The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 03-19-92 .~c~ POSITION PAPER .tral Contra Costa SaniL,-, y District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 3 BOARD MEETING OF NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR a. DATE March 13, 1992 SUBJECT ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 92-017 TO CONFIRM AUTHORIZIA TION TO DEPOSIT DISTRICT INVESTMENT FUNDS WITH THE COUNTY TREASURER AND TO AFFIRM TRUST RELATIONSHIP TYPE OF ACTION ADOPT RESOLUTION SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer Administrative/Finance & Accounting ISSUE: A Board Resolution to confirm the authorization to deposit District funds available for investment with the County Treasurer, who is deemed to hold such funds in trust on behalf of the District, is proposed for adoption. BACKGROUND: Temporary funds of the District are invested in short-term government securities and the state's Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) through the County Treasurer's Office. The government securities are held in the District's name by the custodian bank, Security Pacific National Bank; the investments in the LAIF are carried on the records of the State Treasurer in the District's name. The District sought to execute an agreement which committed the long-standing relationship with the County Treasurer's Office to writing, and which clearly defined the invested funds as being held in trust. The County was unwilling to execute the agreement submitted to it. The enactment of Government Code Section 27100.1 made the agreement with the County unnecessary. This law, enacted in 1991, expressly states that whenever deposits are made in the County Treasury, the funds shall be deemed to be held in trust by the County Treasurer on behalf of the depositing entity or public official; additionally, that the funds shall not be deemed funds or assets of the County, and that the relationship of the depositing agency or public official and the County shall not be one of creditor-debtor. As a result of staff's review of these matters, it was discovered that the applicable law provides that a local agency should adopt a resolution authorizing their financial officer to deposit temporary surplus funds with the County Treasurer. Since the District's practice in depositing such funds with the County Treasurer is longstanding and predates the applicable statute, it is not clear that the District has formally adopted such a resolution. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to adopt a resolution to confirm authorization for the deposit of temporary funds with the County Treasurer and to affirm the trust relationship regarding the invested funds. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution No. 92-017 to confirm the authorization to deposit District investment funds with the County Treasurer and to affirm that the funds are held in trust on behalf of the District. INITIATING DEPT./DIV. 1302A-7/91 WNF PM KLA ADS/PPI2/1nveBt.PP RESOLUTION NO. 92-Jli7 A RESOLUTION TO CONFIRM AUTHORIZATION OF DEPOSIT OF DISTRICT INVESTMENT FUNDS WITH THE COUNTY TREASURER AND TO CONFIRM TRUST RELATIONSHIP WHEREAS, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (hereinafter "District") has historically chosen to invest funds of the District, which it determines are not required for immediate use, by depositing same with the Contra Costa County Treasurer for the purpose of investment by the County Treasurer pursuant to Sections 53601 and 53635 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the District presently intends to continue in the practice of depositing funds that are not required for immediate use with the County Treasurer for the purpose of investment by the County Treasurer on behalf of the District; and WHEREAS, recently enacted Government Code section 27100.1 (Chapter 471 of the Statutes of 1991) has statutorily confirmed the District's understanding that the funds deposited with the County Treasurer on behalf of the District are deemed to be held in trust by the County Treasurer on behalf of the District; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to Government Code section 53684, the Treasurer or other financial officer for the District is authorized to deposit with the County Treasurer the excess funds which are not required for immediate use of the District, provided the County Treasurer continues to consent thereto, for the purpose of investment by the County Treasurer pursuant to Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the District has at all times deemed any funds deposited with the County Treasurer for the purpose of investment by the County Treasurer to be held in trust by the County Treasurer on behalf of the District; and that, pursuant to Government Code section 27100.1, the District deems all funds deposited with the County Treasurer, including all funds now on deposit with the County Treasurer, to be funds deemed to be held in trust by the County Treasurer on behalf of the District. All such funds deposited with the County Treasurer shall not be deemed funds or assets of the County, and the relationship of the District and the County shall not be one of creditor/debtor, notwithstanding in whose name the funds are held or whether such funds are commingled with funds from other depositing agencies or are otherwise pooled for the purposes of investment. PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of by the following vote: , 19 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, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kenton L. AIm, District Counsel F:\DMS\KLA.DIR\0036770.01 ~ Centrl Contra Costa Sanitar- ~istrict .. BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 3 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF March 19, 1992 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR c. SUBJECT ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE CLOSE OUT OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 58 (LID 58), CAMINO AMIGO SEWER PROJECT, DANVILLE (DP 4800) AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION DECLARING A SURPLUS IN THE IMPROVEMENT FUND DATE March 11 , 1 992 TYPE OF ACTION ADOPT RESOLUTION SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/Infrastructure Div. ISSUE: All work has been completed on the LID 58 Camino Amigo Sewer Construction Project, DP 4800, and this project can now be closed out. The Board must adopt a resolution declaring a surplus in the improvement fund so that surplus monies can be returned to the LID participants. BACKGROUND: A group of 26 property owners in the project area (see Exhibit A) petitioned the District to form a LID for the purpose of financing and constructing a public sewer system which will benefit their properties. The sewer project consisted of installing a new 8-inch sewer main which serves the proponents' 26 existing properties with the potential to provide sewer connections to 5 other properties also located within the LID boundary. This project is described in more detail on page CS-41 in the FY 91-92 Capital Improvement Budget. The contractor, Joe Foster Excavating, Inc., of Livermore, commenced work on August 1 2, 1 991, and completed the work prior to the contract completion date of October 21 , 1991. The project was accepted by the Board on October 7, 1991, and a Notice of Completion was recorded at the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office on October 31, 1991. Joe Foster's original construction contract was for $146,920. There was one change order issued on the project totaling a charge of $2,605. The total contract amount paid to Joe Foster Excavating was $149,525. Exhibit "B" shows all the revenues and expenditures associated with the improvement fund for the assessment district project. Surplus funds from the improvement fund account in the amount of $12,747 were realized because of savings in the construction phase of the project. The excess funds can now be distributed to the assessment district participants. Those who prepaid their assessment in cash can receive their surplus share immediately. Those property owners who are paying yearly assessments will receive a credit on their tax bills two years after the delivery of the assessment district bonds in October 1993. A resolution declaring a surplus in the improvement fund must be approved by the Board in order for distributions to be made to the assessment district participants. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution Declaring Surplus in Improvement Fund for Camino Amigo Sewer Project LID No. 58. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 DH RSK JSM RAB RLG. ROGER J. DOLAN INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ~lr 'EYk 12'){ !/IJB LOCA TI ON MAP NOT TO SCALE A = SIGNED PETITION j~~~;~jtl = L.I.D. BOUNDARY EXHIBIT "A" ~ <:(--0 o ~(j ~ ~'v <) CAMINO AMIGO ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO.58 DANVILLE AREA EXHIBIT B CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT LID 58 IMPROVEMENT FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES REVENUE: Sale of Bonds Prepaid Assessments Earnings (on retained funds in account through March 19, 1992) Total Revenue EXPENDITURES: District: Design Review/Studies legal Construction Survey Contract Administration Inspection Soil Testing Miscellaneous $11,056 2,505 2,687 5,227 12,516 1,700 3,713 Outside Engineers Construction Contract Bond Counsel Miscellaneous Fiscal Agency Fee Bond Discount Bond Reserve Total Expenditures Excess Revenue Over Expenditures (Surplus Funds to be returned to Assessment District Participants) $180,725 68,018 1.759 $250,502 $ 39,404 19,500 149,525 7,082 1,089 3,000 5,422 12.733 $237,755 $ 12,747 Centre.. ~ Contra Costa Sanitar) .listrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 3 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETIN1J~rch 19, 1992 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR d. SUBJECT DATE March 9, 1992 APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH MT. VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SEWER SERVICE TO RECENTLY ACQUIRED PROPERTIES TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY Jay McCoy, Infrastructure Division Manager INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Dept./lnfrastructure Div. ISSUE: Board of Directors' approval is required for agreements with other public agencies. BACKGROUND: This District (CCCSD) acquired two properties west of Imhoff Place within the past year. These properties are shown on the attached map. Mt.' View Sanitary District (MVSD) provided sanitary sewer service to these properties before' the acquisition and is continuing to provide such service. CCCSD will eventually reroute the sewer system for these properties to our collection system as a part of a future project. Potential future projects which have been discussed are the installation of a household hazardous waste facility or a reclaimed wastewater facility. Until that time, it is proposed that MVSD continue to provide sewer service. An agreement between MVSD and CCCSD is needed to document the obligations of each district. An agreement has been prepared which contains the following provisions. . MVSD will continue to provide sewer service to the properties. . CCCSD will pay MVSD's expenses related to the annexation of these properties to CCCSD. . CCCSD will pay a yearly sewer service charge for its commercial facility to MVSD (approximately $900 for fiscal year 1991-92). . The agreement terminates when the sewer system for the properties is rerouted to CCCSD or by written agreement between the parties. The proposed agreement has been approved by MVSD's Board of Directors and is herewith submitted for consideration and approval. This project has been evaluated by staff and determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines Section 5.2(b)(3), since it is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 9IW 1302A-9/85 JSM RAB ROGER J. DOLAN SUBJECT iiRlllllilllii:illllllBi APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH MT. VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SEWER SERVICE TO RECENTLY ACQUIRED PROPERTIES PAGE DATE 2 OF 3 March 9, 1992 RECOMMENDATION: Approve an agreement with MVSD, authorize the President of the Board of Directors and the Secretary of the District to execute the agreement, and authorize recording of the agreement. 13028-7/91 " ~ ~ ~.t- IMHCFF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TREATMENT PLANT PROPERTY - - - = BOUNDARY OF PROPERTIES ACQUIRED i~~~~~~~~~~~j~jjfff~~~fftIIjf = CCCSD BOUNDARY AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE C.C.C.S.D.-M. V.S.D. AGREEMENT PAGE OF 21 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SOURCE CONTROL ORDINANCE NO. 4. HEARINGS a. DATE arch 11, 1992 TYPE OF ACTION ONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING OOPr REVISED ORDINANCE SUBJECT SUBMITTED BY Bartan L. Brandenburg, Assaciate Engineer INITIATING DEPTJOIV. Engineering Department, Planning Divisian ISSUE: A public hearing is required priar to. the adaptian af a revised Saurce Cantral Ordinance. BACKGROUND: The existing Saurce Cantral Ordinance was adapted an April 18, 1991, and needs to. be updated to. reflect amendments to. the Califarnia Gavernment Cade. Attachment A summarizes the prapased changes to. the ardinance. The Califarnia Gavernment Cade amendments autharize the District to. assess administrative penalties far vialatians af the Industrial Pretreatment Pragram. Staff expects the Regianal Water Quality Cantral Baard to. require the District to. implement to. Gavernment Cade amet1dments priar to. the next Pretreatment Pragram Audit. Implementatian is desirable far the District to. efficiently recaver enfarcement casts. The prapased changes to. the Saurce Cantral Ordinance have been sent to. 58 af the District's existing and prapased permitted industrial users. No. camments by these industrial users have been received to. date. Staff will make a presentatian an the prapased changes to. the Saurce Cantral Ordinance at the public hearing. Attached tothis pasitian paper is a resalutian designating the General Manager-Chief Engineer ar his designee as a hearing afficer to. adjudicate issues related to. the situatians reflected in Attachment A. The Gavernment Cade pravides an appeal pracess to. the Baard af Directars far decisians made by the hearing afficer. RECOMMENDATION: Canduct a public hearing an the revised SQurce Cantral Ordinance. Cansider, revise, as apprapriate, and adapt the prapased changes to. the Saurce Cantral Ordinance. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPTJDIV. ~~ ~M fJ!1i 1302A-7/91 BLB DRW RAB ATTACHMENT A SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SOURCE CONTROL ORDINANCE Pursuant to the authority granted by the California Government Code, District staff may issue administrative complaints, conduct administrative hearings, and/or impose the civil penalties as outlined below: o Civil penalties may be imposed ranging from a maximum of $2,000 per day to a maximum of $5,000 per day depending on the type of violation. Examples of violations include: Failing to submit monitoring reports ($2,000 per day) Failing to comply with a compliance schedule ($3,000 per day) Violation of wastewater discharge limits or permit conditions ($5,000 per day) Violation of a Cease and Desist order ($10 per gallon) o Noncompliance fees allowed under the current ordinance would be eliminated, since they are a duplication of the civil penalties proposed above which are authorized by state law. These fees, which are assessed for violations of wastewater discharge limits, range from $50 to $2,000 per day. o For violation of wastewater discharge limits or other violations of the Clean Water Act, liability of $25,000 per violation may also be imposed by a court. This replaces the current civil liability limit of $6,000 per day. CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 92- A Resolution Designating a Hearing Officer to Adjudicate Issues Related to the Assessment of Civil Penalties for Violation of Requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Concernino Industrial Waste WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority of California Government Code ~54739 to ~54740.6, the District or District Staff may issue administrative complaints, conduct administrative hearings and/or impose civil penalties related to violation of the District's requirements concerning pre-treatment of industrial waste or prevention of the entry of industrial waste into the District's collection system or treatment works; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code ~ 54740.5, it is necessary that the District designate a Hearing Officer to adjudicate issues related to the assessment of civil penalties sought by such administrative complaints; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District hereby designates the General Manager-Chief Engineer or his designee as such Hearing Officer. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 19_ by the following vote: AYES Members: NOES Members: ABSENT Members: ABSTAIN Members: President of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: Secretary of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kenton L. Aim, District Counsel Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California ORDINANCE NO. 92- . AN ORDINANCE OP THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT AMENDING SECTIONS 10.16.010, 10.16.020, 10.16.040, 10.16.060, 10.16.070, 10.16.090, 10.16.100 AND 10.20.010 OP THE DISTRICT CODE AND ADDING SECTION 10.16.065 TO THE DISTRICT CODE WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 54725, 54739 and 54740 have been amended and Sections 54740.5 and 54740.6 have been I added to specifically authorize local agencies, such as the District, to recover specified amounts for civil liability and for administrative penalties arising out of local agencies' industrial pretreatment and discharge requirements (Senate Bill No. 1024); and WHEREAS, reference in the District Code to the authorization provided by the referenced Government Code Sections and other applicable laws and amendment to the Code to provide consistency with those sections will clarify and enhance the District's authority to enforce industrial pretreatment and discharge requirements; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 10.16.010 is hereby amended to read as follows: "10.16.010 Enforcement Mechanisms. It is the intent of this Enforcement section to provide adequate mechanisms to achieve a maximum degree of compliance with this Ordinance by all users. These enforcement provisions apply to all classes of users to the extent such user violates any provision of this Ordinance or administrative order of the District pursuant to this Ordinance. In order to achieve the maximum degree of compliance desired, the District will use a variety of enforcement mechanisms. The enforcement mechanisms set forth range from informal administrative action to formal criminal prosecution. The District may, in its discretion, implement the use of any mechanism or the concurrent use of several mechanisms in order to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance. The enforcement mechanisms provided herein may be Februarv 6. 1992 F:\DMS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 cumulative in respect to such other enforcement mechanisms or civil and criminal penalties as may be otherwise available under the laws of the state of California and the United states of America. Nothing in this Ordinance is intended to prevent state I and/ or federal regulatory agencies from undertaking enforcement actions as may otherwise be available due to a violation of this Ordinance which also constitutes a . v...... violation of federal or state statutes and requlationsfx= The enforcement mechanisms available to the District for violations of the provisions of this Ordinance, applicable District resolutions and permit or permit contract provisions ~ fNi$~Mil the following: A. Informal administrative action ;:1::~8+i.Dff::i:::::::;:ilgll::::i:i:::i:!:IB !~i!I~!9t:::e9\1:~EI!:~:: . B. Administrative orders. ana complianoe achcaulcs. C. Impoaition of fooa for non compliance with rcrmit or rcrmit Contract rc~uircmcnta. mlz. D. Impoai tion of penaltica for non complianoc with adminiatrativc orders. D. Assessment of charges for obstruction or damage to District facilities or operations. E. Suspension or termination of services. G. civil action. H. Criminal action." Februarv 6, 1992 F:\DMS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 section 2. Section 10.16.020 is hereby amended to read as follows: "10.16.020 Informal Administrative Actions. District staff may, on an informal basis, take action against a discharger for minor violations or technical or clerical shortcomings of a user or a user I s compliance submittals. These informal administrati ve actions may include informal notices (i.e. telephone calls to the user's representative), Notice of Violation (NOV), informal meetings or informal warning letters. Such action may .I~I not prevent a subsequent or concurrent imposition of nori.....Oomplianoe feea or other enforcement mechanisms." Section 3. Section 10.16.040 is hereby amended to read as follows: "10.16.040 Nol'\ oolftDlial'\oe with rermit al'\a/or rermit Contraot Requirementa al'\a other A~DlioaBle Feea. A. lloncompliance fcea: rollutant limitatiol'\ violationa. If a perioaic oom~lial'\oe samplil'\~ performed BY thc \:locr or the Diatriot reyeala l'\on complial'\ce BY the dischar~er with the prohibitiol'\o or apecific pollutal'\t limitations oOl'\tail'\ed il'\ thio Orail'\~noe, the permit or permit cOl'\traot, reaolutiol'\a BY the District Boara, or ~~ioh violateD apecific National rretreatmeftt StaftdarEla or state at~ndarEls Oft aioohar~ea, thcn the aocr ahall pay feca to the Diotriot aa opecified hcre\:ll'\aer. 1. The feco for l'\ol'\complial'\oe ohall Be ao followsl a. T\.'o lIundrea Dollaro ($200) pcr pOlifta for eaoh pouna of al'\Y oOl'\sti tl:lel'\t il'\ excess of thc diaohar~e atal'\aara with the exoeptiol'\ of toxic or~al'\ioD, pcaticidea al'\a rOB' a, rhcnol, pH, ~nd radioactivity or the Elaily ~iolatiol'\ mil'\imUlft aama~ea oct forth in Section 10.16.040..h.1.f. b. Four 1I\:ll'\dreEl Dollars ($400) per pOl:ll'\El for each POUl'\El of toxio or~anics, peaticiElea al'\& rCB's ana rhenol il'\ cxocaa of diaohar~c atanaarEia, or thc Eiaily ....iolation minimum dalBa~ea sct forth il'\ Seotion 10.16.040.A.1.f. Februarv 6. 1992 F:\DMS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 -_.__.__._-~~-_..._--- o. Far ~he ~ur~eBcs of Seo~ieRs 10.16.949.A.1.a. aRd b., thc vielatieR ef the diseharge standards set forth iR the ~enlit er permit oaRtraot shall se ~rcsaJftcd te eoe\:lr OR ~he date thc saJft~lcs are ta]teR aRd far aR additioRal foar (4) days aRless thc discharger demonstrateo with sasataRtial evidcRce ~hat the ~iolatioR eRly eocurred far a leaser per ied. The detcrmil\atiaR as ta the Ralllser af ~ati:Rds iR exoess of the disohareje staRdard will sc from thc eORoeRtratioR (mej/l) of thc oORsti taeftt ift cxocsa of the diaohareje standard m\:llti~licd sy the volume of disohareje for a fivc day (5) period. IR the eveft~ fto rcliasle daily flow data is a'\~ailaBle, the Diatriot may estimatc the aetaal velame tiiaoaarejed to the sCller dur iftej thc five day nORoompliaRoe ~eriod for ~ur~oscs of oaloulutiR~ the nonoolll~liance ~eRalty. d. For violatiofts of the ~II limit., the ~cr day fees are as set forth in Tasle I Below. c. Three Hundred Dollars ($300) pcr day fer each vielation of the radioactivity limit. f. As aR alternativc to the feeo sct forth ift 10 . 16 . 040 . A. 1 . a . and 19., and in accordaRee with 10.16.040.A.1.o, a m1n1mum daily violatioR fec shall be uoed. This mi1'\im\:llll daily violatioR fee ohall be imposcd if ~he per peund fee set forth in Gectiefts 10.16.040.A.l.a. throu'!h 10.16.(HO.A.1.o. ia not reasoRasly aocertai1'\aele aRd i1'\ aRY event whcre the pcr day mi1'\imum fee cxeceds the ~er poand pCRalty. , i. For thc pur~ose of this SeotiaR, a fee af Threc HU1'\dred Dollars ($390) shall sc impoaed for cach vialat.ioft af ~he constitucRt limit for thc first: violatioft of that constitucRt limit dUriRej the tcrm of the ~ermit or ~crmit caRtraot. Thia fcc shall 1'\ot cxceed a total of FioJC HU1'\dred Dollars ($500) for m\:lltiplc first time vialat.io1'\s of a1'\Y oaftst.i~l:leRt limit reaultin,! frolll a aiR,!lc day's oample. ii. Sccoftd or ausacquc1'\t. violatioRs af t.his samo cORstit.uc1'\t limit duriR,! t.he tcrm of the permit or permit oontraot will result. in a mi1'\imum fee of Four Hundred Dollars Februarv 6, 1992 F:\DMS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 ($490) for caCH violatioR of the cORstitueRt limit resultiR~ frem a siR~le day I a aamplc. THC maximum fec whish ahall be impoaed for multiplc vielatiens of any constitucnt limits from a sin~le day I s aample, whcrc ORe or more of the individual conatitucnt violatiens conatitute accond or subae~ucnt violations of tHat cORatitucnt, shall Be Onc Taol:laand DollarG ($1,000) per aay, exceptin~ a\:lch feea aa may reault frolll violatieno of aR ERforccment Compliance Schcdule aG iRaicatea in ~cction 10.16.949.A.1.a. iii. Whencver pcriodic compliance salllples er the DiGtrict'a l:lnanRounccd samples iRaicate a ai~RificaRt RORcompliance (EnC), the Diatrict may uRdertaJce a aample aRd cvaluatioR pro~ram. This pro~ram ~ill conaist of Diatrict aampliR~ of the diachar~er I a wal3tewater at the first opportunity cOR7cnient to the Diatrict. Daily aamplcs may BC taJccn each day for up to five (5) days. Thc Diatrict or outaide laBoratory ~ill analyze theae aamplcs for the violating cORatitueRta ana provide noticc to .he DiBOharlJer in rcqard to the rCBul ts ef aaid aamplinEj. ViolatioRa which may ooour durinq thc aamplc aRa c.:aluation pro~ram ahall eORBtitutc sUBscqucnt violatic:ma for purpoaea of the minilftlm daily fcc, Ho~c7cr, the maximum fec which will Be aaoeooed for all violationG incurrcd during a ainEjlc fivc aalllple evaluation program ahall not exceed Two Thouaana Dollars ($2,000). i v. In the cvent a aamplinEj and c.:aluation proqram indicatco a nccd for correctivc actiona to BC undertaJcen, thc Diatrict may place thc diaoharEjcr on a complianee I3cftcaule or undcrtalce another GalllplinEj and evaluation pro~ram. h compliance acheaule ahall provide for lIliniml;Hll rcquirca actiono to BC uRdertalccn BY the diocharEjer to alleviatc the violation ana a aohedulc for complction of aaid actiona. Thia cOlllpliaRce aohedule lIlay iRCludc iRtcrim conotitucnt lcvcl lIlaxillluma. All violationa of conatituent maximuma or other requircmenta aet forth Februarv 6. 1992 F:\DMS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 ""~-~--,----,-'"-""._-_.~,-..._-_.. ..,.....::._-,...:....~.._-"._.~.....:__._~._"._--=--_..~----^------_..__._..--~,.__.~_..,~~_..._._--~-,.,,~----~-----.."...._---_._.._~~~.---. ift ~he cempliaftce sehed~le, iftcl~dift~ fail~re te mee~ sCfted~le dates, will a~Bjt:et the vielatar ta a fee af Gfte The~aaftd Dallars ($1,000) per visla~ieft. Each day ift wfiich the disehar~er fails ~e met:t a achedHle date may, ift ~he discretisft of the Distriot, oeftati~~te a separate viela~ieft. hftY vielatieft sf a oaftatitHt:ftt limit surift~ the eempliaftoe aohes~lc perias may alae resl:ll t ift the implemefttatieft af aft asdi tiaftal samplt: afts e7all:latiaft pre!ram. 2. Ift assi~ieft te the peftalty fecs act fsr~h ift St:otieft 19.16.049 .A.1. aBs"Je, a nsigftificaftt" vialatieft ef ~he sisehar~e staftsars may resul~ ift tht: immediate ~ermiftatisft af the sischar!er's pcrmiDaiaft te dioohar~e, at the diDcretiaft ef ~hc Distric~. The tcrminatiaft af pcrmiaoieft ~s diooharge may Be for a act peries or far the efttire remaiftift~ term ef the permit ar pcrmi~ oofttract, at the disorctioft ef ~he Diatric~. Any vielatieft ef thc diaohar~c staftsarsa whcre a oOftoti tliCftt oaftccfttratieft ia determifted te Be fivc timeD thc Ooftccfttratieft staftdara aet ferth ift ExhiBit 11.h11 shall Be determiftcd te BC a "ai~ftifioaftt" vielatieft. hfty scries sf three or mere viela~iafta of the same csftatit~eftt withift a ofte year periaa, ahall oaftstitutc a "oiEJftifioaftt" vielatioft. Februarv 6. 1992 F:\DMS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 TABLE I FEES FOR NON COKr'LIANCE WI'PH "H R~JCE I'ERMI'P COUDI'PIotlS DH Ranee Fla~ Fee I'er say. <1.9 1.8 2.9 2.1 3.0 3.1 -4.0 4.1 5.5 >14.0 13.1 14.0 12.5 13.00 $250.00 290.00 150.09 199.09 50.00 *pH nonoompliance will sc saacd on a ~ras Gample or ~he tape from the pH reoordin~ se7ioe, if availasle. If aft ini~ial gras Bample or tapc rc...eala noncomplianoe, a accons ~ras aamplc or ~apc will se ta)teft wi thin a reasonasle pcrios of time in the preBenoe of ~he pcrmi~tec when practieas1e. 'PRC fees for noncompliaftoe shall sc saGes upon the morc Ge~erc nonoompliance determination. Februarv 6. 1992 F:\DHS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 B. Preliminary Dctermin~tion of ~lon oomplianoe with Permit Requirementa. Non co~liance \:ith permit or permit oontraot diachar~e requirementa may Be determined BY an analYBiB of a sample of the effluent of a diaohar~er for a constituent or oondition opeoified in the UBer's permit. If thc efflucnt of a user is founa BY the analysis of the sample to Be in eKOCOS of the oonoentrat.ions or oonaitionB apcoifiea in the pcrmit or permit. oontract, or oonoen trations or oonditiona inoorporat.ed BY rcfercnce thcrein, nonoomplianoe feea aa act forth in Scotian 10. 16.040 ahall Be levied. The user shall not.ify the District, as apeoifica in section 10.16.090.B of this Ordinanoe, of the violation ana shall collect a Beoona sample of t.he effluent for analyois. Pursuant to 10.12.060.A.S, the uoer ahall pro~ide the Diotrict vith thereoulto of the oeoond aample 6ithin thirty (30) d~ys of the date the violation vas diocovered. If the oecond Bample reveals non compliance, then the S~mplin~ and Evaluation Pro~ram may be initiates BY the Diotriot. C. S~mplinq ~nd Ev~luation Pro~r~m. 1. If the Camplin~ and Evaluation (S&E) proqram revealo non oompliance by the uscr vith the prohiBitiono or opcoific pollutant limitations opeoified in thio Ordinance or in the uaer'a Permit or Permit Contract, the Doer ahall payo feea ao opcoified aBove and m~y Be aaoeoBed all other coata incurred durinq the S&E proqram for aamplinq and ~nalysio, includil'HJ l~bor, equipment, materialo, outoide oervioeo and overhead. 2. If non oompliance by the uoer vith the prohibitiono or limitationo of thia Ordinanoe or of thc uoer'a Permit or Permit Contract ia determined follm.rinq the initiation of an S&E Pro~ram, the Diotriot may implement one of the follovin~ enforcement aotiono% a. Amend the existing permit through an Enforoement Compliance Sohcdulc A~rccBlcnt (ECSA). Thio may Be done aftcr oonsultation with the uaer and ~hen the uaer haa sho~R ~ood faith in trying to comply But requircs additional time for conatruction and/or acqui oitiofl of equipment related to pretreatmeat. The permit m~y be amended with the ECSA for a period up to one hundred and eilJhty (180) dayo; ho\:ever, thia period may be extended for a period not to exceed an additional onc Februarv 6, 1992 F:\DMS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 hundrea ana eighty (180) daYG upan determination by the Cenera1 Hana~cr/Chief En~inecr that ~ood cauae cxiato for an additional per iea. tlo further extensions ohall be ~ranted except upon appro~al of the Board of Directoro. b. If a diGcftar~er remaino in noncompliance beoause correoti...e action is not talc en wit.hin a reaoonable t.ime after complet.ion af the &'E Program or the expiration af the EC&A, t.hen an AdiRiniatrati .Je Order may be iSGued. Addit.ioftally, any of the other enforcemeftt actiofta ao autlifted in t.hia ohapter may alao be oammenced. The payment of non oomplianoe feeo will not bar the Diatrict from undertaltiftE} ouch enforcemeftt procedures aa arc othcrwiae Get forth herein. D. Noncompliance Feeo: Violationa other than for &pecific Pollutaftt Limitations The UGer who viol~teo an order of the Diotrict or who f~ilo to comply ~ith any pro~ioion of thiG Ordinance or the ordero, rulee, requlationo, Permit ana Permit Contract, ioeued hereunder (other than for violationG of pollut~nt limitationo ao oet forth in &eotioft 10.16.040.A, ohall be aubject. to a fee of not leGa than One Hundred DollarD ($100) or more than One Thouoand Dollaro ($1,000) for each ouch non compliance violation. Each day on ~hich a violation ahall occur or continue Ghall be deemed a oeparate and diotinot. non complianoe violation. NothinE} in thio paragraph ohall reotriot or limit the Diotrict from aoacoGinq charqeG for damageD to Dietrict Facilitiea or operationo and/or talting other enforcement action ao may be determined by the Dietrict to be appropriate. ~!::E!~~:!j~~I.:!:::~::::::::~~:::.:::'~':~~':":::'.,.::::~~!~:~:f!~'::::::'~!~:~::~:::!y~~~!~:!!~':"!:!!~~~!~:t: _li."~ ...~- ~g!::::::Bffi~IRffigm'::::~8R:.':9M$~~81':"~'W~Bg#~*g#y,:::~~~+':::~n~+M1~~::ib?~.~:'::::i:~mp$!~ Februarv 6. 1992 F:\DMS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 Februarv 6. 1992 F:\OMS\MC.OIR\0031123.02 1:.t::~~~:~:~:~::.:~:::::~I!llilllilll:..i.T.lr.II;.rl(~.jil"" E:l*::::::::::II::!gD.iilD.lg::!::!f!W=:g~IRJ.IBi::::::II~i.i::::::~~:::::I!:::::I:::::::~f.~g:~::::gf.:::::::_l! section 4. Section 10.16.060 is hereby amended to read as follows: "10.16.060 SusDension or Termination of Service. A. Suspension of Service. The District may suspend the wastewater treatment service and/or a wastewater discharge permit or permit contract by issuance of a Cease and Desist Order when the District makes the determination that such suspension is neces- sary. A suspension shall be justified in order to prevent an actual or threatened discharge which presents or may present an imminent or substantial endangerment to the health or welfare of individuals or the environment, causes or may cause interference to the treatment plant or other District operations, or causes or may cause the District to violate any condition of its NPDES permit. Additionally, a permit may be suspended for any of the conditions set forth justifying revocation of permit or termination of permit contract as set forth in Section 10.16.060.B. Nothing in this paragraph will limit th~ rights of the District to suspend or terminate service pursuant to specific permit or permit contract conditions which may be more stringent. Any industrial user notified of a suspension of service and/ or the wastewater discharge permit or permit contract shall immediately stop or eliminate the discharge. In the event of a failure of the user to comply voluntarily with the administrative order, the District shall take such steps as deemed necessary to prevent or minimize damage to the District's facilities or endangerment to persons or the environment. The District may reinstate the wastewater discharge permit, permit contract, and/or the wastewater treatment service upon proof of the elimination of the non-complying discharge. Februarv 6. 1992 F:\DMS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 B. Revocation of Permit/Termination of Permit Contract. Any user who violates the following conditions is subject to having its Permit revoked or Permit contract terminated: 1. Any user who knowingly gives or provides a false statement, representation, record, report, plan or other document to the District or falsifies, tam- pers or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required under this Ordinance; 2. Failure of a user to factually and completely report the wastewater constituents and characteristics of his discharge; 3. Failure of the user to report significant changes in operations, or wastewater constituents and characteristics; 4. Refusal of reasonable access to the user's premises for the purpose of inspection or monitoring; 5. Failure of a user to notify the District immediately of accidental discharge and/ or take appropriate corrective action to prevent a reoccurrence; 6. Failure of a user to file a report or periodic compliance and in such manner as is ordinance; periodic compliance report in such time required by this 7. Significant violation(s) of the permit or permit contract requirements O?;............C?.~!1.~.~:t:..i:-P.~.~.......,....~!1.~.I.~~ 8 . Failure to pay fees and charges, includinlJ non complianoe feea or other penalties established pursuant to this Ordinance." Februarv 6. 1992 F:\DMS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 Section 6. Section 10.16.070 is hereby amended to read as follows: Februarv 6. 1992 F:\DMS\MC.OIR\0031123.02 "10.16.070 civil Action. The District Board lllay direct District counselor other special counsel to bring such civil actions as may be available at law or in equity in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance and to recover such charges, fees, penalties and/or damages as may be assessed or may be incurred under the provisions of this Ordinance. A. Injunction. Whenever a discharge of wastewater is in violation of the provisions of this Ordinance, the District may petition the Superior Court for issuance of a preliminary of permanent injunction, or both, as may be appropriate in restraining the continuance of such discharge. B. Civil Actions for Penalties. Any user who violates any provision of this Ordinance, permit condition or permit contract condition, or who violates any Cease and Desist Order, prohibition or effluent limitation, shall be liable civilly for a P*a.T.1Cl:~:t:.Y.....Tl~:t:.~~....*a.?'.c::~*a..<:1......~.~.l.'....~~f:)~.C:J.~l.l.~..... De llar13 ( $ 6 , 000) the District Board, shall institute .~~c:?h.....~~~~.<?~~w..~~...mar ~:p~~~~o~~~~~~ i:nJh:e~~~~~i~~c~e~~~dafllgQ~.i"~:::S9- to C. Other civil Actions. The District may require compliance with permit conditions or limitations by issuing administrative orders, including Cease and Desist orders, and compliance schedules. Said orders are enforceable in a California court of general jurisdiction. The District, however, may directly undertake any court action available at law or equity, including but not limited to a civil action for penalties without first seeking an administrative order or making use of a compliance Februarv 6. 1992 F:\DMS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 schedule, and it may concurrently undertake such administrative and court actions as deemed appropriate." section 7. Section 10.16.090 is hereby amended to read as follows: "10.16.090 Notification Procedures. A. Notification to User. Whenever the District finds that any user has violated or is violating the provisions of this Ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit, wastewater discharge permit contract, or any prohibition, limitation or requirements contained herein, the District may serve upon such person a written notice stating the nature of the violation. within thirty (30) days of the date of this notice, a plan for the satisfactory correction of the violation shall be submitted to the District by the user. Whenever the District assesses a Ron compliance fcc, penalty or other form of enforcement action under the provisions of this Ordinance, the District shall serve upon such user a written notice stating the nature of the enforcement action being taken. B. Notification to District. When a user discovers that it has violated or is violating a provision of the Ordinance, its Wastewater Discharge Permit, its Wastewater Discharge Permit Contract or any prohibition, limitation or requirement contained therein, including a violation as may be caused by accidental discharge or spill, the user shall immedi- ately notify the District upon discovery of such violation. Thereafter, within five (5) days following the accidental discharge or discovery of a violation, the user shall submit to the District a detailed, written report, describing the accidental discharge or violation, and the measures taken by the user to permit p.~lljfil similar future occurrences. This written report regara= ing the violation may be included as a part of a Periodic Compliance Report, or other report as may be required under this Ordinance, as long as the written report is provided within the five (5) days of discovery, which notification shall not relieve the user of any expense, penalty, fee or other liability which may be incurred as a result of the violation." Februarv 6. 1992 F:\DMS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 Section 8. Section 10.20.010 is hereby a~ended to read as follows: "10.20.010 Availabilitv of Administrative ADDeal. Any user, permit applicant, permit or permit contract holder affected by any decision, enforcement action or determination made by the District, interpreting or implementing the provisions of this Ordinance or in any permi t or permi t contract issued herein, may file with the General Manager/Chief Engineer a written request for reconsideration of a staff decision, action or determination within fifteen (15) days of notification of said staff decision, action or determination. The written request for reconsideration shall detail facts supporting the user's request and such facts shall include a statement listing all relevant facts which shall be considered including such facts as may not have been known or available to the District at the date of such action. The General Manager/Chief Engineer shall render a decision on the request for reconsideration within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the request, unless the General Manager/Chief Engineer requests additional information from District staff or the user. The General Manager/Chief Engineer shall concur, modify or rescind the action, decision or determination previously made or may grant a show cause hearing regarding such decision, action or determination. If the ruling on the request for reconsideration made by the General Manager/Chief Engineer is unacceptable, the user may, within ten (10) days after the date of notification of the General Manager/Chief Engineer's determination, file with the District secretary a request for appeal to the District Board. A user shall not have a right to an appeal Board unless the user has complied with concerning the request for reconsideration Manager/Chief Engineer as set forth above. to the District the procedures by the General When a written request for appeal to the District Board has been properly filed with the District secretary, the District secretary shall schedule the matter to be heard by the District Board within forty-five (45) days from the date of the filing of the written request. The District Board shall make a rUling on the appeal within fifteen (15) days from the date of the hearing unless the Board requests additional information from District staff or the user. ---.. February 6. 1992 F:\DMS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 <,._._."__,_.~.__.______..__.h__.'_'_"""'__'__'~'_______'_"__'_"~__""""_'___'''_'___'_'_'__~'_'''_'~______'_"-"'--'--'-'""-'-'--'-"'_._--'-~'---'------_. section 9. The 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 , 1992. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District on the day of , 1992 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 of the Central Contra Costa sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of ~alifornia Approved as to Form: KENTON L. ALM District Counsel Februarv 6. 1992 F:\DMS\MC.DIR\0031123.02 PAGE 1 OF 11 SUBJECT CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET (CIB) DRAFT 1992 TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP), APPROVE THE CIB FOR INCLUSION IN THE 1992-93 BUDGET, AND APPROVE THE 1992 CIP NO. 4. HEARINGS b. DATE March 11, 1992 TYPE OF ACTION CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING, APPROVE CIB/CIP SUBMITTED BY John J. Mercurio, Admin. Analyst INITIATING DEPTJDIV. Engineering Dept.lPlanning Division ISSUE: The Board of Directors has established March 19, 1992, as the date for a public hearing on the draft Fiscal Year 1992-93 CIB/1992 Ten-Year CIP. Board consideration of approval of the CIB for inclusion in the 1992-93 District Budget and separate approval of the CIP is requested. BACKGROUND: . The CIP provides the basis for project prioritizing and scheduling, District staffing, and long-range financial planning. The CIP also serves as the framework for fee analysis. The CIB provides a detailed presentation of the schedules and cost estimates for projects proposed for the first year of the ten-year planning period. It also provides for funding authorization from the Sewer Construction Fund to the Treatment Plant, Collection System, and General Improvement programs. The CIB/CIP was submitted to the Board of Directors' Capital Projects Committee for review on February 4, 1992. The document was submitted to the full Board on March 5, 1992. It is appropriate for the Board to receive public comments prior to considering approval of the CIB/CIP. March 19, 1992, was established by the Board as the date for a public hearing to receive these comments and appropriate notices have been posted. Budget Adoption of the CIB with the 1992-93 District Budget in June will authorize an additional $ 52,377,000 from the Sewer Construction Fund for planning, design, and construction of capital improvement projects in the Treatment Plant, Collection System, and General Improvements programs. In addition to the new funding authorization, a carry-over of approximately $23,056,000 from Board authorizations in previous years is anticipated, resulting in a total Fiscal Year 1992-93 authorized funding level of $75,433,000. The distribution of the funding authorization to the three capital improvement programs is shown on Attachment 1. Nineteen major projects account for 80 percent of the total authorized funding level for Fiscal Year 1992- 93. These 19 projects are listed in Attachment 2. Adoption of the CIB also constitutes Board of Directors' approval of projects listed in Tables 4, 5, and 6 of the Budget document as exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION ~~ f/1fl JJM JMM DRW RAB INITIATING DEPTJDIV. 1302A-7/91 SUBJECT CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET (CIB) DRAFT 1992 TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP), APPROVE THE CIB FOR INCLUSION IN THE 1992-93 BUDGET, AND APPROVE THE 1992 CIP IlilllllllllllrlJillillll PAGE DATE 2 OF 11 March 13, 1992 Plan Approval of the CIP authorizes staff to use the CIP's project priorities and cash flow assumptions in fee system and financing analysis. The CIP describes approximately $243 million (1992 dollars) in capital improvement projects to be pursued over the next ten years. These projects are needed to meet goals that have been established for the Treatment Plant, Collection System, and General Improvement programs. These goals are presented in Attachments 3, 4, and 5. The funding needs of the proposed projects in the CIP will exceed the District's pay-as-you-go financing system funding capabilities. This is due to three factors: 1) the emergence of new air emissions, water quality and safety regulations which must be addressed through capital improvement projects (that is, formerly "Parturient" projects, such as the Disinfection Facilities Improvement Project), 2) the under realization of interest revenue due to general economic conditions, and 3) the need to proceed with several large budget projects to meet District wet weather overflow prevention goals. To provide the funds required to implement needed projects, the CIP proposes that the District issue bonds or certificates of participation. Three issues of $20-, $28-, and $10 million each, in FY 1992-93, FY 1995-96, and FY 1998-99, respectively, would provide the funds needed while maintaining a prudent reserve of 80 percent of the next year's projected capital improvement expenditure needs at the beginning of each fiscal year. The prudent reserve is needed to assure adequate cash on hand for progress payments due prior to receipt of tax revenue which is received in two installments, the first in December and the second in April and the City of Concord's cost share, typically received in February. It will be proposed at the time the sewer service charges are set that implementation of a Sewer Service Charge (SSC) capital increment to be used for Upgrade/Replacement projects be considered for maintenance of the Sewer Construction Fund prudent reserve. This SSC capital increment would begin in FY 1992-93 at $1 per residential unit equivalent and would increase at the rate of $2 per year over the 1 a-year period covered by this plan. The CIP has been evaluated by staff and determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines Section 17.3 since it is a planning study. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing to receive comments on the CIB/CIP. Approve the CIB for inclusion in the 1992-93 District Budget. Approve the CIP. 13028-7/91 SUBJECT CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET (CIB) DRAFT 1992 TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP), APPROVE THE CIB FOR INCLUSION IN THE 1992-93 BUDGET, AND APPROVE THE 1992 CIP ................................................................. ". ........ IIIIIIIIIIII'IB PAGE ':l DATE OF 11 March 11, 1992 RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing to receive comments on the CIB/CIP. Approve the CIB for inclusion in the 1992-93 District Budget. Approve the CIP. 1302B-7/91 BUDGET . Attachment 1 - Budget Summary . Attachment 2 - Major Project Information ATTACHMENT 1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1992-93 Additional Estimated Authorization Total Proaram Carry Over Reauested Authorization Treatment Plant $ 8,488,000 $38,897,000 $47,385,000 Collection System 9,503,000 12,034,000 21,537,000 General Improvements 5.065.000 1.446.000 6.511.000 Total FY 1992-93 $23,056,000 $52,377,000 $75,433,000 ATTACHMENT 2 MAJOR PROJECfS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 Project Estimated Carry Over Estimated Allocation Total This FY Authorization -------------~~-~-=~~=-==-=------~-~-~------~-----=~==---======----=------------------ $ 808,000 $ 2,475,000 $ 3,283,000 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 275,000 925,000 1,200,000 61,000 2,500,000 2,561,000 0 1,649,000 1,649,000 0 1,434,000 1,434,000 0 26,429,000 26,429,000 0 1,960,000 1,960,000 0 2,891,000 2,891,000 151,000 2,257,000 2,408,000 2,094,000 0 2,094,000 71,000 1,402,000 1,473,000 1,840,000 0 1,840,000 200,000 1,236,000 1,436,000 48,000 1,200,000 1,248,000 1,099,000 0 1,099,000 1,420,000 0 1,420,000 1,128,000 0 1,128,000 23,000 3,473,000 3,496,000 ----------------------------------------- COGENERATION FACILITY COLL SYS RENOVATION PROGRAM-FY 1992-93 CSO FACILITY RELOCATION DISINFECTION FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS FILTER PLANT REHABILITATION HEADWORKS BYPASS PIPELINE-PHASE 1 HEADWORKS FAC EXP NEAR-TERM I-680/SR-24 SEWER RELOCATIONS-PHASE 4 I-680/SR-24 SEWER RELOCATIONS-PHASE 3 LAKEWOOD SUBBASIN RENOVATION PROJECT M-4 PARALLEL FORCE MAINS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS UPGRADE FAIRVIEW/MALTBY PS UPGRADE MARTINEZ PS UPGRADE PLEASANT HILL RELIEF INT EASEMENT ACQUIS PLEASANT HILL INTERCEPTOR-PHASE lA PROPERTY ACQUISITION - FUTURE S BROADWAY EXTENSION SEWER RELOCATION STANDBY POWER FACILITY - PHASE 1 Major Projects Total 9,218,000 51,081,000 60,299,000 ---------=~---~-=======~~=================~=-======~================------------------ $ 12,489,000 $ 62,944,000 $ 75,433,000 Total Budget Percent Major Projects of Total Budget 74% 81% 80% ----------------~=====----==-=-----===------====---============~---------------------- TEN-YEAR PLAN . Attachment 3 - Treatment Plant Projects Grouped by Goal Areas . Attachment 4 - Collection System Projects Grouped by Goal Areas . Attachment 5 - General Improvement Projects Grouped by Goal Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o~ o~ o~ 0 v 0\ 0\ N 0\ 00 0\ 00 00 O\~ 00 C"l N E-c C"l 0 \0 ...-< C"l ...-< ...-< 00 \0 ...-< 0 ~ ~ U u:l ~ ~ E-< 0 Ci'.l 0 c.:J Z u.. E-< ..... ,.J Z E-< Z 0 Ci'.lCi'.l ..... p., < u:l ,.J Ci'.l ,.J::E ~~ ~ u:l 2 Ci'.l ~Z Z c.:J Ou:l ~ ~~ ~ Ci'.l ~~ ..... u:l< < ..... E-<..... ,.J E-<~ Z :::c: ~ Z~ 0 <t:.::: Ci'.l < ><0 s: :::c: c.:J 00 Ci'.l s:~ u:l == ~N U uga ~ ..... Ci'.l Z E-<~ E-< u:lZ S ..... ..... Z ..... ~~~ c.:J..... ~ E-< Ci'.lz < z~ ,.J u.. Ci'.l Zo ..... 00 <u:l ~ ..... 0..... ><~ u:l,.J U <~~ ~ s:u ffi u:l ><: .....E-< ::E< < u:lZ :::c: u:l Ci'.l~ ~ ~..... u.. ~~~ 8 Ci'.l0 :::c: ~ 0 :a,.J p.,~ ,.J S:Z E-< E-< ::E,.J ~ 0 ~o~ < u:l u:l2 Z ::ECi'.l ~ E-c << u:l s: Ci'.l 0Ci'.l ~~ E-< oo8:~ u t:.::::::C: s: u:l ~~ Ci'.l~ Z c.:J E-< E-< ~::E Uu:l u:lz Z (V') E-c~~ Ci'.lE-< E-< 0..... u:l..... 0 u:l ~< .......... ..... 00_ ~z u:l ~~ Ci'.lE-< t::t:.:::Ci'.l U Ci'.l p., I- 0 s:~ ..... E-< z o~< t:.:::u:l s: z~ t:.:::E-< ~,.J ....Jou:l t:.::: < l.J..J 8: u:l ><..... Ci'.l u ::E u<~ o~ E-< ~ga t:.:::~ u:lu:l ~~ Ou..~ 0 0 Ci'.l :::I: OOE-c~ S:O zu:l ~ U ~ u ~rr:~ ~u:l Z zu u:lz .....::E ::Eu.. ~Zc.:J 0 Z c::::: < ~< z~ < ~ .....E-< 8:Z uE-<p., U ,.J c::( p.,t:: 0 < u:l ~t:: u:lZ u:lCi'.l u:l ~<< ~ ~ ~~E-c u:l~ ::E,.J ot:.::: ~::E ~::E ~::Eu ~ u:l E-< 0<< UO OU u:l< ,.Jc.:J ZE-< E-<<Ci'.l E-:::c: c.:J~ p.,u:l Zuz Z ~ p., ~ ~zE-c p.,< p.,o u:lCi'.l p.,>< ><:~ Ou:l< 0 u:l ::E ~ gaz ~u ~E-< ~< ~Ci'.l u:lE-< ut:.:::,.J u ~ ..... u:l >< E-< E-< 00 ,.J ~ ..... ~ < ~ Z < u:l E-< :::> 0 :::c: ~ ::E ~ u.. ::E u ~ ..... u:l 0 ,.JE-< E- UO Ci'.lZ t:.:::Z ut:.::: u:lO p.,u:l <c.:J t:.:::u <:::t I- Z w ::E: :c w e:( l- I- e:( Z -< ~ ~ >~~ ~~~ ~~rJ ~o~ CJ)~~ E-~~ oo~~ 0:;CJ) u-<> CJ)E-CJ) ~-Z <~o 8~E= ~~u o-<r.:l ~~:3 ~IO ~zu r.:l E- ~ e\ e\ ...... o o o ...... N CJ) O\^ E- 0'\ CJ) 0\ o U ~~ E-P:::: ZO UJE-< p::::V,) p::::>C :::>u uZ ::z::UJ u:::> ......0' ::z::UJ ~e: ~ V,)Z -< ~~ o ....:I E-< o U-. UJ E- P:::: P:::: U g: ~ O 0 UJ p::::>C g: UJ I ~g:0 UJ......O V,)U-.O UJ<;: E-<Zl]:l <...... Zp::::p ......:::>Z ~UPJ ::JU;> UJOUJ . o Z < ::z:: E-< CJ) ....:I ~ < -< UJ 8 ~ ~ :i ~ o ~z :::>UJ ~ p.., ~ ~ E-<Z uo UJp:::: E-<...... 0> p::::Z p..,UJ UJZ ~~ ::z::E-< uUJ ......p:::: ::z::~ ~~ V,) , ~o ONO ....:1<8 U-.ZN P::::->c g:~~ o:::>p P::::~z UJOg: ~oUJ V,)E-<>c PJou E-<UJz <E-<UJ zu:::> -PJO' ~8UJ ....:Ip::::p:::: UJp..,U-. . ::z:: u Z - ~ - V,) o Z < ::z:: u Z - , -.:t o Z ...... ~8 ><:("1 UJ>c U-.l]:l o V,) ~~ 0< 6~ -~ UJUJ uE-< <UJ ....:I~ ~::; P::::O . V,) 00 -UJ O::z:: ~~ . ^ UJ >c~ 5~ - ~@ :i~ gaffi V,) Zo ~ OE-< ~ ~~ PJ E-< 0 > V,)~ o p.., U-. g: ~ ~ ~ p.., 0 Z g:UJ Q 0 C> ~ g: ~ ~ ~ B3 p.., ~ :::> p.., . o E-< o UJ E-c~8 E-<p..,N - '-" >c UV,)"", <UJ- p..,V,)E-< <V,)z u~g: Z >c rT' Ol]:l- E=:UJ~ <C>PJ E-<<>c ~~o ~53N :::>UJ< p..,E-Z 0<- ZZ~ <-:::> p..,~u ><::iu UJUJO o o O~ o \0 N~ M ...... UJ E-< < 0< ~ E-PJ ~ oP:::: - UJ< ....:I E-<....... UJ U,....., ooUJ~ E-<E-<8E-< E-::V,)P:::::::> :::::~p..,l]:l :::>o::z::i:2 l]:l.:lE-<E-< V,)U-.~V,) P:::: P:::: 0 ^ UJg:P::::~ ~0C>~ V,)UJUJUJ zo!5~ -<<-....... >c~5u E-<UJU-.< -V,) UJ ~P::::~~ p.., UJ < _ <::z::o~ UE-<o:::> UJ<~o og:~o :::>?O~ ....:IE- - uUJu:::> ~~~~ . PJ P:::: :::> E-< :::> U-. UJ E-< <: o o ~::z:: ~E-< o~ UO U~ <0 o o O~ o 0\ N^ \0 ~ E-< Z UJ P:::: ~ :::> u ::z:: u - ::Z::UJ ~~ V,) < ~z E-<UJ -E-< dz u- ~~ ~ g: ~ <_ V,) ....:I V,) 0 p.., V,) U UJUJ P::::~ ~ ~ UJ ~ o UJ 0 P:::: P:::: UJ _...... u <:::> :::> p.., 0' 0 UJ UJ UJ P:::: P:::: P:::: . . >c E-< - Z :::> ~ ~ o u o E-<V,) OZ zP:::: oUJ p..,u V,)Z UJO P::::U ~Z ~ 5 ~Q::E ~ ot; s: -< ~ -<:::;l ::EV) Z;:S o~ E; f5E-< <10'0( ~E-<........ Il..U ~~ ~V) V) z~ ~o p,lZ::E -0 Eo-g: 00 zg ~ ~g: >z ~ Il.. V) _ ~I; 8 ~~ ~6l ~~ ~i~ t; ~[!J !':~ ~~ &lS1i 9 ~~ 8~ g;:;! o-~ 10'0( V)_ et:::_~ u~~ ~ et:::E-< et:::~ E-<o <~ ~~ O::I:: UIl.. ~Eo-::: ~::I:: o~ -<V) <lS:~ ~E-< OV) E-<:::;; o<~ V)o ~z u< ~uoo :JE-< 00 :::;l~ ~~~ ~f5 ~~ ~8 g~zo z~ g:t; gg: <:, -~ ~~E ~ ~~ ~5 u 0 8~ M ...... Q\ ~~ Q\ ..... 0\ ...... 00 ...... Eo- iI7 00 0 u . . ~ E-< o E-< ~ I Z ~ E-< . ~- 00 z51 ~ ~ < ~z o ::E_ ~ ~~ ~ uO o o~ E-<V) ~ OZ z~ 2B V)Z ~o ~u 0 0 0 8~ 0 8~ o~ \0 \0 N r- oo \0 rJ'.) 00 Irl.. "<:t~ ~ - N - - rJ'.) 0 ~ U 0 ....J Z <( < U Z en ...... 0 ~ Z ...... f-< Z :I:: f- ~~~ 0 ~ 0 ~ en ~ s:: ~~e; t) en p::: 0 ~ rJ'.)~~ ~ Z 0 0 p... ~f-< ~ f-< LO ~~~ 0 ::E >< >< en rJ'.)_ ......z f-< I- 0 =: ...... f-<~ f-< f-< en z: u~~ ~ >< U::E ~ ~ 0 l..LI f-< ~~ ~ ~ U :E: rJ'.)~o ~ p... p... :c ...:l_=: !:.L. !:.L.Cj Oen 0 ::E u ~<( c::c: <~~ <f-< ~z ~z ~ a'd .j I- 8~~ enz p...o p... 0 I- ~< <( c::c: - ~~ ~::E ~...... ~ ~ f-< =:=:...:l o::E p:::f-< p::: ......p... ~< ......<( ...... u 0 0<< >...... ;::l~ ;::l ;::l f-< <~=: o;::l ~f-< O'~ 0' 0 ~ p:::0' u<( Up... u ~ ~z~ p...~ ~o <0 <( ~ ~ ~~ I Z N ~ Q\ Q\ . . . . . f-< ..... 0 Z <( :I:: >< f-< f-< rJ'.) ....J ...... Z ...:l <( ;::l < ~ 8 :I:: ::E u ::E =: ...... 0 ....Jf- enZ ~z ~o p...~ ~u PAGE 1 OF 5 BOARD MEETING OF March 19, 1992 NO. 5. BIDS AND AWARDS a. AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT SOARES/SOUTH TRAIL! DALEWOOD, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4294, TO D. E. BIANCHINI, INC. DATE March 16, 1992 TYPE OF ACTION SUBJECT AUTHORIZE AWARD SUBMITTED BY Jade A. Sullivan Assistant Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Infrastructure Division ISSUE: On March 10, 1992, bids for construction of the Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Soares/South Trail/Dalewood, District Project No. 4294, were received and opened. The Board of Directors must authorize award of the contract or reject bids within 50 days of the opening of bids. BACKGROUND: During the winter of 1982-83, the sewers on Soares Lane in Lafayette and South Trail and Dalewood Drive in Orinda were damaged. The locations of these sewers are shown in Attachment 1. A predesign report was prepared for the Soares Lane site recommending a new sewer line be installed across various property owners' land. Permanent and temporary easements for the new sewer alignment have been acquired. The new sewer alignment minimizes the potential for future storm damage. The Storm Damage Repair South Trail Creek Crossing Project, District Project No. 4120, was originally bid in June 1989, but bids were rejected due to the high cost. The District has completed a new design using a pipe truss system approach with the intent of lowering the project cost. The Dalewood Sewer Rehabilitation Project will replace a displaced creek crossing pipe support. This has been a particularly difficult job because of two factors. First, two of the three sites are in steep backyard terrain and equipment access is not possible. Special design features were developed to allow for hand construction of piers and trusses. Second, the three sites required 9 easements and 31 property access agreements. Extensive negotiation was required to obtain the necessary rights. Plans and specifications for the projects were prepared by G.S. Dodson and Associates, Inc. The project was advertised for bid on February 7, 1992. The engineer's estimate for construction is $270,000. Bids for the project were received on March 10, 1992. These bids ranged from $188,795 to $493,750. A summary of the bids received is shown in Attachment 2. 1302A-7/91 (t JAS 0/ ()P CWS JSM 10,.. RAB SUBJECT ............................................................,,."........"..... ................................................................,...-.-......-.... .....III."lllft......llm.mm..... AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT SOARES/SOUTH TRAIL! DALEWOOD, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4294, TO D. E. BIANCHINI, INC. PAGE DATE 2 OF 5 March 16, 1992 The Engineering Department conducted a technical and commercial review of the bids and concluded that the lowest responsible bidder IS D. E. Bianchini, Inc., for the amount of $188,795. The total estimated project cost is $558,000, as indicated in Attachment 3. The project is included in the 1991-92 Capital Improvement Budget on pages CS-61 through CS-62. In compliance with the District's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a Notice of Exemption for this project was filed with the Contra Costa County Clerk on April 3, 1989. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of contract in the amount of $188,795 to D. E. Bianchini, Inc., as the lowest responsible bidder. 13028-7/91 ATTACHMENT 1 Orinda Alamo Q I_ - Project Location(s) , ;:O( 1:-; 1-02 Cap .:::llmprovemer,' 6udget/1QQ 1 COPlt':lllmprovement Plan - CS-62 - Page 3 of 5 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District- Page 4 of 5 SUMMARY OF , .DS Attachment 2 PROJECT NO. 4294 ~~~~~ ~~~1~}6~f~~~o~roject, soares/DATE March 10,1992 LOCATION Orinda, Lafayette eNGR. EST. $ 270,000 - ~ ~lJ . I BIDDER (Nome, telephone & address) BID PRle. D. E. Bianchini, Inc. (510 ) 831-0400 $ P.O. Box 2204, San Ramon, CA 94583 188,795 1 Ranger Pipelines, Inc. (415 ) 822-3700 $ 2 1296 Armstrong Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94124 190,400 ~ D. W. YounQ Construction Co.', (510 ) 837-0724 $ 3 140-A Town & Country Drive~n6anville, 94526 274,480 - CA Harborth Excavating (707 ) 785-3512 $ 4 6880 Petersen Road, Petaluma, CA 94952 283,200 Jardin Pipeline, Inc. (510 ) 782-5335 $ 5 P.O. Box 20817, Castro Valley, CA 94546 290,267 - 6 Mountain Cascade, Inc. ( 510 ) 736-8370 $ . 293,070 P.O. Box 116, San Ramon, CA 94583 . . M.J.B. Pipeline" l 510') 785~5805 $' ~. 7 . P.O. .Box,192, Mt. Eden, CA 94557 294,533 j Manuel C. Jardim, Inc. ( 415 ) 487-0444 $. f P.O. Box 677, Union City,. CA 94587 493,750 ~ ( ) $ ( ) $ - ~ ( ) $ ( ) $ .. - BIDS OPENED BY Paul Morsen DATE March 10, 1992 SHEET NO. 1 OF 1 ZIO~./a4 _____......JIt..._.__~_.,____~_______.___.,_._._~_~~___.__.._.__.-.---.-.>.-.----~-.-- Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT 3 SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT, SOARES/SOUTH TRAILJDALEWOOD DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4294 (OP 4120) POST-BID/PRECONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE % OF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST 1 . Construction Contract $ 188,795 2 Contingency @ 25 % $ 47,305 SUBTOTAL $ 236,100 100 3 Construction Management . Project Management/Administration $ 15,000 . Inspection 30,000 . Survey 4,000 . Legal 1,000 . Field Office Support 1 ,000 . Engineering Assistance 2,000 SUBTOTAL $ 53,000 22.0 4 Consultant Contractors . Geotechnical (DCM Joyal) $ 3,000 . Resident Engineer (JMM) 1 0,000 . Engineering Support (G.S. Dodson) 4,300 . Material Testing 3,000 SUBTOTAL $ 20,300 8.6 5 Miscellaneous . Permit/City Inspection $ 1,000 . Record Drawings 2,000 . Community Relations 6,000 SUBTOTAL $ 9,000 4.0 6 Total Allocation of Funds to Complete $ 318,400 135.0 Project 7 Property-Rights Acquisition 40,700 17.2 8 Prebid Expenditures $198,900 84.2 9 TOTAL PROJECT COST $558,000 PAGE 1 Of 4 1992 NO. 5. BIDS AND AWARDS b. SUBJECT AUTHORIZE AWARD OF PURCHASE ORDER TO RHONE-POULENC, INC. FOR THE SUPPLY OF POLYMERIC FLOCCULENT, POLYPURE LA-1761, FOR USE IN SLUDGE DEWATERING DATE March 1 6 1992 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AWARD OF PURCHASE ORDER SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPTJOIV. Alan R. Grieb, Associate Engineer Plant Operations Department ISSUE: The District has advertized and received bids (Bid Request No. B0322T) for the supply of polymeric flocculents (polymer) for use in sludge dewatering. The Board of Directors must authorize award of the purchase order or reject all bids within 45 days. BACKGROUND: The District's treatment plant uses polymers in its sludge dewatering centrifuges to aid the dewatering process. The addition of polymer enhances centrifuge performance, resulting in dryer sludge "cake" and increased sludge capture. Dryer sludge cake equates to lower fuel use in the multiple hearth furnaces, and" increased sludge capture equates to less sludge recycled to the treatment plant for retreatment. The District used field testing techniques to preQualify polymers and to determine the polymer dosage rate required to achieve maximum cake solids and sludge capture. Four of the polymers tested met the minimum standards, so they were preQualified and were invited to bid. Bids were received on February 25, 1992, with each bidder submitting a bid for price per pound of polymer (bid prices are shown in Attachment 1). The District staff then used the bid price for the polymer and the field test results to evaluate the bids. The bids were evaluated using a formula which considered the actual cost of the polymer and overall performance. The formula (provided in Attachment 2) resulted in a comparative cost. The comparative cost is the sum of the actual cost of the polymer, the energy cost as a function of sludge cake dryness, and the retreatment cost due to solids not captured in the dewatering process for a two-year period. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPTJOIV. /}f.fj ,Jh /C I {Jet? 1302A-7/91 ARG JMK t~CWB to/, SUBJECT AUTHORIZE AWARD OF PURCHASE ORDER TO RHONE- POULENC, INC. FOR THE SUPPLY OF POLYMERIC FLOCCULENT, POLYPURE LA-1761, FOR USE IN SLUDGE DEWATERING . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !.:.lml!III!III:!;!~:III!E!I!.! ................................................................................... .........."....................................................................... .......,........................................................................... ................................................................................... 2 4 PAGE OF DATE March 16, 1992 The following table lists the polymers that were bid, the bid price, and the comparative cost. Bidder Product Price Comoarative Cost Rhone-Poulenc Polypure LA-1761 $0.0953/lb $1,191,956 Diatec Diatec 650 $0.0714/1b $1 ,342,442 Diatec Diatec 660 $0.0974/1b $1,392,288 Stockhausen Praestol K290FL $1 .11 5/lb $1,421,642 The lowest comparative cost was for Rhone-Poulenc's Polypure LA-1761. It is estimated that the savings in polymer cost resulting from using this product over the currently used product will be at least $40,000 per year with additional savings as a result of lower gas use. The cost of the polymer will be funded from the Plant Operations Department's Operating Budget. The annual cost of the polymer is expected to be about $180,000. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of the purchase order to Rhone-Poulenc as the lowest responsible bidder to supply Polypure LA-1761 at a cost of $0.0953/1b. 13028-7/91 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 3 of 4 : . ~ : . ; ~ ti : I i ~ ~ z E ... L.l..I . b: .~ Ci: ~ ~ :l:: .~ ~ - 0 ~ ~ :'\.Ie ("I') : U") u ~~ ...... 0 ~ ~ ~ ...... ~ ~ :x5~ OJ . V"l ~ c: ...... ~ 'J ~ Z = ~ . :l. ~ ~ N ~ ~ 0 ~ c. ~~ ("I') : ("I') ~ .- U") U") Vl N ;"':U ~ O'l ~ ~ ....... :i::~ OJ 0 It! N c: . ~ ....J . :l. ....... ~ U c::r: g: ~ ::: : :i L.l..I ....... ~ ~ e ~ I- > N V"l ,.... ;: ....... c::r: N U ~ 8 O'l i] c::r: ~ ;::: ("I') u 0 ~ e ~ ~ u . ! c l- LL . Q.. 5 ~ CI) . w c ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ . Cf 13 ! i ~ : w ... ... i < ~ ~ ~ ..; c ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ a: 1!l ::E ..: ~ ~ ....J u.. 0 == Cl: O'l . ~ e- N ~ ~ en a: . ~ C ~ \C ....J -u l.L ~ ...... 0 CDz ex . ~ u 1.0 ~ u..L.l..I L.l..I ,.... V"l O....J '; ~ ~ ...... L.l..I ~ :: c::r: I ~ Zo ~ ..... c::r: 00.. ~ C e ....J a.. Ei~ ... c:: ~ i ~ .0 .0 .0 ~o t, ~ ~ ~ :;):l:: :: ~ i ~ ~ CD 0::: ~ ~ ~ ~ :: e . ~ OJ ~ L.l..I c.. i :t: e I it: ..... 0- > ... 0 i E . 0::: ... .... N ("I') ~ a: '"'3: a.. IE I' ; : C 0" .... C' ATTACHMENT 2 Page 4 of 4 COMPARATIVE COST FORMULA Comparative Cost ::;: [dosage x price + 10.41 x capture x (1-cakeTh')] x pound cake1S [1 + (1 -capture)] x [tons dry feed solids] Dosage is the pounds of polymer required per ton of feed sludge as determined by the field test. Price per pound is the price of polymer bid. Capture is the percent of solid captured in the dewatering process expressed as a decimal as determined by the field test. CakeTS is the percent of sludge cake total solids expressed as a decimal as determined by the field test. Tons dry feed solids is the anticipated quantity of sludge feed solids to be processed over a two year period. BID AND FIELD TEST SUMMARY Dosage Cake Polymer Cost Price Per (Pounds Capture Solids for Two Comparative Polvmer Pound Per Ton) (Percent) (Percent) Years Cost Poly pure $0.0953 116 97.2 25.0 $318,200 $1,191,956 LA-1761 Diatec $0.0714 152 98.2 22.0 $309,300 $1 ,342,442 650 Diatec $0.0974 143 93.6 22.9 $414,900 $1,392,288 660 Praestol $1.115 13.1 94.3 22.7 $432,300 $1,421,642 K290FL PAGE OF 4 NO. 6. ENGINEERING a. CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OPPOSING ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 3214 TRANSFERRING AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX REVENUES FROM SPECIAL DISTRICTS DATE March 16, 1992 TYPE OF ACTION ADOPT RESOLUTION SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT iDIV. Russell B. Leavitt, Planning Assistant Engineering Department/Planning Division ISSUE: District opposition to AB 3214 has been requested by the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA). BACKGROUND: Assembly Bill (AB) 3214 proposes transferring about $347 million in property tax revenues from "enterprise" special districts to school districts. These transferred property tax revenues would reduce state budget obligations to schools under Proposition 98, thus freeing $347 million in the state budget for other, undefined purposes. Nevertheless, with or without the proposed property tax transfer, schools would receive the same level of funding. The property tax transfer proposal is aimed at about 1,500 enterprise districts around the state which receive a portion of the property tax to support their operation and maintenance. "Enterprise" districts generally have elected governing boards and have the authority to charge fees for services. These districts run airports, electric and water utilities, ports and harbors, and waste disposal facilities such as this District. Under AB 3214, CCCSD would lose all future ad valorem property tax revenues. The 1992-93 estimated property tax revenue is $8.8 million, 17.7 percent of the District's total revenue. The state and federal governments are substantially increasing fees to wastewater agencies, while also passing new regulations which require extensive operational improvements. The District uses property tax revenues to meet these regulatory requirements. Such expenditures result in improved environmental protection and increased local employment opportunities. The state of California expects that the affected special districts will replace lost property tax revenues with increased service fees. The governor's 1992 budget message states, "these enterprise special districts are generally not property tax dependent and should be able to compensate for the loss in property taxes by increasing their operating income from other sources. " REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1(6L.. jJ~ tift INITIATING DEPTJDIV. 1302A-7/91 RBL JMM DRW RAB SUBJECT .....................................................-..-.......................... ............................................................,.,................... .....111.,11 11......II.ImJ.s a..... CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OPPOSING ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 3214 TRANSFERRING AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX REVENUES FROM SPECIAL DISTRICTS PAGE ? DATE OF Ll March 16, 1992 To replace these lost funds, the District's current annual sewer service charge of $1 51 per household would need to be raised by $65 -- a 43 percent increase. This potential sewer service charge increase would cost school districts an additional $74,000 per year and Contra Costa County government an additional $45,000 per year. These costs would be in addition to any normal rate adjustment the District may impose for increased operating costs. Other special districts which overlap the District's service area (such as water suppliers) also may need to raise rates to replace lost revenue due to AB 3214. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) would lose $10.6 million in water service related property tax revenues and Contra Costa Water District would lose $2.6 million. Thus, ratepayers served by two or more enterprise districts potentially face rate increases from multiple agencies. Furthermore, since some state residents are not served by a special district, the increased costs suffered by ratepayers in the affected special districts would not be offset by a proportionate benefit in return. Property tax revenues are an appropriate mechanism to finance some utility costs. Sewers, for example, enhance the value of all property, even undeveloped lots. The use of property tax revenues, therefore, is appropriate for maintaining and upgrading sewer systems. Through this mechanism, owners of undeveloped lots share some of the cost of providing the sewer services which raise the value of their property. As part of a statewide effort to oppose AB 3214, CASA is requesting agencies to send resolutions of opposition to the governor and state legislators. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution opposing AB 3214. 13028-7/91 RESOLUTION NO. 92- RESOLUTION OPPOSING ASSEMBLY Bill 3214 TRANSFERRING AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX REVENUES FROM SPECIAL DISTRICTS WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 3214 proposes an indefinite shift of $347 million in property tax revenues from "enterprise" special districts to schools; and WHEREAS, the revenue transfer would not provide additional funding to the schools but rather would reduce the obligations of the state as required by Proposition 98; and WHEREAS, the revenue transfer would result in substantial increases in rates and charges for sewer, water, and other services; and WHEREAS, the proposal could result in Sewer Service Charge increases of 43 percent for customers of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) in addition to potential water rate increases from the East Bay Municipal Utility District or the Contra Costa Water District; and WHEREAS, the state and federal governments are substantially increasing fees to sewer agencies while also passing new regulations which require extensive operational improvements; and WHEREAS, CCCSD uses property tax revenues to meet these regulatory requirements which results in improved environmental protection and local employment opportunities; and WHEREAS, property tax revenues are an appropriate mechanism to finance some utility services costs; maintaining and upgrading sewers, for example, enhances the value of all property; and WHEREAS, by singling out "enterprise" special districts, the proposal creates inequities for ratepayers receiving services from these districts as compared to those receiving similar services from a city, privately-owned public utility, mutually-owned corporation, or a joint powers authority. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District opposes AB 3214 and the proposed transfer of property tax revenues from "enterprise" special districts to schools. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board of Directors this 19th day of March 1992 by the following vote: AYES: Members: NOES: Members: ABSENT: Members: President of the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: Secretary of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California Approved as to form: District Counsel PAGE 1 OF 1 SUBJECT NO. 1. PERSONNEL a. DATE March 11, 1992 DELETE ONE MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR POSITION (RANGE S-71, $3,648 TO $4,415) AND ADD ONE OPERATIONS SAFETY SPECIALIST (RANGE S-71, $3,648 TO $4,415) IN THE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE STAFFING CHANGE SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT.IDIV. John Larson, CSOD Manager Collection System Operations ISSUE: Board action is required in order to change the number or level of authorized staff positions. BACKGROUND: A mid-year change is requested in the Collection System Operation Department (CSOD) in order to provide Department-level safety support. The workload of supporting the safety activities at CSOD has grown beyond the present allocation of part-time labor. The increase in workload has been created by increasingly stringent requirements for safety programs and their attendant training and documentation activities. Examples of the added requirements include mandated periodic jobsite inspections, specific requirements for periodic and formal training in trench shoring, more stringent confined space entry and rescue procedures, and more stringent traffic control procedures. The employee filling the proposed position would work both as a Department-level Safety Specialist and as a staff trainer. The Safety Specialist would prepare and update written procedures, conduct field inspections, and investigate accidents/incidents. The Safety Specialist would provide staff support for the ongoing safety program and maintain the more sophisticated safety equipment (e.g. self-contained-breathing-apparatus, gas monitors). As a staff trainer the safety specialist would present quarterly and annual classroom training (e.g. respiratory protection, confined space entry and rescue, trench shoring, defensive driving, traffic contro!), and the use and storage of hazardous materials. The requested change will not increase the total number of authorized employees. This change will increase the annual labor cost during 1992/93 by $67,000. There are adequate funds in the 1991/92 O&M Budget to cover the additional cost of filling an unbudgeted position. The requested change was reviewed by the Board Personnel Committee at their March 2, 1992 meeting. This change is being requested at this time in order to take advantage of a recent recruitment. RECOMMENDATION: Delete One Maintenance Supervisor position (Range S-71, $3,648 to $4,415) and Add One Operations Safety Specialist (Range S-71, $3,648 to $4,415) in the Collection System Operations Department. PAGE 1 OF 2 NO. SUBJECT 7. DATE PERSONNEL b. March 11, 1992 DELETE ONE MAINTENANCE CREW MEMBER 1/11 POSITION (RANGE 53/59, $2,347 TO $2,838/$2,706 TO $3,273 AND ADD ONE MAINTENANCE COORDINATOR 1/11 POSITION (RANGE G-47/51, $2,041 TO $2,458/$2,240 TO $2,706) IN THE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE STAFFING CHANGE SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT.IDIV. John Larson, CSOD Manager Collections System Operations ISSUE: Board action is required in order to change the number or level of authorized staff positions. BACKGROUND: The Collection System Operations Department (CSOD) has three to five construction crews working on a daily basis. The construction work must be well-planned and coordinated with the other utilities and the public in order for the construction crews to be productive. The individual jobs must be selected in priority order from a backlog that averages around 200 jobs. Prior to excavation, the other utilities, the cities and the public must be notified and specialty contractors must be contacted (e.g. saw cutting the paving). In many cases special tools, materials, and equipment are required. Upon completion, specialty contractors must be coordinated (e.g. final paving). It takes one to three hours per job to complete all planning and coordinating activities. In addition, recent changes in the requirements for locating utilities require that the District must respond to each location request received from Underground Services Alert (USA). The response must be to (1) locate field facilities, (2) provide mapping information, or (3) to state that there are no facilities in the area. The great majority of the responses are handled by providing mapping information. This activity requires two to three hours of work per day to respond to an average of 30 location/excavation notifications per day. To date the work in this area has been evolving and the workload has been met using Engineering COOPS, employees on limited duty, and seasonal employees. The workload appears to be stable at this time and it is appropriate to create a new Maintenance Coordinator 1/11 position to address this workload. The requested action would also reduce the number of Engineering COOP positions requested for 1992/93 by one. The requested change will not increase the total number of authorized employees. This change will result in a slight decrease in the annual labor cost during 1992/93. The requested change was reviewed by the Board Personnel Committee at their March 2, 1992 meeting. This change is being requested at this time in order to take advantage of a recent recruitment. RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON .....-..... SUEYEt..ETE ONE MAINTENANCE CREW MEMBER 1/11 POSITION (RANGE 53/59, $2,347 TO $2,838/$2,706 TO $3,273) AND ADD ONE MAINTENANCE COORDINATOR 1/11 POSITION (RANGE G-47/51, $2,041 TO $2,458/$2,240 TO $2,706) IN THE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT POSITION PAPER PAGE DATE 2 OF 2 March 11, 1992 RECOMMENDATION: Delete One Maintenance Crew Member 1/11 Position (Range G-53/59, $2,347 to $2,838/$2,706 to $3,273) and add One Maintenance Coordinator 1/11 Position (Range G-47/51, $2,041 to $2,458/$2,240 to $2,706) in the Collection System Operations Department. 13026-9/85 PAGE 1 OF 1 NO. 8. LEGAL/LITIGATION a. DATE DENY CLAIM OF CALRECOVERY, INCORPORATED TYPE OF ACTION DENY CLAIM SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPTJDIV. Bonnie Allen, Risk Manager Administrative/Risk Management and Safety ISSUE: CalRecovery, Incorporated (CRI) has filed a claim for $14,472.25 plus interest against the District. Claim denials require action by the Board of Directors. BACKGROUND: This is the second claim filed by CRI, the first of which dealt with an agreement in August 1 990 for preparation of a joint Solid Waste Generation Study between CRI and the District and the central Contra Costa cities. In October of 1990 the District independently entered into a second agreement with CRI for professional engineering services in connection with preparation of four Preliminary Draft Source Reduction and Recycling Elements for the cities that Central San franchises. CRI failed to comply with the terms of the Agreement in that services were inadequate. As a result the Agreement was terminated. CRI alleges that the District has failed to pay all sums due and claims a principal sum of $14,472.25, plus interest, is still owed of the original Agreement amount of $50,665.00. The staff recommends that the claim be denied. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the claim from CalRecovery, Incorporated and refer to staff for further action as needed. , REVIEWED AND 'ECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION w INITIATING DEPTJDIV. 1302A-7/91 BA PM ----- KLA C:\WP51 \Bddir\CaIRecv2. PP