The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 12-16-93 PAGE 1 OF2 SUBJECT NO. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR b. OOT~cember 6, 1993 ACCEPT GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM PLEASANT HILL PROPERTIES AT A COST OF $5,357.00 - DP 20131 - PARCEL 011 - PLEASANT HILL AREA TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT GRANT OF EASEMENT SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Michael J. Penny, Assistant Engineer Engineering Dept.llnfrastructure Div. ISSUE: The subject easement is required for a portion of the 1 S-inch reclaimed water line which will be constructed in conjunction with the Pleasant Hill Interceptor Project. BACKGROUND: The easement is located on the south side of the building at 565 Contra Costa Boulevard in Pleasant Hill and coincides with an existing CCCSD easement for a 39-inch sanitary sewer. The easement is shown on the attached map, Exhibit A. The easement will establish permanent rights for the construction, maintenance, repair, and access to the reclaimed water facilities. Funds for the purchase of the easement are included in the authorized Pleasant Hill Easement Acquisition Project, DP 20131 . The reclaimed water line will be constructed by conventional open cut operation which will require the removal of some landscaping. Construction in the vicinity of the easement is tentatively scheduled for Spring/Summer 1994. RECOMMENDATION: Accept Grant of Easement from Pleasant Hill Properties at a cost of $5,357.00, DP 20131, Parcel 011, and authorize the Grant of Easement to be recorded. RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFOR80ARDAcnON INITIATING DEPT./DIV. 711 I:J 111 ffB 1302A-7/91 MJP TJP JSM RAB --,._~--"'--"."--"-~-"'._' _.~-~ "*'-,....,.._"'_."-~~-,-~,.-.---_._---_._-"---"---'--_.---_.~-----"--_._-_.__._._--'-----'-- ::c EXIST. 15' I-l CCCSD c;1 EASEMENT ::c (18722 O.R. 820) ~ :r> ~ C 0> D EXIST. 10' CCCSD EASEMENT () o .z.. ~ '(0 7' () o ~ 7' 'CP ~ (:) - - - LEGEND -~ - ~~:~~~( - - - - - - - - - EILEEN PARKS A.P. 125-250-023 <D o r-- r-- "" "- r-- ,- "" "- '" ,., '" o I o ~ "" L <1> -2 LOCATION MAP Central Contra Costa ~ Sanitary District GRANT OF EASEMENT Job No. 20131 Concord / Pleasant Hill Area / / / / / / / / / / / I / / / / / / / / / ~ N ~ 50 I-l Z -3 M ::0 UJ -3 :r> -3 M 0) CD o 100 ATTACHMENT A PAGE 1 OF 2 SUBJECT NO. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR c. ~T~cember 6, 1993 ACCEPT GRANT OF TEMPORARY EASEMENT FROM EILEEN M. PARKS AT A COST OF $500.00 - DISTRICT PROJECT 20131 - PARCEL 007-2 TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT GRANT OF TEMPORARY EASEMENT SUBMITTED BY Michael Penny, Assistant Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering DeptJlnfrastructure Div. ISSUE: The subject temporary easement is required to construct a portion of the 18-inch reclaimed water line in conjunction with the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project. BACKGROUND: The temporary easement is located in the parking lot on the north of the Cal Spas store on Contra Costa Boulevard in Pleasant Hill. The temporary easement is shown on the attached map Exhibit A. The easement will establish temporary rights for the construction of the reclaimed water facilities. Funds for the purchase of the temporary easement are included in the previously authorized Pleasant Hill Easement Acquisition Project, District Project 20131 . The reclaimed water line will be constructed by open-cut operation on the adjacent property to the north of the Cal Spas store. Construction will be limited to the hours of 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. which will permit the continued use of the parking lot for customer parking during business hours. Construction in the vicinity of the easement is tentatively scheduled for early 1994. RECOMMENDATION: Accept grant of temporary easement from Eileen M. Parks at a cost of $500.00, District Project 20131, Parcel 007-2. RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ~11G .0 11# ~ 1302A-7/91 MJP TJP JSM RAB ---~---,---,_.__.-_.-,.__..,_.._._._~-----_..._--~.----_._-"---- ._,-,-~-- ~ N ~ 0 50 100 MAP I A.P. 125-250-025 o o ...z.. ~ ~ 7 - - - o o ~ 7 \:P ~ o LEGEND W///,%. - Temporary ~ - Easeme'nt C 0> D N (J) ;? ~ .,. " ~ ~ .,. " '" " '" o ::: .,. L '" '2 LOCATION Central Contra Costa ~ Sanitary District EXIST. 20' CCCSD EASEMENT (4201 O.R. 94) / / / / -\ '\ PARCEL 007-1 EXIST. 15' CCCSD EASEMENT (18722 O.R. 820) PARCEL 007-2 GRANT OF TEMPORARY EASEMENT - - - - A.P. 125-250-023 ~ ~ t:z. --0 ~ ~ Job No. 20131 Concord / Pleasant Hill Area I--t Z -3 t?=j ::0 CI1 .....:1 :J;> .....:1 t?=j ::c: I--t Cl ::c: ~ > .-<: I--t I 0) CO o ATTACHMENT A ,-_.~-_..._-_._"-------~_._--"------ /~ Central ~g~:~ g~~~R~~~~a~~ Llistrict PAGE 1 OF POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING obecember 16, 1993 NO. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR d. SUBJECT DATE December 2, 1993 ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK FOR MISCELLANEOUS TRENCH GROUTING PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT 4974, AND AUTHORIZE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK SUBMITTED BY Kris Kilgore, Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. ngineering Dept/lnfrastructure Division ISSUE: Construction has been completed on the Miscellaneous Trench Grouting Project, D.P. 4974, in Alamo, Danville, and Walnut Creek, and the work is now ready for acceptance. BACKGROUND: During the past two years and especially after the heavy rainstorms during the winter of 1992, portions of the existing sewer trench settled creating sinkholes along the 60- inch diameter San Ramon Valley trunk sewer in Alamo and Danville and the 66-inch diameter sewer in Olympic Boulevard in Walnut Creek. After taking boring samples and observing groundwater levels in the settlement areas, Woodward Clyde Consultants concluded that the most likely cause of the sinkholes was that fine material in the bedding zone was being washed by groundwater through the gravel bedding material in the pipe trench. Subsequently, this project was initiated to pressure grout the pipe bedding zones at five sinkhole areas to prevent additional fines from the backfill from washing out during the next wet weather seasons. (Refer to Attachment Nos. 1 and 2.) On October 7, 1993, the Board of Directors authorized the award of a contract for construction of the project to Pressure Grout Company of Hayward. A Notice to Proceed was issued on November 8, 1993, with a specified completion date of November 29, 1993. The contract work was substantially completed on December 7, 1993. The remaining work consists of minor punch list items which do not affect the project acceptance. The total authorized budget for the project including the cost of engineering design, District forces, and the contract work is $41 ,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 Miscellaneous Trench Grouting Project, D.P. 4974, in Alamo, Danville, and Walnut Creek, and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion. HBT JSM RAB REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 KA-K KAK -tK ~/rJ ~ INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. s ... ! = .. ... ... = ... ... . .. . LAS '0 u ... :a , ... Central Contra Costo Sanitary District I --l ~ . 1J:::. MATCH UN! [S.J\ L-I I ........./- t1 \': li'-: ( .I - -. t:: @ ~,+ -0 - \~ ~ - ,j ,\~ -:\ ~ -. '\0_1: 1 c:c1C ~ I '::! <---~" :l._ ~ - ~ I l/K ~n ~ Pl'\~~~ \ \ J \ \ 1 "I .\ l "\ \ .uc J V \ w,,~c - ... I ==-, \ '~'1i~..lt-i"" :\ .. \ -":.\ I \:= \~ /~ _!:/ I-- .- _p: I-- .... ..oc/ I \ff ~7..c\Q/...-- . ~ / L[ll - j -d~ =~rr",,~ jd HAW.... ~ - / r::::=J \ !'lESSURE GROUT.=.. bl SINKHO~ AREA \ ID\ ~ Q . ===== ~:i-- \ I : \] \ ' ~g~- I :c-\ \ ~~ 8 ~:~ r--i-i ,,---1 ~ - ~~=;~H\ \\;_~_}r: I'lESSURf GROUT~~- I-- \. .'-~ TRfN~AM 1: i-- \ ~ j . _ .~ -_:--....... ' \" J ..t _ -: _ _~ '" J r- ~i . -5 ~ _! \ \" ~ " ~~ ~ '", ~ rf '" =: - ~t=! c:~ ,hi~1 - ~r:~.- l ( J ~ De. LJ k J ::-110 J \" 1 ~ .r' cmm~ A TT ItICNENT - . o MISCELlANEOUS TRENCH GROUTING PROJECT IRON HORSE TRAIL 1 ... .. .. .. g ~ - ... ---------..__..._..__._"-_.-"'"--_.~----_.~-,.,,_.__._-_....---.--------..--.-.--- s ... .; i ... = .. ... ... - ~ .. ... . .. . 0 u ... .. . " ... \ .. ~. ... - 0 ... .. .. I ~ ::> c I ... '" } ~ N ~ ..._.....~ , " , , , , ....., ' ,. , ' , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ............. , , ......., .............. , , ....... , ....... , z ~ ~ Z o CD /J ' ~J"~ . " ~if:r ' , ~". , , ,~ ' ....... L , , rT/C'L ' , rTu ' '" ~r ....... , '....... cfc90 , , , I PRESSURE GROUT TRENCH DAM DOWNSTREAM OF SINKHOLE OVER SEWER TRENCH ---, JUNc:n'ON~ I mUCTURE ..... I ~O. 16.4 \ . ~t>-......... ,,' o , 100 200 FEr <<lO , Centrol Contro Costo Sanitary District ATTI'CHHENT MISCEllANEOUS TRENCH GROUTING PROJECT OLYMPIC; BOULEVARD 2 ~ Central ~g~~~ g~~fR~~~~~~ ')istricl PAGE 1 OF POSITION PAPER BOARDMEET~g8~mber 16,1993 NO. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR e. SUBJECT ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK FOR THE 1680/SR-24 SEWER RELOCATIONS PROJECT, PHASE IVA, DISTRICT PROJECT 4824, AND AUTHORIZE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION DATE December 2, 1993 TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK SUBMITTED BY Kris Kilgore Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Department Infrastructure Division ISSUE: Construction has been completed on the 1-680/SR-24 Sewer Relocations, Phase IVA, Project, D.P. 4824, and the work is now ready for acceptance. BACKGROUND: The 1-680/SR-24 Sewer Relocations Project, Phase IV A, 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 were the installation of approximately 320 feet of 8-inch sewers and 10-inch sewers, plus associated manholes and structures. The location of the project is shown on Exhibit A. Additional information on the project is given on page CS-39 of the 1993-94 Capital Improvement Budget. On September 6, 1993, the Board authorized the award of a contract to Mountain Cascade Construction, Inc., of Livermore, to construct Phase IVA of the 1-680/SR-24 Sewer Relocations Project. Notice to Proceed was issued on November 1, 1993. The required contract completion date is January 3, 1994. The contract work was substantially completed on December 3, 1993. The remaining work consists of punch list items and these do not affect the project acceptance. The total authorized budget for Phase IVA of the 1-680/SR-24 Sewer Relocations Project, Phase IVA, including the cost of engineering and design, consultant service, District forces, testing services, etc., is $201,500. 100 percent of the costs incurred by the District on this project are eligible for reimbursement by CalTrans. A detailed accounting of the project costs will be provided to the Board at the time of the project closeout. It is appropriate to accept the contract work at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for construction of the 1-680/SR-24 Sewer Relocations Project, Phase IVA, D.P. 4824, and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION K yo\. )Z KAK RAB INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. 1302A.9/85 HBT 1.'1'/ JSM rIdS Q Walnut Cree .~ Orinda Alamo Danville I . Project Location Central Contra Costa Sanitary District DP 4824-1 680/SR 24 Sewer Relocations, Phase IV-A EXHIBIT A PAGE 1 OF 1 NO. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR f. SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR RELOCATION OF ELECTRICAL FACILITIES FOR THE PLEASANT HILL RELIEF INTERCEPTOR, DP 4879 DATE December 10, 1993 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Tad J. Pilecki, Senior Engineer Engineering Dept./lnfrastructure Div. ISSUE: Board authorization is required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute agreements on capital projects for amounts greater than $50,000. BACKGROUND: On October 21, 1 993, the Board awarded the construction of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor to Ranger Pipeline, Inc. To allow construction of the project, PG & E overhead facilities at Grayson Creek and Highway 4 and underground street lighting in Contra Costa Boulevard south of First Street need to be relocated. District staff has met with PG & E and negotiated a cost of $81,886.04 for the two relocations. The cost for the relocations includes the replacement of four (4) poles for the Grayson Creek/Highway 4 crossing, including night work and shut down of Highway 4 to install the new wires. All work associated with the relocations will be done by PG & E. Sufficient funds for these relocations have been provided in the project budget approved by the Board. Additional information on the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project is given on pages CS-21 - CS-24 of the 1993-94 Capital Improvement Budget. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute an Agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric for the relocation of facilities to accommodate the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor, DP 4879. RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON 1302A-7/91 TJP JSM RAB INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ~ -- ----------_._------~-_._....--_..._~----'~--_.,-_.------.-..--...-------..------.,----.--.- PAGE OF 2 NO. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR g. DATE CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND DISTRICT CODE TITLES 6 AND 9 REGARDING FEES, CHARGES, AND REBATE SEWER LINES TYPE OF ACTION ADOPT ORDINANCE SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT.IDIV. 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. Adoption of an ordinance is required 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. The 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. 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 public hearing to receive comments on the proposed code amendment was properly noticed and was conducted by the Board at their December 2, 1993, meeting. 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. Following the public hearing, the Board passed a motion declaring their intent to adopt a revised ordinance enacting all of the proposed changes except the change of "time for payment of fees." A summary of the proposal is presented in Attachment 1; shading indicates the change from the previous summary. 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. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the proposed ordinance enacting the code revisions, to be effective February 16, 1994, 60 days following adoption of the ordinance. INITI p 1302A-7/91 RAB KLA Page 2 of 2 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. . Deferred Payment Dotion: 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, car washes, hospitals, 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 proposed "Initial Payment" rate is $3 per square foot. . Temoorarv Customers: Require "temporary customers" served under Special Discharge Permits to pay a Capacity Use Charge in proportion to their actual wastewater discharge. · ,.ir.'"'e. .f()r. ~a\'r.'"'e.l1t. ()f.. ~e.es:.. .R9D~~Dy,~tl~9Yrr~g!Pf~P~i9~9~qBjliq!i9n9f:g~R~t~.! tmpr9Y~m~D)IS@~~f:9rp~tWP9DD~qti9D~j4~tPriqt~ppmy~~g~lg9QP~pJ19D:)gthi pqq!~q$,iw~rl . 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. j In. '/( ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT AMENDING AND ADDING PROVISIONS WITHIN TITLE 6 AND TITLE 9 OF THE DISTRICT CODE AND ADOPTING A SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES AND CHARGES WHEREAS, substantial study has been conducted regarding the impacts of contemplated future development on this District's existing services and facilities, along with an analysis of new, improved, or expanded District facilities required or appropriate to serve new users within the District's service area, and said studies have set forth the relationship between new users, those facilities and the estimated costs of planned capital improvements; and WHEREAS, the magnitude of nonresidential Capital Improvement Fees for some user groups is substantial and could be a constraint on business formation or expansion; and WHEREAS, the Town of Danville City Council and the Danville Area Chamber of Commerce have requested mitigation of Capital Improvement Fees for certain nonresidential groups; and WHEREAS, District Staff has studied the feasibility of various mitigation strategies and has recommended that the Capital Improvement Fee System be modified to allow for a time payment Capacity Use Charge Program for certain nonresidential users; and 1 WHEREAS, these studies were undertaken by District staff and culminated in two documents that are part of the public record, to wit: the" 1993 Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan," and the "Staff Report on Proposed Changes to the Capital Improvement Fee System" dated November 22, 1993, which documents include analysis of the amount of estimated cost required to provide facilities in relation to anticipated revenue; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing to receive comments on the draft 1993 Capital Improvement Plan was conducted by the Board of Directors at their meeting on June 10, 1993, and the plan was subsequently approved by the Board of Directors during that same meeting; and WHEREAS, proper notice was given of the availability of the documents noted above for public inspection and review prior to the public hearing held on December 2, 1993 regarding the proposed changes to the Capital Improvement Fee System and proper notice with regard to said public hearing was given; and WHEREAS, public workshops were properly noticed and held on November 8, November 10, November 22, and November 29, 1993, in the District Board of Directors Meeting Room with regard to the proposed changes to the Capital Improvement Fee System; and 2 WHEREAS, it is reasonable that all users of the District's sewerage facilities, including those temporary users served under Special Discharge Permits, contribute to the funding of the District's Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, Title 6 and Title 9 of the District Code require amendment in order to provide enabling authority for the District to enact the proposed changes to the Capital Improvement Fee System, and to enact Capital Improvement Fees and Charges for both residential and nonresidential users; and WHEREAS, the Board finds as follows: A. The purpose of the revisions to the Capital Improvement Fee System for both residential and nonresidential development is to provide for compensation to the District for investment in the upgrade, replacement, and improvement of existing capital assets to maintain existing capacity, which will ultimately be shared by current and future users, to provide a portion of the revenue for facilities already constructed to provide capacity for future users, and to finance future capital facilities needed to accommodate the added burden placed on the District's wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system directly and indirectly attributed to new development within the District's service area. B. The "revenues" collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used to maintain capacity in existing facilities which will ultimately be shared by current and future 3 users through life-cycle replacement, and necessary upgrade and improvement, and to finance District capital facilities required to provide service to new users, and to accommodate the added burden placed on the District facilities occasioned by new development, which facilities are generally set forth in the 1993 Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan (including such revisions to such 1993 Ten-Year Improvement Plan as may be approved in the future by the District Board). C. After considering the studies and analyses prepared by the staff as presented within the various public hearings and workshops and the documents set forth above, and the testimony received from District Staff and the public at the public hearings and workshops, the Board approves the Staff Report on Proposed Changes to the Capital Improvement Fee System and incorporates such herein; and, further, finds that new users within the District service area generate an added burden on the District wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system and would contribute to the degradation of the overall wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services to be provided within the District, absent expenditure for capital improvements to maintain capacity in existing facilities and for additional facilities needed to provide service for new users as outlined within the documents set forth above. D. It is necessary within the District service area to provide for improvements and/or new facilities which have not yet been constructed, or have been constructed, but for which new users have not yet contributed their fair share towards the facility 4 costs of said facilities and for necessary upgrade, replacement, and improvement to maintain existing capacity. This necessity to provide for improvements and new facilities is required to maintain an adequate level of service within the District service area. E. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a strong and reasonable relationship between the need for the improvements and/or new District facilities and the types of users as set forth with some particularity in the Schedule of Capital Improvement Fees and Charges (set forth as Exhibit "B" to this Ordinance), for which the corresponding fees are charged, and there is a strong and reasonable relationship between the fees' intended use and the type of users for which the fees are charged, and that reasonable relationship is described in more detail in the study documents referred to above. F. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a strong and reasonable relationship between the designation set forth in Exhibit "A" to this Ordinance, of those users eligible for the Capacity Use Charge Program and the District's intent to mitigate the potential for Capital Improvement Fees to be a constraint on business formation or expansion, by making available to such users the option to participate in such program, which includes a time payment provision. 5 I' G. The fees expected to be generated from the Capital Improvement Fee System will not exceed the total of all actual costs reasonably allocable to capital improvement of District facilities needed to serve new users. WHEREAS, relative in part to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Board finds as follows: 1. The revenues generated by the Capital Improvement Fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance are to be used, in part, for repayment of a portion of the capital costs of facilities constructed in the past which have provided capacity for future users, such as the San Ramon Valley Trunk Sewer, the Downtown Walnut Creek Bypass, the Stage 5B Treatment Plant Expansion Project, and the Headworks Improvement Project. All such past projects providing capacity for future users complied with the requirements of CEQA. 2. The change in the fee structure occasioned by the adoption of this Ordinance revising the Capital Improvement Fee System will not in itself resu,lt in an expansion of facilities to provide for growth outside of the existing service area. The revision of the Capital Improvement Fee System is not in itself a project within the meaning of CEOA and will not in itself result in any specific project nor result in any direct physical change in the environment. An Environmental Impact Report, or other appropriate CEOA compliance documentation, will be prepared prior to the undertaking of any "project," which project is to be funded in whole or in part by 6 the revenues collected pursuant to the Capital Improvement Fee System contained herein. The revised Capital Improvement Fee System rationally relates fees charged new users with the cost of providing capacity for such new users. 3. The Board has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act with regard to enacting this Ordinance in that a Notice of Exemption has been prepared setting forth Public Resources Code Section 15273 {District CEQA Guildelines Section 17.7 (a)(4)) as the basis for exemption, for the reasons set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above. The Board directs that such Notice of Exemption be filed pursuant to law. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District does ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 6.12 of the District Code is hereby amended and such provisions are hereby added as are set forth in full in Exhibit "A II to this Ordinance, which is hereby incorporated in full herein by reference. 7 . .._..._-~-~,..._.-.._._,",.~-,..~.__._----_._"_.+~-_.,~-----,..,-_. ---,-- ""-.,--.--..----...".,-....,,>,. Section 2. Capital Improvement Fees and Charges shall be charged in accordance with the amended provisions of Chapter 6.12 of the District Code as set forth in Exhibit" A" to this Ordinance, and said fees and charges shall be at such rates for such categories of users as is set forth in the Schedule of Capital Improvement Fees and Charges, as set forth in full in Exhibit "B" to this Ordinance, which is hereby incorporated in full herein by reference. Section 3. Section 6.08.040 of the District Code is hereby amended as set forth in full in Exhibit "C" to this Ordinance, which is hereby incorporated in full by reference. Section 4. The title to Chapter 6.24 of the District Code, and Sections 6.24.010B., 6.24.020A., 6.24.030 (subsection A. and C.), 6.24.070, 6.24.080A., 6.24.090, 6.24.100, 6.24.110, 6.24.120, 6.24.130, 6.24.140, 6.24.150, and 6.24.160 (subsection A., B., and N.) are hereby amended as set forth in full in Exhibit "0" to this Ordinance, which is hereby incorporated in full herein by reference. Section 5. Section 9.12.220 of the District Code is hereby amended as set forth in full in Exhibit "E" to this Ordinance, which is hereby incorporated in full herein by reference. 8 . ",----~-"-,_._-_. -'.--.-......'---..--..--..-.-.----.--.-..------,.-...,.---.-.........----.-.....--...-..-.-..--.----...,.-..-"-,, ,.. - ..-~..-"_...~'--,.,--.---------,..._-.-.,~,__..,.___...~___,H_...___..._..____. ____..__~___._._,.~__.._.___..___ Section 6. This Ordinance shall be a general regulation of the District and shall be published once in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated within the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, and shall be effective as of February 16, 1994. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District on the 16th day of December, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Members: NOES: Members: ABSENT: Members: President of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California Secretary, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California APPROVED as to Form: District Counsel 9 ," The following pages contain the "Staff Report on Proposed Changes to the Capital Improvement Fee System" Ci. -•J November 22, 1993 It is included here for reference purposes only - IT IS NOT PART OF ORDINANCE 193 adopted December 16, 1993. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District November 22, 1993 TO: THE HONORABLE BO D F DIRECTORS VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN Ol� ROBERT A. BAKER FROM: JARRED MIYAMOTO -MILLS 1 SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEE SYSTEM INTRODUCTION This memorandum presents the results of a recent review of the Capital Improvement Fee System. Several changes to the system are recommended. These changes are needed to insure that both current and future customers pay their fair share of the cost of necessary capital improvements. It is estimated that yet- to -be- connected future customers of the District's sewerage system will contribute about thirty -five percent (18 mgd) of the projected ultimate dry weather flow (52 mgd). The District's current fee system assures that future customers will adequately compensate the District for future costs of construction to provide needed facilities capacity. In the proposed changes to the fee system, a "buy -in" component to fees will be instituted to adequately compensate the District for past costs in constructing existing facilities which will ultimately be shared by all customers. Specifically, staff recommends that the Board of Directors: • Institute an "Existing Assets Component" to provide for new customers to "buy -in" to the current capital assets of the District. If implemented, future Capital Improvement Fees would include of both a "Future Facilities Component" and an "Existing Assets Component." • Set the Facilities Capacity Fee (Gravity Service) at $2,572 per Residential Unit Equivalent (RUE), a 31 percent increase to the current fee ($1,958 per RUE). (Note: A Residential Unit Equivalent is a measure of sewage volume and strength equivalent to a typical residential household.) • Set the Pumped Zone Capacity Fee at $348 per RUE, a 25 percent increase to the current fee ($278 per RUE). • Establish a Capacity Use Charge Program for certain non - residential customers The Honorable Board of Directors Page 2 November 22, 1993 whose flow and /or strength exceed that of other customers, such as retail stores and business offices. Examples of business which would benefit from the new system are restaurants, bakeries, and laundromats. The program would require payment of Capital Improvement Fees for a newly established "Initial Payment" user group prior to issuance of a building permit, and payment of an annual capacity use charge in proportion to actual wastewater discharge for 15 years. The Capacity Use Charge Program would be in lieu of the current program which requires payment of 100 percent of Capital Improvement Fees prior to initiation of flow from the customer's new or expanded business. The proposed "Initial Payment" rate is $3 per square foot. • Require "temporary customers" served under Special Discharge Permits to pay a capacity use charge in proportion to their use of the District's facilities. • 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. BACKGROUND Current Fee System: The current system of Capital Improvement Fees, which includes Facilities Capacity Fees and Pumped Zone Capacity Fees, was established in 1989, replacing a system which had been in place since 1958 (over 30 years). This fee system provides a major source of revenue which is used to construct new sewers and new treatment plant facilities to accommodate growth in the District. At the direction of the Board of Directors, the current system was developed to achieve four goals: • to ensure adequate funding of facilities expansion required to serve new customers, • to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, • to assure that the District's commitment to a pay -as- you -go approach to project funding which is equitable to both existing and future users of the sewer system is continued, • to simplify the administration and collection of fees. These goals continue to be appropriate even though debt financing is anticipated to be required in the future. The fee system review was conducted to assess whether these goals are being achieved. In addition, at the request of local city councils and chambers of commerce, a fifth goal was used in the most recent fee system review. This fifth goal is: The Honorable Board of Directors Page 4 November 22, 1993 Where simplification of the administration and collection of fees was consistent with other goals of the fee system analysis, the more simple approach was incorporated in the fee system proposal. For example, the proposed system would no longer require Permit Technicians to count individual fixtures in order to determine the fees applicable to a proposed connection. Square footage of new buildings or additions has been substituted as the unit of measure for most nonresidential user groups to streamline the permitting process. DISCUSSION The remainder of this memorandum discusses details of the proposed fee system, comparisons of the proposed fee system with the fees charged by other sewering agencies in the Bay Area, a recommended implementation schedule, and concludes with a summary of the fee system analysis. The Proposed Fee System: The generalized formula for calculation of Capital Improvement Fees is: Capital Improvement Fee = Existing Assets Component + Future Facilities Component where, and, Existing Assets Component - Current Value of District Capital Assets Projected Ultimate RUE Future Facilities Component - Present Value of Future Expansion Expenditures- Projected Ultimate RUE - Current RUE * Net of current balance in the expansion subfund of the Sewer Construction Fund The "Current Value of District Capital Assets" includes physical facilities, land, and capital reserves. For the purpose of these calculations each component of current capital assets were addressed separately: • Physical Facilities: Current value of District investments in physical facilities, less Federal and State grants, were escalated from "accounting book entries" based The Honorable Board of Directors Page 5 November 22, 1993 on the change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area, and were depreciated (straight -line) using the following life - cycles with no salvage value. - Collection System 75 years - Treatment Plant and Pumping Stations: Structure /Foundation 40 years Equipment 20 years General Improvements 10 years. • Land: The current value of investments in real property was determined based on the "opportunity value" of like cash investments made in the District's temporary investments at the time of each purchase and held at interest until June 30, 1993, rather than by attempting to determine a current market value. • Capital Reserves: The June 30, 1993, balances of appropriate subfunds of the Sewer Construction Fund (Treatment Plant Upgrade /Replacement, Collection System Upgrade /Replacement, and General Improvements) were used as the current value of capital reserves. The "Projected Ultimate RUE" was determined from the District's CIP population projection: • Treatment Plant Facilities (including Concord) 226,000 RUE • Collection System • Pumping Stations 174,000 RUE 38,000 RUE The time -value of money (i.e., inflation in project costs and interest on District - invested funds), the scheduling of proposed projects, and rates of development in each area of the District were projected to facilitate determination of the Future Facilities Component. The "Present Value of Future Expansion Expenditures" was determined from the CIP database for the period 1994 to 2003. Project costs beyond 2003 (2004 to 2035) were estimated, using the master planning documents listed under "References" in Appendix A, assuming that all expanded collection system, treatment plant, and outfall facilities needed to serve the ultimate ( "buildout ") District population would be completed by 2035. The difference between Projected Ultimate RUE and Current RUE was determined from the 1993 CIP population projection. The Honorable Board of Directors Page 6 November 22, 1993 The recommended fees are: • Facilities Capacity Fee - Existing Assets Component $1,389/RUE - Future Facilities Component 1,183/RUE Total Fee: $2,572/RUE • Pumped Zone Capacity Fee - Existing Assets Component $ 293 /RUE - Future Facilities Component 55 /RUE Total Fee: $ 348 /RUE To ensure equity between those future customers who join the District earlier rather than later, the fee system analysis assumes that fees will be "indexed" to inflation; that is, in our model, fees are assumed to increase 4 percent per year. Comparison with Other Agencies: A comparison of proposed Capital Improvement Fees with similar fees in use at other Bay Area sewering agencies is presented in Table 1. This presentation shows that the proposed CCCSD fees fall in the middle of the range of similar fees charged by Bay Area sewerage agencies surveyed. Proposed Capacity Use Charae Proaram for Future Non - Residential Customers: The Capital Improvement Fees for some non - residential customers represent a significant portion of the start -up cost for new or expanded businesses. For example, the proposed Capital Improvement Fees for dine -in, full- service restaurants in Zone 1 (without the proposed use charge program) would be about $10 per square foot. Since the goals of the Capital Improvement Fee System are to ensure adequate funding of needed capital facilities, while not imposing an unnecessary impediment to small business formation or expansion, the fee system review sought to identify an alternative approach to the current requirement that 100 percent of the -fees be paid prior to the initiation of business operations. The proposed program would require an "Initial Payment" (proposed at $3 per square foot) prior to the initiation of any new or expanded business operations on a particular parcel. This payment would establish the right to use an increment of ultimate capacity in both existing and future facilities commensurate with the amount paid. The District would be compensated for any additional capacity used through the business' payment of an annual Capacity Use Charge calculated on the basis of actual water consumption and assumed wastewater strength, and billed on the tax bill or direct billed along with the annual Sewer Service Charge. These annual payments would be assessed for 15 years. The Honorable Board of Directors Page 7 November 22, 1993 An example of the application of the proposed use charge program to a 5,000 square foot restaurant is presented in Table 2. The proposed program offers several advantages to the District, as well as to each business participating in the program: • Up -front costs for some businesses would be reduced. • Businesses in the program would pay for capacity needed in proportion to actual use, rather than at the average rate for their business. • Conservation would be rewarded; excess use would be penalized. • Illegal connections in user groups, eligible to participate, could be put into the Capacity Use Charge Program, facilitating the collection of Capital Improvement Fees due. At the Board's request, staff surveyed several business people to get input on restructuring the nonresidential Capital Improvement Fee System. Six business consultants, three property managers, three contractors /architects /developers, and three business finance specialists were contacted. These respondents are representative of a broad range of professionals involved with the start -up of new restaurants and small businesses. The proposed Capacity Use Charge Program appears to be consistent with the opinions of the 15 survey respondents. All of those surveyed favored the District offering new customers an opportunity to extend payment of the Capital Improvement Fees over time. Paraphrased comments from the respondents include: • Most businesses are undercapitalized to start; annual payments relieve the initial burden of starting a new business. • The current policy probably has prevented new businesses from starting; anything that spreads out the cost would be better. • Spreading out fee payments fits lease arrangements better; standard building lease is ten years. • Provide as much flexibility as possible. • Paying even 50 percent of the fee up -front is too high; several respondents suggested a ten percent initial payment. The Honorable Board of Directors Page 8 November 22, 1993 • Capital Improvement Capacity Fees should be spread and equalized; keep the initial fee as low as possible. Chanaina the Time for Collection of Fees and Charges: Implementation of the proposal would require that applicable fees and charges be collected at the time a prospective customer submits an application for new or expanded wastewater utility service, prior to the issuance of a building permit by the appropriate building official. Current practice requires collection of these fees and charges just prior to physical connection to the District's sewer system. The proposed change would have two advantages. First, the application and permitting process would be streamlined since only one visit to the District's Permit Counter would be required to apply for wastewater utility service, obtain stamped plans and a connection permit, and pay fees and charges. This would typically require two visits under the current system. Second, the District would no longer be required to periodically check for illegal connections among those customers who have obtained stamped plans, but have not returned prior to connection to apply for wastewater utility service, obtain a connection permit and pay fees and charges. While most prospective customers pay their fees and charges at the appropriate time, the few that do not require significant resources to be expended to detect illegal connections and to collect appropriate payment. Implementation Schedule: A tentative schedule for implementation of the proposed Capital Improvement Fee System is presented in Table 3. If the proposed Capital Improvement Fee System is approved by the Board as recommended on December 2, 1993, implementation would be scheduled for February 2, 1994, 60 days following adoption of the ordinance. The period between approval and implementation is needed to modify and test software, develop permit counter procedures, print forms, and to allow time for developers to adjust their budget planning. Periodic Review of the Fee System: If actual performance differs from the economic and technical assumptions and projections which were made in the fee system analysis, or if substantial changes are made in the regulations governing construction, operation, or financing of sewerage facilities, the District's revenue needs could be impacted. The fee system is reviewed by staff on an annual basis. This review is generally conducted in the winter /spring, concurrent with preparation of the Capital Improvement Plan update. Staff - recommended revisions of the Capital Improvement Fee System are considered by the Board of Directors concurrently with approval of the annual Plan update. The Honorable Board of Directors Page 9 November 22, 1993 SUMMARY A comprehensive review and analysis of the District's Capital Improvement Fee System has recently been completed by staff. Several changes are recommended to continue the District's commitment to charge fees which are equitable to both current and future customers. The Honorable Board of Directors Page 10 November 22, 1993 TABLE LOCAL AREA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES COMPARISON SEPTEMBER 1993 AGENCY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEE Oro Loma Sanitary District $ 1,376 Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District 1,540 West Contra Costa Sanitary District 1,564 Delta Diablo Sanitation District 1,819 CURRENT CCCSD (GRAVITY SERVICE) 1,958 CURRENT CCCSD (PUMPED AREA) 2,236 Union Sanitary District 2,285 PROPOSED CCCSD (GRAVITY SERVICE) 2,572 PROPOSED CCCSD (PUMPED AREA) 2,920 East Bay Municipal Utility District (Berkeley) 3,365 Dublin San Ramon Services District 3,900 Napa Sanitation District 5,460 Mountain View Sanitary District 5,889 Fairfield- Suisun Sewer District 5,943 The Honorable Board of Directors Page 11 November 22, 1993 TABLE 2 PROPOSED CAPACITY USE CHARGE PROGRAM EXAMPLE FOR A 5,000 SQ. FT. (100 SEAT) RESTAURANT: • CURRENT METHOD WITH PROPOSED FEES - CAPACITY FEE DUE PRIOR TO PERMIT: $51,550 ANNUAL SEWER SERVICE CHARGE AT 53.43 /HCF: $ 4,582 - ANNUAL CAPACITY USE CHARGE: $ 0 TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGE: $ 4,582 • PROPOSED PROGRAM - CAPACITY FEE DUE PRIOR TO PERMIT"': $ 15,000 ANNUAL SEWER SERVICE CHARGE AT 53.43 /HCF: $ 4,582 ANNUAL CAPACITY USE CHARGE AT 52.82 /HCF121: 3,767 TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGE: $ 8,349 (1) Approximately 30 percent of the Capacity Fee that would be charged without the deferral of the balance to annual Capacity Use Charges. (2) To be collected for 15 years. The Honorable Board of Directors Page 12 November 22, 1993 TABLE 3 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEE SYSTEM CHANGES TENTATIVE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Date Item 11/2/93 Meet with Board Finance Committee 11 /8 & 10/93 Public Workshops 11/18/93 Board sets date for Public Hearing 11 /22 & 29/93 Public Workshops 12/2/93 Board conducts Public Hearing and Adopts Ordinance 12/10/93 Ordinance published 2/2/94 Changes Implemented The Honorable Board of Directors Page 13 November 22, 1993 APPENDIX A: CALCULATION OF PROPOSED FEES A computer "spreadsheet" model was devised to compute proposed Facilities Capacity and Pumped Zone Capacity Fees. The model takes into account current subprogram balances, projected expenditures, projected non -fee revenue, projected rates of development in each area of the District, and the time -value of money (i.e., inflation and interest on investments). The methodology for consideration of each of these factors is discussed below: Current Subprogram Balances An "Historical Sewer Construction Fund Cash Flow Study" was conducted by staff in 1988 to determine the appropriate allocation of the then existing fund balance to Expansion and Upgrade /Replacement subprograms within the Treatment Plant, Collection System, and General Improvements Programs. Since completing the 1988 study, staff has accounted for revenue and expenditures applicable to each subprogram and has updated the subprogram balances. The June 30, 1993, subprogram balances are listed in Table A-1. TABLE A -1 SUBPROGRAM BALANCES OF JUNE 30, 1993 Upgrade /Replacement Collection System $51,015,000 Treatment Plant 17,170,000 Subtotal $68,185,000 Expansion Collection System ( 9,837,000) Treatment Plant 2,724,000 Subtotal ($7,113,000) General Improvements 890,000 Subtotal 890,000 TOTAL: $61,962,000 The Honorable Board of Directors Page 14 November 22, 1993 Projected Expenditures and Non -Fee Revenue The costs of facilities needed and projected non -fee revenue between 1994 and 2003 were taken from the 1993 Ten -Year Capital Improvement Plan. Project costs beyond 2003 (to 2035) were estimated, using the master planning documents listed under "References" below and assuming that all expanded collection system, treatment plant, and outf all facilities needed to serve the ultimate ( "buildout ") District population would be completed by 2035. This assumption is consistent with current General plan information from the District's tributary cities and Contra Costa County. A nominal life -cycle replacement program for sewers and plant equipment has been assumed as a baseline for the upgrade /replacement subprograms. Non -fee revenue projections for the 2004 to 2035 period are consistent with those of the 1993 CIP. Population Projection In order to predict revenue from "connection" fees (Facilities Capacity Fees, Pumped Zone Capacity Fees, and annexation charges), a projection of the population /connection growth the District will be required to serve is needed. A population study by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) was completed for the District in 1987. The study presents population forecasts up to the year 2000 (see CIP Figure A -1). ESA developed growth scenarios that describe the range of reasonable growth potential within the study area by reviewing existing local city and county land use plans and zoning codes to determine what level of growth is currently allowed and could be possible (i.e., where is development permitted and at what densities). ESA's "Scenario A" reflects growth "as planned" or as allowed for under existing land use plans. The population projection used for fee analysis is based on Scenario A, adjusted for actual growth in 1989 -92. This scenario produces the sewer system connection projection shown in CIP Figure A -2. To develop Scenario A, ESA combined housing projection data from two sources: the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) "Projections 87" and the 1985 Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) "Landuse Data" (compiled for the CCCSD Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, October 1986). Though these two data sources differ in their extent and organization, there is good agreement between them regarding the development that could occur at build -out under existing land use plans. In addition to checking the consistency of data from these two sources, ESA used data from the Contra Costa County Traffic Study, the General Plans and Housing Elements of the County and the cities served by the District, and information from the various local planning departments to check, and where necessary, modify and update the ABAG /CDM The Honorable Board of Directors Page 15 November 22, 1993 data. These population projections were also compared to ABAG's more recent "Projections 90," and agreement between all of the projections remains good. The population projection described above results in the sewer system connection projection shown graphically in CIP Figure B -2. This projection was used in the fee analysis. Inflation Project costs used in the fee analysis are based upon current cost estimates (1993 dollars) and the December 1992 Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area: 6295, escalated to the year expenditures will be incurred according to a projection of anticipated construction cost inflation rates for the ten -year planning period. To determine a reasonable projection for the rate of inflation, economic forecasts were reviewed and a trend analysis of the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area (ENR - CCI -SF) was conducted. The analysis of the ENR - CCI -SF determined that the average annual rate of inflation for the San Francisco area, on a fourth quarter to fourth quarter basis for the previous five years, was 1 .9 percent per year. Actual construction cost inflation during calendar year 1992 was 1 .2 percent. In order to provide for a conservative escalation of future project costs, a rate of inflation equal to 4 percent per year has been assumed beginning in FY 1995 -96. Near -term inflation is assumed to be 2 percent for FY 1993 -94 and 3 percent for FY 1994 -95. Interest on Investment In order to predict interest revenues in the future, a projection of the rate of return on the District's investments is needed. The investment strategy of the District is designed to attain a market - average rate of return while exercising a minimum of risk. The District's current areas of investment are United States Treasury Bills and Notes and the Local Agency Investment Fund of the State of California. A 2 percent per year differential between the assumed interest rate and construction cost escalation rate is assumed for the plan. , This results in interest rates between 4 and 6 percent. Calculation of Fees The calculation of the Existing Assets Component of the Facilities Capacity and Pumped Zone Capacity Fees is presented in Table A -2. The calculation of the Future Facilities Component of the Facilities Capacity and Pumped Zone Capacity Fees is presented in Table A -3. The Honorable Board of Directors Page 16 November 22, 1993 TABLE A -2: EXISTING ASSETS COMPONENT CALCULATION Current Value (x $1,000) Program Facilities Land Sub- Program Balance (A) Total (B) Projected Ultimate RUE (A /B) Existing Assets Component Collection System 101,589 51,015 151,604 174,000 $ 872 Treatment Plant 63,636. "' - 17,170 80,806 226,000 357 General Improvements 11,332 23,872 890 36,094 226,000 160 Totals for Facility Capacity Fee: 176,557 23,872 69,075 268,504 - $1,389 Pumping Stations 11,180 - 2,724 11,180 38,000 $ 293 (1) Value of Federal and State grants received has been deducted from value of facilities. TABLE A -3: FUTURE FACILITIES COMPONENT CALCULATION (X $1,000) (A) (B) (C) _ (A -B) (D) Projected (C /D) Present SubProgram Difference Future Facilities Program Value of Balance Difference RUE,,, Comp(nent Future RUEL1ffef1, Expansion Collection System 16,599 (9,837) 26,436 36,000 $ 734 Treatment Plant 18,888 2,724 16,164 36,000 $ 449 Totals for Facility Capacity Fee: 35,487 (7,113) 42,160 $1,183 Pumping Stations 935 935 17,000 $ 55 The Honorable Board of Directors Page 17 November 22, 1993 REFERENCES Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN, prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, October 1986 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, TREATMENT PLANT MASTER PLAN, PHASE I - TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT, prepared by JMM /CDM a joint venture, December 1987 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Memorandum to the Honorable Board of Directors, Subject: Capital Improvement Fee System Analysis, dated January 5, 1989 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Memorandum to the Honorable Board of Directors, Subject: Capital Improvement Fee Proposal for Non - residentail Uses, dated February 9, 1989 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, FINAL REPORT, FACILITIES PLAN FOR THE MARTINEZ SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, prepared by JMM in association with CDM, December 1989 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, SOLIDS HANDLING FACILITIES PLAN PROJECT REPORT, prepared by JMM /CDM a joint venture, May 1990 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, WET WEATHER FLOW ROUTING TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, prepared by JMM /CDM a joint venture, June 1990 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, SECONDARY FACILITIES STAGING PLAN, prepared by JMM, March 1991 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ELECTRICAL SYSTEM ANALYSIS SUMMARY, prepared by CDM & Norbert Engineering Electrical Consultants, May 1991 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, AERATION SYSTEM EVALUATION, prepared by HDR Engineering, November 29, 1991 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, DISINFECTION FACILITIES PLAN, prepared by JMM, June 1992 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, INITIAL DILUTION STUDY, FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., August 26, 1992 The Honorable Board of Directors Page 18 November 22, 1993 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, FACILITIES PLAN FOR THE ORINDA SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, FINAL REPORT, prepared by CH2M Hill, September 1992 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, SUMMARY REPORT ON THE NITRIFICATION TEST PROGRAM, prepared by Wm. Lea Fisher, October 1992 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Memorandum to Robert A. Baker, Subject: Design Flow Criteria for Treatment Plant and Major Interceptors, dated November 2, 1992 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET AND 1993 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, Fiscal Year 1993 -94 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, OUTFALL PROJECT PHASE III FACILITIES PLAN, prepared by G. S. Dodson & Associates, October 1993 ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 9 BOARD MEETING OF December 16, 1993 NO. 5. HEARINGS a. SUBJECT CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSE-ALL EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1994 DATE December 14, 1993 TYPE OF ACTION CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Debbie Ratcliff, Controller Administrative/Finance and Accounting ISSUE: Public hearings will be conducted on December 16, 1993 to consider the applications for rate increases submitted by two of the three refuse collection companies franchised by the District; following the public hearings, the refuse collection rates to be effective January 1, 1994 are scheduled to be established by the Board of Directors. BACKGROUND: Applications for refuse collection rate increases effective January 1, 1994 were submitted by Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Dispose-All. Analyses of the rate applications by Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson have been provided to the Board of Directors, the cities of Lafayette and Orinda, the towns of Danville and Moraga, the refuse collectors, and members of the public who requested them. Written or public comments from the city and town councils have been requested for the Board's consideration during the public hearings. The consultant's analyses of the rate applications were presented at a Board workshop on December 2, 1993. The refuse collectors were provided an opportunity to address the Board with comments related to the rate applications and analyses. Valley Waste Management addressed two issues at the Board workshop. Orinda-Moraga Dispose-All did not comment at the meeting. The rate setting issues related to the Valley Waste Management rate application are reviewed in the following section. Valley Waste Management Issue: The Company's Allowable Profit Is Adversely Affected Using the Customer Eauivalent Units Calculation Instead of Ooeratina Ratio Method Profits are calculated in a manner which makes the profitability of the commercial business the same as the residential business. Total annual revenue is divided by the annual revenue from the average residence. This produces a number referred to as the residential unit equivalent (RUE) which is then multiplied by the profit on the average residence to yield an allowable profit. INITIATING DEPT. IV. #. Please refer to Attachment I which shows that commercial plus rolloff revenue has continued to increase during the past three years. Commercial plus rolloH revenues have, however, decreased as a percentage of total revenue. Nevertheless, orofits have increased year after year. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION DR PM 1302A-7/91 CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSE-ALL EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1 994 SUBJECT PAGE DATE 2 OF 9 December 14, 1993 It is recommended that the allowable profit calculation continue to be used because unlike the operating ratio, this approach does not increase profits simply because expenses increase. It is, however, recommended that the Board indicate its intentions to recalculate profit based on actual rather than projected revenues. Issue: Interest Income of 3.5 Percent on the Balancina Account Is Too Low As can be seen by reference to Attachment I, a principal reason for the growing balancing account is Valley Waste Management's inaccurate forecast of commercial and roll off revenue. Commercial revenues have gradually increased. Nevertheless, in the face of a recession, increased effect of commercial recycling, and escalating garbage rates, the projections have continued to be high. Recycling revenue has also fallen short of the forecasted values. The Company claims that more appropriate interest rates on the balancing account are 6.36 percent for 1993 and 5.82 percent for 1994 which are the rates used in the calculation of the Capital Use Charge and are based on the 10- year High Quality Corporate Bond Rate. The Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson analysis was based on a 3.5 percent interest rate which reflects current short term borrowing costs and is consistent with the short-term nature of the annual balancing account. This same approach was used last year. Attachment II is a letter dated May 8, 1992 which was sent to Valley Waste Management explaining the interest rate used in the 1992 rate setting year only. If the 10-year High Quality Corporate Bond Rate were used for each year beginning with 1993, the requested rate adjustment would increase by 0.44 percent for the service area excluding Lafayette and 0.33 percent for the Lafayette area, and the per can rates would increase by 13 cents and 8 cents respectively. Issue: The Modification Factors for Qualitv and Cost of Service Should Increase The company claims that the quality and level of service Valley Waste Management provides has increased due to implementation of automated service, green waste programs, and expansion of commercial recycling, and therefore, should receive an increase in the service modification factors. 1302B-7/91 CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSE-ALL EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1 994 SUBJECT PAGE DATE 3 OF 9 December 14, 1993 If both service modification factors were changed by 5 percent (to 0.95 or 1.05), the requested rate adjustment would change by .45 percent for the service area excluding Lafayette and .37 percent for the Lafayette area, and the per can rates would change by 10 cents for both areas. This increase or decrease in the service modification factors would increase or decrease allowable profit by $50,000 for the non-Lafayette area and $16,000 for the Lafayette area. Issue: Legal Expenses Related to the Acme Closure Lawsuit for Valley Disposal Service, Inc. and Mrs. Fiorentino Should be Passed to the Rate Pavers At the Board Workshop on December 2, 1993, the Board decided to allow defense costs for Valley Waste Management and Orinda Moraga Dispose-All to be included in the rate calculation and set aside in the current impound account. Orinda-Moraga Dispose-All included $104,000 in defense costs for 1994 and Valley Waste Management included $208,800. Also, at the Board Workshop, it was requested that legal costs related to the Acme Closure lawsuit for Valley Disposal Service, Inc. and Mrs. Fiorentino be included in the rate calculation. The following table shows past legal costs and estimated 1994 costs for Valley Disposal Service, Inc. and Mrs. Fiorentino and the effect on the garbage rates: Dollar Impact Non- Cost Lafayette Lafayette Past 1994 Estimate Total $179,553 $ 90.000 $269,553 28 cents 21 cents 14 cents 11 cents The Board is to decide the dollar amount, if any, to be passed to the rate payers for the legal defense of Valley Disposal Service, Inc. and Mrs. Fiorentino. 13028-7/91 CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSE-ALL EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1 994 SUBJECT PAGE DATE 4 OF 9 December 14, 1993 Pubic Notice: Notices of the public hearings were published in the Contra Costa Times, San Ramon Valley Times, Tri Valley Herald, and Contra Costa Sun on November 24, 1993 and December 6, 1993, except for the Contra Costa Sun, which had its second publishing on December 5. The notices will also be published in the four newspapers on December 15, 1993, RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearings on December 16, 1993 to consider the applications for rate increases submitted by Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Dispose-All and establish their refuse collection rates effective January 1, 1994; the structure of the rate setting process is provided on Attachments III and IV. 13028-7/91 +or c: Q) ~ I i i i i E ~LL.W '#. '#. ..c LL.ot; N N co q- ClO q- U 10 0) 10 ,... ,... N CO I-cf!< ~ N 0 Q ~ ~ +or a: U t:!. ..... =t +-' o W ~ ~ a: LL. I M J ..... ,... I i ..... ..... q- 0 ClO 0 ~ ai 0 .oj M q- ~ J: t:!. ~ ~MI ..... ~ 0) M ~ I '#. ..... 10 <0) 0) ClO 10 ,... M ::::>0) CO "':. ClO ,... q N 1-..... 0 10 ..... ~ .oj u ,... N N 10 < 0 "':. 0) .oj 10 en c; q- ; 0 0 ~ I 0 wO) 0 0 0 0 l- I"-:. M 0) q en..... ClO cD Ili ,... < 0 CO 0) M U M q 0) CO W .oj en a: CO 0 l- LL. Z w ::!: ~ I i i i i W ~LL.W '#. '#. <-' LL.ot; CIO 0 10 0 ..... ..... ~ N 0) CIO N N M Z ~'#.< ~ ~ ~ ..... 10 ~ ~ o frl ..... t:!. ::!: ~ a: w LL. I- en I ..... ~ ~ CIO ~ I ~ q- 0 0) ~ q- ,... M ~ 0 N ai >- N CO 0 W ..... ~ ...J J: ...J ~ > ~~ q- ~ CO 10 ~ ! '#. CO CO <0) ,... q- q- 10 ..... ::::> CO 0) 0 10 q ..... 1-..... 0 M cD 10 .oj U 10 M 0) 10 < 10 0) ClO M ..; ai c; 10 ; 0 M ~ I 0 wO) ..... 10 q- 0 I- ..... ~ q- 0 en..... CO ..; M < ,... 0) 0 q- u CO N 0 CO W M Ili en a: 0 u. ~ .....1 0 I CO q- ~ ~ '#. 0 q- N <0) 0 N 0 0 10 0 ::::>0) M q- ,... ~ q q CO 1-..... ,... en r..: CIO 0) ..; u ..... ,... ClO 10 0) < M ,... 10 -: M ..; aj .- GJ .... C1l ... ... C1l olJ CO ~ CO en .- CO a: 0(3 ::::> ... en 0(3 a> .....]! C1l GJ 0';:; W Q; Q., 0- W ... 05 GJ I ::::> GJ c o ~ 0 0';:; GJ :c ~ E ..... C1l E ..... GJ (j ....GJ....c 0 ..... a.. z ..... ~ &iE~~ ~ C1l E ..2 Vl W E ..2 Oiii > c co ~"~ I- d:- o 0 (5 > 0 (5 GJ GJ ~ E ,g"iii ~ 'b..2o en u a: W u a: a: a: GJ 0 0 GJ GJ ::::> -- en a: Q.,ua:a:a: I-<(a: u 0 < , . Attachment II .. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District -=-- CY8.1990 j.J' ','...\Vt: ., c." ~. ROGER 1. DOLAN CmerQI Mtm/lger Chief Engineer KENTON L. ALH ~ for 1M Dislrid (510) 938-1430 JOYCE E. MURPHY Set:rdm7I of 1M Distrid -..Ii 1\ \t 'f ~ '\Qq'~' t'f'r. \ .~ ..,... ,'" Wp'::,lt f'\i\;,.f\Gd';:L.r~ l~t l.{' ...... ;Xc:~~ Mr. Ronald J. Proto, General Manager Valley Waste Management 1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 20 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 " S~/" .F(~ ~v 17 - "1,-/.3, I Dear Mr. Proto: Your letter dated April 2, 1992 addressed to Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer, summarized issues which you wish to have resolved before implementing the residential automated collection program on a full-scale basis. At the April 16, 1992 and May 7, 1992 Board Meetings, the issues identified in your letter were discussed and considered by this District's Board of Directors. The Board's determination on each of the issues is provided in the following sections of this letter. Deoreciable Life of New Automated Eauioment The Board concurs that the equipment to be acquired for full-scale implementation of the program should be depreciated over five years, instead of its eight-year useful life, using the straight-line method. The shorter depreciation period is appropriate in consideration of the expiration of the base term of the franchise agreement in 1996. Rate Basis for Caoital Use Charae The Board will establish the Merrill Lynch Bond Index for 1-10 Year High Quality Corporate Bonds, instead of the Two-Year Treasury Note, as the basis for the rate to be used in calculating the Capital Use Charge beginning 1992. Incentive to Achieve Exoense Reductions and Imolement New Proarams The Board considered your request that fifty percent of the expense reduction to be achieved from the separately collected yard waste to be disposed of at the Hayward facility, instead of the Acme Interim Transfer Station, be provided as additional profit to your company. The Board also considered your request to modify the calculation of Allowable Profit to recognize the successful implementation of residential and commercial recycling programs. JOHN 8, CLAUSEN WIWAH C. DALTO." BOARD OF DIRECTORS PARKE L. 80NEYSTEELE President SUSAN McNUL7Y RAINEY JOSEPH M, STARlTA @ Iltcycled Portr 1108 ... Mr. Ronald J. Proto Page 2 May 8, 1992 The Board will be provided with information regarding clearly defined expense reduction programs to be initiated, and confirmation of the results of those programs through staff review, as a basis for setting the 1 993 Cost of Service Modification Factor. The Board will consider the successful efforts of the refuse collector in implementing programs to meet solid waste reduction mandates when setting the 1993 Quality of Service Modification Factor. Balancina Account The 1992 Balancing Account amount' will include the effect of depreciating the new equipment over five years, and the recalculation" of the Capital Use Charge using the High Quaiity Corporate"Bond Index. '/" Interest on the unapplied balance, whether the balance is in favor of the refuse I' COllector. or the ratepayers, will be added to the Balancing Account. The interest will be calculated based on the High Quality Corporate Bond Index. Full recovery of any balance in the Balancing account in its favor will be provided to the refuse collector by the last year of the franchise term. The Board will be provided with a written report which describes the manner in which the Balancing account amount is to be determined, based upon the general principles outlined above and during the last rate-setting process. The report will be prepared with the involvement and cooperation of the refuse collector, and should be submitted to the Board by July 1992. The Board believes that each of the issues raised have been addressed in this letter. It is hoped that the issues have been satisfactorily resolved, and the benefits of the automated collection program will be realized by its scheduled implementation. ~~B Parke L. Boneysteele President of the Board of Directors PlB:dp cc: George Sipel Robert Adams ADS/Funasaki#2/Prot03.ltr Attachment III VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT DECISION POINTS JANUARY 1, 1994 RATE SETTING . Closure Costs Collection of legal expense related to the Acme Lawsuit for Valley Disposal Service, Inc. and Mrs. Fiorentino . Intercompany Changes Intercompany Charges of $150,000 . Allowable Profit Calculation Present rate-setting methodology . Quality and Cost of Service Determine correct modification factor . Interest Rate on Balancing Account Ten-year High Quality Corporate Bond Rate of 5.82 percent vs. 3.5 percent rate ADS/PosPaper# 1 /Garrate 1.111 Attachment IV ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSE-ALL DECISION POINTS JANUARY 1, 1994 RATE SETTING . Allowable Profit Calculation Present rate-setting methodology . Quality and Cost of Service Determine correct modification factor . Interest Rate on Balancing Account Ten-year High Quality Corporate Bond Rate of 5.82 percent vs. 3.5 percent rate ADS/PosPaper#1/Garrate1.IV . ; Cetltral Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 3 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEET~~8ember 16, 1993 s~'T ABLlSH A SPECIFIC DOLLAR LIMIT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICE AGREEMENTS FUNDED FROM THE O&M BUDGET AND RECEIVE AN INFORMATIONAL COPY OF "P-015" FOR INCLUSION INTO THE PURCHASING AND MATERIALS MANUAL NO. 7. ADMINISTRATIVE a. DATE December 14, 1993 TYPE OF ACTION Adopt Limit Receive Procedure SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Ad ministrative/Purchasing ISSUE: The Board of Directors' approval is requested to establish the authority limit for expenditures from the O&M Budget for Professional Consulting Services agreements (PCS). BACKGROUND: At the Board Meeting on July 15, 1993, an overview was presented on the checks, balances and controls that exist in the District's procurement/payment process for professional agreements. In general the Board exercises control of O&M professional consulting service agreements during the O&M Budget adoption and expenditure review. However, because of their sensitive nature there is a need to establish a further PCS agreement approval procedure. It is recommended that the Board's approval be required when the initial PCS agreement amount exceeds the $25,000 limit or when an addendum to the agreement is itself above $25,000 or if the total value of the agreement plus the addendum will exceed the $25,000 limit and prior Board approval has not been obtained. If the Board adopts the approval requirement, the staff would enforce the approval limit per the attached Purchasing and Materials Manual Procedure No. P-015. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the requirement to obtain Board approval for O&M Professional Consulting Service agreements above $25,000, and receive Procedure No. P-015 for inclusion into the Purchasing and Materials Manual. INITIATING DEPT./DIV. /~/- REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION ~NG ROGER J. DOLAN 1302A-7/91 KFL PM CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT PURCHASING & MATERIALS Procedure No.: P-015 TItle: AUTHORIZAT Approved by: Effective Date: Page 1 of 93 Pages 1.0 Puroose To establish authority limits and procedures for expenditures for consultants funded from the O&M Budget. 2.0 Scope This Procedure applies to all District employees. 3.0 ResDonsibilitv The originator (requestor), under the direction and guidance of his/her supervisor, is responsible for obtaining all authorizations and signatures. Purchasing will verify that this Procedure has been followed. 4.0 Definition Professional Consulting Services Agreements (PCS): are used to contract for needed services wherein the collecting of information, analyzing of information and/or translating of information is the consultant's primary function with the end product being a written document, training, and/or recommendation. 5.0 General The major source of funds for consultant services is the Capital Improvement Budget. The Running Expense Fund (O&M Budget) may also be a funding source. These "budgets" are approved annually by the Board of Directors and authorize staff to expend the funds as appropriate. The Capital Improvement Budget procedures require that an original agreement that exceeds $50,000 must be placed on the Board's Agenda for specific approval. Except for PCS agreements, the O&M Budget does not require Board approvals after the Board approves the adoption of the fiscal budget. For any Professional Consulting Service agreement in excess of a specific dollar limit Board approval is required. This procedure establishes a Board approval requirement for PCS agreements above $25,000 funded from the O&M Budget. The Board of Directors' approval requirement applies when the initial PCS agreement amount exceeds the $25,000 limit or when an addendum to the agreement is itself above $25,000 or if the total value of the agreement plus the addendum will exceed the $25,000 limit and prior Board approval has not been obtained. 1413A.12/S9 Procedure No.: P-015 Page 2 of 2 Pages 6.0 Instructions Originator 6.1 Define scope of services, issue request for proposal, obtain proposal from consultant(s), evaluate proposal (s) , and negotiate; as appropriate. 6.2 Obtain the Board of Directors authorization to proceed when issuing the original PCS agreement if above $25,000 or if an addendum is by itself over $25,000 or will put the total agreement amount above the $25,000 approval limit, request authorization to continue the services. 6.3 After Board authorization has been obtained, draft up a PCS and send to Purchasing along with the appropriate Scope of Work; material requisition (HTE), including all required approvals; and the Contract Cover Memo. Buyer 6.4 will form the final agreement and obtain both the consultant's and the appropriate District signatures. 7.0 References Procedure No. P-009 Material Requisition CCCSD Project Procedures Manual Guideline No. 2 District Contracts - Authorization limits Procedure No. F-4 Contract or Contract Amendment Negotiation 1.. 138-12189 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 BOARD MEETING OF December 16, 1993 NO. 8. TREATMENT PLANT a. AUTHORIZE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MONTGOMERY WATSON FOR ASSISTANCE WITH RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT DATE December 10, 1993 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY James M. Kelly i INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ISSUE: Board authorization is required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a Professional Consulting Services (PCS) agreement for Operations and Maintenance budget services greater than $25,000. BACKGROUND: The District has a number of specialized residual management needs for the handling and disposal of the grit, scum, biosolids, and furnace ash that is generated at the treatment plant. While the District currently has a secure disposal site for its residuals, there are future opportunities to secure better sites and/or to recycle. The landfill that currently accepts the ash will be closing within a year. The District's experience with residuals disposal is that the situation is very dynamic so that new disposal/recycling methods and locations need to be continuously developed. Montgomery Watson has worked with the District and other agencies throughout California on residuals disposal/recycling methods and locations. The proposed project manager, Ramesh Babu, has worked with the District and knows the District's operations' needs, residual characteristics, and current and potential disposal/recycling locations. Through the work Mr. Babu has performed for other clients, he is familiar with disposal/recycling methods and locations throughout California. Montgomery Watson has proposed to provide services to assist the District in identifying and securing new residual disposal/recycling locations. The PCS agreement will be for $25,000; the contract would be funded by the Operations and Maintenance budget, Technical Services account, authorized by the Board for Fiscal Year 1993-94. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a PCS agreement in the amount of $25,000 with Montgomery Watson for professional services for residual d isposa I/recyc ling. INITIATI,NG DEPT.lDIV. JM[C RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON 1302A-7/91JMK