The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 02-02-89 . Centro... Contra Costa Sanltal) .llstrlct BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF February 2, 1989 NO. III. BIDS AND AWARDS 1 SUBJECT DATE. January 27, 1989 AUTHORIZE AWARD OF PURCHAsE TO PORTEC TO FURNISH ONE VOlUMETRIC LIME FEEDER AND SLAKER TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AW ARD INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Plant Operations Department ISSUE: The District has advertised and received bids (Bid Request No. T0579P) for one volumetric lime feeder and slaker to be installed in the Chemical Feed Building. The Board of Directors must authorize award of purchase order or reject all bids within 45 days. BACKGROUND: Three 8,000 pound per hour lime slakers were originally installed in the Chemical Feed Building as part of the Stage SA treatment plant expansion. Lime is presently being added to the primary influent and may be required in the future to aid in possible phosphorous removal, nitrification, pH adjustment, toxicity removal, or to aid in the dewatering and sludge stabilization process. Lime slakers require high maintenance due to corrosion inherent in the slaking process and, consequently, have a short life span. Currently, the treatment pl ant has only one operating sl aker, which requires regular maintenance. The Plant Operations Department Maintenance Engineering staff has completed the design work of sizing and specifying an additional lime slaker and has determined that a 5,500 pound per hour lime slaker is required to maintain the existing lime sl aking capacity and maintain reliabl e low 1 ime treatment through the year 2000. The Purchasing Section mailed two bid requests to the only known equipment vendors and publicly advertised the bid request on January 9 and 14, 1989. Two bids were received and opened on January 20, 1989. A commerci al eval uation and a 1 isting of bids received are provided on Attachment I. The technical evaluation concluded that the bids of both suppliers are responsive. This project is included in the 1988 - 1989 Capital Improvement Budget, page TP-53 and has been evaluated by staff and determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Qual ity Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines, Section 18.3, since it involves the replacement of an existing sewer facility with negligible or no expansion of service. A Notice of Exemption has been filed with the County Clerk. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award to Portee, the lowest responsible bidder, to furnish one 5,500 pound per hour repl acement vol umetric lime feeder and sl aker at a cost of $35,220. 130:!,6 .9/85 BTT REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION ...... . ...... z: \..L.I ::: ....... U e:( ..... ..... e:( T~ ~1I ~' .... ~~ 011: .... .... -y ~f .... j!Y ...... ~f a.. en ..... ! . U") 0 .... ..... z~ ;:).. fi ...... III :E .... i E j! Ii! i ~f 1:" z~ ;:).. 'Q .~ ~ ~ .... 0 ~ \..L.I \..L.I ~ fii en 0 ~ ;;::: z: ~ ~ 0 0 U") . 2 v.1~ ~ co z z: U") o::t" N (\. . en 1 ~I ...... od f-I ~ ~ ~I ~ .... 1 -y U") ZII: a:: . C: :-. ;:).. M \..L.I > -tA- C \..L.I ~ ~ :2 0 ~ .... en en \..L.I \..L.I \..L.I a:: I~<J: cu en U") z: z: ...:: 01. ~i M . !:t N 0 0 en ::E\..L.I ....J .... .. ..... z: Z N ...... ::..:: ~ 7 n ~ ~I ..... N M N . -I e:( M -I ..; ~ .\0 uv) b ~ :-J N ...... 1 . 1 ~ .... .. a:: \..L.I .J~ ~ z!:! 1 1 ..... ""'::E . ;:)11: M If .~u .. \..L.I...... oJ 4A- ~ ::E -I =:) . -IJ..L.I i!OZ: H:::-o ~ ~ ~i a\..L.IC i ~ we: ~zz: o- K ! : i 0;:) ..- !Oe:( ~ ~ .; ! ~ uS ~ ~ i .. ~ .. ~ ~ d c II: ~ 0 i .~ !il 0 $ = ..... .. I .. .LJ . X C . . 0 ~ =' ~ V) V) ..... z: V) . 0 z: .. ~ ...... 0 I- ...... .. ~ a.. l- e \..L.I a.. .. Iii LL t ~ " . U \..L.I \..L.I ~ X U =:) .. ) ...... \..L.I X -I 0 i -' I..LI e:( r :'. - I a:: -II :::- .z ~ P;:: ~ \..L.I e:( I -I hC ::..:: ...... . e:( .-1 0 ~ 0 i e:( u u e:( - ... -I a:: ...... I- "4 ~ :$ V) \..L.I Z 0 ... ~ ::E :I: I- :J ~o: :) - \..L.I ::E u CD ~ ~ ::E: 0 \..L.I ~ ~ ...... U I- -I ~ :1..i ~:O c h: I i l f i ~F ...... ...... .. t " :I :I c Z C w_ 0 i t . . . II "' " ~i .-4 N M c . t . Centre.. Contra Costa Sanitar) Jistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 3 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF 2 1989 NO. III. BIDS AND AWARDS 2 SUBJECT DATE AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO P()lER MACHINE TO FURNISH lWO VERTICAL CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS FOR THE LARWIN PUMPING STATION January 27, 1989 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AWARD SUBMITTED BY David J. Reindl INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Plant Operations Department ISSUE: The District has advertised and received bids (Bid Request No. T0499P) for two vertical centrifugal pumps for the Larwin (San Ramon) Pumping Station. The Board of Di rectors must authorize award of purchase order or rej ect all bi ds wii:hi n 45 days. BACKGROUND: An early finding o~ the Pumping Stations Master Plan, being prepared by Dodson and Young, has identified deficiencies at the Larwin Pumping Station in both the near and long-term pumping capacities. The original installation incorporated two 18-horsepower and two 88-horsepower Flygt, dry pit pumping units. The rapid growth in the San Ramon watershed and high maintenance on these units has accel erated the need for repl aci ng the two 18 horsepower pumps. The Pl ant Operations Department Maintenance Engineering staff has completed the design work of sizing and specifying the replacement pumping units. The selection and sizing are consistent with the Master Plan requirements and have been coordinated with the Planning Division of the Engineering Department. The Purchasing Section publicly advertised the bid request on November 26 and 30, 1988. Four bids were received and publicly opened on December 28,1988, including one unknown bi d package. At the public bi d openi ng, one seal ed bi d envelope was received and opened that contained an incomplete proposal. No company name could be found anywhere on the bi d documents. Al so, no req ui red si gnatures were included, and no technical information was attached. Therefore, this response was consi dered a "no bi d, II and no further action need be taken. A commerc1 al evaluation and a listing of bids received is provided on Attachment 1. The commercial eval uation found ITT/AC Pumps to be non-responsive due to major material variances caused by ~e attachment of ITT's own terms and conditions. A technical evaluation of the JMr proposal found that the proposed pumping equipment will not meet the bid specifications in both discharge nozzle size and motor sizing and was, therefore, non-responsive. Power Machine was the lowest responsible bidder that met both the commercial and technical requirements with a bid of $27,876.38. The Purchasing Section sent letters dated 2ecember 29, 1988, and January 10, 1989, respectively, to ITT/AC Pumps and to JM notifying them that their bids were considered non-responsive by District staff because of major material variances between these bids and the bid request. They were informed of their right for a REVIEWED AND COMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION ~ \ SUBJECT POSITION PAPER AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO P~ER MACHINE TO FURNISH TWO VERTICAL CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS FOR THE LARWIN PUMPING STATION PAGE DATE January 27, 1989 2 OF 3 variance hearing in which they could show cause as to why the Board of Directors shoul d not decl are thei r bi ds non-responsive. Neither bi dder has req uested the variance hearing. This project is incl uded in the 1988 - 1989 Capital Improvement Budget, Page CS-92. The Cal iforni a Env i ronmental Qual ity Act (CEQA) requi rements for this project have been met since the project was addressed in the San Ramon Valley Trunk Sewer Improvement Project environmental impact report (EIR). The EIR was certified by the Board of Di rectors in 1986, and a Notice of Determination has been filed. RECOMMENDATION: Declare the bids from !TTIAC Pump and J~ non-responsive, and authorize award of purchase order to Power Machine, the lowest responsible bidder at a cost of $27,876.38, to furnish two vertical centrifugal pumps for the Larwin Pumping Station. --------- 13028-9/85 .-I r- z w :a: U c:( r- r- c:( ,.-, ~11 - ~~ ~' ':t.. ..V 0& .... .... 2V :Jf ~ 8 0 co co I~ :2 ~fi ':t.. 0 O'.l 0'\ . ..v N .-I M ~ ~n I- 0& ~ 0 ~ .-I ~ oo:T 0 ~ f-:: .... LO ~ ,~ ...... 0... ~ Ltf ...... . 0'\ ~~ .-I ~ ~ N 0'\ 0'\ i I V v Li: c g 0 ~N ti: i:i I..... .~ ~ \0 l- . I::: ~ ~v .... . ~ .. 1<l-5 iV .-I ...... I ...... 1<'- ;)11: CQ. N '''' c::l .. -tA- 15 ~ D - 8 0 co co 2: 1'- ~ <"l M ;) oJ.. N '-CS z t ~F I~ ~~ M .-I ILL ~ 0 15 ~ co ~ .. ;::g 0& LO I';. M x I~ .... Ltf LO W '" .-I ...... . 1-1- N N c:: Z \0 ::( I~ ...... :;:. I 21:i: 0 ~ 0 co .... 0 z .. ~ /lCl: -u ~ ...... ;=il lI- z- l- .. ~~ I~ :J& EO N .. ,^" ~ -tA- C5 0 M M ~ Cl 0 I I ~ q 0'\ 0'\ oJ" 8 r....: ~ ...... z :c ~~ LO N e co w U 0& I.Q. V ~ I~ ~ .:a: w ...... t- .. .. v V) Clc:( r- '21~~ II v 9 c v ~ N IN :c c:( wz . ~ c.!J >- LLl .....0 0'\ ~ 8 ~ ...... .. I- M r:: I~ .....J 0::: ......Z 0::: Z I- .-I V) ..w d CO w V)c:( . ...... ~ i .. c... I~~_I iV ~ c:( Cl c... Cl ~ z :::::: ~ ;)& ~ r- g Cl r-:a: w c::r ~ 0 \0 .. N ~ N ~ I~ ...... ~~ ~ ~. ~ c... -- ,..,., .,.,. u: -tA- W ~ 8 0 co co V) ~~ c.!J != V) ':t" '-CS ~ ::2 ~ ~ z ~ ~ c::( ..v ~ \0 0'\ N 0 Cl > ~ lL. ~ ~ 0& 'd;. C'J. 0::: ...... W ...... i:l... '- .... 05 ~~ w ~ r- r- 0::: I~ I- '-' .-I .-I .-I N:=: z ...... w co I- u ~ = Z I I ~ g C5 f::l: 0 z c... ~ w t::: g M . Z 0 :a: u ~I~ .... ~ ~~ 0::: U 0 -u M N f- ~i~ f- z- ~ U ;)& M .....r .....J ~ .. "i ~ Cl c:( "- ,:;; ~ ..... N I u 0'\ -tA- ...... I- 0::: W ai >- Q i ~ ~ z ...: ~ 0 e Q- :3: & B .. i 8a ~ 8 .. ~ ~ I- & 0 .. . .. z o ;) g :; d << = ~ .. ~ 0 o ~ S .> 0 . . .. c... .. :a: or ~ 0 c... e w :::: c.!J ~ 4n lL. Cl 0 ct. ~ ...... w Gi 0::: 0::: ILL r- w ... Ie: z lL. 0 i: w V) lL. .....J Z ..ro= H u r- 0 V) c:( ~ ... ;)0 Q 0::: >< .....J Z r- 0 or I .....J c:( c:( ~ r- 0 0 ;: o \., c:( c... r- r- z ...... r- B ., u ~ :c ~ r- c( - ...... w V) c.!J 0 0... L.i.J .... ; r- 0::: L.i.J 1---04 U L.i.J U ::J -ll 0::: c:( .....J ~ ~ V) u ...... CDN W c... c:( ...... >< c::: ~ :::E It: >- V) V) V. Li: Cl w c... .. I ~ ~ I- r- Cl .~ 0 0 w ~ J: c:( .....J .....J 0::: 0 I- q~ a~ w w z N .-I .-I >- .. :]~ 2 Z ...... ~ c z .....J 0 :,"L S 3 i i :I . W .. ~i .-I N M o:::t LO \0 ...... I Cl . c ----"~------~_....._--~----_._--_._----------~._--<.,_._-~ ~".~._-,---,.__._,-~.,.._-~.,_... _.....--'-"---'-,.._---~----_.__.."-,_.._~-_._--_._~.--~.._------_.._----,~ . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary wtistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER SUBJECT BOARD MEETING OF Februar 2 1989 NO. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 PAGE 1 OF 5 DATE Januar 24 1989 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 89-1 (ALAMO), P.A. 89-2 (WALNUT CREEK), P.A. 89-3 (DANVILLE), AND P.A. 89-4 (ALAMO) TO BE INClUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall Associate En ineer Parcel No. 89-1 Area Alamo C7 8A6 ) 89-2 W a 1 nut Creek (76B1) 89-3 Danville (78B7) 89-4 Alamo (77 E4) Owner, Address Parcel No. & Acrea e John & Barbara Conrad 954 Danville Blvd. Alamo CA 94507 197-090-009 (0.58 AC) Candi Hoffman 909 Hutchinson Rd. Walnut Creek CA 94598 139-100-004 (2.10 AC) Gregory Group, Inc. 220 Twin Dolphin Dr., Ste. "C" Redwood City CA 94065 200-070-004 (18.28 AC) Thomas & Carol Raney 134 Gaywood Road Alamo CA 94507 198-020-03 (0.99 AC) ACCEPT ANNEXATION FOR PROCESSING INITIATING DEPT/DIV Engineering Department/ Construction Division Remarks One single family home. Owner must connect to public sewer. District to prepare "Notice of Exem tion." Property to be split into two lots (Minor Sub. MS 810-87 Walnut Creek). District to prepare "Notice of Exem tion." The subject property and I an adjoining property already within the I Di strict are pl anned to be a 50 lot subdivision (Sub 7035-Westbriar Knolls). A Negative I Decl arati on has been prepared by the Town of Danville. Existing house, owner is adding on and must connect to public sewer. The public sewer must be extended to site by property owner. District to prepare "Notice of Exam tion." Lead A enc CCCSD CCCSD Danville CCCSD RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 89-1, 89-2, 89-3, and 89-4 to be included i a future formal annexation. INITIATlmEPT/DIV. 1302A-9/85 DH REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION ~ftl JSM fi./1 , ~. .._.__._~~_..,.__.._._- ~-,'~-----"----"'--""---'-'-'-'-"""--'-'-'_.~"--~~---...._--_._----_.,._.._..._--,_.__.._,.-,--",,---_.,...__.,.._-_._-~-_.._---_...._-,_._._._-~~._- .__..... ------.-.-.--,..--.-----. RAB CAMENSON 37.588AC :::~:::::.::l: 11:!:III!!III!\ P.A. 89.1 .~6\-:-\\ -y'~ ,u:'J_"" ~~"5 \ ~~:;; ~eOL~U \ '0 \\ I \ r. -, 1,9'\ ~.\.~~o~o ,....:.... T~_~ii5.' / 42 .t'~ ~~O~~j 1 ~l~~\I.J't\ l51.\6T\'\2~ J. ~ ~~~ ~FD-=-'r.~~ //. R 6 3- 2' fo . . ~ ,,~' ,,;1-/~/~ ~\j~T 0'R. ~. J.4; =- 10" :..... RT~ W" "( 40J. ~'-' ~ \ 'j yl~.O: r 1~31 \'32 ~ .\ \~8~'I'-').!- 16 S U,E_: ~1- 5.CT 37 \,d ~~ '~/'.2 176llC r ;\ 5811 ~5,-\ 5<li~\~ \'10 1.: --'1 2 ~ S....l '--- ~ ~'I J'~~3~ I'=-. 36,. 57 ...... Y' 1!.\\.~,,\ \1 . \20 4 ,01 2.). ~.. U~N\ B~N~ _I. ~ --" \-- ~ \.:-----' \ .. ~ ~~ 10 /\----\ ~'.k.,q I; CT T"'oo CT ~ ~ \ \ iii 2. II ...X ,qJ ~3 ~ C"' T ~'\\.Y-. ~ \JS...I 7.., 7--1 '\;:7 I..) ;;7 T, .~\20 3' 'JCT _ Jf/3 5 .\- ~ 0 E., 30 ,. A\\.'O II a.:.:J~$.....~ ~~L \ \~ p'....:.... .'5 ~ ... 'J ",' ~ ,,3... " ), '\C"'~ ,- LA 'E"AL \l.- ~ '-'''1: \ \ '27 '- 1:8 . / ' '<! ~~}O I V \' ~ r3 "I~'i"/ -- ~<> .. \ ^ 31 /I 8. z ~OP.F~ ~ . .'2570 'liij?' ,~'-o s FI: 0 10R.S ":'i:;; ltl~RL5\TO.1!: \c:.v 60 ~OQ~\.'Z.lPf'^~O" 2817 --...lr-L 4€ 20 ~1Y'!;1;i"" I '\ c.,JQ'\23j T . ~O J ~ ~m l;;~~3 74 7 - _ {~, Z I -- u.... :-t./S-'~"Q (25\ Y ..l!~.... . ,16, ~~ c l.\ ~ .,. Iy ~'~ ~ ~ "''''/ ;;;' ~: 7 ~-~'~f1II 00 "W'; "~ii, 0 ,~\"';; It ;1, . ,:.:' ~ 25 Slj~,-II'~ I ~~ ;-7 .....<e~~ ........ .. WAL~UT,AVE~UE I~~r~!.~>. :1';~~ '~7qOl 30 ~"o/~ -;1... : ......J.. R41~~f,D<I1;:~, :~::::::~~ ST~NE~AVE 65/~.5~............ ~ ....~~q... ~ ~ = -J~I!~ ~"-=~(< ~1:~' '. I~;'I ='-:-:>>-:E~:~:~I I'. ..18~,~" I ~) i'3- ,.~-/ qJ.~/ ! T III .~ .. .t . L.......1- W ':'.1 . \. "'Z 13 ..... fr. of .\.... ~.!!JO.t. I .z 1: :-:~'. : "'0 f-.lt0!J LL ~r-- 1--. .:.'.:. ::: : ~('r:../ -;;- ~~ AW .IJ ~ I iO n /:::::: 'CT.f..:;;; Lf--- ~lI>!!.:. t- Or. ~ ~ '~l"~"il"~~II?Pft~ /~ -elf- ~:~:\"..n~ .~ Ef." ~ i:~ u" !it.. '[.".. ~'. ,.t, '~'1' l"V". . 3/ ::::j "- >-- f-*~ "L", I"", . 1/ 00 ::'~ ~ r- ~ j~;: C~' '1-,_. n ~lfrWE ~i~~C C"\ A !! I:';!!! 984 AC " ~ ~ 7540: ~... 'J I ~" -J:-= ~~ ~ 1;~ i~;:'; ^'Z ~ ~~ :11 ~ ~f-;-:, ~~: ......;..,. () 52 ;;;;.,46",T.~" ~.5~ NAit....rt;(5s~_r4~ .~-ll........":~'Y::f::f}}} }~:ZlI~ !l:l~:f :i'l:::" ...:....... ~ 87 ~rlfl" (M~:lHl... '" .... ..".. I -01 .. I ..~ '" ~~I _ ~ffi.;j~ ~ (: ~_15 s::~:() ~~~~.~"'f.+,;.if '"'' ~ ~~. ~. .~\ · :, ~Ii'-~ 52 '" ...J J-.' ~........ 0::1 ~"72 ) ~ 59 ~I 1Z41~ ~..JJ II ~ II I--r;i ~ I~ ~ S'~ ,.. -;- z: I ::..:: 157138/e I ] III .:::t:..5 l~ ~ ~ 23 ' .r,., 0 . lfLt".J,ON 53 If. 13 ~ ,,- +~ t-- ~ ::: u 2" 26\z7 (/) U . ~ I 7 ~:>- aT' ...~ 4~~ 5 II 14 ...!. -,-i -~l~ 25 ~,ic. DR ~ ~~ ~ i 52 ~ ~~ 32 tI) ')<<1 57 ~ 137'; .v 9) ...11 VI :I: , lifT OIAII.O UNIFIED " l.J.J : 50!;? 401- = ~~ /.I~ ]J 2l'c SCHOOL OI$T. cf u- 3357 AC ~~ ;ilc 2 71 ,8 3!, & 53 '...~"" ..::.... "'If:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::::::::::::::::::::::::':':.:-:.:.:_:. . ". '. ~~ ". :::~ ~ .". ti ~ ~ ~ <<- -~- ^ w..__~'~_Wm ~ Iliill ~.. J .dffg;~ '.:i~::mm~~ .:.:.:....... ';r::if;j L I 8& >::::~~ 16 COM LINDEll 4.'AC ..ANGINI 7.4'AC $ HENKER s .... C 15.05AC AC ""- ALLEN PROPOSED ANNEXATION P.A. 89.2 TYLERI 54. ,.. 'IC 4.88 A. 110. lIlJ 'IC ALA"O ItROPERTIES CO 139.356 A\.' '.33 AC .PRINt ..'............ ;::::::;::::::: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:. :;;;:;:::;:;::: :,:.:,:.:.:.:.: RI ! I i!!I~ .....2 A( FALK '2 IO.'!I3 At PROPOSED ANNEXATION P.A. 89-3 18ei JONES 60.03 At BARNES 7.'; OAe fAY 21.46 At co ItOUIltOY 202.20 At "....." ...t. ~ ,," ~.. CORDUROY "" ~ 68.01 At 'PROPOSED ANNEXATION P.A. 89-4 . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary. ~istrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF Februar 2, 1989 NO. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 SUBJECT DATE ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE CLOSE OUT OF THE VISTA DEL DIABLO STORM DAMAGE REPAIR PROJECT, MARTINEZ (DP 3885) Januar 18 1989 TYPE OF ACTION INFORMATIONAL INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: All work has been completed on the Vista Del Diablo Storm Damage Repair Project in Martinez (DP 3885) and this project can now be closed out. BACKGROUND: This storm damage repair project replaced an 8-inch public sewer main in an easement at Vista Del Diablo in Martinez that was damaged during the winter storms of 1983. The work included the replacement of the damaged existing 8-inch sewer main with approximately 400 linear feet of 8-inch ductile iron pipe, installation of two manholes, and the repair of the existing downstream 8-inch sewer'main that was found to be cracked in three locations. The slide restoration work was completed by others prior to this project. The Storm Damage Repair Project is described in more detail on pages CS 85 and 86 in the Fiscal Year 1988-1989 Capital Improvement Budget. The contractor, Silva's Pipeline, Inc., of Hayward, commenced work on October 11, 1988, and all work was compl eted on November 4, 1988. The specified contract completion date was November 5, 1988. The project was accepted by the Board of Directors on November 17, 1988. Silva's Pipeline construction contract was for $48,230. Since there were no change orders issued on this project, the total contract amount paid to Silva's Pipel ine was $48,230. The total budget for the project was $104,510. The total completed project cost is $96,293, which is $8,217 less than the budget. Staff is closing out the project account which will result in $8,217 being returned to the Collection System Program. RECOMMENDATION: This item is presented to the Board of Directors for information only. No action is necessary. RSK JSM iJM ~AB REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 771/ TAT INITIATING DEPT./DIV. . Centra. Contra Costa Sanitar) Jistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF Februar 2, 1989 NO. V. ADMINISTRATIVE 1 SUBJECT CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION MAKING HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO RETIRING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN CONFORMANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53201 DATE January 12, 1989 TYPE OF ACTION REVISE AVAILABILITY OF BOARD HEAL TH AND WELFARE BENEFITS SUBMITTED BY Joyce E. McMillan Secretary of the District INITIATING DEPT/DIV Administrative ISSUE: Board acti on is requi red to make heal th and wel fare benefits avail abl e to Members of the Board of Directors upon their retirement with at least twelve years of service to the District in conformance with amendments to the California Government Code. BACKGROUND: California Government Code Section 53201 provides that elective Members of the Board of Directors who serve in office after January 1, 1981, and whose total service at the time of termination of service is not less than twelve years, are el igible to receive certain benefits. At Central Contra Costa Sanitary District those benefits are currently medical, dental, and term life insurance in accordance with the "two tier plan" first adopted by the Board of Directors effective May 1, 1985. These benefits are provided to retired employees and their dependents and it woul d be appropri ate to make them avail abl e to reti ri ng Members of the Board of Directors and their dependents. A proposed resolution has been prepared and is attached for the Board's consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resol uti on maki ng heal th and wel fare benefits available to Members of the Board of Directors upon their retirement with at least twelve years of service to the District in conformance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 53201. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 f1^/ INITIATING DEPT./DIV. JEM JLH RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTIO~ .v1AK ING HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEF I J AVAILABLE TO RETIRING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN CONFORMANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53201 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District as fol lows: WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 53201 provides that elective Members of the Board of Directors who serve In office after January 1, 1981, and whose total service at the time of termination of service Is not less than twelve years, are eligible to receive certain benefits; and WHEREAS, at the Centra I Contra Costa San I tary D I str I ct those benef I ts are currently medical, dental, and term life Insurance In the appropriate plan based on the original date of election or appointment of a Board Member In accordance with the "two tier plan" first adopted by the Board of Directors effective t.1ay 1, 1985, and as may be revised from time to time by order of the Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, these benef I ts are now prov I ded to ret I red D I str let emp I oyees and their dependents; and WHEREAS, It would be appropriate to make them available to retiring Members of the Board of Directors and their dependents In accordance with the provisions of the Government Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to the prov I s Ions of the Government Code of the State of California, the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District does hereby elect to provide continuation of health and welfare benefits for elective Members of the Board of Directors who serve In office after January 1, 1981, and whose total service at the time of termination of service Is not less than twelve years, and to their dependents. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of February, 1989, by the fol lowing vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: ~ _" ,. ok . ..... .~.."..".. . ...". .. H.t"..... _... .' ... .j> ...,... .~ President of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: s~~~~t;~y-~f."t~h~'~C;;~t~;;-i'U'Q;~t'~'~' .... ~. Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California Approved as to Form: .~..... .......... ............ ... . ~.... . , .... ... . James L. Hazard District Counsel '.' ._, .-.~ . . . . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary _.strict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE OF 3 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF February 2, 1989 NO. VI. ENGINEERING 2 SUBJECT DATE January 30, 1989 AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR DESIGN OF THE MARTINEZ SEWER REHABILITATION, SUBBASIN 5L, DP 4611 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY Curtis W. Swanson Principal Engineer INIT'tti.I~trt'e~riPhVg Depar tmen t Engineering Division ISSUE: Authorization by the Board of Directors is required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute an agreement and/or amendment to a consulting engineering agreement when it is greater than $50,000. BACKGROUND: The District annexed the City of Martinez collection system in 1967. The Martinez system is old and in need of renovation and expansion. Sewage overflows occur routinely each winter when combined sewage flow and infiltration/inflow (1/1) exceed capacity of the system. In 1987, a planning effort was initiated to determine the nature ana extent of the facilities necessary to upgrade the Martinez sewer system. The facilities planning effort has recommended that one area of the Martinez system be rehabi 1 i tated to correct numerous structural prob lems, reduce maintenance, and determine the effectiveness of the rehabilitation techniques. Staff will present a report to the Board describing the status of the Martinez facilities planning effort including early recommendations for sewer rehabilitation. The area for the proposed rehabilitation is near Martinez Junior High School (see attached map). The area is generally bounded by Estudillo, Brown, Ward, and Las Juntas streets. The proposed rehabilitation area contains approximately 7,500 feet of 4 and 6-inch main sewers. The sewers were all installed prior to 1956 and have a structural problem, on average, every 3 feet. The proposed rehabilitation will include replacement of deteriorated sewers, sliplining of leaking, but structurally sound sewers, installation of access structures, and replacement of the lower lateral sewers. The estimated construction cost of the proposed sewer rehabilitation and replacement is $1,100,000. To assist in evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed sewer rehabilitation, the flow monitoring initiated during 1988 will be continued through the 1989 and 1990 winter seasons. The continued flow monitoring, data collection, and evaluation are included in the design tasks for the proposed rehabilitation project. In spite of the generally dry current and past winter, the flow monitoring studies have collected usable data from individual storms that occurred early in the winter seasons. In 1987 James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers (JMM) was selected to prepare the Martinez Sewer Improvement Facility Plan through a formal proposal and interview process. Based on their performance in preparing the Facilities Plan and their familiarity with the project, JMM was selected for preliminary and final design of 1302A-9/85 o~s DRW dllJ {tV' ~,.. RAB REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION r;jfW SUBJECT AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR DESIGN OF THE MARTINEZ SEWER REHABILITATION, SUBBASIN 5L, DP 4611 POSITION PAPER PAGE 2 OF 3 DATE January 30, 1989 the recommended sewer improvements. A cost reimbursement agreement has been negotiated with JMM with a cost ceiling of $172,662. This amount includes $44,000 for a continuation of flow monitoring in Martinez during winter 1989, geotechnical engineering services, and aerial mapping services. This project has been evaluated by staff and determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines Section 18.3, since it involves replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity. A Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Clerk. Funding for the proposed sewer rehabilitation was authorized in the 1988-1989 Capital Improvement Budget as part of the Martinez Sewer Improvement Facilities Plan (p. CS-64). Consequently, no additional funds are required to be authorized by the Board of Directors. . RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute the cost agreement with a cost ceiling of $172,662 with James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers for the Martinez Sewer Rehabilitation Improvement Project (Subbasin 5L), DP 4611. 13026-9/85 ~ --~\" ---:::--""~~\\:~- \tIc:---~IMII ,.' ~ ->--. ... ~ ;:y ~~" ,.,. '\~\ ';i! .4.."" ~. , ...+' ~ " ," ~ri>' '. ...... , , .."" ~' .... '. .......\~:tt{ii;~;;.... .!:.' .:::::::::::::::;:::;::::::::::;.:.:.:.:.;.;............... ~, .' ,"~~. ~ .~ ~~~ (~. ("<':'~ ~v ~' . 0 ~t-~1. .....\. · .~ Co' ~. ~~\>'",~~ c:.:,\~ ~~, to ~<; ~.. ~~~ ~~~t:- ~ I~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ' l~ J."f!' ~ ~ (Y- ~. L' ~""o" ~ \ ~ V,t.~ , ),~~\(,t' I. !-I\~~ . III .lL.C ':4.A'\. ~ .." v!E -0 ".... ~ ~ . 11 .:c r~ -.4 ~ V:x ... .,. ~ ' '/' ~O~ . ,....: ~ V( ~ )~. 'Og-~~ ~.., Y r~\' ~ . .~'!.. -V ~'~~ '~~~~"-2 ~;~ . ~ ) : i' ~I~~ .,,~ ~? ~~ ,,~~ ~~ JY ~ '~~ ~"(jl' >:;..,~" .. · '~ · .~, ' ~~<$i .~ ~ ~ ~i'~~ ~~' (( ': ,:....,.. ~~)\ y ~~~ ~;'o'<; ~ :5t.. .. ,~ ~~~~ ~ Sl . . ::':::::. ~,,~.,.~ n: MMT_Z...'+ ~?- ~~ I ~ :,"::,: ~.::: ,r .. ~_ -' t' h:'" % .,.' '. 'J! _.y IL~:I:J Iloo.. t ':., . . 0 .. i' ...LL "","..1l u~ ' ~~ J I C::,:A ~S,:: r/...;: >.;;;;'/}fl~;: ..;, 2 ': . , i ,~" iJh~ ~y~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ w I. ~ , IJ 0 ..~ :-' ~, , ..,,,.... '. .' lrlllj. ~ , .. 'I. ..A ~;f V:~~~. _'.;:! .~ ~ I "'l, ~~ ~~\:~ ~ ~~~ ~'..~ ~ ,.-' . ~~~~~ ~. r ~~~K"/ \. ....... /, . ~ ... .A\\:.~ " l> ....' ~~. .:~.... ':~:' .::-' .:.::':. '-, Ii:::,:: .... .... ..., ::,.. :t;.~.. :;::~;.;.;\.-:;~ -~ ~ ,":\.::{:. tJ,tJ ..(,,\ .. h1.,tJ . "', . ..... :';'\ ~q;ffffi ~\ ~.. ~~ ., 1.-:' ~~. ~ ,'~ . \ ~ 0 .. ~~. V' ., ~ .6. \~1 ~~" f; ~ "'J ccc .~ c..... ....., Of' i:l ... ~~ ~~ )' ~ .- ~~. . ~ /Z. ~ Z!lI.6 ~~ ~ -0. :::." ( ...,.. . l'\ ~ , ~ . ~ .. c. ~ ~ .." ~,,1 . ~~ : ...... . ..~~.. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ~ MARTINEZ SEWER REHABiliTATION PROJECT 6 N SHEll Oil ":., " ;. - f, '. .,.EII,08 ~=.~ ,iiA ':'.:::~::. .!\" ,"I. ~O " 011 ~~ Fig. 1 2523-9/88 . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary .,istrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF February 2, 1989 NO. VI. ENGINEERING 1 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE FOR DESIGN OF THE MARTINEZ M-2/M-4 FORCEMAIN PARALLEL, DP 4610 DATE January 30, 1989 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY Curtis W. Swanson Principal Engineer INITitJr:Pn~EGH.!fl~ Department Engineering Division ISSUE: Authorization by Manager-Chief Engineer to engineering agreement when the Board of Directors is execute an agreement and/or it is greater than $50,000. required for the General amendment to a consulting BACKGROUND: The District annexed the City of Martinez sewer system in 1967. In 1970, three pump stations and forcemains were placed in service to convey wastewater from Martinez to the District treatment plant. Since then, the M-2 forcemain from the Maltby pump station has suffered several failures due to ground settlement and corrosive soils. Recently, leaks due to corrosion have occurred on the M~4 forcemain from Fairview pump station. When repairs are made to either the M-2 or M-4 forcemain, sewer service for Martinez is interrupted ana, on occasion, raw sewage has been bypassed at the Martinez pump station. An early recommendation of the Martinez Sewer Improvement Facilities Plan is to install parallel forcemains to the existing 20-inch M-2 and M-4 forcemains are recommended to provide reliable wastewater transport. Staff will present a report to the Board describing the status of the Martinez facilities planning effort including early recommendations for capital improvements. The parallel forcemain project consists of approximately 9,500 feet of 20-inch pipeline and appurtenant valve, access, and corrosion facilities. The estimated construction cost of the project is $2,200,000. Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) , a subconsultant to James M. Montgomery for preparation of the Martinez Sewer Improvement Facility Plan, performed the engineering and planning evaluation of the proposed M-2 parallel forcemain. Based on their performance during the planning effort and their familiarity with the project, CDM was selected to design the M-2/M-4 forcemain parallel. A cost reimbursement agreement has been negotiated with CDM with a cost ceiling of $234,200. This cost ceiling includes geotechnical engineering, permit assistance, right-of-way evaluation, and aerial mapping services. CDM will provide preliminary and final design services for both the M-2 and M-4 forcemains, including a routing study for the proposed M-4 forcemain. After selecting the preferred routing alternative, the District will conduct an environmental evaluation of the project. Depending on the route selected, the project may be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or may require a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. The appropriate CEQA documentation will be prepared by the District or an outside consultant at that time. 1302A-9/85 DRW f/llh" RAB REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION >>M SUBJECT AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE FOR DESIGN OF THE MARTINEZ M-2/M-4 FORCEMAIN PARALLEL, DP 4610 POSITION PAPER PAGE 2 OF 2 DATE January 30, 1989 Funding for the proposed forcemain parallel project was authorized in the 1988-1989 Capital Improvement Budget as part of the M-2 Forcemain Parallel Project (p. CS-94). RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute the cost reimbursement agreement with a cost ceiling of $234,200 with Camp, Dresser & McKee for the M-2/M-4 Forcemain Parallel Project. 13026-9185 . Centra. Contra Costa Sanitar) ~istrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 7 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF NO. VIII. BUDGET AND FINANCE 1 SUBJECT CONSIDER DISTRICT'S POSITION ON IMPlEMENTATION OF PROPOSITION 90 DATE Januar 30, 1989 TYPE OF ACTION PROVIDE GUIDANCE SUBMITTED BY James M. Kelly INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Department/ Plannin Division ISSUE: Board of Di rectors' gui dance is requested regardi ng what the Di stri ct' s position should be on implementation of Proposition 90. BACKGROUND: California voters approved Proposition 90 on November 8, 1988. This measure would allow persons over the age of 55 years old who reside on a property which is eligible for the homeowner's exemption to transfer the base year value of that residence to a replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value located in the same county or in another county. The Board of Supervisors is authorized under Proposition 90 to decide if Proposition 90 will be implemented in Contra Costa County. Proposition 90 requires that the Board of Supervisors consult with all affected taxing jurisdictions in the county before deciding whether or not to implement Propositi on 90. To thi s end, the Board of Supervi sors has set a heari ng on February 28, 1989, and is providing the District an opportunity to provide written and oral comments (see Attachment 1). Staff has estimated the District's potential loss of income if Proposition 90 is implemented. Based on estimates prepared by county staff, shown in Attachment 1, staff estimates the ad valorem loss woul d be $4,000 to $8,000. For compari son, the District currently receives approximately $6,000,000 per year in ad valorem revenue. Sixty-ni ne percent of the county's voters supported Propositi on 90, which is similar to the state-wide margin. The District can take three courses of action: o Oppose implementation of Proposition 90 (county staff's position) o Be s11 ent o Support implementation of Proposition 90 At thi s time, staff requests Board of Di rectors' guidance on which positi on should be taken for the public hearing on February 28, 1989. RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff guidance on Proposition 90. 130211.9/85 JMK RAB WF REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. 3MK IJ#w ~ . ., ,. (-. ~ '. ~"'County Administrato. Contra Costa County ATTAl ~NT 1 Board of Supervisors Tom Powers ,. District fqncy c. Fahden 2nd District Robert I. Schroder 3rd District Sunne Wrigh1 McPeak 4th District Tom TorIakson 5th District Page 2 of 7 R ~<C~DYID JAN - 5 1981 cccso ADMINIC)TRAnOt,/ January 3, 1989 To All Interested Parties: . As you are aware, California voters approved Proposition 90 on November 8, 1988. Specifically, this measure would allow persons over the age of 55 years old who reside ~n a property which is eligible for the homeowners' exemption to transfer the base year value of that residence to a replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value located in the same County or in another County. Proposition 90 and its implementing legislation require that the Board of Supervisors "consult" with all affected taxing jurisdictions in the County before deciding whether or not to' implement Proposition 90. This is essential because the Board of Supervisors is authorized under Proposition 90 to make a decision which would affect the property tax allocation of every taxing jurisdiction in the County which receives any . of the property tax revenue. Your agency is one of those entities. It is also required that the Board of Supervisors hold a noticed public hearing to which each affected taxing jurisdiction in the County is invited and provide each agency a reasonable opportunity to express their views to the County. The hearing will be held at 651 Pine Street, in the Board Chambers at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 28, 1989. Written comments are desirable and encouraged. If you cannot provide written comments and you plan to make a presentation to the Board, please complete the attached form and return it to the County Administrator's Office by February 14, 1989. Once the hearing is closed, the Board will have to balance the testimony and the overall fiscal condition of the County and determine whether to implement Proposition 90. . . ,- - - - -. ..._-... --.. ..-..., -',. '. ~ ....,.__"__.____.___...__.___.''_.'m__._._ ~,_.__...____~~_._.._,__~_______.,_ _____.__._.__"_,_____._..~ ~ Page 3 of 7 To All Interested Parties -2- January 3, 1989 Attached for your information is a copy of the recommendation made to the Board of Supervisors on December 6, setting a hearing time to consider whether to implement Proposition 90. Thank you for your prompt written response on this matter. Sincerely, ~~~~ Phil Batchelor, County Administrator PB:SR:gm Attachment _._-----:^~.=--..=,::~~..:..=,:::::::=::=~-=:~;.>>~~-==--=-~.:..~_:~....:.;.:.,~_._,_._+-~+--,----. f/ .. Page 4 of 7 " PROPOSITION 90 PRESENTATION IF YOU ARE PLANNING TO MAKE A PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON FEBRUARY 28, 1989 AT 11:00 A.M., PLEASE COMPLETE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW AND RETURN TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE Name Address City/Zip Code Telephqne * (Day Time) Agency You Represent . ',TO: 801 OF SUPERVISORS Page 5 of 7 ;1.3 F7tCIoi : Phil Batchelor, ~ Centra .'/ County Administrator Costa DATE: : December 6, 1988 County SJIl.JECT: PROPOSITION 90 SPEC''''C REQUEST(S) OR RECCMolErocATIQIi(S) . IMClGROUroc Aroc JUST''''CATIQIi RECOMMENDATION: Set a hearing time for February 28, 1989 at 11:00 a.m. to consider whether to implement Proposition 90, and solicit comments from all the affected taxing entities to be received prior to the hearing. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no direct financial implications from hOlding the hearing. However, it is estimated that if the Board enacts PropOSition 90, the annual loss to the County would range from a low of $99,225 in the first year plus administrative costs up'to a high by year five of $433,074, plus administrative costs. The total loss to all taXing entities if Proposition 90 is implemented is estimated to be $367,500 for the first year of implementation, and $1,603,977, cumulative, by year five. BACKGROUND: ProviSions of PrOPOSition 90 proposition 90 extended a law enacted in 1986 to include taxpayers who transfer residence from one county to another. The bill authorizes any person over the age of 55 years old who resides in a property which is eligible for the homeowners' exemption to transfer the base year value of that residence to a replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value located in the same county or in another county. To overcome resistance from the California State Assessor's Association, due to administrative barriers and potential revenue loss, the provision was made optional by county. Before any Board of SuperVisors can enact this proviSion, it must "conSult" \dth the other taxing entities which would stand to lose funding, and hold a iJ: hearing prior to implementing the provisions of the act. ~ .;, - Arouments Aoainst Enactino Proposition 90 1. Administrative Burden The Assessor estimates the enactment of Proposition 90 would create additional workload for both the clerical and the appraisal staff, which when equated into cost based on an hourly rate, indicates an increased cost in the first year of $15',584. The Assessor also notes CONTINUED ON ATTAC"'ENT: _ '\'E. .,ONATUItENtQ ~~ - ItECOMMENOATION O~ COUNT'\' AOMINI.TItATOIt _ ItECOMMENDATION O~ ~A~D COMMITTEE - AP'P>ltOYE _ OTHIEJt .'ClNATl.REI S I: ACTION D~ aoAItD ON Decemher 6, l~ijH A~~ItOVED A. RECOMMENDED ~ OTHEIt___ ~ ..::~;- WrE" 0;. aPQv I &CRs ~. " ABSENT : NOES: AIISTAIN: I tCRESV CERTI"Y TW.T THIS .S A 'nIUE _ AHJ CCRRECT CClJI'Y ()p' AN ACTIQIi TNCEN AND' ENTERED QIi T.c "I "UrES ClP' TN: mMD ()p' SUPERvISORS QIi THE DATE: StOIN. DEe 6 1988 ATTESTED " -, , I ABSENT ~ ~cc: 'Administrator I S Office Assessorls Office ;-""';'. ~ ': ...:- . M~1217 -83 -~-~~: BY -' ...- .~.......; ~.- j Jge 6 of 7 tpat the county would be highly dependent on other county Assessors' Offices for information, and since' it would result in a revenue loss, they would expect a very slow turnaround time on request for information. 2. Erosion of Tax Base/Loss of Revenue The Assessor estimates that 245 requests would be implemented each year and that this request would result in a loss in assessed value from the supplemental roll of S12.2 million, and an on-90inq loss from the secured roll of about S24.5 million annually. This would increase annually based on an expected inflation factor on both the secured and supplemental roll based on current experience. The loss can be depicted as follows: " _, ". ' r:";,:;:-,,., ,'., ....... ....- -'..i-a--*~.~..t~~_~"~~~~!!..~""_'~',-,~~~i'-::':;:"..;;i~ ,., . -r_ ...."'Expected Losses"Froin"Proposition 90:Implementation'",,'''':''',. ':"~::'-;.-'-'.~.;> ,.*'~~:-'" ."~-::;,.":~" '-,< -. - >.--' . , .' -, Cumulat. .' .~' : - Secured - . Supple. County Total ~ Roll Cumulative Roll Total Property Admin. County . X!!L Loss Loss Loss Loss Tax Loss Costs.. Loss 1 $245,000 $ 245,000 $122,500 $ 367,500 $ 99,255 $15,584 $114,809 2 $264,600 $ 509,600 $132,300 $ 641,900 $173,313 $16,363 $189,676 Zl $285,768 $ 795,368 $142,884 $ 938,252 $253,328 $17,181 $270,509 4 $308,629 $1,103,997 $154,315 $1,258,312 $339,744 $18,040 $357,784 5 $333,320 $1,437,317 $166,660 $1,603,977 $433,074 $18,942 $452,016 3. Non-Countv Residents ';'..' The bill will benefit those people who move out of our county, whose new principal place of residence is significantly higher than the residence from which they move. For example, current Contra Costa residents who move to the Central Valley County may be eligible in greater numbers for such benefit than those from the valley moving to ,Contra Costa County. It could be argued that the Board shouldn't give a "tax break" to someone who will no longer be paying taxes in Contra Costa County. Conversely, the question of equity arises from the person who is moving from another county who has never paid taxes in Contra Costa County is getting a "tax break", which will affect the services of all taxing entities in the County. Arquments in Favor of Enactinq Proposition 90 1. Voters' Preference The 69\ of the County's voters favored giving the Board the authority to enact the legislation. This is similar to the state-wide average. It is not known for sure whether the voters were ~oting for the Board to have flexibility to say yes or no, or whether they expected the Board to enact the legislation. 2. Economic Arquments The proposition is supported by some real estate and building industries because it could provide an incentive for retirees from urban counties to purchase homes in Contra Costa County. The ~ho~gh~ -:~ here is that there will be more turnover of property,.becauae-of-<:th~'~'.,~f:~~', ~",--.additional tax break than- there would be otherwise,'.J"hich will'::~" ~ ..- ,;._.~.ev!lntUallY result in higher taxes coming to the County.' Additionally, '-'. . , it i. felt by some that the people over 55 group most .~ikely to take :- advantage of this proposition are those that are the least current drain on County services. .- '. -.... '''; ;l: 4( -2- ,} . -----,--~._.~-- -" --.__._-_.~..:-.:;.:::::.='"._-.~..- is- Page 7 of 7 Ii l~' \It' I;:,: ~' '}. . Recommendation: 'Based on the financial implications alone, we cannot recommend that the Board enact Proposition 90. However, it would be advisable to hold a hearing on this subject to try to determine the extent of the public 's sentiment on this issue and to ascertain the preference of all of the other taxing entities which would lose taxes as a result of this change. It is expected to take a number of weeks to get feedback from all of the taxing agencies in the County. Therefore, it is recommended that the hearing date be set far enough in the future that all of the input from those taxing entities can be received in writing by the County prior to the hearin9. Therefore, it is recommended that February 28, 1989 at 11:00 a.m., be the date set for the hearing and that the County Administrator correspond with each of tl:e otl:er taxing entities of the County to. receJ~ their.~_"... \ recommendatlon pnor to !-he.ht!~r,1I1~:'.,i-~~_.,,;;.< :""!'Pft<i.-~~~'11;''':#P,.''i~ffJ(4!!.. ftj.{;1i'."2~3')~^'''''';'.;>~ti;?'';:'';';<~Y ."!,{;1:':";' .;7~fS(' ;,fcf"'t" ';I'! '~j,'f}'.'/""j' I. .,~ ...-' -' ...... ... ' ". ......~"'"'~i '.~~:.__.:;,.t-~-~--;;! '. ~..- ...... ii' ~~{;~~};,: '::;'{""~ ;t.:~.'::.. L' -~ -;. ~-t:_ .. --~lif ~::7~~' ~. :-r....:~!..;;. ; : ~ _ ~. ~:-9j~.,~:::.~;~..~-if!!G,.'{~... ~t;.~.~. ~~.!~.("...;"'~-~.....~ . .- >;,,~. .-." ".:,.v.-~ l~ ~..~~r~:!?~~r.'jr,::' "-i:' ,/"~-~r-"~ -.L-"~'(' ~~..."'~ :c- J.t_" ;.~~ .... . >. ".- 1 '-')'~.I~:'~~'l'.- ~'. "-. .' :. . ..,':".;f.<r.; ~'~r"""l::-.;. '"~~~~";:,,,,,,;t~....-p..~,'i""'. ,. -~ ",,:."'-~:.."~.~.i\,.:...~......r- . (},~ti"~~~;~7!/:'''' ~" .::~;: :~ ~,r';' < ", ~~' ,.' '~'" ~", '. .: ;~' .,)',' ;~ ~:~ ::\'.;Y;f';~:...".:..:.~.,.;,.;:,~.~."..... i:~Tf)::\;' - 3 - . .' tf. ," t~ ~ ,~':(. .' t'k;{> - ~. .: .~ :'.~."; -."::-';""... ...-,.,(.......:.:~ ' -..-..' -. ~(~~ ~~~ .1.;~b:<c-,..;,:::.:.S!!iJ . Centr: . Contra Costa Sanitarl listrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 12 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF SUBJECT NO. VIII. BUDGET AND FINANCE 3 DATE RECEIVE lHE 1988-1989 OPERATIONS AND MAINTEN~CE BUOOET REVIEW FOR lHE SIX t.<<>NlHS ENDED DECE~ER 31, 1988 RECE IV E BUOO ET REV IEW SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Walter N. Funasaki Finance Officer Administrative/Finance & Accountin ISSUE: A report of the resul ts of a comparative review of actual and budgeted Operations and Maintenance (O&M) revenues and expenses for the first six months of the 1988-1989 fiscal year is provided in this Position Paper. BACKGROUND: A comparison of actual and budgeted District O&M revenues and expenses for the six months ended December 31, 1988, and projected revenues and expenses for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1989 is summarized below: Six MDntb. E'"*' o.c:.ber 31, llN18 Fiscal Y..r Emlina ~_ 30, 1_ Variance Varfance Favorabl e <Unfavorabl e> Favorable <Unfavorable> .AS!!!!. i!!.!!SJ!! Mount .....l.- PrQJ ected Il!!!!s!! Mount .....l.- Aw_SI Sewer Serv f ce OIarges S 1,691,900 1,666,982 30,918 .4 $14,880 ,000 14,850,100 29,900 0.2 Cf ty of Concord 860,100 900,000 <39,300> < 4.3> 3,850,000 3,834,300 15,100 0.4 Other 833.5 II 801.848 ~ ...L! 1,541 ,389 1.513.500 lli.W U. Total Revenues 9.392.111 9.368.830 ~ ......l 20,211,389 20.191,900 ~ i!.o! ElcpenMSI Aa.f nf stratfve 1,581,042 1,598,685 11 ,643 1.1 3,316,294 3,342,591 26,291 0.8 Engf neerf ng 1,399,351 1,443,164 43 ,813 3.0 2,901,912 2,940,148 38,836 1.3 Collectfon Syst.. Oper. 1,566,669 1,121,951 161,282 9.3 3,366,261 3,402,444 36,117 1.1 Plant Operatfons 5,018,591 5,444,818 366,281 6.1 10,112,521 10,654,945 <51,516> <0.5> Puapfng Statfons 584 .613 591.479 ~ U. 1.118.168 1.148.888 <~> <1,&.> Total Expenses 10.210.332 10.812.157 ~ U. 21.415.162 21.489.616 ~ 2al Operatiag Deficit S 818.221 1.'.3.327 m..lll 1,198.313 1.291.716 ~ U (Begf nnfng of Year Reserves IS of June 30, 1988 .......~mI of Year fa 15,852,969) S 4.654.596 Based on the results of the first six months of the 1988-1989 fiscal year, proj ecti ons have been made of revenues and expenses for the full fiscal year. District revenues are projected to total $20,277,389 for the fiscal year, which are $79,489, or 0.4%, higher than budgeted revenues of $20,197,900. Expl anati ons of major variances between projected, or actual, revenues and budgeted revenues for the f isca 1 year and the si x month peri od are presented in Attachment I. Di str1 ct expenses are projected to be $21,475,762 for the fiscal year, which are less than budgeted expenses of $21,489,616 by $13,854, or 0.1%. Vari ances between proj ected, or actual, expenses and budgeted expenses for the fi scal year and the si x month period are described by major expense categories on Attachment II. Explanations of major over or underexpended accounts are provided by department on Attachment III. RECOMMENDATION: Receive the 1988-1989 Operations and Maintenance Budget Review for the si x months ended December 31, 1988, and prov i de comments and gui dance to 04 stri ct staff. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ~~~~~.~ 1302A-9185 WNF PM ATTAOHENT I CEN1RIt. aIllRA OOSTA SMITMV DISlRICT REVEtlJE NXXlUNT YIIIUHlCE EXPlMATIONS FOR lHE SIX MlNlHS ENDED DECEteER 31. 1988 MD FISCJ\L YEM ENDING JUNE 30. 1989 Six Months Ended ~ber 31. 1988 Fiscal Vear Ending June 30. 1989 Varfance Varfance Favorable <Unfavorable> Favorabl e <Unfavorabl e> Revenue Account Actual ~ /mount -L.. Projected BudQat mount -L.. Sewer Serv fce 14.850.100 29.900 0.2 Charge (1) S 7.697.900 7.666.982 30.918 0.4 14.880.000 Servfce Charges - < 4.3> 3.850.000 3.834.300 15,700 0.4 Concord (2) 860,070 900,000 <39,930> Lateral Inspectfon (3) 10,597 24.320 <13,723> <56.4> 17,700 36,300 < 18,600> <51.2> Maf n L1 nes 146,000 106,800 39,200 36.7 Inspectf on (4) 101,715 64,Oeo 37,635 58.7 Plan Revfew (5) 43,958 56,500 <12,542> <22.2> 94,000 113,000 < 19 ,000> <16.8> Abandonment Fees (6) 48,772 22,500 26,272 116.8 98,000 45,000 53,000 117.8 Reclaimed Water Sales (7) 0 43,000 <43 ,000> < 100 .0> 12,500 43,000 <30,500> <70.9> 8,763,012 8,777,382 <14,370> < 0.2> 19,098.200 19,028,500 69,700 0.4 All Other Accounts 629.099 591 ,448 37,651 6.4 1,179,189 1,169 ,400 9,789 0.8 Total Revenues S 9.392.111 9 .368,830 23 ,281 0.2 20.277,389 20,197.900 79,489 0.4 Variance Explanations: (1) Sewer Service Charges for the fi rst si x month peri od were $30,918 hi gher than budget primaril y because of hi gher than anti ci pated counter-collected receipts. Projected revenues for the fiscal year are $29,900 higher than budget as a result of the continued effect of the overreal izati on in the fi rst si x months. (2) Service Charges-Concord were $39,930 less than budget for the fi rst si x month period; the payment recorded in the first six months merely represents an advance payment of one-half of the billing for the last half of the prior fiscal year. The projected revenues for the fi scal year exceed budget by $15,700, refl ecti ng the shared effect of the Pl ant Operati ons Depar1ment's proj ected overexpendi ture in operating expenses. (3) Lateral Inspection revenues for the fi rst si x month peri od were $13,723 less than budget primarily due to a lOiter rate of general constructi on and housi ng starts than was anti ci pated. Proj ected revenues for the fiscal year are $18,600 less than budget as a result of the continued effect of the underrealization in the first si x months. (4) Main Lines Inspection revenues for the first six month period were $37,635 higher than budget primarily due to a higher volume of fees fran seven large development projects in the Camino Tassajara area. Projected revenues for the fiscal year are $39,200 higher than budget as a result of the continued effect of the overrealization in the fi rst si x months. Page 2 of 12 (5) Plan Review revenues for the f1 rst s1 x month peri od were $12,542 less than budget primarily due to a lower rate of general constructi on and development activ ity than was anti ci pated. proj ected revenues for the fi scal year are $19,000 less than budget as a resul t of the conti nued effect of the underrealizati on in the fi rst si x months. (6) Abandonmen~ Fees for the first six month period were $26,272 higher than budget primarily due to a hi gher than anti ci pated nwnber of abandoned 1 i nes requi ri ng cappi ng. Proj ected revenues for the fiscal year are $53,000 higher than budget based on the continuation of the trend in the first six months. (7) Reel ai.ed Water Sales for th e first s1 x month peri od were $43,000 less than budget because no revenues were recorded during this period. Payment of the District's share of reclaimed water revenues was received fram the Contra Costa Water District in January 1989. Projected revenues for the fiscal year are $30,500 less than budget because of a lower volume of reclaimed water anticipated to be sold. Page 3 of 12 ATT AOUEN T II CEHlRAL alNlRA OOSTA SMnMY DISlRICT SUMMIIRY Of AClUJl. MD BUOOElED o&M EXPENSES BY EXPENSE CAlmORY FCR lHE SIX IOIlHS ENIED IECEtmR 31. 1988 MID lHE FISCH. YEM ENDDG JUlIE 30. 1989 Six Months Ended ~r 31. 1988 Fhcal Year Ending June 30. 1989 Varl ance V arl ance Favorable <Unfavorable> Favorable <Unfavorable> EXDense CateQorv .6S!!!l ~ /IlIount ..i- Projected ~ Mount ..i- Labor and Employee Benef its (l) $ 7,481,525 7,589,941 108,416 1.4 15,203,755 15,273,599 69,844 0.5 Ut1l1 t1 es (2) 1.474,256 1,516,006 41,750 2.8 3,063,450 2,862,742 <200,708> <7.0> Chlllllca15 (3) 517,702 765,609 247,907 32.4 1,236,900 1,347.112 110,212 8.2 All Other 2,001,229 2,323,381 322,152 13.9 4,607,171 4,733,808 126,637 2.7 Total D1strlct Expenses 11,474,712 12,194,937 720,225 5.9 24,111,276 24,217,261 105,985 0.4 Total Cap1ta11zed Expenses <1.264.381> <1.382.780> <118.399> <8.6> <2,635.514> <2,727,645> < 92.131> <3.4> Net D1str1ct Expenses S10.210.331 10.812.157 601.826 5.6 21,475,762 21.489.616 13.854 0.1 Variance ExPlana~ion5: (1 ) Labor and EIIIp 1 oyee Benef 1 u: The favorabl e vari ance5 of $108,416 for the si x month peri od, and $69,844 projected for the fiscal year are primarily the result of unfilled authorized job positions within the Engineering Department. (2) U~lli~ie5: The favorable variance of $41,750 for the six month period is primarily the result of the following causes within the Plant Operati ons Department and Pumpi ng Stati ons operati ons: a lower el ectri cal energy and demand charge and deferri ng the shutdown of an auxil iary boiler to the second six month period, offset by overexpendi tures in natural gas due to hi gher than anti ci pated usage caused by the nitrification process. The unfavorable variance of $200,708 for the fiscal year is primarily the result of unanticipated increases announced for both electrical and natural gas rates for the second six month period. (3) Chemi cal 5: The favorabl e vari ances of $247,907 for the si x month peri od and $110,212 projected for the fiscal year are primarily the result of lower than budgeted usage of chlorine, polymer, and sulfur dioxide attendant to nitrification and the reclaimed water project, offset by higher than anticipated lime use during the second six months of the fiscal year in the centrifuge operation to produce an acceptable sludge content for incineration. Page 4 of 12 ATTAOiftoENT III CENlRJl. OONlRA COSTA SNHTMY DISlRICT EXPENSE ACCOUNT Y MIANCE EXPlIMATIONS FOR lHE SIX JIlNlHS ENDED DECEttiER 31. 1988 ADMINISlRATIVE DEPMTJENT Six Months Review: Operations and maintenance expenses for the six months ended December 31, 1988 totaled $1,581,042, and were $17,643 less than budgeted expenses of $1,598,685. The 1.1% underexpenditure is primarily the result of the following expense account variances: Opera'ting Suppl1es expense of $10,298 is $7,898 less than budgeted expense of $18,196 for the six month period primarily because of the deferral of the bi annual Board/staff photographs fran the fi rst to the second half of the fiscal year, and the effect of the transfer of Pri nt Shop responsi biliti es fran the Engi neeri ng to the Administrative Department; printing supplies were not purchased for jobs which were delayed during the assimilation of the Print shop into the new department. This account is projected to be equivalent to budget for the fiscal year. Legal Servioes-S1;aff expense of $17,810 is $14,030 less than budgeted expense of $31,840 for the si x month peri od primaril y because fewer than anti ci pated matters req ui ri ng 1 ega 1 serv ices occurred during the first half of the fiscal year; however, it is proj ected that 1 ega1 servi ces rel ated to soli d waste and 1 abor rel ati ons issues duri ng the second hal f of the fi sca1 year will offset the noted underexpenditure. This account is projected to be equivalent to budget for the fiscal year. Technical Services expense of $56,606 is $25,920 less than budgeted expense of $82,526 for the six month period primarily because of the deferral to the second ha1 f of the fi sca1 year of consul tant services for workers' canpensation and security reviews, records management design, and property appraisals. Thi s account is proj ected to be equival ent to budget for the fi sca1 year. Recruitllen't expense of $2,609 is $6,766 less than budgeted expense of $9,375 for the six month period primarily because the services of an executive recrui tment fi rm was not requi red, as a vacancy in a managerial or specialized position did not occur. This account is projected to be $5,000 underexpended for the fiscal year. Page 5 of 12 Election expense of $36,539 is $36,539 overexpended for the si x month period because the budgeted expense of $35,000 was provided in the month of January 1989, whereas the District's apportionment of the November 1988 election expense was paid in December 1988. This account is projected to be $1,539 overexpended for the fiseal year. For all other individual depart.ental expense accounts, the actual expense for the si x month peri od di d not vary more than $6,000 of budgeted expense. The cumul ative net vari ance between actual and budgeted expenses for all these accounts for the fi seal year is proj ected to be $22,836 underexpended. Fi sca 1 Year Proj ecti on: The Aclmi ni strative Depar1lnent's operati ons and mai ntenance expenses are proj ected to be $26,297 underexpended for the fi seal year endi ng June 30, 1989, as a result of an underexpenditure in Recrui1lnent expense of $5,000, offset by an overexpendi ture in El ecti on expense of $1,539 and the cumul ative net vari ance between actual and budgeted expense for all other accounts of $22,836 underexpended. ENGINEERING DEPARllENT Si x Month Rev iew: Operations and maintenance expenses for the six months ended December 31, 1988 totaled $1,399,351 and were $43,813 less than budgeted expenses of $1,443,164. The 3.0% underexpenditure is primarily the result of the following expense account variances: Salaries and Wages and related employee benefits expenses of $2,094,522 are $141,137 less than budgeted expenses of $2,235,659 for the six month period primarily because of unfilled positions, the hiring of replacement personnel later than anticipated, and less than budgeted overtime hours. These accounts are proj ected to be $219,789 underexpended for the fiscal year. Technical Services expense of $84,385 is $31,492 hi gher than budgeted expense of $52,893 for the six month period primarily because of the use of temporary agency personnel due to vacant positions and delays in hiring new employees; additionally, a heavy workload in the Pl ant Laboratory has necessi tated sendi ng pretreatment sampl es coll ected by the Source Control Secti on to outside laboratories for testing. This account is projected to be $19,787 overexpended for the fiscal year. Salar1es and Wages-Contra and related cap1ta11zed expenses of $945,678 are $90,522 1 ess than budgeted capi tal ized expenses of Page 6 of 12 $1,036,200 for the six month period primarily because of a greater number of vacancies in positions which would be applied to capital proj ects, and 1 ess than anti ci pated overtime hours bei ng spent on capi tal proj ects. These capi tal ized wages and employee benefits are proj ected to be $153,609 less than budget for the fiscal year. For all other individual departmental expense aocoun~s, the actual expense for the si x month peri od di d not vary more than $7,000 of budgeted expense. The cumul ative net vari ance between actual and budgeted expenses for all these accounts for the fiscal year is proj ected to be $7,557 overexpended. Fi scal Year Proj ecti on: The Engi neeri ng Department's operati ons and mai ntenance expenses are projected to be $38,836 underexpended for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1989. The underexpenditure results fran an underexpenditure of $219,789 in Salaries and Wages and related employee benefits, offset by an overexpenditure of $19,787 in Technical Services, and lower than budgeted Salaries and Wages-Contra and related capitalized expenses of $153,609; a $7,557 overexpenditure is projected in all other expense accounts. OOlLECTION SYSTEM QPERATIONS DEPARTMENT Six Months Review: Operations and maintenance expenses for the six months ended December 31, 1988 totaled $1,566,669, and were $161,282 less than budgeted expenses of $1,727,951. The 9.3% underexpenditure is primarily the result of the following expense account variances: Salaries and Wages and related eaployee benefi~ expenses of $1,315,121 are $514 less than budgeted expenses of $1,315,635 for the six month period primarily because the effect of unfilled positions has been offset by higher than anticipated overtime expense related to a significant increase in service requests which are probably due to the drought. Due to an unanticipated termination requiring payment of accumulated vacation and sick leave balances, and continued higher than budgeted requirement for overtime work duri ng the second hal f of the fi scal year on service requests, these accounts will be overexpended for the fiscal year. These accounts are proj ected to be $66,523 overexpended for the fiscal year. Opera~ing Supplies expense of $143,704 is $41,788 less than budgeted expense of $185,492 for the six month period primarily as a result of del ay i ng the install ati on of overflow protecti on dev ices until completion of the necessary District code revisions and field i nvesti gati ons. This account is projected to be $50,000 underexpended for the fiscal year. Page 7 of 12 Outsi de Repairs and Maintenance expe n se of $92,826 i s $39,520 1 ess than budgeted expense of $132,346 for the six month period primarily because of the deferral of a nlJJlber of repav i ng proj ects to the second half of the fiscal year. This account is projected to be $2,900 underexpended for the fiscal year. Technical Services expense of $33,395 is $11,521 less than budgeted expense of $44,916 for the six month period primarily because of a lower than anticipated requirement for flaggers from temporary agenci es; however, the underexpendi ture will be more than offset during the balance of the fiscal year because of the need for temporary agency assi stance to permit Di stri ct personnel to continue hauling reclaimed water beyond December 1988 due to continuing drought conditions. This account is projected to be $7,022 overexpended for the fiscal year. Salaries and Wages-Contra and related capitalized expenses of $186,260 are $56,666 higher than budgeted capital ized expenses of $129,594 for the si x month peri od because of constructi on work on the outfall project originally scheduled for the prior fiscal year. These capital ized wages and employee benefits are projected to exceed budget by $61,478 for the fiscal year. For all other individual departlllental accounts, the actual expense for the s1 x month peri od di d not vary more than $5,000 of budgeted expense. The cumul ative net vari ance between actual and budgeted expenses for all these accounts for the fiscal year is projected to be $4,656 overexpended. Fi scal Year Proj ecti on: The Collection System Operations Department's operations and maintenance expenses are proj ected to be $36,177 underexpended for the fi scal year endi ng June 30, 1989, as a resul t of underexpendi tures of $50,000 in Operating Supplies, $2,900 in Outside Repairs and Maintenance, and higher than budgeted Salaries and Wages-Contra and related capitalized expenses of $61,478, offset by overexpendi tures of $66,523 in Sal ari es and Wages and related employee benefits, and $7,022 in Technical Services; a $4,656 overexpenditure is projected in all other expenses accounts. PlMlT OPERATI<*S DEPARTJENT Six Months Review: Operations and maintenance expenses for the six months ended December 31, 1988 totaled $5,078,597, and were $366,281 less than budgeted expenses of $5,444,878. The 6.7% underexpenditure is primarily the result of the following expense account variances: Page 8 of 12 Chlorine expense of $84,075. is $28,336 less than budgeted expense of $112,411 for the six month period primarily because of a reduction in chlorine usage resulting from a lower chlorine residual setpoint required by nitrification for the water reclamation project. Increased chlorine usage will result from a higher residual setpoint during the second six months of the fiscal year when nitrification is discontinued and normal plant operations are resumed. This account is projected to be $53,241 underexpended for the fiscal yea r . Lime expense of $129,897 is $54,103 less than budgeted expense of $184,000 for the si x month peri odprimari 1 y as a resul t of the use of a lower cost 1 iqui d 1 ime sl urry instead of the usual qui ckl ime. Lime usage was only budgeted duri ng the fi rst si x months of the fiscal year because of nitrification for the water reclamation project. However, it is anticipated that lime use will be required for the entire fiscal year in the centrifuge operations to produce a sludge cake which meets required moisture content standards. This account is projected to be $130,000 overexpended for the fiscal year. Polymer expense of $142,046 is $134,054 1 ess than budgeted expense of $276,100 for the si x month peri od primari 1 y due to reduced usage in the Dissolved Air Flotation System and Filter Plant attendant to nitrification and the reclaimed water project. Additionally, a competitive market resulted in a favorable unit price for polymer. As normal polymer usage is anticipated during the second six months of the fiscal year because of the discontinuance of nitrification and the concl usi on of the recl aimed water proj ect duri ng the fi rst si x month peri od, the current underexpendi ture is proj ected to increase slightly by the end of the fiscal year. Thi s account is proj ected to be $154,000 underexpended for the fiscal year. Sulphur Dioxide expense of $25,414 is $28,605 less than budgeted expense of $54,019 for the si x month peri od primarily because of lower sulphur dioxide usage made possible by the lower chlorine residual setpoint related to nitrification. Sulphur dioxide usage is anti ci pated to return to normal 1 evel s duri ng the second si x months of the fiscal year when nitrification is discontinued. This account is projected to be $33,036 underexpended for the fiscal year. Electrical expense of $690,145 is $62,005 less than budgeted expense of $752,150 for the si x month peri od primarily due to the deferral to the second hal f of the fiscal year of the shutdown of an auxiliary boiler for maintenance, and actual electrical rates being sl ightly less than rates used for budgeti ng; the shutdown of the auxiliary boiler would necessitate operating the electric blower. Because of an unanticipated five percent increase in electrical Page 9 of 12 rates instituted in January 1989 by the utility, electrical expense will be overexpended for the fiscal year. This account is projected to be $34,351 overexpended for the fiscal yea r. Natural Gas expense of $597,839 is $34,330 hi gher than budgeted expense of $563,509 for the six month period primarily because of greater than anti ci pated gas usage necessary to generate steam and air for nitrification, and a delay in modifying the incinerators to use lower-priced landfill gas. The overexpenditure of the first six month period will increase significantly by the end of the fiscal year due to announced increases in gas rates unanticipated in budgeti ng. Thi s account is proj ected to be $176,358 overexpended for the fi scal year. General Repai rs expense of $248,011 is $31,487 1 ess than budgeted expense of $279,498 for the si x month peri od primari 1 y because of replacement parts for a primary tank being recorded in the second, rather than the first, six month period. This account is projected to be equivalent to budget for the fiscal year. Technical Services expense of $23,492 is $50,008 less than budgeted expense of $73,500 for the si x month peri od primaril y due to the delay in initiating the effluent characterization study by an outside consulting firm caused by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The study is scheduled for completion during the second six months of the fiscal year. This account is projected to be equivalent to budget for the fiscal year. Ash Removal expense of $30,732 is $17,268 less than budgeted expense of $48,000 for the si x month peri od primarily due to a lower vol ume of ash than anticipated. However, a significant price increase i nsti tuted by the then current haul er is bei ng di sputed by the Oi stri ct, and a new contract to di spose of the ash at Redwood Sanitary Landfill was executed with a new hauler; the effect of the foregoing is an anticipated overexpenditure for the fiscal year. This account is projected to be $18,700 overexpended for the fiscal yea r. Sludge Removal expense of $865 is $635 less than budgeted expense of $1,500 for the si x month peri ode However, $96,000 budgeted duri ng the second si x months of the fi seal year to prov i de for the conti ngency of furnace probl ems or process upsets requi ri ng sl udge hauling is not anticipated to be required. Page 10 of 12 Salaries and Wages - Con1;ra and related capitalized expenses of $147,975 are $29,775 less than budgeted capitalized expenses of $177,750 for the six month period because of slight delays in the constructi on schedul es for pl ant capi tal proj ects, and the medically-related absence of a plant engineer for over one month. These capitalized wages and employee benefits accounts are projected to be equivalent to budget for the fiscal year. Fi scal Year Proj ecti on: The Plant Operations Department's operations and maintenance expenses are proj ected to be $57,576 overexpended for the fi scal year endi ng June 30, 1989, as a result of the following account variances: Underexpended <Overexpended> Chl ori ne Lime Polymer Sul phur Di oxi de El ectri cal Natural Gas Ash Removal 51 udge Removal All Other Expenses, Net $ 53,241 <130,000> 154,000 33,036 < 34,351> <176,358> <18,700> 95,500 <33,944> Total Expense Account Variance $< 57,576> PUJI>>ING STATIONS Six Months Review: Operations and maintenance expenses for the six months ended December 31, 1988 totaled $584,673, and were $12,806 less than budgeted expenses of $597,497. The 2.1% underexpenditure is primarily the result of the following expense account variances: Salaries and Wages and related eaplo,ee benefi1:s expenses of $292,955 are $13,586 higher than budgeted expenses of $279,369 for the six month period because of the refilling of a retired employee's position at a higher salary step range than budgeted, an overlap of positions during the training of the replacement employee, and overtime wages in excess of budgeted overtime caused by the force main repair at the Orinda Crossroads Pumping Station. These accounts are proj ected to be $55,892 overexpended for the fiscal year. Other Ol_1cals expense of $99,884 is $10,655 higher than budgeted expense of $89,229 for the si x month peri od primarily because of greater than anti ci pated chanical treatment for odor and sul fi de control due to low flow volume. Page 11 of 12 This account is projected to be $10,715 overexpended for the fiscal year. Electrical expense of $93,159 is $17,050 less than budgeted expense of $110,209 for the six month period primarily because of lower el ectri ca 1 usage due to low flow volllJle, and actual el ectri ca 1 rates being slightly less than rates used for budgeting. This account is projected to be $17,303 underexpended for the fiscal yea r . Outside Repairs expense of $42,620 is $18,428 less than budgeted expense of $61,048 for the six month period primarily because of the deferral to the bal ance of the fi scal year of maj or repai r proj ects caused by unanticipated force main repair work. This account is projected to be equivalent to budget for the fiscal year. Ren'ts and Leases expense of $11,177 is $8,423 hi gher than budgeted expense of $2,754 for the six month period primarily due to the rental of a 250 kilowatt generator required to temporarily replace a di esel driven' pllJlp duri ng the force mai n repai r at the Ori nda Crossroads Pumping Station. This account is projected to be $7,492 overexpended for the fiscal year. For all other individual P..ping Sta'tions accoun'ts, the actual expense for the si x month peri od di d not vary more than $6,000 of budgeted expense. The cumul ative net vari ance between actual and budgeted expenses for all these accounts for the fi scal year is projected to be $26,916 underexpended. Fi sca 1 Year Pro.] ecti on: The Pumpi ng Stati ons' operati ons and mai ntenance expenses are proj ected to be $29,880 overexpended for the fi scal year endi ng June 30, 1989, as a resul t of overexpendi tures in Sal ari es and Wages and rel ated employee benefits of $55,892, Other Chanical s of $10,715 and Rents and Leases of $7,492, offset- by an underexpenditure in Electrical of $17,303; a net underexpenditure of $26,916 is projected in all other expense accounts. Page 12 of 12 ""'-'~~--'-----"----""-'~'-"--"-"~"'-"'----""'-"'-~"--'"-----"---',~--~-,-,,,--,,~--",_..,-,,-^- '--'-~--'--"'-'--"--'-+-""'--"'---""--'-'-"-'"-'"_......__,.___~~____...._"___.__,,__.__'u._..___........ '_""""_"__'__'___'____.._..__.'_'