The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 03-04-93 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 BOARD MEETING OF March 4, 1993 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR a. SUBJECT ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK FOR SOLIDS CONDITIONING BUILDING CRANE INSTALLATION (DISTRICT PROJECT 10083), AND AUTHORIZE FILING OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION DATE February 23, 1993 TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF COMPLETION SUBMITTED BY Paul A. Sciuto INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Plant Operations Department SUBJECT: Construction has been completed on the Solids Conditioning Building (SCB) Crane Installation Project (District Project 10083). The work is now ready for acceptance. BACKGROUND: The Solids Conditioning Building Crane Installation Project (DP 10083) entailed the demolition of existing light construction rails and trolley and the installation of a new double girder underhung 15-ton crane with operation by remote control in the north bays of the SCB. On July 16, 1992, the Board authorized the award of this construction contract to Rigging International. The removal of the old rails and trolley and the installation of the new crane system was completed for the bid amount of $233,353 by the contract completion date. The crane has been load tested to 125 percent of its rated capacity and is working as designed. It is appropriate to accept the contract work at this time. The Solids Conditioning Building Crane Installation Project appears on page TP-66 of the Fiscal Year 1992-93 Capital Improvement Budget. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for the Solids Conditioning Building Crane Installation Project (DP 10083), and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion. PAS REVIEWED AND R COMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 7R;Z'V 1302A-7/91 ~ Central ~ontra Oosta Sanitary _.Astrict Ma.~"lk BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 7 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF March 4, 1993 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR b. SUBJECT APPROVE CLARIFICATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR LISTING FOR HESS CONSTRUCTION, 1-680/SR-24 SEWER RELOCATIONS, PHASE III, DISTRICT PROJECT 4782 DATE Februar 25, 1993 TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE CLARIFICATION SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Tad J. Pilecki, Senior Engineer Engineering Dept./lnfrastructure Division ISSUE: Board approval is required to correct an inadvertent clerical error on the Bidder's Statement of Subcontractors. BACKGROUND: On February 18, 1993, the Board awarded the 1-680/SR-24 Sewer Relocations Phase III Project to Hess Construction, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder. A technical and commercial evaluation of Hess Constructions' bid identified an inadvertent clerical error in the listing of subcontractors. The District's Contract Documents require the bidders to list on the Bidder's Stateme':lt of Subcontractors form any subcontractors performing more than one-half of one percent (1/2 %) of the proposal total as required by Section 4107 of the Public Contract Code. In Hess' StatemegJ of Subcontractors form, the specific bid items being performed by each subcontractor were listed (Attachment A). Inadvertently, Hess Construction failed to list one bid item that was to be performed by its boring contractor, Walter C. Smith. Informed of the error, Hess Construction and Walter C. Smith submitted notices of the error and affidavits demonstrating that an inadvertent clerical error had indeed occurred (Attachment B). Notification of the error and the affidavits were submitted to the District in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Public Contract Code. Hess Construction has submitted a letter to the District requesting that the error be corrected by listing Walter C. Smith as the subcontractor performing all of the boring work for the project (Attachment C). RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Clarification to Hess Construction, Inco's Bidder's Statement of Subcontractors to correct an inadvertent clerical error by listing Walter C. Smith as the subcontractor performing all boring work for the 1-680/SR-24 Sewer Relocations Phase III Project. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR "::.~::;o ACTION 1102A-9 85 ;Ot20 TJP JSM ~..-flAB ATTACHMENT A ADDENDUM NO. 3 Page 15 of 23 PART III PROPOSAL FORMS SECTION 4 - BIDDER'S STATEMENT OF SUBCONTRACTORS In accordance with the requirements of Section 8 of Part II, Instructions to Bidders, the undersigned Bidder submits herewith a list of subcontractors whom it proposes to employ on the.work, with the proper firm name and business address of each, and the portion of the work to be done by each with the understanding that failure to name such subcontractors shall be witness that it shall have agreed to perform such portion of the work itself and that it shall not subcontract said portion of the work, and that such subcontracted work listed herein will not be performed by others, without first obtaining written permission of the District Board of Directors pursuant to provisions of Section 4107 of the Public Contract Code. Portion of Work to be Done Subcontractor Place of Business Hazardous substance removal . l"TEyV\* S, h, \D, l~ '* El-l V, gO DY t.J E. (J)IC:R 'w ACrE.~ c. Sf'''! ITl::\ MAi:.TII\jE."Z ~ c A CLOVIS, LA. Signed: \)P('~/,g:.r ~ ATTACHMENT B HESS CON ST. CO., INC. CONTRACTOR'S STATE LICENSE NO. 285925 4484 HESS DRIVE . VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA 94589 . PHONE: (707) 552-7931 February 8, 1993 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California Attn: Tad Pilecki Re: 1680/SR24 Sewer Relocations Phase III Dear Tad: An inadvertant clerical error was made on the aforementioned bid by failing to list Walter C. Smith Company, Inc. to per- form the work under Schedule B, bid item 1. It has always been our intent to let Walter C. Smith perform this work. The ornrnission was made because the intended subcontractor's pro- posal isolated Schedule A and Schedule B on separate sheets of paper. When the items were listed for the subcontractor's "Portion of Work to be Done" the second sheet was overlooked (see attached). Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance regard- ing this error. S:i.ncerely, HESS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 7 /'7 'J'~...-/ . '.I .' j! A BY i /"\ (,(fC/tA-j v'~lej,{}----- ~RRY HESS, PRESIDENT ./ HESS CONST. CO., INC. CONTRACTOR'S STATE LICENSE NO. 285925 4484 HESS DRIVE . VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA 94589 . PHONE: (707) 552-7931 NONCOLLUSION AFFIDAVIT I, Larry Hess, declare that all of the matters referenced herewith are by my personal knowledge. I submitted a bid proposal for the 1680/SR24 Sewer Relocations Phase III project on February 5, 1993, to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. I requested Walter C. Smith to submit a quote to perform all work requiring bore and jack of pipe. I received their quote and included their price to perform said work in the respective bid items, including Item 1 of Schedule B. However, an inadvertant clerical error was made when the items were listed for the subcontractor's "Portion of Work to be Done". Item 1 of Schedule B was omitted because the quote was submitted on a separate sheet of paper (see at- tached) that was overlooked. I declare under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ~.~~ ~ BY RR HES, PRESIDENT HESS CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. DATE: February 9, 1993 AT: Vallejo, California ID)IUIH\~~ lJl1 FEB I 6 IH3 l.!!J WALTER C. SMITH CCCSD INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY. INC. SINCE 1945 February 10, 1993 File No. 93-Proposal HORIZONTAL BOPi' .:; TUNNELING PIPE JACKING Mr. Tad pilecki P. O. Box 1047 Clovis. California 93613 Phone (209) 299-9727 FAX: (209) 299-4723 GA. Lie NO 288799 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez CA 94553 SUBJECT: Sewer Relocations, Phase III: 1-680/SR-24 Pleasant Hill, California Dear Mr. Pilecki: Our proposals for items of work on this project, which were submitted to Hess Const. Co., Inc, were issued in two (2) separate proposals, one for each schedule respectively. Apparently there is some confusion that has resulted from this approach and we apologize for any confusion which may have resulted. We understand further, that the listing requirement for Schedule B was omitted, by Hess Const. Co., Inc., from their bid to you for the above referenced subject. Therefore, I enclose a Non-Collusion Affidavit, and a copy of both Schedule A and Schedule B, which were submitted to Hess Const. Co., Inc. Should you have any questions or if you wish to discuss this matter in greater detail, please contact this office at your earliest convenience. Enclosures MAD:sg NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT I, Michael A. DeBenedetto, declare that all of the matters referenced herewith are of my personal knowledge. We submitted our proposals for jacked pipes and related work for the CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITATION DISTRICT Project 1-680jSR-24 Sewer Relocations, Phase III on February 5, 1993 to Hess Const. Co., Inc. by fax. The proposals which were delivered were for each schedule individually. It is our understanding that s~ch resulted in some confusion and resulted in the err by Hess Construction of not listing our company for both schedules of the contract. It was then and remains our offer and intention to perform all the horizontal boring work on the project. I declare under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: At: February II, 1993 Clovis, California ATTACHMENT C HESS CON ST. CO., INC. CONTRACTOR'S STATE LICENSE NO. 265925 4484 HESS DRIVE . VALLEJO. CALIFORNIA 94589 . PHONE: (707) 552-7931 February 11, 1993 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California Attn: Tad Pilecki Re: 1680/SR24 Sewer Relocations Phase III Dear Tad: We request the substitution of Walter C. Smith to perform the work under Schedule B, bid item 1 fo~ the above referenced project. This request is due to the inadvertant clerical error referenced by previous correspondence letters dated February 8 and 9, 1993. Sincerely, HESS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY KSJ/daj . ~ ~ Central ...ontra Costa Sanitary' ~jstrict ~ BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 9 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF February 18, 1993 NO. 5. ENGINEERING a. STATUS UPDATE OF THE PLEASANT HILL/A-LINE SEWER OVERFLOW PROTECTION PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 487.9 DATE Februar 8, 1993 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION STATUS UPDATE SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPTJDIV. Tad J. Pilecki, Senior Engineer Engineering Dept.llnfrastructure Division ISSUE: Final decisions on pipe routing, water reclamation, and pipe capacity will soon be required on the Pleasant Hill Interceptor Project. BACKGROUND: At its September 4 and October 13, 1991, meetings, the Board certified the Final EIR for the Pleasant Hill/A-Line Overflow Protection Project. Additionally several route segments for the construction of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project (segments 1,3, 12, 16A, 19A, and 20; see Figure 1) were approved. In January 1992 the Board authorized a contract with James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers Inc. (JMM) for the detailed design of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project. The project team has completed the 50 percent design and several key issues need to be resolved to allow cQ!Tlpletion of the plans and specifications. The project is scheduled to bid in June or July 1993 with award of the construction contract in August. Key remaining issues are: . Final designation of two Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor route segments. . A proposal to include a recycled water line in the project. . Consideration of whether or not to size the first phase of the Pleasant Hill/A-Line Project to accommodate possible future flows from TWA. Final Desianation of Route Seaments For two locations along the planned Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor route, the Board directed staff to proceed with additional right-of-way and design studies before recommending a final route selection (see Figure 2 and 3): 1. Segment 14 versus segment(s) 13/15 (Contra Costa Boulevard vs. Pleasant Hill Shopping Center. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR :::::.~:oo ACTION MIb 1102A-9 85 TJP JSM RAB .~ " SUBJECT POSITION PAPER STATUS UPDATE OF THE PLEASANT HILL/A-LINE SEWER OVERFLOW PROTECTION PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4879 PAGE 2 DATE OF 9 February 11, 1 993 2. Segment 18 versus segment 17 (Grayson Creek vs. Ruth Drive). Following completion of the additional studies, staff was to select a recommended route and examine the coverage of that route in the EIR and notify the public. Staff recommends that segments 14 and 18 be approved as part of the route for the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project and that Segments 13, 15, and 17 be dropped from further consideration. The rationale for these recommendations will be discussed as part of staff's presentation. Board approval of the routes should be considered at a future Board meeting to allow public notice and comment prior to the Board's deliberations. Recvcled Water Pioeline During the EIR process, several agencies and individuals requested that a recycled water pipeline be incorporated into the project. At previous Board meetings, staff was directed to proceed with design of a recycled water pipeline in conjunction with the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor and to continue negotiations with Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) to determine its level of participation in the recycled water project. To date, the CCWD has not committed to the recycled water project and is unlikely to be able to do so before the project is bid. Staff is currently working on CEOA documentation to include construction of the recycled water pipeline as part of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project. The incremental cost to construct the recycled water pipeline in conjunction with the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor is estimated to be approximately $1.1 million. Staff requests the Board's concurrence that preserving the option to include the water reclamation line in the project is justified to enable implementation of the future landscape irrigation Recycled Water Project. Board approval of the water reclamation line will be scheduled at a future Board meeting to allow public notice and comment prior to final deliberation. Accommodation of Additional Flow The Pleasant Hill/A-line EIR evaluated only approved planned growth in developing assumed project design flows of 350 mgd. Additionally, the EIR provided for construction of the Pleasant Hill/A-line relief interceptors as either two separate pipelines (constructed ten years apart) or one combined pipeline along Marsh Drive (see Figure 1, Segment 3), A Value Engineering Workshop conducted on the project recommended that staff pursue combining the two pipelines in Marsh Drive based on a present worth cost savings of $2.5 million. Based on the potential cost savings and the elimination of disruption associated with a second large project ten years later in the same alignment, staff recommends that the District proceed with the combined pipe option along that portion of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor route that could be common to the A-Line Relief Interceptor route. 110?n q'R~) ,- ,,I SUBJECT POSITION PAPER STATUS UPDATE OF THE PLEASANT HILL/A-LINE SEWER OVERFLOW PROTECTION PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4879 PAGE 3 DATE OF 9 February 11, 1993 Based on an existing capacity of 140 mgd in the A-Line, the new combined pipeline alternative would need to carry 210 mgd (the difference between 350 mgd and 140 mgd). Given the physical constraints and District design requirements, a 1 02-inch diameter pipe size will provide 219 mgd of capacity. Pipelines in this size range come in standard size increments of six inches. A 102-inch diameter pipe is the smallest standard size available that can carry 210 mgd. Figure 4 presents the ultimate buildout pipeline capacity expected to be needed in the year 2035 and how Infiltration/Inflow (1/1) and average daily wastewater flow compare to this total. 1/1 constitutes the majority of the design flow. Total ultimate capacity for the Pleasant HiII/A- Line system will exceed projected capacity by approximately 9 mgd. The decision to build the combined Pleasant Hill/A-Line Interceptor in Marsh Drive raises the issue as to whether any wastewater flows from sources not addressed in the Pleasant Hill/A- Line EIR should be included in design flows to determine the size for the interceptor. Two of these sources of wastewater flow could be the Dougherty Valley and the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TW A). In addition to the flows expected from the Pleasant Hill and A-Line Relief Interceptors, a 102-inch diameter pipeline would have adequate capacity to accommodate currently projected peak wet weather flows from Dougherty Valley (8 mgd). However, the 1991 Pleasant Hill/A-Line EIR did not address the environment impact of serving the Dougherty Valley, so additional CEOA documentation would be required before Dougherty Valley flows could be accepted by the District regardless of the availability of capacity in this reach. To accommodate the maximum potential flows from TWA now, a combined Pleasant Hill/A-Line interceptor would require upsizing by one pipe size from 1 02-inches to 108-inches in the treatment plant-to-Buchanan Field Golf Course reach of the proposed alignment along Marsh Drive. The incremental cost to upsize the pipeline by one pipe size in the common reach along Marsh Drive is estimated to be $725,000. Some may believe that upsizing this short reach of pipe will not induce future growth until the remainder of A-Line Relief Interceptor is constructed from Buchanan Field Golf Course to Ygnacio Valley Road. Construction of the remainder of the A-Line Relief Interceptor is expected to start in 2003 with completion in 2009. Decisions regarding sizing of the remainder of the relief interceptor would occur closer to the time of its construction. Others may feel that upsizing this pipe will have some level of growth inducing effect. nn78 If p/: - ,/ STATUS UPDATE OF THE PLEASANT HILL/A-LINE SEWER OVERFLOW PROTECTION PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4879 ....IIII.~.lml.I.III:el'lI.Em....1 SUBJECT PAGE DATE 4 OF 9 February 11, 1993 Reasons to upsize the pipe would be: . Avoidance of future construction in Marsh Drive if TWA is eventually served by CCCSD. . . Potential cost savings if the construction of a future parallel sewer is avoided. Reasons not to upsize the pipe would be: . The risk of the $725,000 upsizing cost being unreimbursed if TWA does not come to the District. . The possibility of project delay caused by potential public controversy regarding whether or not the upsizing is warranted growth inducing, and/or properly addressed under CEOA. A decision by the Board not to upsize the pipe to accommodate TWA at this time will not preclude the District from accepting TWA flows at a future date. Figure 5 shows the impacts on capacity of the Pleasant Hill/A-Line system if flows were accepted from either TWA or Dougherty Valley. Dougherty Valley flows could be accommodated with no additional facilities. TWA flows would require additional facilities to be constructed by about the year 2019. These additional facilities could be new parallel pipelines, equalization facilities, satellite reclamation facilities, and/or rehabilitation of abandoned facilities. Methods also may be developed which could reduce the amount of 1/1 entering the system. The costs associated with any of these options would need to be borne by the TWA project. At this time, it is staff's assessment that the TWA project should not be utilized as a basis to upsize the Pleasant Hill Interceptor to a 108-inch pipe. Staff requests guidance from the Board as to whether or not to consider the upsizing option for the project. If the Board wishes to include the upsizing option, additional CEOA documentation would be prepared. Staff proposes to notify the public of the District's direction on all of these issues prior to bringing final recommendations back to the Board in the next few months. A final decision on any of these issues would not occur until a public hearing has been conducted. RECOMMENDATION: Receive the staff report and provide guidance as appropriate. 13028-7/91 , t . '- @ , ~ en o Q) - > 0.'': Q) CO U c: ~ ~ Q) Q) - .:= s< - - Q) c: =Q) Q) E a:c: ;:0) :I: = < C:Q) CO c: en _ CO Q) Q)o. a: a: en Q) > '': ~ CO o c: c..Qi Q)':= u< ~ Q) - .s - c: Q) E ~g, Q)= a:< Q) Q) C:.S ~Q) .g. <0.. I . . . . . . . . . , ,. t '{ i en .~ ~ CO "'0 c: :) o CO >- - (3 . . I . I 8 Pleasant Hill Sewer Overflow Protection Project Figure 1 2523-9/88 Ci -....l . ~. G} . . (') , 0 :3 \ ,... -t ~I \ v o o ..... ~ Ul -'" -. <0 CD ~ (') \\ 0 (J) ..... ~ . ,. v { C::6 :Dei ( ',-< J OJ em 0 - ,t < m , Q. ~D <:::' Figure Pleasant Hill Sewer Overflow Protection Project 2 2523-9/88 ~Ql ! ~ !.~~~..4 $. ':6 M4......,c."4 Taylor '''II'' '_' .wJ~D I1llCT MT 01-'1"'0 U,",t(O SCHOoc.. o.$T_I(:T '1I:D neT r~'~ ,m- 'd ~ ! I! ~YH : ~ E (j ~;k . '~A. . AiIi" . :. i ;J:~ ~ ~ ~ .. 1-.... --- ~.- ~ ..:;~ 011 ..,. ..~~ Ji".! I~" N: ~'~;o... / <. I .......;., D" ., , "- "- ......." -.JQz' .-- '~~ .~...[~ 'ni"Y;: ...~' , , ~ ~: .. ,~.., ~ ~ :or&: - ~ '- "" :..:-..", ..I~ .... ..~ ~l~ --r :01 ~J., ~ ....... . l i ~ '" .' t" $ ") ~.G '" , ""Oas ~., . 'J ... .. .......~. ..:.:: G) j ~ij tb, "". .. C/) 161.....0 t' ::J c ---- \ IT AHOft(WS .....(saTTE........ .', .., .."" u. UII.;~''''''~;.n . , -0 ...... .-- .~"., "'rJ" I .. ~i7i:: y .=~~a .-.}-,. ..~ fl. 0:. - tJ NY T ., ttI: --.:.. __... ~::I / ;R~~;Z~~:~V~'a ~:r.-,--rit~r .. EL,,, 1/ (~-..r-r-'L ~\ kG \ i: 5 0 \N' ~ \ ,1, ) ..,.., \ _., N 0 E II .h :t .~ ~ ~ ~J =~,11 \ . . . ': _. . ,,,,,.,, -' .. <:l '0' ,as' ~~. ~ I. ! _ ..~. ~ ' .,-. -~ : -' $-+ - ~ .<\.. ......- · ~~. ~ ~1 ;~(t.l~~.:~...';;:m~: R~-~ \V::;E CTt ...~ .....o' Q; :: \::"1-- ~ j . .... .. \.:) ~.II ..u..uJu ""-: -,.., ,.,." ~ ~ .~..... ~:p ,. .'),c..~ · 1001 . ~ d'~ ..,.(.... _.~ 7. Blv ,\0. .. "r.-t"tll .. '- '., ~ ;:;~ ~ ~,h~ ~~.C''''t~r?l · ~ io........~ -6-=, . _.~.ia.l. jH.~_ -\. .~ . ...c.-t" ~-~ - ''n~ !!.-_ "'...t . , . , , ~ .,.......0 I -~ t......]. '1~ :,. ~ fi33>'" iW" ,,'4 ft'" ~ "."9~ ''''IIC'' _ ~ ~" \. \ ..,..~ _ ""J .J!!l-- ..,~ "3&' 1$61 tr ,. ~ -: f!/11" ~~ ~... ~. ,.-'>6. . Ie IV.,...,. >- \Uft ~ eT/.)t ~[~ to"~&W:.." ~ /lID .. "'S, f! ~ fiT to 1"'""7371 IN~... _,,~ ~ ~ f 1~' 'Q~ .., IW ,,,, _II! \_. ~ ~ , J'~ Wl . \ .,.,..> I"f=" ..' '-~ f' l.... \ If_ ."'4 ISJ::.. I... ..".! ~.... ,tHarrhit .~ <If. -o2} 'I .....-..... .... ....,.... ti! ~- ~ I' G ~.. I- -;1"', l~ R E l -:... '" ;; h OF. y ..- ..~ '- ; If Ad- ~ n I:': S 4~~~~M T ~&YC-41't 1ff ~- 1 i ...1... .. - . ,., IlW ,- ~~ dII 1~ I Ilo"e&V'C--4U I~ (j " ..r- ", -- ~:: "1 "1j~ R_~ t1 N..~;. nJ~-l ~~ !:: 1~ r l~ L.n .. HI .-n: N e7 ... .... -r ....-r ... ~.. ::! :~ UMAllIHE H .W.'YC-tlt st....~C..,. ~ ~t "0 , -00 A R .. ... .. 40". E . :~ .. ~~ ~~- . .~~ , II :: ~) . T.-r.I"-r '. Fig u re Pleasant Hill Sewer Overflow Protection Project 3 2523.9/88 500 6' 400 c.:; ~ "-'" ~ Q 300 ~ a) ~ 00 ~ o ~ 200 c.:; ~ o -1""'1 ,.....,.-i ,.....,.-i ~ 100 ,.- r' l: . A-Line/Pleasant Hill Interceptor Capacities 1 (Ultimate Buildout 2035) Av rage Dail Wastew ter Flow ..-..-.. ..--.-.. ..-..-..-- -..-..-.. ..-..-.. .46.2 MGD o 1985 2025 2035 2045 2005 2015 Year 1995 1 Projected flows are based on approved planned growth Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Figure Pleasant Hill Sewer Overflow Protection Project 4 500 6' 400 l:) ::E "-" ~ o 300 ~ Q) ~ CZI ~ o ~ 200 ro {j ~ o .~ ~ ~ ~ 100 o 1985 ~ " A-Line/Pleasant Hill Interceptor Capacities 1 (Ultimate Buildout 2035) Av rage Dai y Wastew ter Flow ..----.. ..-..-.. ..-..-..-- -..-..-.. ..--.-.. 46.2 MG D 1995 2005 2015 Year 2025 2035 2045 Assumptions: Future TWA project (40 MGD) is approved Dougherty Valley service at 8 MGD 1 Projected flows are based on approved planned growth Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Figure Pleasant Hill Sewer Overflow D.nfo,.finn D.n)-eet . . u..""".UII . . U 5 ~ Central ;ontra Oosta Sanitary ;strict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE , OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF NO. March 4, 1993 5. ENGINEERING b. SUBJECT DATE CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING r APPLICATION FOR RECLAMATION LOAN FUNDS TYPE OF ACTION ADOPT RESOLUTION SUBMITTED BY INITlA TING DEPT.lDIV. Jade Sullivan, Assistant Engineer Engineering Dept'/Planning Division ISSUE: The California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) requires a resolution from the Board of Directors be submitted when applying for a loan from the Water Reclamation Loan Program. - BACKGROUND: The District recently (December 1992) completed the Recvcled Water for Landscaoe Irriaation. Feasibilitv Studv, which concluded that reclaimed water can be delivered to customers at a cost competitive with current potable water rates. The Feasibility Study recommends that a reclaimed water system be constructed to ultimately deliver reclaimed water to customers in Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda. The Feasibility Study also concludes that the reclaimed water system can be cost-effectively constructed along with the phased construction schedule of the Pleasant Hill Overflow Protection Project (PHI). .Ihis first phase of the PHI constructs a sewer pipeline from State Highway 4 to Chilpancingo Parkway (6,500 feet). It is proposed that the reclaimed waterline be constructed with the PHI Phase I project to take advantage of cost savings due to common trench construction. Staff recommends that the District apply for a low interest loan (one-half current bond rates) for the financing of design and construction costs for the Reclaimed Water System project. A portion of the Reclaimed Water System is currently being designed with the PHI Phase I project (DP 4879). This portion of the Reclaimed Water System construction cost is estimated at $1,170,000. A negative declaration is being prepared for certification prior to advertisement for bids of the PHI Phase I project. As part of the loan application, the CSWRCB requires a resolution ,be adopted by the District's Board of Directors authorizing the District to submit for a Water Reclamation Loan and authorizing the execution of a loan contract if a loan for the project is offered. The resolution also identifies Roger J. Dolan as having authority to submit the loan application and negotiate and execute a loan contract for this project on behalf of the District. RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Directors adopt the resolution authorizing application for Water Reclamation Funds. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED F0;; :' ~ ":>0 ACTION ,(Jr2kJ ,()t2tJ JS/JC DRW tlo,.. RAB RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR WATER RECLAMATION LOAN FUNDS BE IT RESOLVED that the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board of Directors hereby authorizes application for a loan from the Water Reclamation Loan Program of the California State Water Resources Control Board in the amount of $1,170,000 for the design and construction of Reclaimed Water System Phase I and authorizes execution of a loan contract if a loan for this project is offered. BE IT RESOLVED that Roger J. Dolan is hereby authorized to submit a loan application and negotiate and execute a loan contract for this project for and on behalf of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Members: NOES: Members: ABSENT: Members: President of the District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: Secretary of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California Approved as to Form: Kenton L. Aim District Counsel