HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 12-03-92
~ Centra. ~~~~~ g~~~R~~~~a~~ District
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
December 3, 199 NO.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR a.
November 23, 1992
TYPE OF~p~WbvE REAL
PROPERTY AGREEMENT
SUBJECT
DATE
APPROVE AGREEMENT RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY
WITH KENNETH H. CRAIN, ET UX, JOB 165,
ORINDA AREA
SUBMITTED BY
Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer
INITIATING DEPT./DIV
Engineering Departmentl
Infra tructure Division
ISSUE: The property owner, Kenneth H. Crain, et ux, has proposed the construction of a
wooden deck over a District easement.
BACKGROUND: The proposed deck will cantilever over a portion of the existing 10-foot wide
sewer easement, which crosses the Crain's property. The sewer pipe within the District's
easement is approximately six feet deep. The District recently replaced the original sewer at
this location with a six-inch cast iron pipe. The vertical clearance from the bottom of the deck
to the ground will be approximately twenty feet. All piers supporting the deck will be outside
of the sewer easement and will be at least five feet clear of the pipe centerline, and will extend
below the depth of the sewer pipe. The property owner has cooperated with District staff by
changing their plans and providing revised construction drawings of the deck. The owner has
paid the District's fee for processing the subject agreement.
Staff has determined that the improvements will not interfere with the present use of our
sewer; however, if the need should arise, the agreement requires the property owner to move
the deck at his/her expense within 30 days of notice to do so.
This project (the proposed agreement) has been evaluated by staff and determined to be
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEOA Guidelines
Section 18.6, since it involves a minor alteration in land use limitations.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Agreement relating to real property with KENNETH H.
CRAIN, et ux, Job 165, and authorize the President of the Board of Directors and the Secretary
of the District to execute said agreement, and authorize the agreement to be recorded.
DH
JSM
RAB
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
i>(
f!)fJ
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
1302A-9/B5
- - ---.--.----T--
_-----r ~
.~ ---;0. // ;,. cf>..S\ \?-o~ ~\~E. OI\.C~tJ\E.~'1
~/ ) ./ v. NC~ r
"\ O' S.S.E.. e: .
/ //1 ~..-/~~
/ ~_w'
. _______ ~\€.v. Q~c.'i:-
--- ----,---
/
I
./
~_.i
,
I
I
i
~
\
I
I
I
10' S.S.E.
~t
.
c
HOUSE
o
C\J
1
I j"'- CONCRETE
I
I I PIER
I'
I'
J
---r-
~-7 ./
! . I
i /
---
(
HOUSE
"
REAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT
JOB 165
ORINDA AREA
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1
OF
1
BOARD MEETING OF
December 3, 1992
NO.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR b.
SUBJECT
ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK FOR LABORATORY FACILITIES
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, DP 10077, PHASE I, AND AUTHORIZE
THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
DATE
November 30 1992
TYPE OF ACTION
ACCEPT CONTRACT
WORK AND AUTHORIZE
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
SUBMITTED BY
Paul A. Sciuto, Assistant Engineer
INITIATING DEPTJDIV.
Plant Operations Department
ISSUE: Construction has been completed on Phase I of the Laboratory Facilities Improvements
Project (DP10077). The work is now ready for acceptance.
BACKGROUND: The Laboratory Facilities Improvement Project, DP 10077, was divided into
phases to allow the critical work to be completed quickly. Phase I included the modification of
three existing laboratory fume hoods to bring them into Cal/OSHA compliance.
On July 16, 1992, the Board authorized the award of the contract to Cal-Neva Environmental
Systems Incorporated to construct Phase I. The modification of the laboratory hoods was
completed for the bid amount of $20,400 by the contract completion date. The three fume hoods
have been tested and they comply with Cal/OSHA standards. It is appropriate to accept the
contract work at this time. The overall project will not be closed out at this time because other
phases of the Laboratory Facilities Improvement Project remain to be completed. The Laboratory
Facilities Improvement Project appears on page TP-52 of the Fiscal Year 1992-93 Capital
Improvement Budget.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for Phase I of the Laboratory Facilities
Improvement Project (DP 10077), and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIA . . ~E7/DIV.
-?$~
1302A-7/91
WB
.!H7~
OGER J. DOLAN
PAS
----,--
~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
~ BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING o~ecember 3, 1992
PAGE 1
OF
2
NO.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR c.
SUBJECT
DATE
ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WORK FOR THE ORINDA/MORAGA
PUMPING STATIONS IMPROVEMENTS-NEAR TERM PROJECT
(DP 4667), AND AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF THE
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
November 25, 1992
TYPE OF ACTION
ACCEPT CONTRACT
WORK
SUBMITTED BY
Ronald S. Klimczak
Senior En ineer
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering Departmentl
Plant Engineering Division
ISSUE: Construction has been completed on the Orinda/Moraga Pumping Stations
Improvements-Near Term Project (DP 4667), and the work is now ready for acceptance.
BACKGROUND: The work accomplished on the Orinda/Moraga Pumping Stations Improvements-
Near Term Project consisted of improvements to three existing pumping stations: Orinda
Crossroads, Moraga, and Lower Orinda. The Near Term Improvements Project is a part of a
phased long-term program to rehabilitate the District's existing pumping stations in East Bay
Municipal Utility District's watershed areas. The project location map is shown on
Attachment 1.
The work at the Orinda Crossroads Pumping Station included installation of a new double-wall,
underground fuel tank and construction of a new fence and building parapet to improve the
station security. The work at the Moraga Pumping Station included modifications to the
ventilation systems and installation of a new odor control unit similar to the unit installed at the
Orinda Crossroads Pumping Station in 1989. The work at this station also included replacement
of an existing two-stage pump with a new larger capacity, one-stage pump controlled by a
variable-frequency drive (VFD). The pump, motor, and VFD were prepurchased by the District
at a cost of $54,665.50. The work at the Lower Orinda Pumping Station included replacement
of existing single-wall, aboveground fuel tanks with new double-wall tanks positioned on a spill
containment pad with a leak detection system. Please refer to the 1992-93 Capital Improvement
Budget, pages CS-53 to CS-56, for additional information.
The Board of Directors awarded a construction contract in the amount of $409,800 to Pacific
Mechanical Corporation of Concord, California, on April 16, 1992. The contractor was issued
a Notice to Proceed on May 18, 1992. The specified contract completion date was October 26,
1992. A time extension was negotiated to provide for the completion of additional work items.
The District took beneficial use of the project prior to the extended contract completion date.
It is appropriate to accept the contract work at this time.
The Board authorized a total budget of $1,145,000 for this project. A detailed accounting of
project costs will be provided to the Board at the time of project close out.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for the construction of the Orinda/Moraga
Pumping Stations Improvements Project (DP 4667), and authorize the filing of the Notice of
Completion.
REWEWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON
INITIAT~IV.
JP
1302A-7/91
RSK
WEB
RAB
-r-----~-~.._~
Alamo
MORAGA
~ STATlOH
(i)
, . - Project Location(s) I
Centra' Contra Casta
Sanitary District ORINDA/MORAGA Pumping Stations
Improvements--Near Term
.. fT4IlCMCN'
1
. ...-.._-..~_._-_.._-----_.__..__._--_.._--_._--_.._--_.- ....---....-..-....------- ...... --....---......----..---
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1
OF 1
BOARD MEETING OF
December 3, 1992
NO.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR d.
SUBJECT
DATE
AUTHORIZE MEDICAL lEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT PAY FOR
DERHYl F. HOUCK, MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN III,
MECHANICAL, THROUGH MAY 17, 1993
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE lEAVE OF
ABSENCE
SUBMITTED BY
Charles W. Batts,
Plant Operations Department Manager
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Plant Operations/Maintenance
ISSUE: Board approval is required for an Employee Medical leave of Absence without pay for
longer than 30 days.
BACKGROUND: Derhyl F. Houck has been off work for medical reasons since November 9, 1992.
He has been on sick leave since that time and has now exhausted all of his available sick leave,
vacation, and earned overtime leave. His expected date to return to work is in approximately six
months.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize leave of Absence without pay for Derhyl F. Houck through May
17, 1993.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATI,NG DEPTJDIV.
JMtL
1302A-7/91 6'~ CWB
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1
OF 13
BOARD MEETING OF
. December 3, 1992
NO.
5. SOLID WASTE a.
SUBJECT
DATE
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF REFUSE COLLECTION
RATE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE
MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL
SERVICE, INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP
November 30, 1992
TYPE OF ACTION
RECEIVE REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE
ANALYSES
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer
Administrative/Finance & Accounting
ISSUE: Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. have submitted
applications for rate increases effective January 1, 1993. The rate applications and District
staff analyses will be reviewed at a Board workshop on December 3, 1992, and will be the
subject of public hearings on December 17, 1992.
BACKGROUND: Applications for rate increases effective January 1, 1993 have been submitted
by two of the three franchised refuse collectors: Valley Waste Management has submitted an
application for a 22.91 percent rate increase in its service area, excluding the City of Lafayette,
and a 45.05 percent rate increase in the City of Lafayette; and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service,
Inc. has requested a 29.33 percent rate increase. Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal did not
submit a rate application.
Both rate applications and the staff analyses have previously been distributed to the Board of
Directors. Copies of these documents have also been provided to the affected cities of Orinda
and Lafayette and towns of Danville and Moraga, with requests that City and Town Council
comments be provided for the Board's consideration at the December 17, 1992 public hearing.
The documentation for this rate-setting decision is being presented in the Position Paper and
staff analyses. The Position Paper contains an overview of the rate-setting procedure. The
staff analyses of the rate applications filed by the two refuse collectors are contained in two
separately-bound documents. The specific rate-setting decisions and staff recommendations
are contained in these separate documents.
RATE-SETTING PROCEDURE
The rate-setting procedure is based on the new method of calculating the increase in refuse
collection rates, which was approved during the 1 990-1 991 rate-setting process, and includes
the following components:
Profit Calculation
Because of the limitations inherent in the use of the Operating Ratio method of
determining allowable profit, a new method was implemented during the 1 990-1 991
RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON
INITIATI,NG DEPT./DIV. ~
~~7Pr_~~ :w
1302A-7/91
WNF PM
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF REFUSE COLLECTION
RATE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE
MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL
SERVICE, INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP
SUBJECT
PAGE
DATE
2
OF
13
November 30, 1992
rate-setting process. Under the new method, the refuse collector's profit before taxes,
and after subtracting the Capital Use Charge, for the last six years was analyzed. The
profit figures for the six years were adjusted by the Consumer Price Index to current
values, and a profit per customer per year was determined. An arithmetic mean of the
profit per customer for four years, after rejecting the high and low years, was used to
compute the allowable profit; the initial profit per customer so determined was $11.87.
The initial profit per customer is incremented by the Consumer Price Index for
succeeding rate-setting periods.
Modification Factors
The net profit per customer may be modified by the Board of Directors using two indices
which consider Quality of service and cost of service.
Caoital Use Charae
An amount was included in the collection rates for the use of capital. This amount was
calculated by multiplying an interest rate times the depreciated value of the refuse
collector's Net Tangible Fixed Assets (NTFA). The NTFA is computed on the basis of
the original acquisition cost to avoid write-ups in values resulting from changes in
franchise ownership being passed on to the rate-paying public. The average yield of
High Quality 10 Year Corporate Bonds was used as the interest rate.
Exoense Adjustments
Since expenses are passed-through directly under both the previous and the new rate-
setting methodology, staff has used long-standing Board guidance in determining certain
expenses which are appropriate for inclusion in the rate analysis. The Board will want
to consider certain claimed expense components of each rate application, which have
been identified in the staff analysis.
Revenue and Exoense Balancing Account
Given the uncertainties inherent in operating a business in as volatile a field as solid
waste, extreme precision in the franchisees' ability to operate exactly on budget cannot
be expected. In past years, budgetary surpluses have been retained by the franchisees.
The earlier rate-setting approach did not provide any incentive for cost cutting. It was
the position of the District that it was appropriate to permit the franchisees to keep the
results of cost efficiencies during any given rate year as a way of encouraging the
franchisee to be more efficient. Under the new approach, effective cost cutting will
1302B-7/91
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF REFUSE COLLECTION
RATE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE
MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL
SERVICE, INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP
SUBJECT
PAGE
DATE
3
OF
13
November 30, 1992
result in increased profits. Also,tight budgeting can be expected to result in occasional
revenue shortfall which should be passed along to the ratepayer as long as the costs
were legitimately incurred in the course of a well-managed business.
For these reasons, a Revenue and Expense Balancing Account was adopted during last
year's rate-setting process.
In the course of the current rate-setting procedure, the following common issues will be
considered:
Disoosal Exoense
The Acme Interim Transfer Station fee was decreased from $77.07 to $75.97 per ton
by the Board of Supervisors following a public hearing on November 24, 1992. The
effect of the transfer station fee decrease on the rate adjustment included in the staff
analysis for both refuse collectors is shown in Attachment I.
Closure and Post-Closure Cost Assessment
The County's closure and post-closure cost assessment program is described in the staff
analysis. No provision has been made for closure costs in either rate analysis, as the
County has apparently discontinued efforts to implement the program. Significant legal
expenses related to the Acme landfill closure lawsuit are included in the rate applications
which will require determination as to their allowability for rate-setting.
Revenue and Exoense Balancina Account
As described in the respective staff analyses, significant shortfalls in revenues in 1992
have produced large deficits in the balancing accounts for both refus'e collectors. The
application of the entire deficit to the 1993 revenue requirement will require major
increases in collection rates. Application of the balancing account deficit over two years
to the 1993 and 1994 revenue requirements is presented for Board consideration on
Attachment II.
The refuse collection rates produced using the $75.97 per ton transfer station fee are
shown on Attachment III, assuming application of the Revenue and Expense Balancing
Account fully in 1993, or equally to 1993 and 1994.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the staff analyses of the rate applications submitted by
Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. and provide staff
with comments and guidance regarding the common issues, and issues unique to the
two refuse collection firms, which are described in their respective staff analysis.
1302B-7/91
ADS/PosPap #2/StaffAna.PP2
"---_.._----------_..~-~-~-------~-,..~--,._._.._._-~--".---+-"'---_._-~-~---,-.__..-
VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT
Attachment I
Page 1 of 3
RATE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATION
Forecasted Calendar Year Ending December 31, 1993
SERVICE AREA, EXCLUDING CITY OF LAFAYETTE
(000 Omi tted)
S75.97/Ton Disposal Fee Sn.07/Ton Disposal Fee
------------------------- --------------------------
Included
Intercompany Charges Intercompany Charges
Excluded
------------------------- --------------------------
Exc l uded
Included
Allowable Expenses, Including Intercompany S
Charges
10,538
------------------------- --------------------------
10,538
Deduct: Intercompany Charges
Transfer Station Fee Decrease
from Sn.07 to S75.97/Ton
(43)
Capital Use Charge
347
------------------------- --------------------------
10,689
Total Allowable Expenses
10,842
Allowable Profit
475
------------------------- --------------------------
475
Revenue Requi red
11,317
Forecasted Revenue Without
Rate Increase
10,640
10,538
10,538
(196)
347
11,164
10,640
Revenue Increase Required
6n
------------------------- --------------------------
524
Percent Increase In Revenue Required
6.36%
Revenue and Expense Balancing Account:
1991 Actual
1992 Projected
(202)
868
( 196)
(43)
347
347
4.92%
(202)
868
666
------------------------- --------------------------
666
10,646
10,885
------------------------- --------------------------
Required Revenue Increase, Including
Balancing Account S
1,343
------------------------- --------------------------
------------------------- --------------------------
1,190
Percent Increase In Revenue Required,
Including Balancing Account
12.62%
------------------------- --------------------------
------------------------- --------------------------
11. 18%
V\olMRATE
475
475
11,121
11,360
10,640
10,640
481
720
4.52%
6.77%
(202)
868
(202)
868
666
666
1,147
1,386
10.78%
13.03%
VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT
Attachment I
Page 2 of 3
RATE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATION
Forecasted Calendar Year Ending DecentH!r 31, 1993
CITY OF LAFAYETTE
(000 Omitted)
$75.97/Ton Disposal Fee $77.07/Ton Disposal Fee
Intercompany Charges Intercompany Charges
Included
Exc l uded
Included
Excluded
Allowable Expenses, Including Intercompany
Charges
$
4,321
4,321
4,321
4,321
Deduct: Intercompany Charges
(78)
(78)
Transfer Station Fee Decrease
from $77.07 to $75.97/Ton
(20)
(20)
Capital Use Charge
52
52
52
52
Total Allowable Expenses
4,353
4,275
4,373
4,295
Allowable Profit
162
162
162
162
------------------------- --------------------------
Revenue Required
Forecasted Revenue Without
Rate Increase
4,515 4,437 4,535 4,457
3,612 3,612 3,612 3,612
------------------------- --------------------------
903 825 923 845
25.00% 22.84% 25.55% 23.39%
Revenue Increase Required
Percent Increase In Revenue Required
Revenue and Expense Balancing Account:
1991 Actual
1992 Projected
(71)
306
(71)
306
(71)
306
(71)
306
------------------------- --------------------------
235
235
235
235
------------------------- --------------------------
Required Revenue Increase, Including
Balancing Account $
1,138
1,060
1,158
1,080
------------------------- --------------------------
------------------------- --------------------------
Percent Increase In Revenue Required,
Including Balancing Account
31.51%
29.35%
32.06%
29.90%
------------------------- --------------------------
------------------------- --------------------------
VWMRATE
--~_.-----_r_---~---------'---.--.---,-,-."--."----"-.---"..~.-.-.~.--.".-
Attachment I
Page 3 of 3
ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
RATE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATION
Forecasted Calendar Year Ending December 31, 1993
(000 Omitted)
$75.97/Ton
Disposal
Fee
$77.07/Ton
Disposal
Fee
Allowable Expenses
$5,815
5,815
Deduct: Transfer Station Fee Decrease
From $77.07 to $75.97/Ton
(23)
Capital Use Charge
65
65
Total Allowable Expenses
5,857
5,880
Allowable Profit
210
210
Revenue Required
6,067
6,090
Forecasted Revenue without
Rate Increase
5,333
5,333
Revenue Increase Required
734
757
Percent Increase In Revenue Required
13.76%
14.19%
Revenue and Expense Balancing Account:
1991 Actual
1992 Projected
118
486
118
486
604
604
Required Revenue Increase, Including
Balancing Account
$1,338
1,361
-------------
-------------
------------
------------
Percent Increase In Revenue Required,
Including Balancing Account
25.09%
25.52%
-------------
-------------
------------
------------
OMRATEADJ
Attachment II
Page 1 of 2
VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT
EFFECT OF REVENUE AND EXPENSE BALANCING ACCOUNT ON
PERCENT INCREASE IN REVENUES REQUIRED
FORECASTED CALENDAR YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1 993
Service Area. Excluding the City of Lafayette:
Percent Increase in Revenues Required,
Before Application of Balancing Account
(A) 6.36%
Percent Increase in Revenues Required for:
Application of Balancing Account Fully in 1 993
(B) 6.26%
Application of Balancing Account Equally to 1993 and 1 994
(C) 3.13%
Total Percent Increase in Revenues Required:
Balancing Account Applied Fully in 1993
(A) + (B) 12.62%
Balancing Account Applied Equally
in 1993 and 1 994
(A) + (C) 9.49%
City of Lafayette:
Percent Increase in Revenues Required,
Before Application of Balancing Account
(A) 25.00%
Percent Increase in Revenues Required for:
Application of Balancing Account Fully in 1993
Application of Balancing Account Equally to 1993 and 1994
(B) 6.51%
(C) 3.26%
Total Percent Increase in Revenues Required:
Balancing Account Applied Fully in 1993
(A) + (B) 31.51 %
Balancing Account Applied Equally
in 1993 and 1994
(A) + (C) 28.26%
ADS! Pas Paper' 2!Staffana.1I
___._____._______________,.. ---------------------.-.-----.0--....---..------------____._.__.______
Attachment II
Page 2 of 2
ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
EFFECT OF REVENUE AND EXPENSE BALANCING ACCOUNT ON
PERCENT INCREASE IN REVENUES REQUIRED
FORECASTED CALENDAR YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1993
Percent Increase in Revenues Required,
Before Application of Balancing Account
Balancing Account Applied Equally
in 1993 and 1994
(A) 13.76%
(B) 11.33%
(C) 5.67%
(A) + (B) 25.09%
(A) + (C) 1 9.43 %
Percent Increase in Revenues Required for:
Application of Balancing Account Fully in 1993
Application of Balancing Account Equally to 1 993 and 1 994
Total Percent Increase in Revenues Required:
Balancing Account Applied Fully in 1993
ADS/PoIPaperl2/StaffAna.1I
---------------------------,-_.._-----------------------.------------------------------..----
Attachment I I I
Page 1 of 5
VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT
SERVICE AREA EXCLUDING CITY OF LAFAYETTE
SCHEDULE OF CuRRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES
BASED ON A DISPOSAL FEE OF $75.97 PER TON AND INCLUDING INTER-COMPANY CHARGES
Staff Computed Rates
Balancinv Account Appl ied
R~sted Full~1n ~allr in
Current ates 1 3 1 & 994
Rates (22.91") (12.62X) (9.49X)
---.....----- ----------- ----------- -----------
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE:
1 32-gal. can weekly * $ 16.45 20.20 19.10 18.55
1 64-gal. can weekly * 34.75 42.70 38.20 37.10
1 96-gal. can weekly * 53.05 65.20 57.30 55.65
2 64-gal. cans week y * 71.35 87.70 76.40 74.20
2 96-gal. cans weekly * 107.95 132.70 114.60 111.30
Each additional can--non-regular 5.20 6.40 5.85 5.70
(rr pick-up) 22.00 27.05 26.35 25.60
1 can weekly - S~ia service area*
2 cans week y - pecial service area* 40.25 49.45 45.45 44.15
3 cans weekly - Special service area* 58.55 71.95 64.55 62.70
4 cans weekly - Special service area* 76.85 94.45 83.65 81.25
1 45-gal. can weekly * 27.45 33.75 32.00 31.10
2 45-gal. cans week y * 54.90 67.50 60.65 58.90
1 supercart 53.05 65.20 57.30 55.65
1 supercart - Oanville 50.05 61.50 54.30 52.65
Townhouse (no garden trinmings): 15.00 18.45 17.00 16.50
1 32-gal. can weekly
1 64-gal. can weekly 33.30 40.95 36.10 35.05
1 96-gal. can weekly 51.60 63.40 55.20 53.60
1 32-gal. can weekly (non-automated) 16.85 20.70 23.90 23.05
2 32-gal. cans week y (non-automated) 35.15 43.20 43.00 41.60
3 32-gal. cans weekly (non-automated) 53.45 65.70 62.10 60.15
MULTI-APARTMENT SERVICE:
Each a~rtment weekly 18.65 22.90 21.00 20.40
Each additional can weekly 12.55 15.45 14.15 13.75
Each additional can - non regular 6.90 8.50 7.75 7.55
(per piCk-up)
COMMERCIAL SERVICE:
One can weekly 25.75 31.65 29.00 28.20
Each editiona can weekly 10.15 12.50 11.45 11.10
Each additional can -- 6.50 8.00 7.30 7.10
non-regular
One Cubic Yard:
One time per week 97.05 119.30 109.30 106.25
Two times per week 165.90 203.90 186.85 181.65
Three times per week 234.80 288.60 264.45 257.10
Four times per week 303.65 373.2D 341.95 332.45
Five times per week 370.75 455.70 417.55 405.95
Two Cubic Yards:
One time per week 165.90 203.90 186.85 181.65
Two times per week 303.65 373.20 341. 95 332.45
Three times per week 441.35 542.45 497.05 483.25
Four times per week 579.25 711.95 652.35 634.20
Five times per week 716.90 881.15 807.35 784.95
Three Cubic Yards:
One time per week 228.95 281.40 257.85 250.70
Two times per week 439.95 540.75 495.45 481.70
Three times per week 662.10 813.80 745.65 724.95
Four times per week 882.80 1,085.05 994.20 966.60
Five times per week 1,089.35 1,338.90 1,226.85 1,192.75
Four Cubic Yards:
One time per week 303.65 373.20 341.95 332.45
Two times per week 578.20 710.65 651.15 633.05
Three times per week 826.30 1,015.60 930.60 904.70
Four times per week 1,074.10 1,320.20 1,209.65 1,176.05
Five times per week 1,322.95 1,626.05 1,489.90 1,448.50
Six Cubic Yards:
One time per week 432.90 532. 10 487.55 474.00
Two times per week 865.90 1,064.30 975 . 20 948.05
Three times per week 1,269.55 1,560.40 1,429.75 1,390.05
Four times per week 1,687.90 2,074.60 1,900.90 1,848.10
Five times per week 2,106.25 2,588.80 2,372.05 2,306.15
COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE:
Per cubic yard 33.70 41.40 37.95 36.90
DROP BOX SERVICE:
Seven cubic yards
(dirt and rocks) 315.15 387.35 354.90 345.05
Fourteen cubic yards 220.45 270.95 248.25 241.35
Twenty cubic yards 315.15 387.35 354.90 345.05
Thirty cubic yards 472.75 581.05 532.40 517.60
Forty cubic yards 630.45 774.90 710.00 690.30
* Includes two 32-gallon cans of garden trinmings per week and three refuse cleanups per year.
Attachment III
Page 2 of 5
VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT
CITY OF LAFAYETTE
SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES
BASED ON A DISPOSAL FEE OF $75:97 PER TON AND INCLUDING INTER-COMPANY CHARGES
Staff Computed Rates
BalanciOi Account Applied
Requested Ful~ 1n ~all~ in
Current Rates 1 3 1 & 994
Rates (45.05") (31.51") (28.26">
.--------- ----------- ----------- -----------
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE:
1 32-gal. can weeklr · $ 18.30 26.55 24.00 23.40
2 32-gal. cans week y · 36.60 53.10 48.00 46.80
3 32-gal. cans weekly · 54.90 79.65 72.00 70.20
4 32-gal. cans weekly · 73.20 106.20 96.00 93.60
5 32-gal. cans weekly · 91. 50 132.70 120.00 117.00
6 32-gal. cans weekly · 109.80 159.25 144.00 140.40
7 32-gal. cans weekly · 128.10 185.80 168.00 163.80
8 32-gal. cans weekly · 146.40 212.35 192.00 187.20
Each additional can--non-regular 5.20 7.55 6.85 6.65
(rr pick-up)
1 can weeklr - S~ia service area. 22.00 31.90 29.85 29.10
2 cans week y - pecial service area* 40.25 58.40 53.85 52.50
3 cans weekly - Special service area. 58.55 84.95 n.85 75.90
4 cans weekly - Special service area. 76.85 111.45 101.85 99.30
1 45-gal. can weeklr · 27.45 39.80 36.00 35.10
2 45-gal. cans week y · 54.90 79.65 72.00 70.20
Townhouse (no garden trimmings):
1 32-gal. can weeklr 16.85 24.45 21.55 21.05
2 32-gal. cans week y 35.15 51.00 45.55 44.45
3 32-gal. cans weekly 53.45 n.55 69.55 67.85
MULTI-APARTMENT SERVICE:
Each a~rtment weekly 18.65 27.05 24.55 23.90
Each additional can weekly 12.55 18.20 16.50 16.10
Each additional can - non re~ular 6.90 10.00 9.05 8.85
(per pic -up)
COMMERCIAL SERVICE:
One can week l r 25.75 37.35 33.85 33.05
Each aditiona can weekly 10.15 14.70 13.35 13.00
Each additional can -- 6.50 9.45 8.55 8.35
non-regular
One Cubic Yard:
One time per week 97.05 140.75 127.65 124.50
Two times per week 165.90 240.65 218.20 212.80
Three times per week 234.80 340.60 308.80 301.15
Four times per week 303.65 440.45 399.35 389.45
Five times per week 370.75 537.75 487.55 475.50
Two Cubic Yards:
One time per week 165.90 240.65 218.20 212.80
Two times per week 303.65 440.45 399.35 389.45
Three times per week 441.35 640.20 580.40 566.10
Four times per week 579.25 840.20 761.75 742.95
Five times per week 716.90 1,039.85 942.80 919.50
Three Cubic Yards:
One time per week 228.95 332.10 301 .10 293.65
Two times per week 439.95 638.15 578.60 564.30
Three times per week 662.10 960.40 870.75 849.20
Four times per week 882.80 1,280.50 1,160.95 1,132.30
Five times per week 1,089.35 1,580.10 1,432.60 1,397.20
Four Cubic Yards:
One time per week 303.65 440.45 399.35 389.45
Two times per week 578.20 838.70 760.40 741.60
Three times per week 826.30 1,198.55 1,086.65 1,059.80
Four times per week 1,074.10 1,558.00 1,412.55 1,3n.65
Five times per week 1,322.95 1,918.95 1,739.80 1,696.80
Six Cubic Yards:
One time per week 432.90 627.90 569.30 555.25
Two times per week 865.90 1,256.00 1,138.75 1,110.60
Three times per week 1,269.55 1,841.50 1,669.60 1,628.30
Four times per week 1,687.90 2,448.30 2,219.75 2,164.90
Five times per week 2,106.25 3,055.10 2,769.95 2,701.50
COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE:
Per cubic yard 33.70 48.90 44.30 43.20
DROP BOX SERVICE:
Seven cubic yards
(dirt and rocks) 315.15 457.15 414.45 404.20
Fourteen cubic yards 220.45 319.75 289.90 282.75
Twenty cubic yards 315.15 457.15 414.45 404.20
Thirty cubic yards 472.75 685.70 621.70 606.35
Forty cubic yards 630.45 914.45 829.10 808.60
* Includes two 32-gallon cans of garden trimmings per week and three refuse cleanups per year.
---r------.-----..
Attachment III
PQ,ge 3 of 5
ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1
SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES
BASED ON A DISPOSAL FEE OF 575.97 PER TON
Staff Computed Rates
Balancing Account Appli
Requested Fully in Equally in
Current Rates 1993 1993 & 1994
Rates (29.33%> (25.09%> (19.43%>
------..--...-- ---..........--..... ------..--..... ......--------
ORINDA - FULL SERVICE
......-----....--....---........------------....
REGULAR SERVICE:*
1 can $ 21.75 28.13 27.15 25.90
2 cans 43.50 56.26 54.30 51.80
3 cans 65.25 84.39 81.45 77.70
4 cans 87.00 112.52 108.60 103.60
5 cans 108.75 140.65 135.75 129.50
6 cans 130.50 168.78 162.90 155.40
One can - Senior Citizen 18.75 25.13 24.15 22.90
Extra can on route 5.30 6.85 6.65 6.35
Special pick-up - 1 can 14.90 19.27 18.65 17.80
Special pick-up - each add'l can 5.30 6.85 6.65 6.35
MINIPACKER SERVICE:
1 can 28.25 36.53 38.10 36.35
2 cans 50.00 64.66 65.25 62.25
3 cans 71.75 92.79 92.40 88.15
4 cans 93.50 120.92 119.55 114.05
ODD SERVICE:
1-45 gal. can 32.65 42.23 40.70 38.85
1-45 gal. can and 1-32 gal. 54.40 70.35 67.90 64.75
1-45 gal. can and 2-32 gal. 76.15 98.48 95.05 90.65
4-45 gal. cans 130.50 168.78 162.90 155.40
COMMERCIAL SERVICE:
One can weekly 30.10 38.93 37.65 35.95
Each additional can weekly 12.60 16.30 15.75 15.05
MULTI-APARTMENT SERVICE:
Per unit per week 19.00 24.57 23.75 22.70
Each additional pick-up per week 3.05 3.94 3.80 3.65
COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE:
Per cubic yard 36.95 47.79 46.20 44.15
BIN SERVICE:
ONE YARD:
Once per week 111.05 143.62 138.90 132.65
Twi ce per week 194.50 251.55 243.30 232.30
Three times per week 277.20 358.50 346.75 331.05
Four times per week 359.95 465.52 450.25 429.90
Five times per week 443.40 573.45 554.65 529.55
T~ YARD:
Once per week 194.50 251.55 243.30 232.30
Twice per week 359.95 465.52 450.25 429.90
Three times per week 526.20 680.53 658.20 628.45
Four times per week 692.20 895 . 22 865.85 826.70
Five times per week 858.75 1,110.62 1,074.20 1,025.60
THREE YARD:***
Once per week 263.90 341.30 330.10 315.20
Twice per week 527.80 682.60 660.25 630.35
Three times per week 791. 65 1,023.84 990.25 945.45
Four times per week 1,055.55 1,365.14 1,320.40 1,260.65
Five times per week 1,319.45 1,706.44 1,650.50 1,575.80
Attachment II I
Page 4 of 5
ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1
SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES
BASED ON A DISPOSAL FEE OF $75.97 PER TON
Staff Computed Rates
Balancing Account Appli
Requested Fully in Equally in
Current Rates 1993 1993 & 1994
Rates (29.33%) (25.09%) (19.43%)
------------ -........------ --.........------ ....-.......-----
FOUR YARD:
Once per week $ 333.35 431.12 417.00 398.10
Twice per week 666.65 862.18 833.90 796.20
Three times per week 1,000.00 1,293.30 1,250.90 1,194.30
Four times per week 1,333.35 1,724.42 1,667.90 1,592.40
Five times per week 1,666.65 2,155.48 2,084.80 1,990.50
SIX YARD:
Once per week 475.70 615.22 595.05 568.15
Twice per week 951.40 1,230.45 1,190.10 1,136.25
Three times per week 1,427.10 1,845.67 1,785.15 1,704.40
Four times per week 1,902.80 2,460.89 2,380.20 2,272.50
Five times per week 2,378.50 3,076.11 2,975.25 2,840.65
EIGHT YARD:
Once per week 634.25 820.28 793.40 757.50
Twice per week 1,268.50 1,640.55 1,586.75 1,514.95
Three times per week 1,902.80 2,460.89 2,380.20 2,272.50
Four times per week 2,537.05 3,281.17 3,173.60 3,030.00
Five times per week 3,203.40 4,142.96 4,007.15 3,825.80
SPECIAL:
One ya rd 22.15 28.65 27.70 26.45
Two yards 44.45 57.49 55.60 53.10
DROP BOX SERVICE:
Twenty cubic yards 366.20 473.61 458.10 437.35
Thirty cubic yards 549.15 710.22 686.95 655.85
Forty cubic yards 732.20 946.95 915.90 874.45
Five yards - dirt and concrete 366.20 473.61 458.10 437.35
Sixteen yard school box ** 292.90 378.81 366.40 349.80
ORINDA - NO BRUSH SERVICE
-----------------------------------
REGULAR SERVICE:
1 can 19.05 24.64 22.30 21.25
2 cans 40.80 52.77 49.45 47.15
3 cans 62.55 80.90 76.60 73.05
1 can-Senior Citizen 17.55 23.14 20.80 19.75
MINIPACKER SERVICE:
1 can 25.55 33.04 33.25 31. 75
2 cans 47.30 61.17 60.40 57.65
3 cans 69.05 89.30 87.55 83.55
4 cans 90.80 117.43 114.70 109.45
1-45 gal. can 38.35 49.51 49.90 47.60
1-45 and 1-32 gal. can 63.95 82.71 83.15 79.30
* Includes one 32-gallon can of garden trimmings per week and
three refuse cleanups per year
** A charge of $29.95 per week applies for each week not serviced
*** RENT-A-BIN service available on the following terms:
three cubic yard container, delivery and pickup, one dump, and
three-day rent, for $90.
Attachment III
Page 5 of 5
ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1A
SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES
BASED ON A DISPOSAL FEE OF $75.97 PER TON
Staff Computed Rates
Balancing Account Appli
Requested Fully in Equally in
Current Rates 1993 1993 & 1994
Rates (29.33%) (25.09%) (19.43%)
------------ ....------....... -----..-..--- -----..-----
MORAGA - FULL SERVICE
-----------------------------------
REGULAR SERVICE:.
1 can $ 19.45 25.15 24.55 23.45
2 cans 38.90 50.30 49.10 46.90
3 cans 58.35 75.45 73.65 70.35
4 cans 77.80 100.60 98.20 93.80
5 cans 97.25 125.75 122.75 117.25
6 cans 116.70 150.90 147.30 140.70
Extra can on route 5.30 6.85 6.65 6.35
Special piCk-up - 1 can 14.90 19.27 18.65 17.80
Special pick-up - each add'l can 5.30 6.85 6.65 6.35
MINIPACKER SERVICE:
1 can 27.45 35.50 38.10 39.70
2 cans 46.90 60.65 62.65 63.15
3 cans 66.35 85.80 87.20 86.60
4 cans 85.80 110.95 111.75 110.05
5 cans 105.25 136.10 136.30 133.50
000 SERVICE:
One can - 45 gal. 29.20 37.76 36.85 35.20
one can - 1-45 and 1-32 gal. cans 48.65 62.92 61.40 58.65
One can - 1-45 and 2-32 gal. cans 68.05 88.01 85.95 82.05
COMMERCIAL SERVICE:
One can weekl y 30.10 38.93 37.65 35.95
Each additional can weekly 12.60 16.30 15.75 15.05
MULTI-APARTMENT SERVICE:
Per unit per week 19.00 24.57 23.75 22.70
Each additional pick-up per week 3.05 3.94 3.80 3.65
COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE:
Per cubic yard 36.95 47.79 46.20 44.15
BIN AND DROP BOX SERVICES: (Same as Orinda above)
MORAGA - NO BRUSH SERVICE
-----------------------------------
REGULAR SERVICE:
1 can 17.10 22.11 20.35 19.45
2 cans 36.55 47.26 44.90 42.90
3 cans 56.00 72.41 69.45 66.35
Extra can on route 5.30 6.85 6.65 6.35
Special pick-up - 1 can 14.90 19.27 18.65 17.80
Special pick-up - each add'l can 5.30 6.85 6.65 6.35
000 SERVICE:
One can - 45 gal 23.20 30.00 30.50 29.20
one can - 1-45 and 1-32 gal. cans 40.30 52.12 50.85 48.65
2-45 gal. can-small truck 46.40 60.01 61.00 58.40
.
Includes one 32-gallon can of garden trimmings per week and
three refuse cleanups per year
--.---.-----------,.--..----.
~ Centra. ~g~~~ g~~~R~~~~aR~ Jistrict
PAGE 1 OF
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
December 3, 1992
NO.
6. ENGINEERING a.
D~bvember23, 1992
SUB:AtJTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH
JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR
DESIGN OF THE WOODLAND WAY SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROJECT, DP 4785
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT
INITIA TING DEPT.lDIV.
Engineering Department/
ISSUE: Authorization by the Board of Directors is required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer
to execute a consulting engineering agreement in an amount greater than $50,000.
BACKGROUND: The sewers in the Woodland Way area of Lafayette (see attached map) are old
and in poor condition. A significant number of reaches of these sewers are located in backyard
easements and require a high level of maintenance due to soil movement and root intrusion. Both
dry weather and wet weather sewer overflows have occurred in the Woodland Way area. The
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan identifies these sewers as deficient under existing flow
conditions and a 5-year storm event. This project has been given a high priority designation for
sewer repair and/or replacement.
Facilities planning for the Woodland Way project area has been completed. The recommended
alternative is to construct approximately 900 feet of new sewer to divert flow from the Woodland
Way area and to replace or rehabilitate approximately 3,200 feet of existing sewers along or near
Woodland Way, Carol Lane, and Victoria Avenue. Approximately 50% of the flow in the
Woodland Way area will be diverted into a new sewer to be constructed across Las Trampas
Creek and down Fourth Street in Lafayette. Diversion of this flow will solve the capacity problem
in the Woodland Way sewer and allow internal rehabilitation of the existing deteriorated sewers.
The estimated construction cost for the Woodland Way sewer replacement is $1.2 million.
District staff has negotiated a cost reimbursement agreement for design services for the project
with James M. Montgomery (JMM) Engineers with a cost ceiling of $97,000. The scope of the
agreement provides for preliminary and final design of the new Fourth Street sewer including a
pipe bridge across Las Trampas Creek and replacement or rehabilitation of existing sewers in the
Woodland Way area, construction cost estimating, traffic control planning, and assistance in
obtaining necessary permits for the project. JMM was selected to perform the design because
of their satisfactory performance on preparation of the Los Arabis/Woodland Way Facilities Plan
and because of satisfactory performance in designing the Los Arabis Drive Sewer Replacement
Project as well as other recent small and large diameter sewer projects throughout the District.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A-9/85
w
fW
CWS
JSM
RAB
~~NG.
ROGER J. DOLAN
. .-...--.-----.....,....--..-..--.-.-..-
SUBJECT
POSITION PAPER
AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH
JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR
DESIGN OF THE WOODLAND WAY SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROJECT, DP 4785
PAGE
DATE
2 OF 3
November 23 1 ~~?
Staff has determined that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under CEQA Statute Section 21080.21 because it involves replacement or construction
of pipelines less than a mile in length in the public right of way. The Board of Director's
approval of this project will constitute a finding of agreement with this determination unless
otherwise indicated. A Notice of Exemption will be filed with the county clerk.
More information regarding the Woodland Way Sewer Project can be found in the 1992-93
Capital Improvement Budget (pages CS-25 through CS-26).
RECOMMENDA TION:
Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a cost reimbursement agreement,
with a cost ceiling of $97,000, with James M. Montgomery Engineer for design of the
Woodland Way Sewer Replacement Project, DP 4785.
13078 q., 8~)
~
N
~
Ml
o
0:::
Schoo
-0
a:::
o
1000
FEET
2000
C
0>
'0
+-
+-
o
'"
<Xl
l"-
V
......
'"
<Xl
l"-
V
......
lI)
:>..
lI)
o
u
......
N
l-
ll)
:J
......
- PROJECT AREA
Centrol Contro Costo
Sonrtory Orstrrct
ATTACHMENT
WOODLAND WAY SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROJECT, DP 4785
1
- ^.-'-'-"--~-'---r---'---~"----r'-"---------------'--------.------~------..".-"-..--.....-
PAGE 1 OF 3
December 3, 1992
NO.
6. ENGINEERING b.
SUBJECT
DATE
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROCEED WITH PHASE I OF
THE TREATMENT PLANT ELECTRICAL AS-BUlL TS PROJECT,
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 20139
November 25, 1992
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE PROJECT
SUBMITTED BY
William V. Clement
Engineering Support Supervisor
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering Departmentl
Plant En ineering Division
ISSUE: The 1992-93 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) was approved; however, the Treatment
Plant Electrical As-Builts Project, District Project No. 20139, was one of several that was
selected to require an additional Board of Directors' authorization before proceeding.
BACKGROUND: As part of another capital project, the District has purchased a computer-aided
drafting (CAD) system. The successful implementation of this system provides the District with
the opportunity to use the system for additional applications.
A set of 1 ,400 drawings document the current status and layout of the electrical and
instrumentation systems in the treatment plant. These are known as the" As-Is" drawings and
at the present time are updated manually. The purpose of this project is to convert the As-Is
drawings from a manually updated set to a standardized, error-checked, computerized set that
can be updated more easily and quickly and can be used more efficiently for design work on the
CAD system. Most of the existing drawings are on originals or paper copies that are in many
cases barely legible and do not use current industry standard layout and symbols for record
drawings. The drawings, after they are computerized, can be plotted any size, and drawings of
details, parts, or systems could be extracted to incorporate into design work.
The benefits of this project derive from the ability to do design work with existing computerized
data and the ability to work with clean, standardized data, as well as a labor savings resulting
from faster update drafting.
Phase I of the project includes funds for an electrical/instrumentation design specialist to
recommend standard electrical and instrumentation symbols, which conform to current industrial
standards. These symbols will be incorporated into a computerized library, which will be given
to all of the District's design professionals for future work.
The larger portion of the initial phase of this project is for the consultant to perform a pilot
conversion of 60 electrical drawings utilizing different techniques. Three approaches will be
tested, ranging from an inexpensive technique resulting in a lower quality product to a more
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
WVC
WEB
RAB
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
UG-
w e:,
f/M?
1302A-7/91
...-----~---_._-,.__._--_.--..---..----'-.-..-.--__r_--.--
SUBJECT
11111111"11111_1111111111
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROCEED WITH PHASE I OF
THE TREATMENT PLANT ELECTRICAL AS-BUlL TS PROJECT,
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 20139
PAGE
DATE
2
OF
3
November 25, 1992
expensive technique resulting in a higher quality product. The pilot study approach will allow
the District to evaluate the three forms of converted drawings and then determine the most
efficient and cost-effective conversion procedure that will provide a useful and serviceable
product.
Phase II of the project will consist of the actual conversion of the remaining electrical and
instrumentation drawings to a computerized format.
The establishment of the symbol libraries and the initial pilot conversion of the sample drawings
will begin in December 1992 and is expected to be completed by April 1993. This pilot
conversion will determine the methods to be used for the balance of the conversion, the
appropriate schedule, and the Phase II funding requirements.
The estimated cost for Phase I of this project is $60,000, which includes approximately $6,000
for a specialized CAD software package to view and modify the sample drawings. The current
balance of the Sewer Construction Fund, minus unspent prior allocations, plus projected
dependable revenue will be adequate to fund this project. A funding summary is presented in
Attachment 1.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to proceed with Phase I of the Treatment Plant Electrical
As-Builts Project, District Project No. 20139.
13028-7/91
-- ---""""-"---------"- ,-----------------"----r-----------------"--"------ ---------"---
Page 3 of 3
A IT ACHMENT 1
PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY
FOR THE PERIOD
NOVEMBER 7. 1992 - DECEMBER 9. 1992
Sewer Construction Fund Balance $ 64,007,204
(As of October 31, 1 992)
Minus Unspent Prior Allocations (40,387,490)
Plus Dependable Revenue 19,178,600
TOTAL 42,798,314
ALLOCATION REQUIRED $ 60,000
PED\C:\WP51\PP\ElECINST.WVC
WVC:pk 11/17/92
-----------.-,-.".-.-..". ._-_.._---,.,----------,---------.,--------------,._---- ---------,._-
PAGE 1 OF 2
NO.
6. ENGINEERING c.
DATE
November 30 1 992
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE AGREEMENTS
SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT.!DIV.
David R. Williams, Planning Division Manager Engineering Department/Planning Division
ISSUE: Board of Director's authorization is required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer to
execute 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 , 982 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 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 MIS needs of the District. Phase I
included the implementation of a new FMIS with interfaces to existing, as well as new, PC
networks. The main component of Phase I was the replacement of the ADDS Mentor mini-
computer and its associated terminals, new FMIS software, plus .the installation of a data
communication network. Other components of Phase I included a plant equipment maintenance
system and software packages for safety management, records management, training and
licensing, and links to major existing databases. Phase II included a Laboratory Information
Management System and a high-speed link to the Collection System Operations Department for
on-line mapping activities.
In August '991, the Board authorized an agreement with The Warner Group for the design of
Phase I of the Plan which included preparation of the specifications and solicitation of proposals
from suppliers. That work was completed in April 1992 and resulted in eight proposals being
received. Those eight proposals were then evaluated in order to select the supplier that
represented the best value for the District. The evaluations included checks on references and
completeness of proposals, reviewing the financial stability of the suppliers plus site visits and
demonstrations of the proposed hardware and software.
INITIATING DEPTJDIV.
()~
V1B
V~
~
1302A-7/91
DRW
RAB
JAL
CWB
PM
. ......-. "'-""--'-"'''' .., .. ---....------r
SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR $505,000 WITH
HARWARD TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES AND FOR $190,000
WITH IBM FOR EQUIPMENT, SOFTWARE AND SERVICES RELATE~AGE
TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DISTRICT'S COMPUTER SYSTEM~ DATE
UPGRADE PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT 20082 November 30, 1992
....111 11'11111....111 m.1 1111..
?
OF
..,
The evaluation resulted in Harward Technical Enterprises, Inc. (HTE) and IBM being selected as
the best software and hardware suppliers respectively for the District. A contract was negotiated
with HTE for $505,000 which includes all the software applications required under Phase I except
plant equipment maintenance, safety, and records management which will be provided by other
software suppliers. HTE will also be responsible for seeing that the network, which allows PCs
to communicate with the mini-computer, functions properly. A contract has been negotiated with
IBM for $190,000 which includes furnishing the mini-computer, operating software, and installing
the cabling network plus a five-year maintenance agreement.
With the completion of the HTE and IBM work, the first phase of the MIS project will be
implemented. Phase II, which is currently being designed, will be implemented over the coming
year. Phase III, which provides for enhancements and future expansion of the network, was
added to the project subsequent to the completion of the Master Plan and will be completed in
1993-94. The project is described in the 1992-93 Capital Improvement Budget under the heading
Management Information System Upgrade (pages GI-28 through GI-30).
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute agreements with
Harward Technical Enterprises and IBM in the amount of $505,000 and $190,000 respectively
for computer equipment, software, and services in connection with the District Management
Information System Upgrade Project, DP 20082.
13028-7/91
------------.-'--.....-~--"_._~--.~---.T-'..'-'-'--
-----r-..----."---.--.-----.----
PAGE 1 OF 2
NO.
7. COLLECTION SYSTEM a.
SUBJECT
DATE
November 30, 1992
AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER/CHIEF ENGINEER TO
EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
GEZ ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS FOR $151,000 FOR THE
DESIGN OF THE CSO FACILITY RELOCATION PROJECT
DP 30023
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE
AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT.IDIV.
Tom Godsey
Assistant En ineer Collection S stem 0 erations
ISSUE: Board of Directors authorization is required for the General Manager - Chief Engineer to
execute professional services agreements for more than $50,000.
BACKGROUND: The District has been planning for the future of the CSOD corporation yard
realizing that California Department of Transportation (CaITrans) will acquire a portion of the yard
for the SR24/1680 interchange. The work performed to date includes analyzing the remaining
space available, purchasing property to partially offset the lost portion, and identifying which
facilities need to be relocated. The District has submitted preliminary plans to the City of Walnut
Creek's Design Review Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council for their approval.
Additionally the District has prepared a Negative Declaration and it has adopted the findings of
the declaration. The City of Walnut Creek approved a General Plan Amendment, a Conditional Use
Permit, and preliminary design in May, 1992. Approval of the final plans is anticipated in March
1993.
Proposals were solicited from two engineering and architectural consultants for the detailed design
work. Staff performed a review of each of the proposed desjgn teams, their experience, sample
work products, and project schedules. Staff also interviewed each firm's proposed personnel
regarding the proposals and other key issues. Staff selected GEZ Architects-Engineers based on
their technical proficiency and experience.
The project work will include design and construction of retaining walls, vehicle maintenance
shop, asphalt paving, concrete bunkers, small training facilities, and gravel hoppers. The project
also includes the renovation of the shower and locker areas, administrative building, and office
building at 1266 Springbrook Road, and other small appurtenant work. This project is included
in the 1992-93 Capital Improvement Budget under the heading Collection System Operations
(CSO) Facility Relocation (pages GI-13 through GI-14). The estimated construction cost for this
project is $1,480,000. GEZ will be paid on a cost reimbursement basis with a not to exceed cost
of $151,000. A brief presentation showing the proposed layout of the yard will be given at the
Board Meeting.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
011
tJ~
1302A-7/91
TG
BTT
JAL
---....-------..--.-~-.-..----.-.-.---...-." ---- . ..-..-....----------r---'-,..------~.-'- -..--.-.----,..-..-------.------.---....-,.--.-~----,.'"..---.--..,-----,---.-..---~-..~-.
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER/CHIEF ENGINEER TO POSITION PAPER
EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
GEZ ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS FOR $151,000 FOR THE PAGE 2 OF 2
DESIGN OF THE CSO FACILITY RELOCATION PROJECT, DP 30023 DATE November 30, 1992
In the spring of this year staff performed an Initial Study and concluded that a Negative
Declaration would be the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act document for this
project. Staff prepared a Negative Declaration, submitted it for public review, and received Board
approval on May 21, 1992 for the original plan. Revisions to the project resulting from changes
during the preliminary design process will necessitate a new Negative Declaration. A proposed
Negative Declaration is being prepared and, after public review I will be presented to the Board for
its approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager/Chief Engineer to execute a professional
service agreement with GEZ Architects-Engineers for $151,000 for the design of the CSO Facility
Relocation Project, DP 30023.
13028-9/85
-- --- --u----,----.-....------t-----_____
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE
OF
1
BOARD MEETING OF
December 3, 1992
NO.
8. LEGAL/LITIGATION a.
DATE
SUBJECT
DENY CLAIM FOR INDEMNITY FROM
SOUTHERN PACIFIC
TYPE OF ACTION
DENY CLAIM
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Bonnie Allen, Risk Manager
Administrative/Risk Management
ISSUE: Southern Pacific has filed a claim alleging that in the event Southern Pacific is found to
be responsible for contamination of property which it transferred to Daniel C. and Mary Lou Helix
and certain other parties, the District must indemnify Southern Pacific for such damages. Claim
denials require action by the Board of Directors.
BACKGROUND: Daniel C. Helix, Mary Lou Helix, and other plaintiffs recently filed an action in
Federal Court, alleging that structures, soil, subsoil, surface water, and groundwater at their
"Hookston Station" property were contaminated by Southern Pacific and other prior owners and
possessors of the property. The property is generally located in the redevelopment area near the
Pleasant Hill Bart Station. The District holds property rights for sewer purposes on the property.
Those rights were granted to the District initially by Southern Pacific. The Redevelopment
Agency of the County purchased the property from the Helixes and therefore the Agency is a
co-plaintiff in the underlying Federal Court action.
Southern Pacific has filed a claim against the District, alleging that if the plaintiffs in the Federal
Court action prevail against it, the District must reimburse Southern Pacific because of principles
of equitable and implied indemnity. There has been no evidence presented that the District's
sewers in any manner caused the contamination alleged in the Federal Court action.
The staff recommends that the claim be denied.
RECOMMENDATION: Deny Southern Pacific's claim for indemnity, and refer it to staff for
further action as necessary.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
BA
PM
KLA
1302A-7/91
.------......------.--..-,-....-----.---..-...,.---------------.....--.-.------- ----------