HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 12-02-93
~ Central ~~~~~ g~~~R~~~~R1 Jistrict
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
NO.
December 2 1993
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE November 18, 1993
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 93-18 (ALAMO)
TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION
TO THE DISTRICT
TYPE OF ACTION
ACCEPT ANNEXATION
FOR PROCESSING
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer
Engineering Dept./lnfrastructure Division
Parcel
No.
Area
Owner I Address
Parcel No. & Acreage
Remarks
Lead
Agency
93-1 8
Alamo
William & Sara Hoskins
201 Hemme Avenue
Alamo, CA 94507
198-140-003 (0.50 Ac.)
Existing house - must
connect to sewer
before an addition to
the house can be
built. Project is
exempt from CEOA.
CCCSD
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 93-18 to be included in a future formal annexation.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
RAB
1302A-9/85
DH
Jill!
JSM
f);Jp
INITIATING DEPT/DIV.
~
o
i
L4.~.,....:......,..:
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
P.A.93-18
~ Centra. ~ontra Costa Sanitary Jistrict
Ma~.lk BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 0
POSITION PAPER BOARD MEEB~1:~tnber 2, 1993
NO.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR k.
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO
FILE A NOTICE OF CESSATION ON THE 1680/SR24
SEWER RELOCATION PROJECT, PHASE iliA,
DISTRICT PROJECT 4782
DATE
November 24, 1993
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE FILING
NOTlCE OF CESSATlON
SUBMITTED BY Kris Kilgore
Associate Engineer
INITIATING ~ngiAeering Department
Infrastructure Division
ISSUE: Construction on the 1680/SR24 Sewer Relocation Project, Phase iliA, must be
temporarily ceased and a Notice of Cessation should be filed.
BACKGROUND: Phase iliA of the 1680/SR24 Sewer Relocation Project (DP 4782) includes
a sewer alignment through the properties for the Saint Vincent de Paul Thrift Store and the
Cole Supply Co. building on North Main Street (refer to Figure A). As agreed with CalTrans,
this Project was bid assuming that the two buildings would be demolished before sewer
construction was to occur because CalTrans was confident that the properties could be
acquired and the structures demolished before the sewer construction through these
properties began. However, unexpected complications in negotiations with the property
owners are preventing CalTrans from demolishing the buildings until mid-1 994 at the earliest.
In order to complete the installation of the sewers in the vicinity of the two buildings,
temporary bypass Sewers from the new sewer to an existing trunk sewer in
North Main Street were installed. CalTrans has agreed to reimburse the District for the extra
cost for the temporary bypass sewers.
District staff subsequently reviewed several options for constructing the permanent sewer
through the site when it is made available. After reviewing the various options with
CalTrans, CalTrans determined that the appropriate action is to issue a change order to the
Contractor to return to the site when the site is made available to complete the work.
CalTrans has agreed to reimburse the District for the extra cost associated with this change
order. The approximate cost of the change order is $30,000.
All project work except for the area occupied by the two buildings has been completed.
Because it may be up to one year before the Contractor can return to the site to do this
change order work and the District is planning to release the retention that has been
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A-9!85
KK
HT
JSM
RAB
KLA
1/11
In(}
SUBJECT
POSITION PAPER
AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO
FILE A NOTICE OF CESSATION ON THE 1680/SR24
SEWER RELOCATION PROJECT, PHASE iliA,
DISTRICT PROJECT 4782
PAGE
DATE
2 OF 3
November 24, 1993
withheld from the Contractor's progress payments, it is appropriate to file a Notice of
Cessation at the County Recorder to inform the subcontractors and suppliers of the start of
the period when stop notices can be filed. The District will be required to release the
Contractor's retention 30 days after the filing of this notice, less any stop notices that may
be filed by subcontractors and suppliers.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the filing of a Notice of Cessation with the County Recorder.
130:>8 q,Wl
", .
..
~ \~a.u>ONe'J) EXIST. 33" RCP
BYPASS TO BE
\, I ABANDONED
N 1 I
~ I , ,
LINE" B , I' ,
. , ,
, I I, ,
I I, ,
Cf.l I I, ,
HOOKSTON RD Cf.l I II ,
g 1 I L I
I I
I , --
I
I
I I
I
.... I EXIST. 33" RCP
~I I j USED AS BYPASS
I TO BE ABANDONED
~ I
I J:1 I
." ~ ~ I
0 a:::
BUILDINGS TO BE Z u..
DEMOUSHED I 0
<<Xl
'?
COLE I
SUPPLY 1
!
I
A~t:>otJeD
EXIST. 33" RCP
BYPASS TO BE
ABANDONED
c
g
ASTRID DR
~
'"
'"
...
"
'"
1
FIGURE A
~
'"
...
WI
o
~
..
WI
~
o
150
300
I
FEET
Central Contra Costa
~ Sanitary District
1-680 SR24/SEWER RELOC. PHASE III
30" DIAM SEWER
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION
A
...,
'"
'"
I
-'
=l
I
..,
o
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
BOARD MEETING OF December 2, 1993
NO.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR 1.
SUBJECT
DATE
November 15, 1993
DIRECT STAFF TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF AN
ARBITRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE
DISCIPLINARY APPEAL PROCEDURES
TYPE OF ACTION
PERSONNEL
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Paul Morsen, Deputy General Manager
Administrative
ISSUE: In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) between the District
and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Employees' Association, Public Employees' Union,
Local No. One, the Board shall employ an arbitrator to render a recommendation when disciplinary
actions are appealed to the Board level.
BACKGROUND: Collection System Operations Department Manager John Larson has
recommended a five-day suspension of Vehicle and Equipment Mechanic Ron Freitas for violation
of the M.O.U. between the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and the Employees'
Association, Public Employees' Union, Local No.1, Article 11\, Section 3.2.B.1 Discourteous
Treatment of a Fellow Employee; B.7 Violation of any lawful or reasonable regulation or order
made and given by the employee's supervisor; and B.11, Misconduct. Pursuant to a letter
received from the Union on Mr. Freitas' behalf (see attached), the Union is requesting that the
Board direct staff to secure the services of an arbitrator. Details of this matter have been
provided to the Board previously.
In matters that are appealed to the Board, the M.O.U. reads as follows:
A. "An employee,...may appeal the Hearing Officer's decision by appealing to the Board via
filing a written request for hearing with the Secretary of the District within five (5)
working days of receipt of the Hearing Officer's decision. The Secretary shall calendar
the matter at the next regularly scheduled Board Meeting in keeping with established
guidelines for calendaring an agenda item."
B. "The Board shall employ a neutral third party to hear the appeal and to recommend action
to the Board."
C. "The Board may adopt, reject, or modify the recommendation of the Board-appointed
neutral third party. The decision of the Board is the final action of the District."
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to secure the services of an arbitrator in accordance with
the appeal procedures for suspension of employees in the matter of Vehicle & Equipment
Mechanic Ron Freitas.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL ONE
Local #1 Richmond Office: 3065 Richmond Parkway, Suite 101, Richmond, CA 94806
Phone (510) 222-5012 . Fax (510) 222-8858
'~.}.3-'"
Ud[JG~\;~ll
~'.';-.r _. I'~~.
~,.!),~ ~ :~ :<)
November 4, 1993
c: :"")
ADMIN!- 'r';_, \''''C i
Mr. Paul Morsen
, Deputy General Manager
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553-4392
Dear Mr. Morsen:
Local One is in receipt of your decision concerning the 5 day suspension of Mr. Ron Freitas.
Please be advised that pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, Local
One, on behalf of Mr. Freitas, wishes to elevate the disciplinary appeal to the arbitration
level. The decision rendered in this case at your level is unacceptable.
Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
d-o-cr tU~t'i... cr "'-,
, / JL..
Scott Wildman
Business Agent
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL ONE
cc: Ron Freitas
Richard Boylan
Al Cambron
PAGE
OF
4
NO.
5. HEARINGS a.
DATE
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSED
ORDINANCE TO AMEND DISTRICT CODE TITLES 6 AND 9
REGARDING FEES, CHARGES, AND REBATE SEWER LINES
TYPE OF ACTION
CONDUCT PUBLIC
HEARING & ADOPT
ORDINANCE
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT.lDIY.
Jarred Miyamoto-Mills, Principal Engineer
Engineering Department/Planning Division
ISSUE: Staff has recommended several changes to the District Code provisions for Facilities
Capacity Fees, Annexation Charges, Rebate Sewer lines, and Sewer Service Charges. The
code requires that a public hearing be held prior to the Board of Directors' consideration of an
ordinance to enact such amendments.
BACKGROUND: Staff has studied several possible changes to the Capital Improvement Fee
System. From these studies staff has concluded that several changes to the system would be
appropriate. A summary of the proposal is presented in Attachment 1. These proposed
changes were discussed at the November 2, 1993, meeting of the Board of Directors' Finance
Committee, and at the Board's regular meeting on November 4, 1993. A draft ordinance to
enact the proposed changes to Titles 6 and 9 has been prepared by staff and District Counsel
and has been provided to the Board separately.
Four informal public workshops were conducted by staff to receive input and answer questions
from representatives of the building and commercial development industries, chambers of
commerce, city officials, and other interested parties. A summary of comments received will
be a part of the staff presentation.
A public hearing to receive comments on the proposed code amendments has been scheduled
and properly noticed for December 2, 1993, at 3 p.m. The Staff Report on Proposed Changes
to the Capital Improvement Fee System, and the 1993 Capital Improvement Plan were available
for public review, as required.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing to receive comments on the proposed revisions
to Titles 6 and 9 of the District Code. Adopt the proposed ordinance enacting the code
revisions, to be effective February 2, 1994, 60 days following adoption of the ordinance.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
JMM
RAB
KLA
INITIATING DEPT"V
Mp
KIiJ-
1302A-7i91
__~. ___._________.,__._.__________...._.______.'.___._.__...___.__.________'._m..___..__________.._.____.,..._._._.~__..__.___._"___._.........~.._".," "..._._....__.__._.___"..h _,__
Page 2 of 4
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEE SYSTEM
. Existina Assets: Institute an "Existing Assets Component" for buying-in to the
current capital assets of the District. If implemented, future Capital Improvement
Fees would include both the proposed "Existing Assets Component" and a "Future
Facilities Component" for financing the portion of planned facilities expansion
needed to serve new customers. This method would replace the current approach
of charging for the cost of adding an increment of new capacity without
considering the cost of constructing the existing facilities (see Attachment 2).
. Deferred Payment Qotion: Establish an optional deferred payment program in lieu
of up-front, lump-sum Capital Improvement Fees for some nonresidential
customers. Affected by this program would be future customers (such as
restaurants, bakeries, and laundromats) whose flow, on a gallons-per-square-foot
basis, and/or strength exceeds that of other customers, such as retail stores and
business offices.
The program would require a lower Capital Improvement Fee "Initial Payment" prior
to issuance of a building permit, and subsequent payment of an annual "Capacity
Use Charge" in proportion to actual wastewater discharge for 15 years. As an
example, for restaurants participating in the program, the "Initial Payment" would
be about 30 percent of the fees which would otherwise be applied. The annual
charges for this restaurant would be about 80 percent more than would be charged
if it did not participate in the program. This program would replace the current fee
system which requires full payment of higher Capital Improvement Fees prior to
initiation of flow from new or expanded businesses. At its option, a business
eligible for the program could choose to make full payment of the higher fees up-
front. The program is presented graphically in Attachment 3.
The proposed "Initial Payment" rate is $3 per square foot.
. Temoorary Customers: Require "temporary customers" served under Special
Discharge Permits to pay a Capacity Use Charge in proportion to their actual
wastewater discharge.
. Time for Payment of Fees: Change the time for payment of applicable Capital
Improvement Fees to the time when the District receives an application for new or
expanded wastewater utility service, prior to the issuance of a building permit for
new construction, remodeling, or tenant improvements.
. Prooosed Fees
Fee Current Amount Proposed Amount Change
Facilities Capacity $1,958/RUE* $2,572/RUE 31 %
Pumped Zone Capacity $ 278/RUE $ 348/RUE 25%
* A Residential Unit Equivalent (RUE) is a measure of sewage volume and strength
equivalent to a typical residential household.
en
w
w
U.
t-
2
w
:E
N W
I- >
Z
w
:E 0
J:
0 a:
<C
l-
I- e..
<C
:E
-
...J
<t
t-
-
e..
<t
0
Page 3 of 4
~J
r--
It)
-.
N
0-
. .
. .
l- I-
2 (/)~2
~ w
2(/)2 w!!!20e:
i=1-0 en a:I-OCO (W)
(/)wD.. 00 :)::;jD..W(W) 00
-(/):E (W) ~O~~Ol ~
><(/)0 .. ..
~ u.<C en ~
~<CO <0- : u.om~ <0-
CO
It)
en
-.
~
0-
(/)2
WOD..
w- -
a:!:::CO ...
:)::!wen
1-0(/)00
:)<c<Cen
u.u.m~
I I I
o
o
o
(V)
-0
o
o
o
~
-0
o
o
o
N
-0
S33:1 J.N3W3^OHdWI 'V J.ldV:l
Q
w
en
o
0..
o
a:
0..
I-
Z
w
a:
a:
::)
o
o
-0
M
....
Z
w
~
J:
U
<t
....
....
<t
z
o
-
t-
U
W
..J
..J
o
U
w
W
LL
W
CJ)
::J
>
t:
u
<t
c..
<t
u
..J
<t
-
t-
Z
w
C
-
CJ)
w
a::
Z
o
z
a::
o
LL
t-
a::
<t
J:
U
~
o
..J
LL
..Jew')
<(0
i=1-"":
Z<(LL
.
.... ....I-d
,
offiCI)
W:iEa:
::j>W
0 O<(Q.
W 00.
>
..J
~W
- e" ,....
0.a::iE
<(<(<(
0:J:a:
WOe" 0
0WO
OCl)a: Z
O::>D..
:I:
0
I~
0
W
>
,
a:W (W')
00 0
LL - Z ,....
z> ~<(....: ....0
offi LL:I:LL 0 OW
i=0 -:> W.... . Z WW
ct> :I:a:d - ..JLL
....W0 " ..J..J
0.... O..J
-- 0"" a:
..J ..J 0::>
Q.- _<(W LL
Q..... wo.
<(::> a:
e"
Page 4 of 4
>0
!=a:
0<(
ctW
a.>
<(It)
0....
..Ja:
.:> <(0
::>LL
Zw
Ze"
<(a:
....<(
O:I:
wO
::jW
00
0::>
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1
OF 12
December 2, 1993
NO.
7. SOLID WASTE a.
BOARD MEETING OF
SUBJECT
DATE
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF REFUSE COLLECTION
RATE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE
MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL
SERVICE, INC. AT. A BOARD WORKSHOP
TYPE OF ACTION
RECEIVE REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE
ANALYSES
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Debbie Ratcliff, Controller
Administrative/Finance & Accounting
ISSUE: Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. have submitted
applications for rate increases effective January 1, 1 994. The rate applications and analyses
by Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson will be reviewed at a Board workshop on December 2, 1993, and
will be the subject of public hearings on December 16, 1993.
BACKGROUND: Applications for rate increases effective January 1, 1994 have been submitted
by two of the three franchised refuse collectors. Valley Waste Management has submitted an
application for a 16.50 percent rate increase in its service area, excluding the City of Lafayette,
and a 12.19 percent rate increase in the City of Lafayette. Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal, Inc.
did not submit a rate application.
Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. has submitted an application for a 4.2 percent rate
decrease. The District requested that they implement a green waste program. Four program
options were considered, and the Board approved the implementation of the drop-off center
option, which was the least expensive option. Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. calculated
this option to be a 2.3 percent increase in costs, which would net to a 1.9 percent overall
decrease. However, Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson reviewed the calculation and found that no
increase was needed to implement the green waste program, since the estimated incremental
cost of the drop-off center is only $2,000 per year.
Both rate applications have previously been distributed to the Board of Directors. The analyses
by Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson are being distributed with the Board packet. Copies of these
documents have also been provided to the affected cities of Orinda and Lafayette and towns
of Danville and Moraga, with requests that City and Town Council comments be provided for
the Board's consideration at the December 16, 1993 public hearing.
The documentation for this rate-setting decision is being presented in this Position Paper and
analyses. The Position Paper contains an overview of the rate-setting procedure. The analyses
of the rate applications filed by the two refuse collectors and the specific rate-setting decisions
and recommendations are contained in two separately bound documents. Attachment II
provides a schedule of current rates, requested rates, and recommended rates based on the
analyses. Based on the detailed analyses completed by Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson, the revised
rate increase for Valley Waste Management, excluding the City of Lafayette, is 14.59 percent,
RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON
INITIATI,NG DEPT.lDIV.
L//~~
1302A-7/91
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF REFUSE COLLECTION
RATE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE
MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL
SERVICE, INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP
SUBJECT
PAGE
DATE
2
OF
12
November 29, 1993
12.25 percent increase for Lafayette, and a 10.73 percent decrease for Orinda-Moraga Disposal
Service, Inc. (See Attachment I.)
RATE-SETTING PROCEDURE
The rate-setting procedure is based on the method of calculating the increase in refuse
collection rates, which was approved during the 1990-1991 rate-setting process, and includes
the following components:
Profit Calculation
Because of the limitations inherent in the use of the Operating Ratio method of
determining allowable profit, a new method was implemented during the 1990-1991
rate-setting process. Under the new method, the refuse collector's profit before taxes,
and after subtracting the Capital Use Charge, for the last six years was analyzed. The
profit figures for the six years were adjusted by the Consumer Price Index to current
values, and a profit per customer per year was determined. An arithmetic mean of the
profit per customer for four years, after rejecting the high and low years, was used to
compute the allowable profit; the initial profit per customer so determined was $11.87.
The initial profit per customer is then incremented by the Consumer Price Index for
succeeding rate-setting periods.
Modification Factors
The net profit per customer may be modified by the Board of Directors using two indices
which consider quality of service and cost of service.
Caoital Use Charae
An amount was included in the collection rates for the use of capital. This amount was
calculated by multiplying the interest rate times the depreciated value of the refuse
collector's Net Tangible Fixed Assets (NTFA). The NTFA is computed on the basis of
the original acquisition cost to avoid write-ups in values resulting from changes in
franchise ownership being passed on to the rate-paying public. The average yield of
High Quality 10 Year Corporate Bonds was used as the interest rate.
Exoense Adiustments
Since expenses are passed-through directly under both the previous and the new rate-
setting methodology, Board guidance is used in determining certain expenses which are
1302B-7/91
.._--_._--~.._-_.._---,--~...,---,---_._----~---_..._-,--_..--~----_._-_._----_._-_._,._--_..._._-~..__.. .__._~_._..,--_.__.._-_._---
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF REFUSE COLLECTION
RATE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE
MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL
SERVICE, INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP
SUBJECT
PAGE
DATE
3
OF
12
November 29, 1993
appropriate for inclusion in the rate analysis. The Board may want to consider certain
claimed expense components of each rate application, which have been identified in the
analysis.
Revenue and Ex Dense Balancina Account
Given the uncertainties inherent in operating a business in as volatile a field as solid
waste, extreme precision in the franchisees' ability to operate exactly on budget cannot
be expected. In past years, budgetary surpluses have been retained by the franchisees.
The earlier rate-setting approach did not provide any incentive for cost cutting. It was
the position of the District that it was appropriate to permit the franchisees to keep the
results of cost efficiencies during any given rate year as a way of encouraging the
franchisee to be more efficient. Under the new approach, effective cost cutting
will result in increased profits. Also, tight budgeting can be expected to result in
occasional revenue shortfall which should be passed along to the ratepayer as long as
the costs were legitimately incurred in the course of a well-managed business.
For these reasons, a Revenue and Expense Balancing Account was adopted during the
1990-1991 rate-setting process.
In the cours~ of the current rate-setting procedure, the following common issues will be
considered:
DisDosal Ex Dense
The current fee at Acme Interim Transfer Station is $75.97 per ton. Valley Waste
Management currently disposes of its waste at the Acme Transfer Station. Orinda-
Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. disposes of its waste at the West Contra Costa Landfill
at a rate of $62.77 per ton. These rates could change in the January time frame;
however, since there has been no official announcement to revise fees, no adjustment
was made to projected disposal expense. The Board has historically considered an
interim rate adjustment to accommodate upward or downward adjustment of disposal
rates.
Teamster Contract
The labor agreements for drivers and helpers with Teamsters Local 315 will expire on
December 31, 1993. Both companies are currently negotiating a new union labor
agreement. Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson is recommending inclusion of a two percent
increase to wages and a five percent increase to benefits in the rate calculation.
1302B-7/91
- ._,..__._~---------~._._-_...._._-_.._,-_..,._._~---.--_. .--,.~---_._._-_..~,_._~.._._-"--~---""'-'--'---'-'-._,-_._~,',"'---
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF REFUSE COLLECTION
RATE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE
MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL
SERVICE, INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP
SUBJECT
PAGE
DATE
4
OF
12
November 29, 1993
Closure and Post-Closure Cost Assessment
No provision has been made for closure costs in either rate analysis. However,
significant legal expenses related to the Acme landfill closure lawsuit are included in the
rate applications which will require determination as to the amount allowable for rate-
setting. Further, an impound account was set up in the 1992-1 993 rate-setting year to
collect these defense costs until a further determination could be made as to the liability
for these legal costs. A decision is required regarding these impounded funds.
In addition to the above issues which are common to both collectors, there are several
issues unique to each collector. These issues are quantified in the reports prepared by
Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson which accompany this agenda. All of the issues will be
presented to the Board at the workshop.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the analyses by Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson of the rate
applications submitted by Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc.
and provide comments and guidance regarding the common issues, and issues unique to the
two refuse collection firms, which are described in their respective analysis.
1302B-7/91
Attachment I
Page 1 of 3
Valley Waste Management
RATE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATION
Forecasted Calendar Year Ending December 31, 1994
(OOO's Omitted)
Service Area, Excluding City of Lafayette
Allowable Expenses, Including Intercompany Charges
Capital Use Charge
Total Allowable Expenses
Allowable Profit
Revenue Required
Forecasted Revenue Without Rate Increase
Revenue Increase Required
Percent Increase in Revenue Required
Revenue and Expense Balancing Account Due tol
(Due From) Company:
1992 End of Year Balance
1993 Projected Shortfall
1993 Projected End of Year Balance
Percent Increase in Revenue Required
Required Revenue Increase, Including Balancing Account
Percent Increase in Revenue Required, Including Balancing
Account
ADS/PosPaper2staffana.l.p 1
$10,955
246
$11,201
492
$689
522
$11,693
11 .288
$405
3.66%
$1,211
10.93%
$1,616
,14.59%
Attachment I
Page 2 of 3
Valley Waste Management
RATE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATION
Forecasted Calendar Year Ending December 31, 1994
(ODD's Omitted)
City of Lafayette
Allowable Expenses
Capital Use Charge
Total Allowable Expenses
Allowable Profit
Revenue Required
Forecasted Revenue Without Rate Increase
$4,349
~
$4,374
155
Revenue Increase Requ~ed
Percent Increase in Revenue Required
Revenue and Expense Balancing Account Due tol
(Due From) Company:
1992 End of Year Balance
1993 Projected Shortfall
1993 Projected End of Year Balance
Percent Increase in Revenue Required
Required Revenue Increase, Including Balancing Account
Percent Increase in Revenue Required, Including Balancing
Account
$235
95
AD S/PosPaper2staffana.l. p2
$4,529
4.335
$194
4.53%
$330
7.71%
$524
12.25%
Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc.
RATE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATION
Forecasted Calendar Year Ending December 31, 1994
(000' s Omitted)
Allowance Expenses
Capital Use Charge
Total Allowable Expenses
Allowable Profit
$5,305
48
5,353
203
Revenue Required
Forecasted Revenue Without Rate Increase
Revenue Decrease Required
Percent Decrease in Revenue Required
Revenue and Expense Balancing Account Due to/(Due
From) Company:
1992 End of Year Balance
1993 Projected Shortfall
1993 Projected End of Year Balance
Percent Decrease in Revenue Required
$595
(655)
Required Revenue Decrease, Including Balancing
Account
Percent Decrease in Revenue on all Services (Excluding
Recycling)
ADSlPosPaper2/staffana.lp3
Attachment I
Page 3 of 3
$5,556
6.142
(586)
(9.73%)
(60)
(1.00%)
($646)
(10.73%)
Attachment II
Page 1 of 5
VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT
SERVICE AREA, EXCLIIlING CITY OF LAFAYETTE
SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES
Staff
Requested COII'flUted
Current Rates Rates
Rates (16.5OX) (14.59X)
_..............-..- ..................--... ..................---
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE:
1 32-gal. can weekly - S 18.85 21.95 21.60
1 64-lIal. can wekly - 37.70 43.90 43.20
1 96-lIal. can weekly - 56.55 65.85 64.80
2 64-1181. c_ wekly - 75.40 87.80 86.40
2 96-gal. c_ weldy - 113.10 131.70 129.60
Each additional can--non-regular 5.80 6.75 6.65
(per plck-~)
1 can wekly - Special service area- 26.00 30.30 29.80
2 c_ weekly - Special service area- 44.85 52.25 51.40
3 c_ wekly - Special service area- 63.70 74.20 73.00
4 ~ weekly - Special service area- 82.55 96.15 94.60
1 45-1181. can wekly - 31.60 36.80 36.20
2 45-gal. c_ wekly - 59.85 69.75 68.60
1 s~rcart 56.55 65.85 64.80
1 s~rcart - Danvflle 53.55 62.40 61.80
Townhouse (no garden trl_ings):
1 32-gal. CIII'I weekly 16.80 19.55 19.25
1 64-1181. CIII'I wekly 35.65 41.55 40.85
1 96-lIal. can weekly 54.50 63.50 62.45
1 32-gal. can weekly (non-autamated) 19.30 22.50 27.00
2 32-1181. cane weekly (non-autOlllllted) 38.15 44.45 48.60
IIJLTI-APARTMENT SERVICE:
Each apertlll8llt weekly 20.75 24.15 23.80
Each additional can weekly 13.95 16.25 16.00
Each additional can - non regular 7.65 8.90 8.75
(per pick-up)
COMMERCIAL SERVICE:
One can weekly 28.65 33.40 32.85
Each editional can weekly 11.30 13.15 12.95
Each additional can -- 7.25 8.50 8.30
non-regular
One C\blc Yard:
One tl.. per week 107.95 125.75 123.70
Two tl_ per week 184.50 214.95 211.40
Three tl_ per week 261.10 304.20 299.20
Four ti_ per week 337.70 393.40 386.95
Five ti_ per week 412.30 480.35 4n.45
Two CLbI c Yards:
One tl.. per week 184.50 214.95 211.40
Two tl_ per week 337.70 393.40 386.95
Three ti_ per week 490.85 571.85 562.45
Four tl_ per week 644.20 750.50 738.20
Five tl_ per week 797.25 928.80 913.55
Three C\bic Yards:
One tl.. per wek 254.60 296.60 291.75
Two tl_ per week 489.25 570.00 560.65
Three tl_ per week 736.30 857.80 843.75
Four tl_ per week 981.75 1,143.75 1,125.00
Five ti_ per week 1,211.45 1,411.35 1,388.20
Four CLb! c Yards:
One tl.. per week 337.70 393.40 386.95
Two tl_ per wek 643.00 749.10 736.80
Three ti_ per wek 918.95 1,070.60 1,053.00
Four tl_ per week 1,194.50 1,391.60 1,368.80
Five tl_ per week 1,471.25 1,714.00 1,685.90
Six C\bic Yards:
One ti... per week 481.45 560.90 551. 70
Two tl_ per week 962.95 1,121.85 1,103.45
Three t1_ per week 1,411.85 1,644.80 1,617.85
Four tl_ per week 1,877.10 2,186.80 2,150.95
Five ti_ per week 2,342.35 2,728.85 2,684.10
COMPACTED RE FUSE SERVI CE:
Per cLbI c yard 37.50 40.80 42.95
DROP BOX SERVI CE :
Seven cLbl c yarde
(dirt and rocks) 546.20 636.30 625 .90
T--.ty cLblc yards 350.50 408.35 401.65
Thirty clblc yards 525.75 612.50 602.45
Forty clblc yarde 701.10 816.80 803.40
- Includes two 32-lIaIlOll c_ of lIarden trlam!ngs per week and three
refuse cleanups per year.
.Attachment I I
PaCJe 2 of 5
VALLEV \/ASTE IWIAGEIENT
CITY OF LAFAVETTE
SCHEDULE OF QlRRENT, REQUESTED, AIlD COIPUTED COLLECTI OH RATES
Steff
Requested CcqlUted
Current Retes Retes
Ret.. (12.191) (12.25")
---...------ --..-------- ----.................
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE:
1 32-pl. cen -"ly - $ 23.65 26.55 26.55
2 32-pl. _ -"ly - 47.30 53.10 53.10
3 32-gel. c_ weekly - 70.95 79.65 79.65
4 32-gel. _ weelcly - 94.60 106.20 106.20
5 32-pl. _ -"ly - 118.25 132.75 132.75
6 32-gel. _ -"ly - 141.90 159.30 159.30
7 32-pl. _ -"ly - 165.55 185.85 185.85
8 32-gel. _ weelcly - 189.20 212.40 212.40
ElICh addltfonel cen--non-reguler 6.75 7.55 7.60
(per pi ck-l4I)
1 Cell weekly - Speclel eervlce area- 29.45 33.05 33.05
2 cans -"ly - Special service are.- 53.10 59.55 59.60
3 c_ weekly. Special service are.- 76.75 86.10 86.15
4 _ -"ly - Special service area- 100.40 112.65 112.70
1 45-pl. can weekly - 35.45 39.75 39.85
2 45-pl. _ weekly - 70.95 79.50 79.65
T~0U8e (no prden trl_llllIs):
1 32-gal. can weelcly 21.25 23.85 23.85
2 32-pl. _ weekly 44.90 50.35 50.40
3 32-gal. c_ -"ly 68.55 76.90 76.95
MULTI-APARTMENT SERVICE:
Each epert.nt weelcly 24.20 27.15 27.15
E.ch additllllllll can weelcly 16.30 18.30 18.30
Each additional can - non reguler 8.95 10.05 10.05
(per plck-l4I)
C<IIMERCIAL SERVICE:
One cen week I y 33.40 37.45 37.50
ElICh edltlonel cen -"ly 13.15 14.75 14.75
Each additional can -- 8.45 9.50 9.50
non-regular
One Cubic Vard:
One tl_ per weelc 125.90 141.25 141 .30
Two tl_ per week 215.25 241.50 241.60
Three tl_ per week 304.65 341.80 341.95
Four tl_ per week 394.00 442.05 442.25
Five tl_ per -" 481.05 539.70 540.00
Two Cubic Varde:
One tl_ per -" 215.25 241.50 241.60
Two tl_ per week 394.00 442.05 442.25
Three tl_ per week 572 .65 642.45 642.80
Four tl_ per week 751.60 843.20 843.65
Five tf_ per week 930.20 1,043.60 1,044.15
Three Cubic Varde:
One tl_ per week 297.05 333.25 333.45
Two tl_ per week 570.85 640.45 640.80
Three tl_ per week 859.05 963.75 964 .30
Four tl_ per week 1,145.45 1,285.10 1,285.75
Five tf_ per week 1,413.45 1,585.75 1,586.60
Four Cubic Varde:
One tl_ per week 394.00 442.05 442.25
Two tl_ per week 750.20 841.65 842.10
Three tl_ per week 1,072.10 1,202.80 1,203.45
Four tl_ per -" 1,393.65 1,563.55 1,564.35
Five tl_ per week 1,716.55 1,925.80 1,926.85
Six Cubic Varde:
One tl_ per week 561.70 630.15 630.50
Two tl_ per week 1,123.50 . 1,260.45 1,261.15
Thr.. tl_ per week 1,647.25 1,848.05 1,849.05
Four tl_ per week 2,190.05 2,457.00 2,458.35
Five tl_ per week 2,732.85 3,066.00 3,067.60
COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE:
Per cubl c yard 43.75 45.90 49.10
DROP BOX SERVICE:
Seven cubl c yarde
(dirt end rocks) 546.95 613.60 613.95
T~ty cubic yarde 408.90 458.75 459.00
Th I rty cubl c yarde 613.40 688.15 688.55
Forty cubl c yarde 818.00 917.70 918.20
- Includes two 32-pllon cena of garden trhllllngs per week and three
refuse clea~ per year.
Attachment II
Page 3 of 5
ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1
SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES
Staff
Requested C~ted
Cu....ent Rates Rates
Rates (-4.2X) (-10.73%)
------------ ----------- -----------
ORINDA - FULL SERVICE
-----------------------------------
REGULAR SERVICE:*
1 can S 26.80 25.65 23.95
2 cans 53.60 51.30 47.90
3 cans 80.40 76.95 71.85
4 cans 107.20 102.60 95.80
5 cans 134.00 128.25 119.75
6 cans 160.80 153.90 143.70
One can - Senior Citizen 23.80 22.80 20.95
Extra can on route 6.55 6.25 5.85
Special pick-up - 1 can 18.40 17.65 16.45
Special pick-up - each add'l can 6.55 6.25 5.85
MINI PACKER SERVICE:
1 can 35.95 30.55 32.15
2 cans 62.75 56.20 56.10
3 cans 89.55 81.85 80.05
4 cans 116.35 107.50 104.00
000 SERVICE:
1-45 ga l. can 40.20 38.50 35.95
1-45 gal. can and 1-32 gal. 67.00 64.20 59.90
1-45 gal. can and 2-32 gal. 93.80 89.85 83.85
4-45 gal. cans 160.80 154.05 143.70
COMMERCIAL SERVICE:
One can weekly 37.15 35.60 33.15
Each additional can weekly 15.55 14.90 13.90
MULTI-APARTMENT SERVICE:
Pe.. ~it per week 23.45 22.45 20.95
Each additional pick-up per week 3.75 3.60 3.35
COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE:
Per cubic yard 45.60 43.70 40.70
BIN SERVICE:
ONE YARD:
Once per week 137.00 131.25 122.30
Twice per week 239.95 229.85 214.20
Three times per week 341.95 327.60 305.25
Four times per week 444.05 425.40 396.40
Five times per week 547.00 524.00 488.30
TWO YARD:
Once per week 239.95 229.85 214.20
Twice per week 444.05 425.05 396.40
Three times per week 649.10 621.85 579.45
Four times per week 853.90 823.80 762.30
Five' times per week 1,059.35 1,014.85 945.70
THREE YARD:***
Once per week 325.55 311.90 290.60
Twi ce per week 651.10 623.75 581.25
Three times per week 976.60 935.60 871.80
Four times per week 1,302.15 1,247.45 1,162.45
Five times per week 1,627.65 1,559.30 1,453.00
ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1
SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES
Staff
Requested CClIIp.Ited
Current Rates Rates
Rates (-4.21) (-10.73%)
----------...- ----------- -----------
FOOR YARD:
Once per week $ 411.20 393.90 367.10
Twi ce per week 822.40 787.85 734.15
Three times per week 1,233.60 1,181.80 1,101.25
Four times per week 1,644.80 1,575.70 1,468.30
Five ti mes per week 2,056.00 1,969.65 1,835.40
SIX YARD:
Once per week 586.80 562.15 523.85
Twice per week 1,173.65 1,124.35 1,047.70
Three times per week 1,760.45 1,686.50 1,571.55
Four times per week 2,347.30 2,248.70 2,095.45
Five times per week 2,934.10 2,810.85 2,619.25
EIGHT YARD:
Once per week 782.40 749.55 698.45
Twi ce per week 1,564.80 1,499.05 1,396.90
Three times per week 2,347.30 2,248.70 2,095.45
Four times per week 3,129.70 2,997.75 2,793.90
Five times per week 3,951.70 3,785.70 3,527.70
SPECIAL:
One yard 27.30 26.15 24.35
Two yards 54.85 52.55 48.95
DROP BOX SERVICE:
Twenty cubic yards 451.75 432.75 403.30
Thirty cubic yards 677.45 649.00 604.75
Forty cubic yards 903.25 865.30 806.35
Five yards - dirt and concrete 451.75 432.75 403.30
Sbteen yard school box ** 361.30 346.15 322.55
ORINDA - NO BRUSH SERVICE
-----------------------------------
REGULAR SERVICE:
1 can 22.75 21.80 20.35
2 cans 49.55 47.45 44.30
3 cans 76.35 73.10 68.25
1 can-Senior Citizen 21.25 20.35 18.85
MINIPACKER SERVICE:
1 can 31.90 30.55 28.50
2 cans 58.70 56.20 52.45
3 cans 85.50 81.85 76.40
4 cans 112.30 107.50 100.35
1-45 gal. can 47.85 38.60 42.75
1-45 and 1-32 gal. can 79.75 76.40 71.30
*
Includes one 32-gallon can of garden trinmings per week and
three refuse cleanups per year
**
A charge of $29.95 per week applies for each week not serviced
***
RENT.A-BIN service available on the following terms:
three cubic yard container, delivery and pickup, one ~, and
three-day rent, for 590.
Attachment II
Page 4 of 5
OlINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1A
SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES
MORAGA - FULL SERVICE
REGULAR SERVICE:*
1 can S
2 cans
3 cans
4 cans
5 cans
6 cans
Extra can on route
Special pick-up - 1 can
Special pick-up - each add'l can
MINIPACKER SERVICE:
1 can
2 cans
3 cans
4 cans
5 cans
ODD SERVICE:
One can - 45 gal.
One can - 1-45 and 1-32 gal. cans
One can - 1-45 and 2-32 gal. cans
COMMERCIAL SERVICE:
One can weekly
Each additional can weekly
MULTI-APARTMENT SERVICE:
Per .....i t per week
Each additional pick-up per week
COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE:
Per cubic yard
BIN AND DROP BOX SERVICES:
MORAGA - NO BRUSH SERVICE
-----------------------------------
REGULAR SERVICE:
1 can
2 cans
3 cans
Extra can on route
Special pick-up - 1 can
Special pick-up - each add'l can
ODD SERVICE:
One can - 45 gal
One can - 1-45 and 1-32 gal. cans
2-45 gal. can-small truck
Current
Rates
Requested
Rates
(-4.21)
Staff
Conp.Ited
Rates
(-10.73%)
24.10 23.10 21.50
48.20 46.20 43.00
72.30 69.30 64.50
96.40 92.40 86.00
120.50 115.50 107.50
144.60 138.60 129.00
6.55 6.25 5.85
18.40 17.65 16.45
6.55 6.25 5.85
35.40 33.90 31.55
59.50 57.00 53.05
83.60 80.10 74.55
107.70 103.20 96.05
131.80 126.25 117.55
36.15 34.65 32.25
60.25 57.70 53.75
84.35 80.80 75.25
37.15 35.60 33.15
15.55 14.90 13.90
23.45 22.45 20.95
3.75 3.60 3.35
45.60 43.70 40.70
(Same as Orinde above)
20.55 19.70 18.35
44.65 39.40 39.85
68.75 59.10 61.35
6.55 6.25 5.85
18.40 17.65 16.45
6.55 6.25 5.85
32.60 31.25 29.10
56.70 54.30 50.60
65.20 62.45 61.35
*
Includes one 32-gallon can of garcJen trinmings per week and
three refuse cleanups per year
Attachment II
Page 5 of 5
~ Central ~g~~~ g~~~R~~~~~~ aJistrict
PAGE 1 OF2
POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF December 2, 1993
sU'J(\]fHORIZE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH
G. S. DODSON AND ASSOCIATES FOR REVISION OF
THE FINAL DESIGN OF MARTINEZ PUMPING STATION
IMPROVEMENTS, DISTRICT PROJECT 4922
NO.
8. ENGINEERING a.
D'Nbvember 24, 1993
TYPE OF "CO'f~ORIZE
AGREEMENT
ISSUE: Authorization by the Board of Directors is required for the General Manager-
Chief Engineer to execute a professional services agreement in an amount greater than
$50,000.
BACKGROUND: Wastewater is conveyed from Martinez to the District treatment plant by the
Martinez, Fairview, and Maltby Pumping Stations. Capacity and safety deficiencies at the three
pumping stations were identified in the District-wide Pumping Station Master Plan (March
1 989). The recommended improvements at the Fairview and Maltby Pumping Stations are now
under construction.
Because of its age of approximately 40 years and space limitations, a new pumping station was
proposed to replace the existing Martinez Pumping Station. Preliminary design of a replacement
pumping station was completed in 1991. Final design was started in August 1992. The firm,
"G. S. Dodson and Associates," was retained for this design at a cost to date of $336,300.
During the final design and as part of a District-wide cost control effort, staff initiated a
thorough review of the design of this pumping station to reduce long-term operation and
maintenance costs. The outcome of this review was development of a plan to increase the
degree of automation and reliability of the new Martinez Pumping Station, which should
ultimately provide for a reduction in labor requirements at the station.
The decision to increase automation resulted in a change to the operating and control strategy
which significantly affected the original design concepts for the new Martinez Pumping Station.
In addition, certain mechanical equipment was changed to equipment that requires less operator
attention. These design concept changes required more engineering and drafting effort than
originally envisioned. The cost to revise the design is $137,000.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
CWS
JSM
RAB
1302A-9/85
!IJfJ
_._._'---~-'"-'~"-----'-------'--'-'''''- ,...-~ ---'---'---'--"'-'-"--'--'--~'_.~-_._-_._......,,~._~_._.._~---~_____".._,_,.,,_ "."___"'__"~"~__'____'_~__"'_U__"__'"..~.__...,~.",,,,_,,_~,____,,,__,___,__,,_,_,,
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH
G. S. DODSON AND ASSOCIATES FOR REVISION OF
THE FINAL DESIGN OF MARTINEZ PUMPING STATION
IMPROVEMENTS, DISTRICT PROJECT 4922
POSITION PAPER
2 2
PAGE OF
DATE
November 24, 1993
During the review of the original design for the new station, staff also evaluated modifications
and deletions to the project that would reduce overall construction cost. The cost of
incorporating these changes into the design is included in the $137,000 design cost revision.
These modifications or deletions will save approximately $170,000 in construction costs. The
Engineers Estimate for the construction cost of the pumping station is now $4,100,000,
including the anticipated savings.
Staff recommends that the design contract ceiling for the Martinez Pumping Station Project be
increased $137,000 to compensate G. S. Dodson and Associates for the additional design
work necessary to revise the design. A cost reimbursement agreement to revise the final
design has been negotiated with G. S. Dodson and Associates with a cost ceiling of $137,000.
The Martinez Pumping Station Improvement Project is included in the 1 993-94 Capital
Improvement Budget (pages CS-101 to CS-103). The budgeted total project cost is
$5,605,000.
A Negative Declaration for the Martinez Pumping Station Improvements was adopted by the
Board of Directors on March 5, 1992, pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a cost
reimbursement agreement with a cost ceiling of $137,000 with G. S. Dodson and Associates
for revision of the final design of the Martinez Pumping Station Improvement Project, D.P.
4922.
130?f3 q'ftI,