HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 08-15-91
c.'
ltral Contra CostaSa'~_ ry District
BOARD OF DIRECtORS
PAGE
OF 5
. ",-............--.'.,.... -.,...,,-.-----.-". ....
..... ...............-.--.-.-...............
pC>Sltl<r>NpAPER
August 15, 1991
NO.
3.
BIDS AND AWARDS a.
BOARD MEETING OF
SUBJECT
DATE
AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
RANGER PIPELINE, INC., FOR THE HALL DRIVE
SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE 2-A,
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 24331
August 12, 1 991
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE
AWARD
SUBMITTED BY
Rey I. Limjoco
Assistant Engineer
INITIATING DEPT.!DIV. Engineering Department/
Engineering Division
ISSUE: On August 7, 1 991 , sealed bids for the construction of District Project No. 24331,
Hall Drive Sewer Improvement Project, Phase 2-A were opened. The Board of Directors
must authorize award of the contract or reject bids within 50 days of the opening of bids.
BACKGROUND: The proposed sewer project is part of a 1 988 facilities plan recommendation
for phased construction to replace deteriorated sewers in backyard easements along Hall
Drive. Construction of Phase 1, consisting of a 2,700-foot bypass sewer along Hall Drive,
was completed in June 1990. Phase 2 entails connecting the residences along Hall Drive to
the Phase 1 bypass sewer. The work to be accomplished this summer has been limited to
correcting the worst section of the backyard sewer. Other sections of the backyard sewer
will be repaired in the future as necessary.
The Hall Drive Sewer Improvement Project, Phase 2-A, consists of constructing approximately
220 linear feet of an 8-inch diameter sewer in a private road at Queensbrook Place and the
installation of approximately 9,500 square yards of asphalt concrete overlay on Hall Drive
between Donald Drive and Moraga Way (Attachment 1). The sewer work is intended to
reduce flow to the existing deteriorated easement sewers. The overlay work is part of a
previous agreement between the District and the City of Orinda to repair the roadway, which
was damaged during construction of the Hall Drive Sewer Improvement Project, Phase 1.'
A Notice to Contractors inviting sealed bids was published on July 25 and 31, 1991. Two
bids, ranging from $246,351 to $388,527.50 were received on August 7, 1991. A summary
of bids received is shown in Attachment 2. The Engineering Department conducted a
technical and commercial evaluation of the bids and concluded that the lowest responsible
bidder is Ranger Pipeline, Inc., for the bid amount of $246,351. The engineer's pre~bid
estimate for construction of this project was $195,000. Although the low bid is higher than
the Engineer's estimate by 26 percent, staff still feels that the project should be awarded.
Potential cost savings associated with rebidding the project may not offset the cost
associated with right~of-way, negotiation, printing, consultant's time and force account.
Also, timing on the project is critical to avoid the wet weather season.
~
fJ~
f/If)
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPTJDIV.
1302A-7/91
RIL
TJP
DRW
RAB
AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
RANGER PIPELINE, INC., FOR THE HALL DRIVE
SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE II-A,
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 24331
.... ...................-......."'.................................-.,-......
.....llm.iIJIN......lriJl.Rm.....
SUBJECT
PAGE 2 OF 5
DATE August 12, 1 991
At its July 21, 1988, meeting, the District Board of Directors determined that the Hall Drive
Sewer Improvement Project was exempt from the California Environmental Ouality Act
(CEOA) under CEOA Statute Section 21080.21, since it involves construction of a pipeline
less than one mile in length in a public right of way. A Notice of Exemption was filed with
the County Clerk on July 28, 1988. The Hall Drive Sewer Improvement Project, is described
in the 1991-92 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) beginning on page CS-50. The total
project cost estimate for design and construction presented in the CIB for Phase 2 is
$823,000. The $440,000 difference between the post-bid/preconstruction total project cost
estimate of $383,000, shown in Attachment 3, and the $823,000, presented in the CIB, will
be utilized to complete subsequent phases.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of the contract to Ranger Pipeline, Inc., the lowest
responsible bidder, in the amount of $246,351 for construction of Hall Drive Sewer
Improvement Project, Phase 2-A, District Project No. 24331.
1302B-7/91
ED/Position Papers/HallDr.RIL
PaQe 3 of 5
Q
I . - Project Location(s) ,
Central Contra Costa
SanItary DIstrIct
Attachment
Hall Drive Sewer Improvement, Phase 2-A 1
DP 24331
"" ---"-----..--. ----
PROJECT NO.
Attachment 2
CentrE ~ Contra Costa San ary District Page 4 of 5
SUMMARY DF BIDS
Hall Drive Sewer Improvement Project,
Pha~p 2-A DATE August 7. 1991
Hall Drive. Orinda ENGR. EST. $ 195.000
24331
LOCATION
=
<.~f BIDDER (Nome, telephone & address) I BID PAle.
~
,
EMSCO ( ) 562-5454 $ 388,527.50
9009 Railroad Avenue, Oakland, CA 94602
- -
RANGER PIPELINE, INC. ( ) 822-3700 $ 246,351.00 I
1296 Armstronq Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94124 I
I
( ) $
-
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
0,
r . , ) . $"
,
. o .
.
( ) $
-
( ) $
( ) $
-
( ) $
( ) $
~
BIOS OPENED BY
Is/Joyce ~1urphy
DATE
8/7/91
SHEET NO.
OF
%50"':8.
-
_______________...&t...._____._._.___.,_."....__...e.___...
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT 3
HALL DRIVE SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE 2-A
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 24331
POST-BID PRECONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
PERCENT OF
ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT COSTS
1 Construction Contract 246,351
2 Contingency (at 15 percent) 37.649
SUBTOTAL 284,000 100
3 Force Account
Ma nagem ent/ Administration 2,000
Inspection 16,000
Surveying 2,000
Legal 500
Engineering 1.000
SUBTOTAL 21,500 7.6
4 Consu Ita nts/Contra ctors
Resident Engineer (JMM) 7,500
Geotechnical (DCM/Joyal) 1,500
Engineering Support (CH2M Hill) 6,000
Material Testing 500
SUBTOTAL 15,500 5.5
5 Miscellaneous
Permit 2,000
Collection System Operations 500
Community Relations 1,500
As-Builts 1.000
SUBTOTAL 5,000 1.8
6 Prebid Expenditures for Phase 2-A 57,0001 20.1
7 TOTAL PROJECT COST 383,000 134.9
8 Funds Previously Allocated for Phase 2- 57,0001
A
9 Total Allocation of Funds Required to 326,000
Complete Project
1$333,000 has been allocated, and approximately $296,000 has been spent to
date for the Phase 2 study, design, and right-of-way acquisition. $57,000 of
each total is associated with the study design and right-of-way acquisition for
Phase 2-A.
---.-"--. .-.-.-----"."..-+-...-....,....-..-......---..."---..--_.,-.-----_.__._-~-,-_._,----_...._--_...._-,.._--_.,-.'--~
C'- .1tral Contra Costa Sanildry District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
11111111111'."..1111111' BOARD MEETING OF
SUBJECT
1
NO.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR i.
DATE
AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 91-8 (WALNUT CREEK)
TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION
TO THE DISTRICT
TYPE OF ACTION
ACCEPr ANNEXAllON
FOR PROCESSING
SUBMmED BY
INITIATING DEPTJDIV.
Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer
Engineering Dept.lConstruction Division
Parcel Area Owner/Address Remarks Lead
No. Parcel No. & Acreage Agency
91-8 Walnut Trinacria Management Co. Existing house; property CCCSD
Creek 500 Ygnacio Valley Road owner wants to connect to
(5 OC 5) Walnut Creek CA 94596 the public sewer. Project is
135-050-020 (0.46 AC) exempt from CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 91-8 to be included in a future formal annexation.
RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON
RAB
INITIATIN~D?'V.
DH
f/11
JSM
w
~~\~~
~ ' !, / ,,, ~ ..1 0 ~ ,.~
. ~ 0 /S 6 I ~ u ~ "'" ~~
, A.; 4' n.
~ 0
.,. ..,... ~ ... .. S6 a
IJ-l~. ..::-: ~ 1S;to "~ 3 0 ,:.
<. ~\~........: ~lt ,,6 .
~.' ~ ~ t.......J. -., (. i ..............
~ ...J ~~ ::--... at ~ - t1~'" ~__ ' :#:
0\ J" ".0 · ::i ..\;ljP" ~ ! .,.,
~.: ... ~ ~ aT\ ~ 0:, .. ~8\.6Il~~ \S1f>.. f\O~O 'i\.
. ~ l-~ "l.lU\"'.f'i:"Mi~f>..L~E.'{ \) - - \. II~J' \ .
\l~ t& M T \S ~ \.,,, ~ -.bI "-%' ~.
l' ~~ ..r.:. ',~ I'J:;";;~~_~ .... 10~ ~~ .:.
"l(~~ .. :;;, ;"0 . ~~ ..; s:::' ~ · .~\c_ "5~ 91.': ,,-
S\.l~ -~.?t~ ~~ ~.- D ~ ':.~;:.". '-1 \ .....,
. ~ 6 c".~"t; 16~::-dt ,~Ie 2 ~":Y\,.~ .t..:.~_. H
~ ~ .. ~Ow \1 /e~ f: ~~,~,~ ,,~ --- \.l.->-
. !!. ~t.~ .f.i'~ .. .~ r .' ~.. --\ l' l ~
, ~ . en-- 1"\ ,0 .'! .. .
_ /' t'i'iI'I\ . "' \ ~:_L Z6. " I \0 _ - - i. .....
6 I~~l 81 9 Ilt~~ - - -;ci l...lulS[~ ~1I '. .
__~ S.,IT ~
\ I ftt-;T l~.... SO 4"'
~ ~ ~.... ~.~ <I; Oil Bti---- ~
~:~ l0\~{;~ :f.~::\:r~ '".::.~"-J. ~ .'
~ n\0~~ -. ;t-1 ~. 1 'rn\\\ll · ~ k:rl 8
,1 ~\~ ~ ~.~"lT;T' .~ ~ 1
.., ~ 0 ~O"~ U c..~ / ... :-j ~ 4 4'8"5 .. ) \t( uIll-4-'t
~~ 10\ ~~~ ~-: ~~~~ ~J.J HIT. I 17 Ii. .~ w.~?E - J;~
U & ,..-~~. ~ 3' ~\' ~ ~i~ r~} ~iA, IlYt1 - .. ~E' :\
@ ~ ... O~ ~~.....~ IJNJ~T~ T 'fill!; f;Jm; IIID. = HILL ~ ~
, ~ CT eT h.: 1'1- rlJ N '-l
rr i~ . '9J.IO\ll~ I~~ rltJlti : .: ~6~Jm8~ .~ .i
.:~\~' T/ eo ~O~Jl'~ .v~I/o':~ ~.~ ~,,~ ~ ~ -<' ~ ::
.r- _I q~:'~~ 3 74 23 .~ ~ i UJ.j ~f$- ~
: i! S;- 57: ..:' ~.::i[" ~ E ~IlRI.7' h~ ..:att 10 WHIfm1'vi, 1"'"
.. ~. \ "",:.., q . 13 I ~ [.t i I \
~. .:~ ::.. ~:. l'r"'~ ,',; ::~;I I, ';.,;: . " "Un --, '.
'. , ~ ~<--.1JORTH GATE. . . ROAD.......:............................... :;:!:::;:::;::it.; t~~f,
d'~~;: :igi 1:.~.;."~-~i:~~;'IT"'~~:
. ~ ~ ~.. ,. ~ ",.1.:"..:... J : .fi : : ~~ % ::~::~ \ \
AC
: ~jlllliIIlIIII11l11111'tr~!JI~l\
, w':ji I
., :~~~ ~,~:~~' D--_iliiil;&~ It.
CITY C' W.a.LNLlT Cft&[a
- l
if...~".
~
--
-
~
\
1
\
p,
It--ji
~
T
I
(j
II
I
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
P .A. 91-8
PAGE 1 OF 2
ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WORK FOR THE DIABLO
ROAD SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, DANVILLE
(DP 4455) AND AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF THE
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NO.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR j.
DATE
Au ust 2, 1991
TYPE OF ACTION
ACCEPT CONTRACT
WORK
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPTJDIV.
Ronald Klimczak, Senior Engineer
Engineering Dept.lConstruction Division
ISSUE: Construction has been completed on the Diablo Road Sewer Improvement Project in
Danville (DP 4455) and the work is now ready for acceptance.
BACKGROUND: In response to being notified of the Town of Danville's plans to widen and
resurface Diablo Road, District staff reviewed the capacity of existing sewers in Diablo Road and
determined that additional capacity was needed to meet projected wet weather flow demands.
In addition, a television inspection of one of the existing sewers in Diablo Road determined it to
be structurally deficient, and the decision was made that it be abandoned. The subject sewer
project included construction of 775 L.F. of 18-inch sewer, 227 L.F. of 15-inch sewer, 80 L.F.
of 8-inch sewer, 14 trunk manholes, and various other appurtenances. Approximately 3,100 L.F.
of existing 15-inch, 12-inch, and 8-inch sewer was abandoned. The project location is shown on
Figure 1 (attached) and is described in more detail on pages CS-28 to CS-30 of the Fiscal Year
1990-91 Capital Improvement Budget.
The Board of Directors awarded a construction contract to Mountain Cascade, Inc. of San Ramon
on April 18, 1991. The contractor was issued a Notice to Proceed on May 22, 1991. The
specified contract completion date was August 21, 1991; however, all work was completed
approximately one month early on July 19, 1991. It is appropriate to accept the contract work
at this time.
A detailed accounting of the project-costs will be provided to the Board at the time of project
closeout.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for the construction of the Diablo Road Sewer
Improvement Project in Danville (DP 4455) and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
RSK
flIlI
JSM
h'i
INIT~T'W.
1302A-7/91
RAB
Q
Orinda
I . - Project Location I
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
Diablo Road Sewer Improvements Project
Danville
DP4455
Figure
1
PAGE 1 OF 1
SUBJECT
NO.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR k.
DATE
August 7, 1991
AUTHORIZE BOARD PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY TO SIGN A
UTILITY AGREEMENT WITH CAL TRANS FOR DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF 1-680/SR-24 SEWER RELOCATIONS,
PHASE 3, DP 4782
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE
AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPTlDIV.
Tad J. Pilecki
ISSUE: Board authorization is required for the Board President and Secretary of the District to
sign a utility agreement with Caltrans.
BACKGROUND: Caltrans has initiated design of the next phase of its 1-680/SR-24 interchange
expansion. This phase will consist of lane widening between Oak Park Boulevard and Monument
Boulevard in Pleasant Hill. To accommodate the proposed widening, up to 5,600 feet of sewer
ranging in size from 6-inch to 33-inch diameter along North Main Street and Monument
Boulevard will be relocated.
The 1-680/SR-24 Project has been broken into several phases with completion of the final phase
scheduled for 1 994/95. Additional sewer relocations will be required under future phases. As
in previous relocations, the District will handle all aspects of the relocations with Caltrans
reimbursing the District for the total project cost.
To receive reimbursement for costs associated with the planning, design, and construction of
the relocation, the District must execute a utility agreement with Caltrans. Unlike previous utility
agreements with Caltrans, this particular agreement is being executed during the early stages
of design to reduce District carrying costs associated with Caltrans paying for improvements in
arrears. The modified agreement allows the District to bill monthly.
The total project cost is estimated at $2,375,000. This compares to $1,961,000 shown on
Pages CS-26-28 in the 1991-92 CIB. The. difference is due to Caltrans additions to the
relocation effort.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Board President and Secretary to sign a Utility Agreement
with Caltrans for the 1-680/SR-24 Sewer Relocation, Phase, 3, DP 4782.
RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDACTION
fj~
P/dfP
1302A-7/91
TJP
DRW
RAB
PAGE 1 OF 1
BOARD MEETING OF
August 15, 1991
NO.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR 1.
SUBJECT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REGISTRATION DIFFERENTIAL
FOR DONALD E. BERGER, JUNIOR ENGINEER IN THE
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DATE
August 5, 1991
TYPE OF ACTION
PERSONNEL
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT1DIV.
ineer
Engineering Department
ISSUE: Payment of a registration differential requires approval by the Board of Directors.
BACKGROUND: Donald E. Berger is a Junior Engineer in the Engineering
Department/Engineering Division. This classification does not require registration as a
professional engineer. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the District and
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Employees' Association, Public Employees' local
No.1, provides for payment of a registration differential for employees who achieve
registration while employed by the District in a position not requiring such registration. Mr.
Berger has passed the California Engineering Registration' Examination and. is now a
registered Civil Engineer. Mr. Berger has consistently demonstrated an ability to assist in the
accomplishment of District activities requiring a professional level of skills and experience
normally expected of a registered engineer. Mr. Berger was notified of his successful
completion of registration requirements in a letter dated August 2, 1991.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant Donald E. Berger a 5-percent salary increase effective August 2,
1991, for professional registration differential provided for in the MOU .
REVIE'NED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
RAB
CRF
INITIATING DEPTJOIV.
1302A-7/91
lj(;f
PAGE 1 OF 3
BOARD MEETING OF
Au ust 15, 1991
NO.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR m.
DATE
Au ust 6 1 991
TYPE OF ACTION
SUBJECT
ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW ORDER OF
BUSINESS FOR DISTRICT BOARD MEETINGS
ADOPT RESOLUTION
REVISING AGENDA
FORMAT
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPTJDIV.
Joyce E. Murphy, Secretary of the District
Administrative
ISSUE: A revision to the order of the District Board meeting agenda is proposed to
accommodate members of the public interested in a particular agenda item and to provide for
more efficient use of staff time.
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that the agenda business heading of CONSENT
CALENDAR be moved forward in the agenda order before HEARINGS and BID AND AWARDS.
At recent meetings, HEARINGS and BIDS AND AWARDS items have involved considerable
discussion. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are
enacted by a single motion of the Board. These items are not discussed separately unless
requested by a member of the public or the Board. In order to accommodate members of the
public who may be interested in a routine matter requiring little or no discussion and to
efficiently utilize the time of staff members available to answer questions on Consent Calendar
items, it is proposed that the order of the agenda be revised. A draft resolution modifying the
order of business of District Board meetings is attached for your consideration.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution establishing a new order of business for
District Board meetings.
ADSlPosPaper#3/BdAgenda.pp
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
JEM
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
1302A.7/91
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING NEW ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR
DISTRICT BOARD MEETINGS
The Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District does hereby resolve
as follows:
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 143, relating to order of business for District Board meetings,
ordained that the order of business at District Board meetings shall be established by
resolution of the Board of Directors and may be changed from time to time by resolution
of the Board of Directors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District that Resolution No. 89-021, Establishing a New Order of Business
for District Board Meetings, be amended and that henceforth until further resolve on this
matter the various items of business to be considered at each meeting of the Board of
Directors shall be grouped under the following agenda business headings and in the order
listed:
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENTS
AWARDS AND COMMENDATIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
HEARINGS
BIDS AND AWARDS
CONSENT CALENDAR
SOLID WASTE
ADMINISTRATIVE
ENGINEERING
TREATMENT PLANT
COLLECTION SYSTEM
PERSONNEL
REAL PROPERTY
LEGALlLlTIGA TION
CORRESPONDENCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES
Resolution No. 91-
Page 2
BUDGET AND FINANCE
EMERGENCY SITUATIONS REQUIRING BOARD ACTION
REPORTS (AS LISTED)
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CLOSED SESSION (AS REQUIRED)
ACTIONS RESULTING FROM DISCUSSIONS IN CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Agenda business headings under which there are no matters to be considered at a
particular meeting may not appear on the agenda for that meeting.
The Board of Directors may at any meeting, consider any item of business out of order.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th day of August, 1 991, by the Board of Directors of
the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 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
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary of the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District, County
of Contra Costa, State of California
Approved as to form:
Kenton L. Aim
District Counsel
ADS/PosPaper#3/BdAgenda.res
PAGE 1 OF 1
NO.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR n.
DATE
SETTLEMENT REPORT ON THE WATER LINE BREAK
DAMAGE WHICH OCCURRED ON SUMMIT ROAD, WALNUT
CREEK IN JULY 1989
Jul 30 1991
TYPE OF ACTION
RECEIVE SETTLEMENT
REPORT
SUBMITTf.P B.Y
JacK t:. Lampbell,
Administrative Operations Manager
INITIATING DEPTJOIV.
Administrative/Risk Management
ISSUE: District self-insurance settlements having a cost of $10,000 or less but more than
$5,000 are approved by the General Manager-Chief Engineer and are to be reported to the Board
of Directors. A water line break which occurred in July 1989 and damaged the backyard of
Richard Todoroff has been settled for $9,910.83.
BACKGROUND: On July 14, 1989, a District crew replacing a sewer line in Summit Road,
Walnut Creek, broke a water line belonging to EBMUD. Water from the break went through a
carport at 230 Summit Road belonging to Richard Todoroff and washed out a large section of
his backyard which was undergoing an extensive landscaping project at the time.
An investigation of the incident revealed that the water line had not been marked correctly by
EBMUD after an Underground Service Alert (USA) request by the Sanitary District. However,
it was also determined that this District's USA request had been made in June 1988, over a year
before the incident and which, therefore, exceeded the 14-day limit called for by USA rules.
Based on these investigative results the risk management staffs of the Sanitary District and
EBMUD agreed to repair the damage caused by the break and divide the cost between the
agencies. It was also agreed that EBMUD would be the lead agency for the repair work. This
arrangement was reported to the Board of Directors at a closed session in the fall of 1989. The
repair estimate at the time was from $30,000 to $50,000.
After many delays, the repairs to Mr. Todoroff's property have been completed and the costs
totaled. These are $7,869.66 for geotechnical engineering and $11,952.00 for the restoration
construction. One half of this $19,821.66 total is $9,910.83, and this has been reimbursed to
EBMUD as the District's share of the cost as had previously been agreed.
The staff commends Mr. Tom Nordin, the EBMUD Risk Management Administrator, for his
cooperation, persistence, and skill in getting this difficult case resolved at a very reasonable cost
to CCCSD.
RECOMMENDATION: This settlement is being reported to the Board under the terms of the self-
insurance program. No further action is required.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/ON
INITlj TINe:e:.OIV.
JEC
PM
C:\WPS1 \BDDir\Todoroff.PP
.
Centra ':ontra Costa Sanitar' Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF
August 15, 1991
sUAfJrHoRlzE ALLOCATION OF $26,000 FROM THE
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT
TO COMPLETE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN EQUIPMENT
INCLUDED IN THE 1990/91 EQUIPMENT BUDGET.
NO.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR 0
DATE
August 12, 1991
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE
CONTINGENCY
ALLOCATION
SUBMITTED BY
John Larson
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Collection System Operations
ISSUE: The purchase and outfitting of three equipment items that were included in the 1990/91
Equipment Budget was not completed within the fiscal year. Board authorization is needed to
allocate funds from the General Improvement Program Contingency Account in order to complete
the purchase and outfitting.
BACKGROUND: The purchase and outfitting of two specialty vans and a concrete mixer, that
were approved as part of the 1990/91 Equipment Budget, was not complet~d during the fiscal
year due to late delivery. Funds for this work were not included in the 1 991/92 Equipment
Budget. The funds that are needed to complete the purchase and outfitting ($26,000) must be
reauthorized as an allocation from the General Improvement Program Contingency Account in
order to place the equipment into service. CSOD underexpended its portion of the 1990/91
Equipment Budget by $52,591.
RECOMMENDED: Authorize the allocation of $26,000 from the General Improvement Program
Contingency Account to complete the outfitting of two specialty vans and the purchase of a
concrete mixer that were originally included in the 1990/91 Equipment Budget.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
PAGE OF 11
NO.
5. SOLID WASTE b.
DATE
RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY ORINDA-
MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. AND ESTABLISH REFUSE
COLLECTION RATES EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1 991
Au ust 12, 1991
TYPE OF ACTION
ESTABLISH REFUSE
COLLECTION RATES
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPTJOIV.
Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer
Administrative/Finance & Accounting
ISSUE: The refuse collection rate application submitted by Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. was
the subject of a Public Hearing on August 1, 1991; upon its conclusion, the Board of Directors
requested certain additional information be provided by District staff and the refuse collector.
BACKGROUND: The District staff analysis of the rate application submitted by Orinda-Moraga
Disposal Service, Inc. was provided to the Board of Directors, affected cities, and the refuse collector
in early July 1991. A Board Workshop was held on July 8, 1991, and a Public Hearing conducted
on July 18, 1991, and continued to August 1, 1991, to consider the rate application. After closing
the August 1, 1991 Public Hearing, the Board of Directors addressed each of the rate-setting issues
set forth in the staff analysis and hearing presentation. The Board approved the staff
recommendations regarding the closure and post-closure cost assessment and potential tipping fee
increase, and disallowance of certain projected 1991-1992 operating expenses; however, additional
information to support consultant fees paid to Robert Sliepka was requested of the refuse collector,
and the adjustment necessary for programs which were funded in last year's rate-setting process but
not implemented in 1990-1991 was requested to be determined by District staff.
Sixteen thousand dollars of consultant fees to Robert Sliepka, a 50 percent stockholder, were
recommended to be disallowed by District staff. Mr. Sliepka holds the position of Chairman of the
Board of Directors of the franchisee. District staff believes that payment of Directors' Fees on the
basis of Board meetings attended would be justifiable, but monthly payments for consultant services
are not, and should be regarded as a distribution of profits to a principal stockholder. During the
Board deliberation following the August 1, 1991 Public Hearing, W. Douglas Lomow, President of
Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., indicated that Mr. Sliepka is active in the management of the
franchisee and "is here all the time". Mr. Lomow was requested to provide District staff with
supporting documents in the form of copies of airplane tickets or trip itineraries, hotel reservations,
and records of long-distance business telephone calls made to Mr. Sliepka. These documents were
requested to be provided by August 8, 1991. A letter dated August 7, 1991 has been received in
which Mr. Sliepka indicates that the disallowance of his "salary" will not be contested because of
the insignificance of the amount and time constraints in producing the supporting documents; a copy
of the letter is provided as Attachment A.
Commercial recycling is one of the programs that was funded for last fiscal year in order to meet
solid waste diversion goals required by AB939. Commercial collection rates were increased effective
August 1, 1990 based upon a phased implementation over a seven-month period, with completion
scheduled by February 1, 1991. As of July 1, 1991, Orinda-Moraga Disposal has made little
progress in implementing this program. Only a few accounts are receiving commercial recycling
service. If all commercial accounts are not on line to receive recycling service in the near term, staff
recommends that commercial recycling be open to competitive bidding in the Orinda-Moraga service
area. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPTJDIV.
WNF
PM
1302A-7/91
SUBJECT
11111111111111:1:111111111
RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY ORINDA-
MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. AND ESTABLISH REFUSE
COLLECTION RATES EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1991
PAGE 2
DATE
OF 11
August 12, 1 991
The adjustments for the commercial recycling, corporate identification and software modification
programs funded in the prior year and their effect on the rate adjustment calculation and collection
rates and revenues, are presented on the following attachments; the affected attachment in the
original District staff analysis which is thereby revised is referenced in parenthesis:
Attachment B - Adjustment for Prior Year Programs
The adjustment for the three prior year programs are described.
Attachment C - Rate Adjustment Calculation (Attachment V, page 1 of 5)
As a result of replacing the balancing account amount of $106,000 with the $43,000 of
funding for the 1 990-1991 commercial recycling program, the Percent Increase in Revenue
Required increased from 3.62 percent to 4.87 percent.
Attachment 0 - Schedule of Current, Requested, and Computed Collection Rates - Zone 1
(Attachment VI,page 1 of 4)
The schedule of collection rates for the City of Orinda computed on the basis of the revised
4.87 percent increase, described under Attachment C above, is presented.
Attachment E - Schedule of Current, Requested, and Computed Collection Rates - Zone 1 A
(Attachment VI, page 3 of 4)
The schedule of collection rates for the Town of Moraga computed on the basis of the revised
4.87 percent increase, described under Attachment C above, is presented.
Attachment F - Forecasted Income Statement for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
(Attachment I)
The forecasted revenue has been revised from $5,093,000 to the $5,272,000 Total Revenue
Required computed on Attachment C.
Attachment G - Forecasted Revenues and Expenses for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
(Attachment II, page 1 of 5) .
The forecasted revenue of $5,093,000 on the two-page summary of revenues and expenses
in the District staff analysis has been revised to $5,272,000, as computed on Attachment C.
RECOMMENDATION: Consider the additional information provided related to the rate application
submitted by Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., and establish the 1991-1992 schedule of refuse
collection rates effective August 1, 1991 by approving the following staff recommendations:
. Consultant fees of $16,000 to R. Sliepka be disallowed.
. The 1990-1991 commercial recycling program revenue increase of $43,000 should be
offset against the 1 991-1 992 revenue requirement.
. The 1990-1991 corporate identification and software modification program expenses
of $20,000 and $7,000, respectively, should not be offset against the 1991-1992
revenue requirement, but should be considered in determining the balancing account
amount as of June 30, 1992.
13028-7/91
ADS/PosPaper#3/addIO-MD.pp
DISPOSI!
.
ALL
Attachment A
OrindajMoraga Disposal Service, Inc.
P. O. Box 659
Orinda, Ca. 94563
August 7, 1991
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, Ca. 94553
Attn: Walter Funasaki
Dear Mr. Funasaki,
Because of the material insignificance of the ammount ($16,000.00) and the
time constraints I am working against in producing an adequate paper trial,
I have decided not to contest the disallowance of my salary this year.
However, in the future I will document to the best of my ability travel,
phone calls, time and effort spent to benefit the management of Orindaj
Moraga Disposal Service.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
,~fi
· Leadership In Integrated Waste Management ·
Attachment B
ADJUSTMENT FOR PRIOR YEAR PROGRAMS
District staff proposed that $106,000 of 1990-1991 operating income in excess of the
forecasted operating income used in setting 1990-1991 collection rates be included in a
balancing account, which would serve as an offset against the 1 991-1 992 revenue
requirement. At the August 1, 1991 Public Hearing, the Board directed that
implementation of the balancing account be deferred until next year, except with regard
to the commercial recycling, corporate identification, and software modification programs
which were funded in 1990-1991 but not implemented; if these programs are to be
completed in 1991-1992 and are funded anew in 1991-1992, the increased revenue
provided in 1990-1991 should be offset against the 1991-1992 revenue requirement.
Commercial Recvcling Proaram
Commercial collection rates were increased in 1990-1991 by an additional $43,000 over
and above the general increase in collection rates to fund implementation of recycling
services to commercial and multi-family dwelling units. The additional revenue required
was based on forecasted operating expenses of the new program, reduced by revenue
from the sale of recyclables. Because the commercial recycling program had not
proceeded beyond an incipient level as of June 30, 1991, virtually no expenses were
incurred, and little recyclable sales realized. The 1991-1992 forecasted operating
expenses include full implementation of the commercial recycling program in early 1991-
1992. Therefore, District staff recommends that $43,000 of the excess operating
income of $106,000 for 1990-1991, due to the failure to implement the commercial
recycling program, be offset against the 1991-1992 revenue requirement.
Comorate Identification Proaram
A program to inscribe all vehicles and equipment with the company name, permit number,
and telephone number was approved last year for $20,000. The program was not
completed last year, but is planned to be completed in 1991-1992. The program expense
has not been reinstated in the 1991-1992 forecasted expense. Therefore, based on the
direction of the Board on August 1, 1991, the $20,000 unexpended in 1990-1991 will
not be offset against the 1991-1992 revenue requirement, but will be considered in
establishing the balancing account amount as of June 30, 1992.
Software Modifications to Automate Billina Svstem
The expense to convert a manual billing system to a computerized system was approved
last year for $7,000. The conversion was not implemented last year, but is planned to
be completed in 1991-1992. The conversion expense has not been reinstated in the
1991-1992 forecasted expense. Therefore, the $7,000 unexpended in 1990-1991 will
not be offset against the 1991-1992 revenue requirement, but will be considered in
establishing the balancing account amount as of June 30, 1992.
ADS/Position Paper #3/AttacB
Attachment C
ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
RATE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATION
FORECASTED FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1992
< 000 Omitted>
ALLOWABLE EXPENSES
PER STAFF ANALYSIS, EXCLUDING
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE COSTS
CAPITAL USE CHARGE
TOTAL ALLOWABLE EXPENSES
ALLOWABLE. PROFIT
REVENUE REQUIRED BEFORE
ADJUSTMENT FOR PRIOR YEAR
PROGRAM
ADJUSTMENT FOR PRIOR YEAR FUNDING
OF COMMERCIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM
TOTAL REVENUE REQUIRED
FORECASTED REVENUE WITHOUT
RATE INCREASE
REQUIRED REVENUE INCREASE
PERCENT INCREASE IN REVENUE REQUIRED
PERCENT INCREASE ADJUSTED TO COLLECT
INCREASED, REVENUES IN ELEVEN MONTHS
$5,068
49
5,117
198
5,315
<43>
5,272
5.027
$ 245
4.87%
5.31%
ADS/PosPaper#3/Addl-C. pp
Attachment 0
ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1
SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES
Staff Uniform
C~ted Rate
Current Requested Rates Phase in Uniform
Rates Rates 5.31% Year 2 Rate
------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
ORINDA - FULL SERVICE
-----------------------------------
REGULAR SERVICE:
1 can $ 20.00 23.35 21.05 19.35 18.50
2 can 32.15 37.55 33.85 35.95 37.00
3 can 44.35 51. 75 46.70 52.55 55.45
4 can 56.50 65.95 59.50 69.15 73.95
5 can 68.70 80.15 72.35 85.75 92.45
6 can 80.85 94.35 85.15 102.35 110.95
One can - Senior Citizen 17.00 19.85 17.90 16.35 15.50
Extra can on route 4.25 4.90 4.50 4.50 4.50
Special pick-up - 1 can 12.05 14.10 12.70 12.70 12.70
Special pick-up - each add'l can 4.25 4.95 4.50 4.50 4.50
MINIPACKER SERVICE:
1 can 27.05 31.60 28.50 26.10 24.90
2 can 39.25 45.80 41.35 42.70 43.40
3 can 51.40 60.00 54.15 59.30 61.90
4 can 63.60 74.25 67.00 75.90 80.40
ODD SERVICE:
1-45 gal. can 25.30 27.30 26.65 27.35 27.75
1-45 gal. can and 1-32 gal. 37.45 40.10 39.45 43.95 46.20
1-45 gal. can and 2-32 gal. 49.65 57.95 52.30 60.55 64.70
4-45 gal. can 70.45 82.25 74.20 98.70 110.95
COMMERCIAL SERVICE:
One can weekly 24.30 28.40 25.60
Each additional can weekly 10.20 11.90 10.75
MULTI-APARTMENT SERVICE:
Per unit per week 15.35 17.90 16.15
Each additional pick-up per week 2.45 2.85 2.60
COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE:
Per cubic yard 29.85 34.85 31.45
BULK SERVICE:
ONE YARD:
Once per week 89.75 104.80 94.50
Twice per week 157.20 183.50 165.55
Three times per week 224.05 261.55 235.95
Four times per week 290.95 339.65 306.40
Five times per week 358.40 418.35 377 .45
TWO YARD:
Once per week 157.20 183.50 165.55
Twice per week 290.95 339.65 306.40
Three times per week 425.35 496.45 447.95
Four times per week 559.55 653.15 589.25
Five times per week 694.15 810.30 731. 00
SPECIAL:
One yard 17.90 20.90 18.85
Two yards 35.90 41.90 37.80
ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1
SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES
Staff Uniform
Coq:lUted Rate
Current Requested Rates Phase in Uniform
Rates Rates 5.31% Year 2 Rates
------------ ----------- --.....------- ----------- -----------
DROP BOX SERVICE:
Twenty cubic yards $ 296.05 345.50 311. 75
Five yards - dirt and concrete 296.05 345.50 311. 75
Sixteen yard school box ** 236.80 276.40 249.35
ORINDA - NO BRUSH SERVICE
-----------------------------------
REGULAR SERVICE:
1 can 17.00 19.85 17.90 16.50 15.80
2 can 29.15 34.05 30.70 33.10 34.30
3 can 41.35 48.25 43.55 49.70 52.75
1 can-Senior Citizen 15.50 .18.10 16.30 15.00 14.30
MINIPACKER SERVICE:
1 can 24.10 28.15 25.40 23.25 22.20
2 can 36.25 42.35 38.15 39.85 40.70
3 can 48.40 56.55 50.95 56.45 59.20
4 can 60.60 70.75 63.80 73.05 77.70
1-45 gal. can 25.45 29.55 26.80 31.15 33.30
1-45 and 1-32 gal. can 39.05 43.70 41.10 50.75 55.55
*
Includes one 32-gallon can of garden trimmings per week and
three refuse cleanups per year
**
A charge of $27.35 per week applies for each week not serviced
Attachment E
ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1A
SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES
Staff Uniform
cOIIp.It ed Rate
Current Requested Rates Phase in Uniform
Rates Rates 5.31% Year 2 Rate
------------ ----------- .........-------- -.....-------... -----------
MORAGA - FULL SERVICE
-----------------------------------
REGULAR SERVICE:*
1 can $ 17.95 20.95 18.90 17.40 16.65
2 can 28.80 33.60 30.35 32.30 33.25
3 can 39.60 46.25 41.70 47.15 49.90
4 can 50.45 58.90 53.15 62.05 66.50
5 can 61.25 71.55 64.50 76.95 83.15
6 can 72.10 84.20 75.95 91.85 99.80
Extra can on route 4.25 4.95 4.50 4.50 4.50
Special pick-up - 1 can 12.05 14.05 12.70 12.70 12.70
Special pick-up - each add'l can 4.25 4.95 4.50 4.50 4.50
MINIPACKER SERVICE:
1 can 26.65 31.10 28.05 25.70 24.55
2 can 37.50 43.75 39.50 40.60 41.15
3 can 48.30 56.40 50.85 55.50 57.80
4 can 59.15 69.05 62.30 70.40 74.40
5 can 70.00 81.70 73.70 85.25 91.05
ODD SERVICE:
One can - 45 gal. 23.40 27.30 24.65 24.85 24.95
One can - 1/45 and 1/32 gal. cans 34.35 40.10 36.15 39.75 41.60
One can - 1/45 and 2/32 gal. cans 45.15 52.70 47.55 54.65 58.20
COMMERCIAL SERVICE:
One can weekly 24.30 28.35 25.60
Each additional can weekly 10.20 11.90 10.75
MULTI-APARTMENT SERVICE:
Per uni t per week 15.35 17.90 16.15
Each additional pick-up per week 2.45 2.85 2.60
COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE:
Per cubic yard 29.85 34.85 31.45
BULK SERVICE:
ONE YARD:
Once per week 89.75 104.80 94.50
Twice per week 157.20 183.50 165.55
Three times per week 224.05 261.55 235.95
Four times per week 290.95 339.65 306.40
Five times per week 358.40 418.35 377.45
TWO YARD:
Once per week 157.20 183.50 165.55
Twice per week 290.95 339.65 306.40
Three times per week 425.30 496.45 447.90
Four times per week 559.55 653.15 589.25
Five times per week 694.15 810.30 731. 00
SPECIAL
One yard 17.90 20.90 18.85
Two yards 35.90 41.90 37.80
ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1A
SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES
Staff Uniform
CoqxJted Rate
Current Requested Rates Phase in Uniform
Rates Rates 5.31% Year 2 Rate
------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
DROP BOX SERVICE:
Twenty cubic yards $ 296.05 345.50 311. 75
Five yards - dirt and concrete 296.05 345.50 311. 75
Sixteen'yard school box ** 236.80 276.40 249.35
MORAGA - NO BRUSH SERVICE
-----------------------------------
REGULAR SERVICE:
1 can 15.35 17.90 16.15 14.90 14.30
2 can 26.20 30.55 27.60 29.80 30.90
3 can 37.00 43.20 38.95 44.70 47.55
ODD SERVICE:
2-45 gal. can-small truck. 37.45 43.70 39.45 37.65 36.80
*
Includes one 32-gallon can of garden trimmings per week. and
three refuse cleanups per year
**
A charge of $27.35 per week. applies for each week. not serviced
I.L.
+J
C
OJ
E
..c:
u
n:l
+J
+J
<:
o
'"
W
z
::l
W ..,
tJ
CI
>....Z
'" z-
WWQ
Ul:EZ
WW
..........
<<'"
II)....C
OIl)W
Q. ~
II) W
t5~~
tJ tJ,...
<1i~~al
< .......
"'0 ....
OWO.-
~:;;~c5
<<tJ
otJwo
:zw~o
-"'00
"'O"'tIt
ou..Q......,
N
8:
~
-
o
'"
W
Z
::l
..,
CI
Z
-
o
z
W
'"
<
W
~
......
<
tJ
II)
:;:
o
W
....
II)
<
tJ
W
'"
o
...
o
z
C
g:
al
....
U
QI
'0
...
Q.
Q)
Ul
III
GI
...
u
GIGI
OUO
....C.....
III
al';:
....IlIGI
Ul>Ul
III III
U GI
QI ...
~ ~
...
...
al :ll N--C
....~O'GI
Ul ,....
CU-'O Cf)
U III '" ::J ,
GI (.) I .~ I
5 .~ 8:5! :
...... ,
,
... ....,
III C,
~ 16l!! :
.......,
c... g) tJ) I
00::J.
._ c...,--..
"'Q.-C
Q. C
....
o Ul
~GI
....IlIUl
5j....c
U ~ 8.
... ><
GI W
Q.
al:UN
....QlO'
Ul~'
III 0
:da;~
~~;g
....-
...
....
o
tIl
.... GI
5j~ ~
~ ~ 8.
QlO><
Q..... W
...
III
al ~~
.... 0.
0-- I
.!!.~ ~:;;:
0..., r/) I
L u._~
Q.cu..o
N
tit
on
.0
,...
....."'~O'CON"''''
. I . . . . . .
"'ClO~ClO\oOS:~~
.....
~
N
'"
,...
-4"on~o.onNCOO
.....N>O-4" -4"-4".....
~..... N
~
N
on
~onNCOCO>O>OO'
"'o.o......co~o.
~-II'\ 004"11'\-
- -
~~
,...
'"
~
0.
-4"
o
~
0. "'CO CO on >0 NO.
. . . I . . . .
>ON"'~~o.O'"
Nt")... .....
on
;;;
on
~~~~~;8~8:
tt"l'lQ-an ....,.",... t
- -
~~
>0
0.
o
>O-4">ON>O-4"-4"o.
I . . . . . . .
CO"',^N~onON
N""... .....
~
on
0.
-4"
~~~~~:i~~
NonNon N-4"~
tit
~
GI
>
GI
'"
GI
Ul .c
~ al.~ GI
C><...tIl >
8.;:;: :: 3: tIl 'Z
>< CGlIlI
WII8.~Z
Cl)L...........>CQlCO
GI 8. C C W 0..-
~~ ~~ ...~.!:
a.~.- '- i.... -FJ 3l
~ 5-5-QI ~C...
"2WW"''''olIG1
-cu ,_ U)
III olIol1 GlO~'-
(l)L - ca.c
&.GI~~U"''''U
tIl.~ g g:c~ 9! Iii
._'-L.L.GJ.....4ic...
OQt-t->OCJLL.
~
N
~
N
on
on
~
o
on
o
o
o
~
~.
o
~
~
o
o
~
>0
~
on
-4"-
Ul
GI
Ul
C
8.
><
W
01
C
....
III
...
8.
o
,...
;;;
N
.....
-4"
o
N
,...
'"
-4"
.....
.....
-4"
N
on
'"
-4"
~
~
01
C
....
III
...
8.
o
,...
N
.....
,...
'"
on
......
,...
'"
on
......
,...
~
on
......
^
Ul
QI
tIl
C
8.
><
W
V
"2
III
~
~
...
GI
.c:
....
o
,...
'"
'"
N
......
~
on
~
,...
'"
~
-4"
0.
~
Iii
'"
Ul
GI
><
III
....
~
~
GI
...
o
....
GI
llll
~
U
C
o
o
~
,...
'"
'"
~
......
,...
on
~
;8
co
~
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
""11
on II
Nil
......11
II
II
II
I
,...
~
......
~
~
~
,...
on
>0
~
......
I
II
II
0. II ,
~II
Nil
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
tit II
II
Ul
QI
><
III
....
~
~
...
o
....
15
.-
tIl
.:;
o
...
Q.
....
GI
Z
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
00'"
00'"
0>00
.....-4"N
on on
.....on
-4" '"
~~
00-4" .....~
00'" >ON
011'\0 CO...
on"'on -4"0.
-4"-4"
Ul
....
GI
tIl
Ul
C
GI
:a
~
U
C
alUl
><....
>-._ GI
,_ ....LL. CI) 0
01 >-.- Ul .-
C....::J....C....
1lI'-ITGI III
....::JWZGl'"
IT ~
-CwCC.cOl
QI OO'-C
)( en m.-
,-... C C C...,
.....LL.L.CUca
GI::J::J.......
~i~~ 8.
ZO"'''' 0
II
0
C
II
L. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
~ II < III U 0 W
.... v v v v V
+" II
0 ,... ae:
II II ,... ,...
'0 Ul '" ": ": -.f'....CIO ". .... "': CIO 0() 0""" 0- ". 0 0 0 CIO
CU .0 .;
L. II '" '" CIOCIO...... CIO -.f' 0- . "'0-0() CIO NOCO. 0()
0- L. itl! N N .... ".
(!:: 110 ...... ......
0 011
+" co
+> CU......
~.;: ,... ,...
C II .... j:! j:! o-CIOCIO '" ~ ~ -.f'O-.f'o-N 0- -_".,00 '"
(]) +"CU Ul N CIO.... .... N ". -.f'
E Ul> CU ". .... ...... ......
CU II tit
.c 0 L.
U II 0
L. C
ro 0 -
+> ...
+> .... 0 0- 0- o()CIOo- ". CIO CIO '" 0 '" N 0() ~ O:l'!~l'!~ II'l
O~~ . . .-..: 0'-: NO
c:{ -.f' 0() 0() N-.f'-.f' N ". ". .... o 0 0 0 0
...,.- en 0 N N N ". ....
C +" C ....
~~8. .
.
L.!)( .
II W .
0- .
.
.
Ie......"....... ~ ~ ~ . O()....CIO '" N N ~oleg;p: ~ lI'\..-ftI')~O ~
"iL.N"i . -.f'-.f'-.f' !2 0- 0- -.f'........
-.f'la~~ N ". ". . ....NN .... .... ". .... '"
+">-0- - - - .
Ul . +" ". '" .... .
aI-O u) .
o cu". ::J .
4I)U,"-.,
~.~~~ :
...... .
.
.
^ ~ t~
cu
V V vv
Ul ,... ,... ,...,... ,...
+""" 0 R: R: 0 N N 0- CIO ...... 0
CL. -.f' -.f' ". .... '"
l!!~ N N .... .... ....N ".
...... ...... .......... ......
+"
Ul
::JL.
'-'0
~
"iL. Ie......"....... ~ ". ". 0() .... CIO '" 0 0 N~~g~ '" 11'\ -frI') 0.. ~
". 0 '" ~ ~ -.f'-.f'-.f' ". '" '" '" -.f'........
+" >-N --4" CO CO .... N ....NN 0() "'N .... 0-
Ul 0- - - -
cu~ . ". '" .... ....
OCUO
110".
L.Ul.
o '- 0()
N ...... 0
g:
....
.... """0 0() N......
0 m 0() 0() 0() -.f'o- .... -.f' "! "! N ONNNO "!
0 CUl '-":0": NO . . . . .
". ...,"- OJ 0- lIO CIO ". -.f' '" ". '" '" N ....0000
Iii+"Ul 0 N N N ". ....
W CUC ....
z 0L.8.
;:) lii!)(
-.
0- W
(:J
Z ......".0 CI00or-OO
- L. ;;;~~~ .... ~ ~ 0 ". ". 0- -.f'000-0 ~
0 "i~lllo:"i '" '" N ". .... '" '" -.f' ......0". -.f' -.f'........
z NCIOI'-- 0- N N ONN '" N N ". .... '"
W ""CU>-I +" - - -
O::J OUl ". -.f' .... ....
ae: II+"~"'::J
< "-. (J CU I '-.
W ~< lilcg~
>-
0- .-
-' ...
e( ^ ^ ^
U ^
Ul .... N ". N
- V V vv
... Ul ,... ,... ,...,... ,...
+""" 0 -.f' -.f' 0 ...... ...... o()'" ~ 0
0 ii~ N N '" '" N ".
W ...... ...... .... .... ........ N
... ........ ....
Ul +"
e( Ul
U ::JL.
W '-'0
ae: "0
0 e(
...
;;;a~u; .... -.f' -.f' ......".0 0 ~ ~ ~LI'\_OO 0 -.f'000- ~
0 L. '" p;; .... '" N ". .... ......".......0". CO -.f'........
z cu NCIO.......... 0- ". ONN '" -.f'.... ....
e( ~ II - - - -
>- .... ". -.f' .... .... .... ....
~ +" 0-
u-- I
llCUCUO
.... .""" :1 U '"
0..., Cf) I
~~;:cg tit
U 0
". ~
Z ~
W
Ul z
-w;:) U II U
WUl-. .0
uz Ul '0 '0
-W(:J ~ "i cu
>O-z Ul L. L.
ae:x- C II II )( L. Ul II
WWO II Ul .JJ. cu II .JJ.
Ul Z > C L. ... > L. Ul L.
OW II 8. 0 C 0
-' z ae: Ul~ . Ul II 8. Ul~
<<ae: )( +" +" Ul
Ul e( Ul ~ W '- oil +" ~ +"CU II )( '- oil II
OUlW CU nil CU .... CU C CU c.- ae: CU W .... CU
O-w>- +" UlUlUl +" L. ~~ +" ~~ +" ~~ +" ~~8:C +"
Ul;:) 0 IICII 0 8. 0 0 II 0 L. 0
-z-' ... l!! 8.~ ... 11)( ... ... L. ... 11)( 0 ...
OWe( Qj lllCU "_ CD""'_ II III CU ::J.-
>U,... 8.~~ ... ::J+" ~:E Iii'" ... Ul +"
~~~"i cu~ ::I: II C-CU II II CU
.- CU m )( CU II~ w.- WoIlae:oIl ae: Q) - oa: '-
< ...+" +".- )(C w~ Ul oil >-~ 0 >-~ 0
ae:o +" coo .- m::!&. UlOO 01111 oil Ul.JJ. Ul L. IIUlOOUlII
owo.- uQ,tLCO_ L. II~ L. L. ~t~fa;~ _Q)_L"""L..
~t;;~c5 Ul"OI 0 .~ 8..~ ~g'~~ .JJ.c.. .~ g' ~ ~:u fr
~'iii 8-~ 011 ~CUL.'_::J+"
<e(U +"UlO '- ~ W 0- ::JO L. a.........LL.O ..J:::awa..c..c
QUWO CII L.II cu.- L. L. II
:z w-,o ~ae:Uoae: L.Q 0 ... ... >
~l!5~~ II 8.
... 0-.... ae: 0
PAGE 1 OF 10
NO.
5. SOLID WASTE c.
DATE
ADOPT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE DISTRICT AND THE CITIES OF DANVILLE,
LAFAYETTE, ORINDA AND MORAGA FOR AB 939
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
7 1 1
TYPE OF ACTION
ADOPT MOU
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPTJDIV.
Elaine Jacobs, Assistant Engineer
Administrative/Solid Waste
ISSUE: At the request of the cities/towns of Danville, Lafayette, Orinda and Moraga (CITIES) a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was negotiated by District staff and the staff from the CITIES
for AB 939 planning and implementation.
BACKGROUND: California Public Resources Code ~ 41823 states that" A city or county may enter
into a memorandum of understanding with another city, county, regional planning agency, agency
formed under a joint exercise of powers agreement, or district established to manage solid waste for
the purpose of preparing and implementing source reduction and recycling elements or a countywide
integrated waste management plan."
From the onset of the passing of AB 939, the District has assumed the responsibility to prepare and
implement the required Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SR&RE) and Household Hazardous
Waste (HHW) Elements on behalf of the CITIES. The CITIES concurred because the District has the
necessary rate-setting and level-of-service authority to implement the required waste reduction
programs for the CITIES.
However, franchising sanitary districts have little responsibility and authority under AB 939
legislation. Therefore, the District has requested written approval from the CITIES by letter or
adoption of a resolution for the following items in order for the District to meet AB 939 requirements
on their behalf:
. Conduct a regional waste characterization study
. Implement a regional HHW program
· Designate the District as the agency responsible for preparation of the SR&RE
· Designate the hauler as the exclusive franchised recycler
In order to avoid the frequent need to request each city council's approval each time a new program
is implemented, the District's Attorney drafted an MOU (See Attachment I) which was negotiated
between the District and the CITIES' staffs and describes the responsibilities of each agency for the
purpose of complying with AB 939.
Additionally, Public Resources Code ~4190 1 authorizes a city, county, or city and county to impose
fees for AB 939 plan preparation, adoption, and implementation. The County is currently collecting
INITIATING DEPTJDIV.
tltU~
EJ
PM
KLA
1302A-7/91
SUBJECT
1:11111111111111:1:11111111
ADOPT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE DISTRICT AND THE CITIES OF DANVILLE,
LAFA VETTE, ORINDA AND MORAGA FOR AB 939
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
PAGE 2 OF 10
DATE
August 7, 1991
$.95 per ton at Acme Transfer Station for their planning costs. Because the cities are not receiving
their fair share for the incorporated areas, the County may reimburse cities $.80 per ton or reduce
tipping fees by that amount to compensate the cities for their AB 939 planning costs ($.15 per ton
will continue to be collected for County planning costs). This MOU provides for the District to
recover some of the cost of consultant fees for AB 939 planning, if this rebate of fees happens.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached MOU between the District and the CITIES for AB 939
planning and implementation, and direct staff to send District executed copies to each of the four
cities for which we franchise garbage collection services.
ADS/PosPap#2/MouAB939. pp
1302B-7/91
--"-_.._.~---_.~._._-_._-"._--~--<. ~"'---"-~--'--'~'---"'-------"".'-,---"------------"'......,._,._--_.,--_.,.,-_.~-",._----
This is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Town of Danville.
Identical MOU's were prepared for the City of Lafayette, the City of Orinda,
and the Town of Moraga.
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA
SANITARY DISTRICT AND TBE TOWN OF DANVILLE,
THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE, THE CITY OF ORINDA,
AND THE TOWN OF MORAGA
FOR AB 939 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION ASSISTANCE
This memorandum of understanding ("MOU") is made and entered into
between the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, a pUblic agency
formed pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 6400, et
seq. (hereinafter "DISTRICT") and the Towns of Danville and Moraga
and cities of Lafayette and Orinda, each a separate political
subdivision of the State of California (collectively "CITIES" and
individually "CITY").
RECITALS
A. DISTRICT is a regional public waste management agency
providing solid waste and wastewater management, resource recovery
and disposal services and facilities to the public, as well as
businesses, within the CITIES and unincorporated areas of Central
Contra Costa County.
B. Residents of CITIES utilize the services of DISTRICT.
C. Assembly Bill 939 (Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989)
codified in Public Resources Code section 40000, et seg.,
hereinafter referred to as AB 939, requires CITIES to, among other
things, develop and adopt Source Reduction and Recycling Elements
( "SRREs" ) and submit them to the County of Contra Costa on or
before January 1, 1992. AB 939 also mandates the diversion of 25%
of identified CITY solid waste from landfill or transformation
facilities by January 1, 1995 and the diversion of 50% by January
1, 2000. Cleanup legislation known as Assembly Bill 2707 (Chapter
1406, Statutes of 1990), hereinafter referred to as AB 2707,
requires a submi ttal of a separate Household Hazardous Waste
Element, hereinafter referred to as "HHWE", to the County on
January 1, 1992. (Chapter 1406 adds or modifies Public Resources
Code sections 41003, 41303, 41500, 41510, 41750, 41793, 41802,
41823, 41825, and 41903.) The date of January 1, 1992 as set forth
above, is premised on the adoption of AB 2092 of 1991, which
further provides for an extension of that submission date to May 1,
1992, if an EIR is being prepared for the submission by the
submitting agency.
D. CITIES desire to utilize the services of DISTRICT in
meeting AB 939 and AB 2707 requirements (and other implementing
legislation and regulations related thereto) including the
preparation of a waste characterization component, and the
preparation and development of final SRREs and HHWEs on a timely
basis, and achievement of the mandated 1995 waste diversion goals.
DISTRICT desires to provide such services to CITIES.
- 1 -
F:\DMS\KLA.DIR\0009910.08
E. DISTRICT desires to provide such additional services
related to recycling, source reduction, and other similar
activities which may be required by such new legislation as may be
adopted during the term of this Agreement, if practical. CITIES
and DISTRICT may desire, in the future, to utilize the services of
the DISTRICT meeting such new legislative requirements. To the
extent that provision of such additional related services by the
DISTRICT in the future is appropriate and practical, the DISTRICT
and the CITIES desire to negotiate amendments to this Agreement, or
enter into such new agreements as may be appropriate and practical
to allow for the DISTRICT to provide such additional services to
the residents of CITIES.
F. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 41823, DISTRICT
and CITIES may enter into an MOU providing for the rendering of
such AB 939 and AB 2707 services by DISTRICT.
G. DISTRICT and CITIES enter into this MOU to define their
respective scope of work and obligations hereunder.
ARTICLE 1: RETENTION OF DISTRICT
1.1 Services. DISTRICT shall provide the services described
in Article 2 below and "Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein, on the terms and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
1.2 CITY Authori tv. It is acknowledged and agreed that
CITIES presently have the exclusive responsibility for compliance
with all aspects of the obligations set forth in AB 939 and AB 2707
within the incorporated areas; however, the CITIES may delegate
such authority as they may have for carrying out the compliance
with the obligations of AB 939 and AB 2707 (and other implementing
legislation and regulations related thereto) to another agency
pursuant to provisions of Public Resources Code section 41823.
1.3 CITY Deleqation of Authoritv. The CITIES hereby delegate
such authority they may have for carrying out of the compliance
obligations of AB 939 and AB 2707 (and other implementing
legislation regulations related thereto) to the DISTRICT in order
to empower the DISTRICT to carry out the programs which may be
necessary for said compliance through the DISTRICT's statutory
authority in solid waste m~tters and such authority as the DISTRICT
may have through its franchise agreements with solid waste
collectors. The DISTRICT shall provide such assistance as is
described in this MOU and in accordance with the scope of work.
1.4 Independent Contractor. It is acknowledged and agreed
that DISTRICT's relationship to CITIES pursuant to this MOU is one
of an independent contractor and DISTRICT is not, and shall not be
deemed, an employee of CITIES for any purposes, nor shall DISTRICT
employees or consultants be deemed employees of the CITIES. It is
acknowledged that the DISTRICT and CITIES share a unique and
- 2 -
F:\DMS\KLA.DIR\0009910.08
mutually beneficial relationship which shall be reflected in the
cooperative efforts of involved project staff.
ARTICLE 2: SCOPE OF DISTRICT SERVICES
2.1 Waste Characterization Studv. DISTRICT shall provide
CITIES with an initial Waste Characterization Study, structured to
comply with the legislative requirements of AB 939, with regard to
the preparation of CITIES' final SRREs. In its performance of this
task, DISTRICT may employ the services of consultants and other
resources.
2.2 Source Reduction and Recyclina Elements ("SRRE") and
Household Hazardous Waste Elements ("HHWE") PreDaration.
A. DISTRICT shall prepare a jurisdictional final SRRE and
HHWE for each of the CITIES in a manner specified by the final AB
939 and AB 2707 regulations. DISTRICT may employ the services of
competent consultants and other resources in preparation of the
draft and final SRREs for CITIES.
B. DISTRICT shall submit preliminary draft SRREs and HHWEs
to CITIES for review on or before October 2, 1991. DISTRICT shall
thereafter assist CITIES in staff, council and public review of the
draft SRREs and HHWEs, including the incorporation of revisions
which may result from the review process. DISTRICT shall provide
CITIES, upon request, all available information relevant to the
completion of the CITIES' draft SRREs and HHWEs.
C. DISTRICT shall be responsible for required annual reports
to the County's Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
D. The Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA),
of which the DISTRICT is a member, shall be responsible as a lead
agency for compliance with CEQA, including the preparation of
appropriate environmental review documents and timing the
completion of the review process so as to insure compliance with
the January 1, 1992 statutory deadline, unless extended by law, for
submission of the final SRRE to the County of Contra Costa.
DISTRICT shall provide, upon request, all available information
relevant to the completion of the appropriate CEQA documents. Each
CITY shall be a Responsible Agency with regard to the CEQA process
and shall review the environmental documents prepared for it by the
DISTRICT.
E. DISTRICT will be the liaison between the CITIES, the AB
939 local Task Force, and the California Integrated Waste
Management Board during the SRRE and HHWE approval process.
2.3 Source Reduction and Recvcling Element ImDlementation.
A. The Source Reduction and Recycling Element shall contain
an implementation schedule. The DISTRICT will, working through
refuse franchise agreements, adhere to the implementation schedule
- 3 -
F:\PMS\KLA.DIR\0009910.08
to the greatest extent possible in order to achieve the mandated
diversion of 25% of all identified CITY solid waste from permitted
landfill or transformation facilities by January 1, 1995 and to
plan for the achievement of the mandated diversion of 50% of all
identified CITY solid waste by January 1, 2000.
B. DISTRICT's Board of Directors shall consider all programs
which may be required for the implementation of the Source
Reduction and Recycling Elements. The Board of Directors shall
have the authority to implement such programs through the refuse
franchise agreements as may be required to meet said mandated
diversion requirements.
2.4 Coordination of Services. In order to ensure that
services are coordinated, DISTRICT staff shall be available to meet
and confer jointly with the staffs of each CITY on a as-needed
basis. The purpose of the meetings will be to provide opportunity
for multi-jurisdictional information sharing and exchanging of
technical expertise.
2.5 Staffinq Responsibilities. District accepts the
responsibility for providing all staffing as may be required for
the carrying out of the scope of DISTRICT services to be provided
as set forth herein.
ARTICLE 3: SCOPE OF CITIES' RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 provision of Information and Materials. CITIES shall
provide DISTRICT information and materials specific to their
jurisdictions, not readily available from other sources, relating
to the carrying out of this MOU and shall provide such assistance
and policy direction as may be reasonably necessary to carry out
the CITIES' responsibilities. Each CITY shall undertake such
reasonable actions as may be required to promote adopted resource
recovery and waste reduction programs, such as but not limited to,
publishing articles in CITIES' newsletters regarding implementation
of the programs and coordinating with DISTRICT staff to maximize
exposure of DISTRICT's educational efforts.
3.2 Adherence to ImDlementation Schedule. The CITIES will
adhere to the implementation schedule to the greatest extent
possible in order to support the DISTRICT's efforts in achieving
the mandated diversion goals.
3.3 Use of CITIES' MuniciDal Powers. CITIES agree to use
their best efforts to provide for the implementation of recycling
and source reduction objectives through appropriate use of CITIES'
land use authority and other municipal powers as may be appropriate
to accomplish the effective implementation of the adopted source
reduction and recycling program.
3.4 Direction of Wastestream and! or Recvclables. CITIES
hereby agree to delegate all such authority otherwise retained by
each CITY with regard to the direction of the wastestream and/or
- 4 -
F:\DMS\KlA.DIR\0009910.08
recyclables, if any, to a site or sites as may be directed by the
DISTRICT.
3.5 Use of ComDost and Recvclables. CITIES agree that they
shall make reasonable efforts after due consideration to aid the
DISTRICT in developing markets for any usable compost or other
usable recycled materials which are produced from the CITIES'
wastestream as a result of the DISTRICT's implementation of the
Source Reduction and Recycling Element. The responsibility of each
CITY shall include each CITY making reasonable efforts to use said
products for CITY services to the extent practicable.
ARTICLE 4: AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERMINATION
4.1 Effecti ve Date. This MOU shall be deemed effective as to
each CITY upon execution by DISTRICT and said CITY and shall remain
in full force until February 29, 1996, which is the date when the
current term of the existing DISTRICT solid waste collection
franchise expires.
4.2 Termination by CITY. This MOU may be terminated by any
individual CITY as to said individual CITY's participation at any
time with or without cause by said individual CITY giving DISTRICT
written notice. Such termination will be effective ninety (90)
days following receipt by DISTRICT of the written notice of
termination.
4.3 Termination bv DISTRICT. This MOU may be terminated by
DISTRICT as to each or all of the individual CITIES at any time
with or without cause by DISTRICT giving said individual CITY or
CITIES written notice. Such termination shall be effective not
less than one hundred eighty (180) days following receipt by CITY
of the written notice of termination, unless otherwise agreed to in
writing between the CITY(IES) and DISTRICT.
ARTICLE 5: FUNDING
5.1 DISTRICT Fundina. The DISTRICT, at its sole expense,
shall provide the funding for the provision of services by DISTRICT
under this MOU. Such funding will be recovered through refuse
"franchise fees". CITY does not assume and shall not be liable for
the direct paYment of any salary, wages, or other compensation to
any DISTRICt personnel performing services hereunder.
5.2 Additional Funding. It is anticipated that barring the
occurrence of extraordinary circumstances (i.e., substantive
regulatory changes, etc.) the franchise fees available for this
purpose will be sufficient to cover all expenses incurred. In the
event of such extraordinary circumstances or if parties desire
provision of services beyond those identified in the Scope of Work,
the parties agree to consult regarding methods of funding such
services.
- 5 -
F:\DMS\KLA.DIR\0009910.08
5.3 Grant and/or AB 939 Funds. CITIES shall commit to
cooperating with the DISTRICT to apply for grant funds or other AB
939 funds available to CITIES for programs applicable to facilities
and services provided by the DISTRICT for the purposes of
compliance with AB 939 and AB 2707, if any, in order to minimize
costs which would otherwise be borne by the rate payers. CITIES
shall direct such funds, including their share of any AB 939 County
funds, if any, to the DISTRICT for deferring costs incurred by the
DISTRICT in the carrying out of the services provided by the
DISTRICT pursuant to this agreement. To the extent CITIES incur
costs which CITIES believe should be reimbursed through grant or AB
939 funds, then the proportion of the funds received by CITIES
which shall be forwarded to the DISTRICT shall be negotiated.
ARTICLE 6: INSURANCE. INDEMNITY. FINES AND ALLOCATION OF LIABILITY
6.1 Insurance and Indemnitv. DISTRICT agrees to require its
contractors and consultants to provide insurance and
indemnification in favor of the CITIES in the same manner and to
the same extent as such insurance and indemnification is procured
to protect the DISTRICT, to the extent such is legally permissible
under the existing franchise agreements. Nei ther CITIES nor
DISTRICT shall, as a condition of the execution of this Agreement,
be required directly to provide insurance coverage or protection to
the other, or to contractually indemnify the other against damages
to any person or property not a party to this Agreement, other than
as specifically set forth herein and in Article 6, Section 6.2
below.
6.2 Responsibili tv for Fines. DISTRICT and CITIES agree
that, to the extent that an individual CITY carries out fully the
responsibilities set forth in this Agreement for said CITY, the
DISTRICT shall be responsible for any fine imposed by the State, or
any of its SUbdivisions, for failure of that CITY to meet
applicable AB 939 and AB 2707 deadlines and reduction requirements,
as these requirements may be amended. In the event that the CITY
upon which the fine or penalty is imposed fails to fully carry out
its responsibilities as provided for in this Agreement, the
DISTRICT shall not be compelled by the terms of this Agreement to
be responsible for such fine or penalty imposed on that CITY.
6.3 Allocation of Liability. CITIES and DISTRICT agree that
as to any liabilities not covered by insurance provided under
Article 6, Section 6.1 or fines or penalties covered by Article 6,
- 6 -
F:\PMS\KLA.DIR\0009910.08
Section 6.2, the DISTRICT and CITIES agree that each entity shall
be responsible for any joint liability on the basis of the
proportionate fault of each individual entity which is party
hereto.
ATTEST:
By
Secretary of District
CONTRA COSTA
DIS~ICT
/
~ ~~~ate
resl.dent, Board of Directors
'--.----'
ATTEST:
TOWN OF DANVILLE
By
Town Clerk
By
Date
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Counsel for Town
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Counsel for the District
- 7 -
F: \PMS\KlA.D I R\000991 0.08
PAGE 1
OF 2
NO.
6. ADMINISTRATIVE a.
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO
EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE WARNER GROUP FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF
PHASE I OF THE DISTRICT'S COMPUTER SYSTEMS UPGRADE
PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT 20082
DATE
August 13,1991
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHOR~ZE AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY
David R. Williams
Engineering Division Manager
INITIATING DEPTJDIV. Engineering Department/
Engineering Division
ISSUI:: Board of Director's authorization is required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer
to execute professional services agreements for more than $50,000.
BACKGROUND: For the past ten years, the information management demands of the District
have grown at a rapid pace. This growth has been accompanied by an increased reliance on
computers to assist District staff in meeting these demands. An example is the District's
Financial Management Information System (FMIS), which was implemented in 1982 using the
ADDS Mentor mini-computer. Recognizing this trend toward increased demand for
management of information, a strategic planning issue was developed which focused on the
need for long-range planning of management information systems (MIS). The strategic issue
called for identifying existing and future information system needs and developing alternative
approaches for meeting these needs. To assist staff in this effort, The Warner Group, a
computer specialist, was hired to prepare a MIS Master Plan for the District. The Plan was
completed in May 1991, and the results of the Plan were presented to the Board of Directors
at its meeting on May 13, 1991.
The Plan presented a two-phase approach to meeting the five-year MIS needs of the District.
Phase I would include the implementation of a new or upgraded FMIS with interfaces to
existing, as well as new, PC networks. The main component of Phase I would be the
replacement of the ADDS Mentor mini-computer and its associated terminals, plus the
installation of a data communication network. Terminal replacement would begin immediately
with the purchase of four computers. Remaining terminals will be replaced with computers
over the next year. Staff will request approval from the Board for purchase of the Adds
Mentor replacement after bids are received in the latter part of 1992. Other components of
Phase I would include a plant equipment maintenance system and software packages for
safety management, records management, training and licensing, and links to major existing
databases. Phase II would include implementation of full personal computer networking
capabilities and a high-speed link to the Collection System Operations Department for on-line
mapping activities.
ORtU
JJ1tf>
~
R./CHIEF ENG.
!1Wv
INITIATING DEPT.IOIV.
1302A-7/91
DRW
RAB
JAL
SUBJECT
11111III_lmaM
AUTHORIZE THE GENER'AL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO
EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE WARNER GROUP FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF
PHASE I OF THE DISTRICT'S COMPUTER SYSTEMS UPGRADE
PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT 20082
PAGE
DATE
2
OF 2
August 5,1991
Staff recommends that The Warner Group provide professional services for implementation
of Phase I of the Computer Systems Upgrade Project based on its satisfactory completion of
the MIS Master Plan. A cost-reimbursement agreement has been negotiated with The
Warner Group with a cost ceiling of $73,800. The professional services include preparation
of detailed specifications and requests for proposals, identifying qualified vendors, plus
preparation of a detailed cost estimate. The detailed specification will provide vendors the
necessary information on the functional requirements of each application (e.g. Finance, Human
Resources, Permits, Safety, scheduling, etc.). The specifications will also set forth
requirements on mandatory features, system performance criteria, reliability and expandability.
The planning-level estimate for hardware, software, installation, and consulting services for
Phase I is $1,100,000. The estimate for Phase II is $400,000. The total project cost is
estimated to be $1,600,000, which includes an allowance for District Force Account. This
project is included in the 1991-92 Capital Improvement Budget under the heading Computer
Systems Upgrade Project (pages GI-11 through GI-13). At the time the CIS write-ups were
prepared, the MIS Master Plan had not been completed. Therefore, a total project cost was
presented in the CIB of only $233,300, which included planning and design of the project,
plus an allotment for acquisition and installation of already identified improvements.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute an agreement
with The Warner Group for professional services related to implementation of Phase I of the
District's Computer Systems Upgrade Project, DP 20082.
13028-7/91
~ Cblltral Contra Costa Sanhdry District
, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1..11111111111111111: BOARDMEETI~~ust 15, 1991
SUBJECT
PAGE 1 OF 1
NO.
7.
ENGINEERING a.
DATE
Au ust 9, 1991
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE GM-CE TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING WITH TRI-VALLEY WASTEWATER
AUTHORITY TO RETAIN A FINANCIAL ADVISOR
AUTHORIZE MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPTJDIV.
Jarred Miyamoto-Mills, Principal Engineer
Engineering Department/Planning Division
ISSUE: Board authorization is required for interagency agreements.
BACKGROUND: The Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA) is continuing its consideration of a
sewer service capacity expansion alternative for the conveyance, treatment, and disposal of TWA
wastewater through CCCSD facilities.
CCCSD and TWA have jointly conducted a study of the engineering feasibility of a joint project
to provide sewer service to TWA and have determined such a project to be technically feasible.
Such a project could substantially benefit each agency. Many financial and institutional issues
must be addressed before a joint project could be implemented.
The TWA/CCCSD Board Liason Committee met on July 25 to discuss the joint project. Staff from
CCCSD and TWA recommended that a joint financial advisor be retained to assist in resolving
potential contract issues between the two agencies and to prepare a financial plan demonstrating
the potential fiscal impact of a joint project on each agency.
CCCSD and TWA staff had interviewed three candidate firms and recommended to the Board
Liaison Committee that Bartle Wells Associates be retained as this joint financial advisor. The
Committee received a presentation from Bartle Wells Associates and concurred with the staff
recommendation.
Bartle Wells Associates has proposed a time and materials contract with an initial authorization
level of $60,000 plus direct expenses. The ultimate cost of the financial consulting services
would depend on the time and complexity of contract issue discussions.
The Bartle Wells Associates' work would be jointly directed by TWA and CCCSD. TWA would
pay 100 percent of the cost of Bartle Well's services and would reimburse CCCSD for applicable
staff time.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize GM-CE to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Tri-
Valley Wastewater Authority to retain the services of Bartle Wells Associates at no cost to the
District.
v
fif
INITIATING DEPTJDIV.
1302A-7/91
JMM
JMK
RAB
PAGE 1 OF 2
NO.
7. ENGINEERING b.
SUBJECT
CONDUCT A WORKSHOP; SET SEPTEMBER 4, 1991,
AS THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL EIR AND APPROVAL OF
THE PLEASANT HILL OVERFLOW PROTECTION PROJECT,
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4717
DATE
August 7, 1991
TYPE OF ACTION
CONDUCT WORKSHOP
SET HEARING DATE
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DE PT.lDIV.
Tad J. Pilecki
Senior Engineer
Engineering Departmentl
Engineering Division
ISSUE: A workshop has been scheduled in order to facilitate the Board of Directors' review
of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Pleasant Hill Overflow Protection
Project, District Project No. 4717. It is District practice to hold a public hearing prior to
Board consideration of project approval and certification of a FEIR.
BACKGROUND: The FEIR for the Pleasant Hill Overflow Protection Project has been
completed. This workshop has been scheduled to provide an opportunity for staff to present
specific information and to facilitate review of the FEIR.
The project includes obtaining rights of way and constructing a relief interceptor sewer from
the Oak Park Boulevard/Patterson Boulevard intersection in Pleasant Hill to the District's
wastewater treatment plant. The proposed interceptor would relieve the existing Contra
Costa Boulevard interceptor, which is too small to contain all the water that extraneously
enters the sewer pipeline during major rainstorms. The goal of the project is to minimize
recurring wet weather sewer overflows in the service area of the Contra Costa Boulevard
interceptor.
At its September 4, 1991, meeting, the Board will be requested to certify the FEIR and
approve the Pleasant Hill Overflow Protection Project. Staff proposes to hold a public
hearing to receive comments on the FEIR prior to Board consideration of project approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a workshop on the Pleasant Hill Overflow Protection Project
at the Board of Directors' meeting on August 15, 1991. Set Wednesday, September 4,
1991, at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to receive comments on the
FEIR for the Pleasant Hill Overflow Protection Project, District Project No.4 717.
RE WE WED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
TJP
DRW
RAB
fJ/Jv.J
f)!fj
1302A-7/91
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' WORKSHOP
ON THE
PLEASANT HILL OVERFLOW PROTECTION PROJECT
PROPOSED AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 4, 1991
PLEASANT HILL OVERFLOW PROTECTION PROJECT
A. Staff Report
. Project Overview
. Environmental Impact Report Significant Findings
. Schedule
B. Comments/Questions/Discussion from Board Members
C. Summary and Conclusions
PAGE 1 OF 1
Au ust 15 1991
NO.
8. LEGAL/LITIGATION a.
DATE
DENY CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM PACIFIC BELL
TELEPHONE COMPANY ALLEGING SEEPAGE OF
SEWAGE INTO A TELEPHONE MANHOLE
1
TYPE OF ACTION
DENY CLAIM
SUBMITTED BY
Jack E. c.;ampbell
Administrative Operations Manager
INITIAT1NG DEPIJDIV. . /
AOmlnlstratlve
Risk Management and Safety
ISSUE: A claim has been received from the Pacific Bell Telephone Company alleging that sewage
from a District line is getting into their manhole at Alhambra & D Street, Martinez. Claim denials
require action by the Board of Directors.
BACKGROUND: According to Pacific Bell tests, water containing Escherichia coli, a bacterial
organism found in sewage, has been seeping into a telephone equipment manhole located at a
Martinez intersection which also has District lines in the vicinity. The District dye tested these
lines and determined that the seepage is not from its facilities. Currently the source is unknown,
but because the result of the District's test is negative, the staff recommends that the claim be
denied.
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the claim from Pacific Bell Telephone Company alleging District
responsibility for sewage seepage into a manhole belonging to that agency. Refer to staff for
further action as needed.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/ON
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
?C
JEC
PM
C:\ WPS 1 \BdOir\PacBell. Clm