--~.._~.."......_---~'-_..~.,.,--,--_....~-_.._---_._------ Page 7 of 18 ATTACHMENT 3B INFORMATION SHEET SCENARIO NUMBER 1 The first four items are provided for information purposes and may be used for subsequent calculations. 1. Number of Commercial Accounts - This number represents all of the commercial accounts within the District's service area. Some accounts represent multiple businesses with a common water meter. 2. Billable Consumption (HCF) - This number reports the total billable consumption from all of the District's commercial accounts. The units are hundred cubic feet (HCF). 3. Revenue per Dollar Sewer Service Charge - This amount identifies the revenue that is generated for each dollar charged on the residential sewer service charge. 4. Minimum Commercial Sewer Service Charge Rate ($/HCF) - This minimum rate is used to calculate the sewer service charge for most of the District's commercial accounts. A higher rate is charged for certain types of businesses, such as food service ($3.49/HCF) and mortuaries ($3.35/HCF). 5. Source Control Budget - The current projected budget for Source Control is $605,000 for fiscal year 1995-1996. 6. Industrial Permit Fees + Other Source Control Revenues - The current projected revenues for Source Control are $122,000 for fiscal year 1995-1996. Revenues are generated from industrial permit fees, permit application fees, specified labor charges, and penalties assessed from enforcement actions. 7. Source Control Budget Currently Funded by Sewer Service Charge and Concord - This number is the result of subtracting line 6 from line 5 which represents the nonreimbursed portion of the Source Control budget that is currently funded by Concord and the District's sewer service charge. 8. Source Control Budget - Equivalent to line 5. 9. Residential Program Effort (11 %) - This percentage represents the portion of the Source Control program that is targeted at the residential customers within the District's service area and Concord. This percentage is applied to the total Source Control budget to calculate a residential share of the budget which will continue to be funded by the residential sewer service charge. 10. Residential Share of Source Control Budget - Result of multiplying line 9 by line 8. 11 . Source Control Budget Currently Funded by SSC and Concord - Equivalent to line 7. 12. Residential Share of Source Control Budget - Equivalent to line 10. C :\FILES\PP\SOURCONT. TP TP:pk 5/1/95 Page 8 of 18 13. Commercial Budget Currently Funded by SSC and Concord - Result of subtracting line 12 from line 11. Represents the portion of the Source Control budget that is proposed to be funded by the District's commercial customers and Concord. 14. Flow-based Concord Share of Source Control Budget - This amount represents the projected charge that Concord will be assessed for conducting the pretreatment program in Concord's service area. The amount was calculated by determining the percentage of Source Control's program effort targeted for the commercial and residential customers of Concord (90%), multiplied by the value in line 7, and then multiplied by the flow proportional share usually used to set the Concord bill (30%). 15. Source Control Budget to be Funded by Pollution Prevention Component - Result of subtracting line 14 from line 13. Represents the portion of the Source Control budget to be funded by the District's commercial customers. 16. Grease Control Budget - Represents the budget of two District work groups for controlling grease discharges from food service facilities. The Collection Systems Operation Department for conducting inspections of food service facilities and the Permit Section for conducting plan reviews of food service facilities. 17. Pollution Prevention Component Budget - Result of adding line 16 with line 15. Represents the budget that is used to calculate the pollution prevention component of the commercial sewer service charge, which is proposed to be added to the standard commercial sewer service charge presented on line 4. 18. Targeted Pollution Prevention Component Revenue - Equivalent to line 17. 19. Net Change in Commercial Pollution Prevention Component/HCF - Result of dividing line 18 by line 2 and then subtracting $0.035. The $0.035 represents the amount of the current commercial sewer service charge of $1.66/HCF that is being used to fund the Source Control budget. This rate (line 19) will be added to the commercial sewer service charge identified on line 4 to cover the Pollution Prevention Program targeting commercial customers. 20. Percent Increase Commercial Sewer Service Charge - Result of dividing line 19 by line 4. Represents the percentage increase that the commercial customers will experience if the charge on line 19 is implemented. 21. Shift on Sewer Service Charges - Equivalent to line 18. This amount represents the total shift in revenues for calculating the residential sewer service charge if this proposal is implemented. 22. Sewer Service Charge Shift/RUE - Result of dividing line 21 by line 3. Represents the offset available for the residential sewer service charge if this proposal is implemented. C:\FILES\PP\SOURCONT. TP TP:pk 5/1/95 Page 9 of 18 ATTACHMENT 4A POLLUTION PREVENTION COMPONENT OF COMMERCIAL SSC - PHASED IN OVER 2 YEARS SCENARIO NUMBER 2 FY 1995-96 FY 1996-97 Revenue Information (FY 94/95) 1) Number of Commercial Accounts 4,387 4,387 2) Billable Consumption (HCF) 2,234,457 2,234,457 3) Revenue per Dollar Sewer Service Charge $138,357 $138,357 4) Minimum Commercial Sewer Service Charge Rate ($/HCF) $1.66 $1.66 Source Control Budget / Revenues 5) Source Control Budget $605,000 $605,000 6) Industrial Permit Fees + Other Source Control Revenues ($122,000) ($122,000) 7) Source Control Budget Currently Funded by SSC and Concord $483,000 $483,000 Calculation of Residential Share 8) Source Control Budget $605,000 $605,000 9) Residential Program Effort (11 %) 0.11 0.11 10) Residential Share of Source Control Budget $66,550 $66,550 Calculation of Pollution Prevention Component 11) Source Control Budget Currently Funded by SSC and Concord $483,000 $483,000 12) Residential Share of Source Control Budget ($66,550) ($66,550) 13) Commercial Budget Funded by SSC and Concord $416,450 $416,450 14) Flow-based Concord Share of Source Control Budget ($130,410) ($130,410) 15) S.C. Budget to be Funded by Pollution Prevention Component $286,040 $286,040 16) Grease Control Budget $75,000 $75,000 17) Pollution Prevention Component Budget $361,040 $361,040 Pollution Prevention Component Information 18) Targeted Pollution Prevention Component Revenue $361,040 $361,040 19) Actual Pollution Prevention Component Revenue (50%/50%) $180,520 $180,520 20) Net Change in Commercial Pollution Prevention Component / HCF $0.063 $0.063 21) Percent Increase in Commercial Sewer Service Charge 3.82% 3.82% Sewer Service Charae Information 22) Shift of Sewer Service Charges $102,984 $102,984 23) Sewer Service Charge Shift / RUE $0.74 $0.74 ----, ~-_.__._--_. --------~----_.~..~_.~_.,-------'-_.._~.._.....,----'-~...~._._...,---_.__.._"------_._,-,--,..._....._,--_._-~-'---- ATTACHMENT 4B INFORMATION SHEET SCENARIO NUMBER 2 Page 10 of 18 The first four items are provided for information purposes and may be used for subsequent calculations. 1. Number of Commercial Accounts - This number represents all of the area. Some accounts represent multiple businesses with a common water meter. 2. Billable Consumption (HCF) - This number reports the total billable consumption from all of the District's commercial accounts. The units are hundred cubic feet (HCF). 3. Revenue per Dollar Sewer Service Charge - This amount identifies the revenue that is generated for each dollar charged on the residential sewer service charge. 4. Minimum Commercial Sewer Service Charge Rate ($/HCF) - This minimum rate is used to calculate the sewer service charge for most of the District's commercial accounts. A higher rate is charged for certain types of businesses, such as food service ($3.49/HCF) and mortuaries ($3.35/HCF). 5. Source Control Budget - The current projected budget for Source Control is $605,000 for fiscal year 1995-1996. 6. Industrial Permit Fees + Other Source Control Revenues - The current projected revenues for Source Control are $122,000 for fiscal year 1995-1996. Revenues are generated from industrial permit fees, permit application fees, specified labor charges, and penalties assessed from enforcement actions. 7. Source Control Budget Currently Funded by Sewer Service Charge and Concord - This number is the result of subtracting line 6 from line 5 which represents the nonreimbursed portion of the Source Control budget that is currently funded by Concord and the District's sewer service charge. 8. Source Control Budget - Equivalent to line 5. 9. Residential Program Effort (11 %) - This percentage represents the portion of the Source Control program that is targeted at the residential customers within the District's service area and Concord. This percentage is applied to the total Source Control budget to calculate a residential share of the budget which will continue to be funded by the residential sewer service charge. 10. Residential Share of Source Control Budget - Result of multiplying line 9 by line 8. 11 . Source Control Budget Currently Funded by SSC and Concord - Equivalent to line 7. 12. Residential Share of Source Control Budget - Equivalent to line 10. 13. Commercial Budget Funded by SSC and Concord - Result of subtracting line 12 from line 11. Represents the portion of the Source Control budget that is proposed to be funded by the District's commercial customers and Concord. C:\FILES\PP\SOURCONT. TP TP:pk 5/1/95 Page 11 of 18 14. Flow-based Concord Share of Source Control Budget - This amount represents the projected charge that Concord will be assessed for conducting the pretreatment program in Concord's service area. The amount was calculated by determining the percentage of Source Control's program effort targeted for the commercial and residential customers of Concord (90%), multiplied by the value in line 7, and then multiplied by the flow proportional share usually used to set the Concord bill (30%). 15. Source Control Budget to be Funded by Pollution Prevention Component - Result of subtracting line 14 from line 13. Represents the portion of the Source Control budget to be funded by the District's commercial customers. 16. Grease Control Budget - Represents the budget of two District work groups for controlling grease discharges from food service facilities. The Collection Systems Operation Department for conducting inspections of food service facilities and the Permit Section for conducting plan reviews of food service facilities. 17. Pollution Prevention Component Budget - Result of adding line 16 with line 15. Represents the budget that is used to calculate the pollution prevention component of the commercial sewer service charge, which is proposed to be added to the standard commercial sewer service charge presented on line 4. 18. Targeted Pollution Prevention Component Revenue - Equivalent to line 17. 19. Actual Pollution Prevention Component Revenue (50%/50%) - Result of calculating the two year phase-in of the targeted revenue identified in line 18. For FY 1995-96, line 18 is multiplied by 50 percent. For FY 1996-97, line 18 is multiplied by 50 percent to complete the phase-in. 20. Net Change in Pollution Prevention Component/HCF - Net Change in Commercial Pollution Prevention Component/HCF - Result of dividing line 18 by line 2 and then subtracting $0.035. The $0.035 represents the amount of the current commercial sewer service charge of $1.66/HCF that is being used to fund the Source Control budget. This rate (line 20) will be added to the commercial sewer service charge identified on line 4 to cover the Pollution Prevention Program targeting commercial customers. 21 . Percent Increase Commercial Sewer Service Charge - Result of dividing adjusted line 20 by line 4. Represents the percentage increase that the commercial customers will experience if the charge on line 20 is implemented. 22. Shift on Sewer Service Charges - Equivalent to line 19. This amount represents the total shift in revenues for calculating the residential sewer service charge if this proposal is implemented. 23. Sewer Service Charge Shift/RUE - Result of dividing line 22 by line 3. Represents the offset available for the residential sewer service charge if this proposal is implemented. C:\FILES\PP\SOURCONT. TP TP:pk 5/1/95 Page 12 of 18 ATTACHMENT 5A POLLUTION PREVENTION COMPONENT OF COMMERCIAL SEWER SERVICE CHARGE SCENARIO NUMBER 3 I II FY 1995-96 I Revenue Information (FY 94/95) 1) Number of Commercial Accounts 4,387 2) Billable Consumption (HCF) 2,234,457 3) Revenue per Dollar Sewer Service Charge $138,357 4) Minimum Commercial Sewer Service Charge Rate ($/HCF) $1.66 Source Control Budget / Revenues 5) Source Control Budget $605,000 6) Industrial Permit Fees + Other Source Control Revenues ($122.000) 7) Source Control Budget Currently Funded by SSC and Concord $483,000 Calculation of Pollution Prevention Component 8) Source Control Budget Currently Funded by SSC and Concord $483,000 9) Flow-based Concord Share of Source Control Budget ($130,410) 10) Nonreimbursed Source Control Budget $352,590 11) Grease Control Budget $75.000 12) Nonreimbursed Pollution Prevention Budget $427,590 13) Portion of Program Directly Applied to Commercial (40%) x 0.40 14) Allocated Share - Commercial Program $171 ,036 Pollution Prevention Component Information 15) Targeted Pollution Prevention Component Revenue $171 ,036 16) Net Change-Commercial Pollution Prevention Component / HCF $0.077 17) Percent Increase in Commercial Sewer Service Charge 4.61% Sewer Service Charge Information 18) Shift on Sewer Service Charges $171,036 19) Sewer Service Charge Shift / RUE $1.24 ----1" -_._.__....~..__. , Page 13 of 18 ATTACHMENT 5B INFORMATION SHEET SCENARIO NUMBER 3 The first four items are provided for information purposes and may be used for subsequent calculations. 1. Number of Commercial Accounts - This number represents all of the area. Some accounts represent multiple businesses with a common water meter. 2. Billable Consumption (HCF) - This number reports the total billable consumption from all of the District's commercial accounts. The units are hundred cubic feet (HCF). 3. Revenue per Dollar Sewer Service Charge - This amount identifies the revenue that is generated for each dollar charged on the residential sewer service charge. 4. Minimum Commercial Sewer Service Charge Rate ($/HCF) - This minimum rate is used to calculate the sewer service charge for most of the District's commercial accounts. A higher rate is charged for certain types of businesses, such as food service ($3.49/HCF) and mortuaries ($3.35/HCF). 5. Source Control Budget - The current projected budget for Source Control is $605,000 for fiscal year 1995-1996. 6. Industrial Permit Fees + Other Source Control Revenues - The current projected revenues for Source Control are $122,000 for fiscal year 1995-1996. Revenues are generated from industrial permit fees, permit application fees, specified labor charges, and penalties assessed from enforcement actions. 7. Source Control Budget Currently Funded by Sewer Service Charge and Concord - This number is the result of subtracting line 6 from line 5 which represents the nonreimbursed portion of the Source Control budget that is currently funded by Concord and the District's sewer service charge. 8. Source Control Budget Currently Funded by Sewer Service Charge and Concord - Equivalent to line 7. 9. Flow-based Concord Share of Source Control Budget - This amount represents the projected charge that Concord will be assessed for conducting the pretreatment program in Concord's service area. The amount was calculated by determining the percentage of Source Control's program effort targeted for the commercial and residential customers of Concord (90%), multiplied by the value in line 7, and then multiplied by the flow proportional share usually used to set the Concord bill (30%). 10. Nonreimbursed Source Control Budget - Result of subtracting line 9 from line 8. Represents the portion of the Source Control budget to be funded by the District's commercial and residential customers. C:\FILES\PP\SOURCONT. TP TP:pk 5/1/95 Page 14 of 18 11 . Grease Control Budget - Represents the budget of two District work groups for controlling grease discharges from food service facilities: The Collection Systems Operation Department for conducting inspections of food service facilities and the Permit Section for conducting plan reviews of food service facilities. 12. Nonreimbursed Pollution Prevention Budget - Result of adding line 16 with line 15. Represents the budget that is used to calculate the pollution prevention component of the commercial sewer service charge. 13. Portion of Pollution Prevention Program Directly Applied to Commercial (40%) - Percentage allocation of Source Control program activities directly targeted toward commercial customers. Program administration and development are factored out of the budget that is targeted for the pollution prevention component of the commercial sewer service charge. This percentage is applied to the value in line 12. 14. Allocated Share - Commercial Program - Result of multiplying line 13 by line 12. Represents the portion of the nonreimbursed Source Control and Grease Control budgets that will be used to calculate the pollution prevention component of the commercial sewer service charge. 15. Targeted Pollution Prevention Component Revenue - Equivalent to line 14. 16. Net Change in Commercial Pollution Prevention Component/HCF - Result of dividing line 15 by line 2. Represents the rate to be charged to the District's commercial accounts to cover the Pollution Prevention Program targeted to commercial customers. This rate will be added to the commercial sewer service charge identified on line 4. 17. Percent Increase Commercial Sewer Service Charge - Result of dividing line 16 by line 4. Represents the percentage increase that the commercial customers will experience if the charge on line 16 is implemented. 18. Shift on Sewer Service Charges - Equivalent to line 15. This amount represents the total shift in revenues for calculating the residential sewer service charge if this proposal is implemented. 19. Sewer Service Charge Shift/RUE - Result of dividing line 18 by line 3. Represents the offset available for the residential sewer service charge if this proposal is implemented. C:\FILES\PP\SOURCONT. TP TP:pk 5/1/95 j"'-'--"-'-"- Page 15 of 18 ATTACHMENT 6 POLLUTION PREVENTION COMPONENT OF THE COMMERCIAL SEWER SERVICE CHARGE PROGRAM ACTIVITY BREAKDOWN DIRECT (40%) INDIRECT (60%) Inspection Administrative Sampling Training Investigation Personnel Site Specific Follow-Up Budgets Enforcement Supervisory - General Supervisory - Field Operations Program Development Informational Material Development Consultation - Public Consultation - Industrial Users Regulatory Reporting C:\FILES\PP\SOURCONT. TP TP:pk 5/1/95 I" .._,._~"..,,--_.,_._,----_..__.,-,,- Page 16 of 18 ATTACHMENT 7A POLLUTION PREVENTION COMPONENT OF COMMERCIAL SSC - PHASED IN OVER 2 YEARS SCENARIO NUMBER 4 FY 1995-96 FY 1996-97 Revenue Information (FY 94/95) 1) Number of Commercial Accounts 4,387 4,387 2) Billable Consumption (HCF) 2,234,457 2,234,457 3) Revenue per Dollar Sewer Service Charge $138,357 $138,357 4) Minimum Commercial Sewer Service Charge Rate ($/HCF) $1.66 $1.66 Source Control Budget I Revenues 5) Source Control Budget $605,000 $605,000 6) Industrial Permit Fees + Other Source Control Revenues ($122.000) ($122.000) 7) Source Control Budget Currently Funded by SSC and Concord $483,000 $483,000 Calculation of Pollution Prevention Component 8) Source Control Budget Currently Funded by SSC and Concord $483,000 $483,000 9) Flow-based Concord Share of Source Control Budget ($130,410) ($130,410) 10) Nonreimbursed Source Control Budget $352,590 $352,590 11) Grease Control Budget $75.000 $75.000 12) Nonreimbursed Pollution Prevention Budget $427,590 $427,590 13) Portion of Program Directly Applied to Commercial (40%) x 0040 x 0.40 14) Allocated Share - Commercial Program $171 ,036 $171 ,036 Pollution Prevention Component Information 15) Targeted Pollution Prevention Component Revenue $171 ,036 $171 ,036 16) Actual Pollution Prevention Component Revenue (50%/50%) $85,518 $85,518 17) Net Change-Commercial Pollution Prevention Component / HCF $0.038 $0.038 18) Percent Increase in Commercial Sewer Service Charge 2.31% 2.31% Sewer Service Charge Information 19) Shift on Sewer Service Charges $85,518 $85,518 20) Sewer Service Charge Shift / RUE $0.62 $0.62 Page 17 of 18 ATTACHMENT 78 INFORMATION SHEET SCENARIO NUMBER 4 The first four items are provided for information purposes and may be used for subsequent calculations. 1. Number of Commercial Accounts - This number represents all of the area. Some accounts represent multiple businesses with a common water meter. 2. Billable Consumption (HCF) - This number reports the total billable consumption from all of the District's commercial accounts. The units are hundred cubic feet (HCF). 3. Revenue per Dollar Sewer Service Charge - This amount identifies the revenue that is generated for each dollar charged on the residential sewer service charge. 4. Minimum Commercial Sewer Service Charge Rate ($/HCF) - This minimum rate is used to calculate the sewer service charge for most of the District's commercial accounts. A higher rate is charged for certain types of businesses, such as food service ($3.49/HCF) and mortuaries ($3.35/HCF). 5. Source Control Budget - The current projected budget for Source Control is $605,000 for fiscal year 1995-1996. 6. Industrial Permit Fees + Other Source Control Revenues - The current projected revenues for Source Control are $122,000 for fiscal year 1995-1996. Revenues are generated from industrial permit fees, permit application fees, specified labor charges, and penalties assessed from enforcement actions. 7. Source Control Budget Currently Funded by Sewer Service Charge and Concord - This number is the result of subtracting line 6 from line 5 which represents the nonreimbursed portion of the Source Control budget that is currently funded by Concord and the District's sewer service charge. 8. Source Control Budget Currently Funded by Sewer Service Charge and Concord - Equivalent to line 7. 9. Flow-based Concord Share of Source Control Budget - This amount represents the projected charge that Concord will be assessed for conducting the pretreatment program in Concord's service area. The amount was calculated by determining the percentage of Source Control's program effort targeted for the commercial and residential customers of Concord (90%), multiplied by the value in line 7, and then multiplied by the flow proportional share usually used to set the Concord bill (30%). 10. Nonreimbursed Source Control Budget - Result of subtracting line 9 from line 8. Represents the portion of the Source Control budget to be funded by the District's commercial and residential customers. C:\FILES\PP\SOURCONT. TP TP:pk 5/1/95 ------'-I'....'~-_..~-_...+._---_.---_._-_._-- Page 18 of 18 11 . Grease Control Budget - Represents the budget of two District work groups for controlling grease discharges from food service facilities. The Collection Systems Operation Department for conducting inspections of food service facilities and the Permit Section for conducting plan reviews of food service facilities. 12. Nonreimbursed Pollution Prevention Budget - Result of adding line 16 with line 15. Represents the budget that is used to calculate the pollution prevention component of the commercial sewer service charge. 13. Portion of Pollution Prevention Program Directly Applied to Commercial (40%) - Percentage allocation of Source Control program activities directly targeted toward commercial customers. Program administration and development are factored out of the budget that is targeted for the pollution prevention component of the commercial sewer service charge. This percentage is applied to the value in line 12. 14. Allocated Share - Commercial Program - Result of multiplying line 13 by line 12. Represents the portion of the nonreimbursed Source Control and Grease Control budgets that will be used to calculate the pollution prevention component of the commercial sewer service charge. 15. Targeted Pollution Prevention Component Revenue - Equivalent to line 14. 16. Actual Pollution Prevention Component Revenue (50%/50%) - Result of calculating the two year phase-in of the targeted revenue identified in line 15. For FY 1995-96, line 15 is multiplied by 50 percent. For FY 1996-97, line 15 is multiplied by 50 percent to complete the phase-in. 17. Net Change in Commercial Pollution Prevention Component/HCF - Result of dividing line 16 by line 2. Represents the rate to be charged to the District's commercial accounts to cover the Pollution Prevention Program targeted to commercial customers. This rate will be added to the commercial sewer service charge identified on line 4. 18. Percent Increase Commercial Sewer Service Charge - Result of dividing line 17 by line 4. Represents the percentage increase that the commercial customers will experience if the charge on line 17 is implemented. 19. Shift on Sewer Service Charges - Equivalent to line 16. This amount represents the total shift in revenues for calculating the residential sewer service charge if this proposal is implemented. 20. Sewer Service Charge Shift/RUE - Result of dividing line 19 by line 3. Represents the offset available for the residential sewer service charge if this proposal is implemented. C:\FILES\PP\SOURCONT. TP TP:pk 5/1/95 ---r ___________________________0 --------- PAGE 1 OF 7 BOARD MEETING OF May 4, 1995 NO. 12. Budget & Finance b. DATE May 1, 1995 SUBJECT REVIEW THE FINANCIAL STATUS AND BUDGET OF THE SELF- INSURANCE FUND AND APPROVE THE ALLOCATION OF $150,000 TO THE FUND FROM THE 1995-1996 O&M BUDGET TYPE OF ACTION REVIEW SELF-INSURANCE FUND BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 SUBMITTED BY Bonnie Allen, Risk Manager INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Administrative/Risk Management & Safety ISSUE: The Self-Insurance Fund (SIF) is to be reviewed each year by the Board of Directors with the staff presenting re-funding recommendations for the up-coming fiscal year. BACKGROUND: Since July 1, 1986, the District has self-insured most of its liability and some of its property risks. With the Board's approval, the District established a Self-Insurance Fund (SIF), with $1,000,000 out of reserves. In each of the first four budget years, $500,000 or more was transferred to the SIF from O&M funds to augment the interest income earned from the invested fund reserves. Beginning with Fiscal Year 1990-1991, this funding was discontinued because the interest income and favorable loss experience enabled the SIF reserves to grow sufficiently without the continued contribution from O&M funds. However, in each of 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 budgets $80,000 was again transferred to the SIF from O&M funds to help offset high legal costs and lower interest on investments. The attached Exhibit I presents a financial history and projection of the SIF and shows that the total reserves are projected at $5,151,599 for June 30, 1995. This total is $49,389 more than the total Fund reserves of $5,102,210 at the start of the 1994-1995 budget year, and $848,401 under the $6 million target set in 1986. Subrogation recovery of $171,785 was received following litigation of a liability case in the 1994- 1995 Fiscal Year and recovery of approximately $362,560 is budgeted from prior insurance coverages during the 1995-1996 Fiscal Year. Additionally, $265,880 will be recovered in 1995-1996 Fiscal Year as cost reimbursable through the franchise fee. For the Fiscal Year 1995-1996, Staff is recommending that $150,000 from O&M funds be allocated to the Self-Insurance Fund to assist in the cost of purchasing a commercial insurance excess policy for liability losses. The SIF has effectively funded District losses over its nine-year history and it remains financially sound. Recently two major changes have occurred that caused us to review the Risk Management Program and assess how District risks are financed. These are: REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-7/91 BA PM _.....____._._~._.."___._____.__.~__~_.~__...~____.__".__~.__._~._,_~"..._.___.m~_........___.__.~_.".,.___~._._......~,. ...-........--......"....-...+-..----."...-----.--...-- SUBJECT POSITION PAPER REVIEW THE FINANCIAL STATUS AND BUDGET OF THE SELF- INSURANCE FUND AND APPROVE THE ALLOCATION OF $150,000 TO THE FUND FROM THE 1995-1996 O&M BUDGET PAGE 2 OF 7 DATE May 1, 1995 . Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 10 (GASB No. 10) Effective in late 1994, the Districts' Self-Insurance Fund accounting must conform to the new accounting rules described in GASB No. 10. This Statement established accounting and financial reporting standards for risk financing and insurance related activities of state and local government entities, requiring that risk financing be actuarially based and soundly funded. . An Improved Insurance Market In the current more favorable insurance market our Insurance Brokers researched the various coverages available and were able to gain competitive price quotations for $10,000,000 excess liability coverages. This action will have the effect of increasing the District's coverage for some of our risks from approximately $6,000,000 to $10,000,000. District insurance for property, boiler and machinery, crime and workers' compensation are to remain in effect with some improvements in coverages. To assure compliance with GASB No.1 0, the District obtained an actuarial review of its self-insured general liability and automobile liability risks. The actuarial analysis projected losses for coverages of general liability and automobile liability at varying funding levels. Also, the District engaged a risk management and insurance consultant, to review its insured and self-insured risk funding program. The outcomes from these studies are included in the recommendations presented by Staff. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve the purchase of a $10,000,000 Excess Liability-General Liability policy including Automobile and Errors and Omissions for losses above a self-insured retention of $500,000 at the annual premium of $174,958. 2. Restructure the Self-Insurance Fund into three sub-funds (budgets attached) for the 1995-1996 Fiscal Year. Sub-Fund A: $500,000 GASB-10 Actuarially-based Risks General Liability and Automobile Liability (Losses, Legal and Technical Expenses) 1302B-7/91 --...-_.._~_.~ --"', .._--_._~---~.__..._-----'"~--,---'~.,~--_..,---.-~--,... ",--,.,,,--,"-,.,~-,,,~~-'-""-"'---"-' ----~------,-..-.. - SUBJECT POSITION PAPER REVIEW THE FINANCIAL STATUS AND BUDGET OF THE SELF- INSURANCE FUND AND APPROVE THE ALLOCATION OF $150,000 TO THE FUND FROM THE 1995-1996 O&M BUDGET PAGE 3 OF 7 DATE May 1, 1995 Sub-Fund B: $2,450,000 GASB-10 Non-Actuarially-based Risks Employment Related and Pollution Risks (Losses, Legal and Technical Expenses) Sub-Fund C: Balance of SIF (projected to be $2,201,599 for 6/30/95) Non-GASB-10 Risks, Risk Management Program Insurance Premium Expenses and Expenses Associated with Initiating Claims/Lawsuits Against Others (Excess Coverages) (Legal and Technical Risk Management Expenses) 3. Review the financial history and projection for the Self-Insurance Fund and approve the allocation of $150,000 from the 1995-1996 O&M Budget. 1302B-7/91 -_.__.~--------_._-----~,-,~._.~..._-"--~~------~._~--_.."'-""'-'--"--'---~-""-_._"-----"'-- ...., cg .- .c 0) 0 0 0 0 ~j ~j 0 0 0 0 0 ~j Ij ~ LD ~ ! .- 0) 0 <0 00 0 0 0 0) J: ...... 0 I!l 00 0 00 O. <0 Q) , 0 >< 0)1!l N LD CO N LD LD "'CO) LD CO CO CO ('I) CO N W =' 0) ('I) N LD N 1IQ... <J)o LD - 't:l 0) 0 I!l 0 0 ~j ~ 0 00 00 M LD ~j ~j ~ 0) ~ ~ Q) 0) 0 00 0 0 M 0 0 t"- OO ...... 0 t"- q '<t. M M M M u ' 0 m Q) '<t N N LD 0) N 0) .~ 0) CO t"- O t"- CO '<t e 0) '<t D..... <J)o '<t ^ ^ 0) 0 ...... 0 0 i ij 0 0 ...... 0 !j ; ~j ; ~ 0) 0 0 0 N N '<t CO ... q N ~ t"- OO 00 C6 M 0 -i N r-: CO =' ... 0) CO 0) N ...... CO LD U 0) 00 LD c:( ... <J)o V M ^ ^ 0) 0 LD 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 <0 ~j ~ ~ LD I ~ 0) ..... 0 LD t"- '<t t"- ... O. '<t. LD '<t. LD C6 N =' <0 N M t"- <0 <0 ... 0) <J)o t"- O) <0 I- u 0) '<t M c:( ... V u a: N I- eg 0) 0 0 0 0 ~ ~j '<t 0 ..... t"- O 01 ~j ~ '<t ~j I en 0') 0) '<t M <0 '<t LD C C6 ... 0) ~ 0) 0 0') , N =' ... N t"- LD M > 'f'"" ... 0) <J)o M t"- CO ..... U 0) ..... a:CO c:( ... <CZM !::=>Q) ... ZLL.c 0) 0 0 0 0 ~ ~j <0 0 0) ..... 0) ~I ~ ~j N ~j ~ <Cw;j 0) 0) M '<t 0) 0 enU-' C6 ... M. N N 0) LD =' 0 LD 0) 00 00 <0 <cZO) ... 0) <J)o '<t CO <0 ('I) u I- <C .S c:( 0) N ena:"C ... o=>an Uen ~ 0 ~ ~ <c~eg 0) 0 0 0 0 ~ 0) 0 0 t"- O) 01 ~ ij 0 ~ 0) 0 t"- '<t LD CO LD a:u:.ClO C6 ... q <0 N q <0 N , I-...JO') =' 0) 0 LD ..... t"- <0 W'f'"" ... 00 0 t"- t"- CO U Z en ~ c:( 0) LD t"- O 'f'"" ... <J)o U >- ...J :; 0) 0 <C -, 00 0 0 0 0 ~ ij <0 0 0) 0) ...... ~I ~j ~ LD ~j ; 0 0) 0 ..... '<t 00 00 ('I) 00 a: C6 ... 0 M q 0) M '<t. N l- =' cO 0 ('I) LD 0) LD t"- OO Z ... 00 0 M '<t t"- ('I) U <J)o W c:( 0) LD t"- U ... "!!! <J)o LD 0) 00 ~ ~ ~j ~ ~ 0) 00 0 0 0 0 '<t 0 N M 00 !j ~ LD ..... 0) 0 t"- t"- OO N t"- ..;. C6 ... 0 LD IX:!. t"- '<t. t"- r:. 0 0) =' LD 0) 00 ('I) CO 0) ... 00 0 N '<t LD '<t u c:( 0) LD LD ..... ... 0 <J)o ..... "'C t"- Q) ~ ; ~ ~ ! ... 00 '<t 0 0 0 N 0 0 <0 N ~ 0 0 Q) 0) N 0 N 0 00 0) ..... LD LD 0) ... 0 0) q N N 00 CO CO "'C C6 cD r-: 0 :J =' 0) N CO LD CO 00 Q) ... 00 <0 0 M 00 00 00 (.) 0) I!l 0 LD ~ Q) c:( ... 00 <J)o c: Q) Q) e: :J 00 00 0. 0 e: Q) Q) >< "+:i > Q) 00 00 w ra ..... > 0) e: e: (.) Q) Q) e: 00 Q) Q) Iii .S! > ce 00 "+:i E 00 00 0. 0. 00 ... 0 Q) Q) - ~ =' "'5 :J Q) >< >< Q) 0 .~ "'C (.) >< 0) "E (.) 00 w w > l- e: Q) ra Q) c: e: 00 00 ":; e: a; >- Q) :J ce Q) l- E Q) "+:i c: ... 00 Q) a; Q) ..... a; ~ (.) LL Q) 0 > 00 0 e: Q) ..... 0. Q) 00 - ~ e: e: E Q) :J U Q) (.) D.. (f) >< > > Q) LL (.) ce f E ":; w 0 0 ce ra :2 0 Q) .E (ij 00 :; ~ "+:i Q) ..... C6 Q) > ..... Q) Iii Iii 00 00 Iii Q) C> Q) ra 00 0 ... (.) ra Q) (.) (.) Q) Q) Q) Q) ... Ql :J 00 ... e: (f) e: ... :J :J ... e: ~ 0 0) :2 Iii 00 0 00 00 ra 0- ra "c 0 e: > e: > 0 0 ~ 0 (.) > Q) ~ E a; a; e: .~ Q) E ..c e: a; I- :; 00 Iii :; .J:. I- Q) Q) I- ... > ..... ><~ 00 0) (.) > 00 > 00 0 c. Q) Qj e :J ra "'C ... 00 0 Q) 00 Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) 0 ~ ..... <( .E .E .E ce (f) ..... (f) LL wU ...J ...J l- ce ce ce ce LL 0 - - ..... .- .c .- .t: >< W CJ) ~>- CJ)1- 0 0 0 0 0 0 O::::::i 0 0 0 0 Clco 0 0 0 0 We::( LO LO 0 0 CJ)- """ """ 0 0 <(.-J L!) L!) (Ow 0 0 0 0 0 I .-J 0 >-- .-JCO (Oz .-JO m::J e::(~ mLL ~W 0::0 e::(..... 00 0 000 anO ::>::> 0 000 mz 1-<( 0 000 m<c UCl .. .. ~a: LO OLOO I-::J e::(Z """ N 'f"'"" 'f"'"" 0 0 WU) 0<( ~z 'f"'"" 1>- O. CO I- ::JLL CJ)- muj e::(= en en en en U) (9(0 Q) Q) Q) en Q) <( ::J en en Q) > en "::::i c c c C 10... <C.-J Q) Q) Q) Q) > a. a. Q) en 0<( Q) >< >< a. Q) >< 0:: Zo:: 0:: W W W ::JW 10... CO LLZ CO CO Q) 10... +-' +-' > Q) +-' 'w 0 0 > 0 ~C.9 ..... ..... 0 0 ..... en U) >- CO Q) en en 10... +-' U ::J Q) Q) en Q) en ::J Q) > en en c c en c > Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) 10... ::::s ~ 0 10... en en co.c > > Q) Q) c::: oCS u Q) c::: en C)U Q) ... > en Q) Q) ..... Q) 0 Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) > 0 0:: c .-J .-J..... 0:: en 0:: 0:: Q) >< Q) a: w a: - - - ..... .- .c .- .J: >< W CJ) ~ CJ) O:CJ) LO 0 LO LOLO 0 O~ m 0 m mo 0 wCJ) ~ 00 CO COM 0 CJ)O: .. <(Z ~ 0 0 om 0 0 m ~ ~ M LO O?o I'- LO ~ ~ M ~ >-- N N .....Jr- e .....J::::> 0 0 0 0 0 <(.....J coZ -.....J m::> 0:0 mLL <(0.. ~w ::::>0 0 OOLO 000 LnU r-z COooLO 000 mz ~<( LOooO 0000 m<( .. .. .. .. ....a: '0 NLOM ooNO 1-::> Zw COCO I'- ~O~ WCI) Or- MN LO ~z z<( 0 0 e. O.....J ::>LL ~w .0: muj ~r- en en en en CI) Q) Q) Q) en Q) <(z ::::::l en en Q) > (9W C C c en ..... ~ Q) Q) Q) c Q) ..>- > a. a. Q) en mo Q) >< >< a. Q) 0: w w >< 0: C.....J W ..... zo.. co co Q) ..... co Q) Q) ...... ::>~ ...... ...... > 0 Q) 0 0 > LLW Ll.. r- r- 0 0 r- I en m >Q) co Q) en en ::> ..... en ...... u ::::::l Q) Q) en Q) .- ::::::l CI) >.!: en en en c en > CI) Q) CI) Q) c Q) CI) c ..... :::J ~ o u ..... en en co.!: Q) Q) c: ~ u c Q) c: en C> u > > > en Q) ~ Q) ... CI) ...... CI) 0 Q) Q) CI) Q) Q) > 0 a:u. c ...J ...Jr- 0: en a: a: CI) >< CI) a: W a: > - +J :c .- ..c >< w C CO2 O')~ O')u.. '7w LOU 0')2 0')<( ~a:: I-~ wen ~2 C""i" ~u.. muj en ~ 00 Z <( ~~ <(00 a:~ (9_ o=> a: 00 0...$ 1-<( Z....J UJ - ~oo UJ~ (9<( <(....J zU <((9 ~Z ~- oo~ -<( a:- I- cr)z ~- OOu.. a:0 000 r-~ 100 ffio <(u (90 Zz 0<( Z 00 ..~ U=> C- 2~ ~a: u..o... >- I ~ m UJ U) CJ.) +-' :Ju CI) > ~ enZoo ::1 ~ 0 ~ <( a: c: ~ () CJ.) a: UJ Q) 0 CJ.) C =>I > c: 00 ~ Q) Zo a:: 000 o 0 o 0 .. o 0 L!) L!) or- 0- o o o o o ('t) 0- or- en CJ.) :J C CJ.) > CJ.) c: co +-' o I- CJ.) () c >-co +-' ~ :J ..c en co c ....J U) en CI) en U) CJ.) c: () Q) X W >< w 0000 0000 0000 .. .. .. L!)OL!)L!) r--.O')or- or- 0- >- co +-' () ~CJ.) _ c co..c O-C)() e CJ.) CJ.) D......JI- o o o L!) ex> N 0- en CJ.) en c CJ.) 0- X W co +-' o I- o o o L!) or- 0- en CJ.) en c CJ.) 0- X W ~ CJ.) > o en CJ.) :J C CJ.) > CJ.) c: ~ CJ.) > o en en CJ.) CJ.) U) :J > CI) c ~ > CJ.) CJ.) ... > en Q) CJ.) CJ.) U)C:C: Q) a:: Oo:d- 00') ON .. L!)N or- 0- en CJ.) en c CJ.) 0- X W en CJ.) > ~ CJ.) en CJ.) c: co +-' o I-