HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 06-21-90
.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary lJistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION
BOARD MEETING OF
June 21 1990
PAPER
SUBJECT
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT FISCAL YEAR
1990-91 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET (CIB), APPROVE
THE DRAFT CIB FOR INCLUSION IN THE 1990-91
DISTRICT BUDGET, AND AUTHORIZE $21,438,000 FROM
THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
PAGE 1 OF 3
NO.
3.
HEARINGS a.
DATE
June 18
TYPE OF ACTION
CONDUCT PUBLIC
HEARING, APPROVE
CIB, AUTH. FUNDS
SUBMITTED BY
John J. Mercurio
Administrative Anal st
ISSUE: The Board of Directors has established June 21, 1990, as the
date for a public hearing on the draft Fiscal Year 1990-91 Capital
Improvement Budget (CIB). Board approval is needed to include the CIB
in the 1990-91 District Budget, and to authorize funds for the CIB from
the Sewer Construction Fund.
BACKGROUND: The draft CIB was submitted to the Board of Directors'
Capital Projects Committee for review with District staff on May 8,
1990. This document was submitted to the full Board on May 17, 1990,
and a Board workshop on the draft Budget was conducted on June 8, 1990.
It is appropriate for the Board to receive public comments on the
document prior to considering approval of the CIB. June 21, 1990, was
established by the Board as the date for a public hearing on the CIB,
and appropriate notices have been posted.
The draft CIB requests the Board to authorize $21,438,000 from the Sewer
Construction Fund for planning, design, and construction of capital
improvement projects in the Treatment Plant, Collection System, and
General Improvements Programs. In addition to the new funding
authorization, a carry-over of approximately $32,508,000 from Board
authorizations in previous years is anticipated, resulting in a total
Fiscal Year 1990-91 authorized funding level of $53,946,000. The
distribution of the funding authorization to the three programs is shown
in the table below.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET SUMMARY
Proqram
Estimated
Carry Over
Additional
Authorization
Requested
Treatment Plant
Collection System
General Improvements
Total FY 1990-91
Budget
$10,048,000
21,908,000
552.000
$32,508,000
$ 3,200,000
10,894,000
7.344.000
$21,438,000
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INI IATlNG DEPT.lDIV.
~
l)tt~
JMM
JMK
tlf"
RAB
1302A-9/85 J JM
Total
Authorization
$13,248,000
32,802,000
7.896.000
$53,946,000
SUBJECT
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT FISCAL YEAR
1990-91 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET (CIB), APPROVE
THE DRAFT CIB FOR INCLUSION IN THE 1990-91
DISTRICT BUDGET, AND AUTHORIZE $21,438,000 FROM
THF. '" ....w ....10' ( IN 1<'TThTn
POSITION PAPER
PAGE
DATE
2 OF 3
June 18, 1990
Fourteen major projects account for 63 percent of the total authorized
funding level for Fiscal Year 1990-91. These 14 projects are listed in
Attachment 1.
Approval of the CIB also constitutes Board of Directors' approval of
projects listed in Tables 5, 6, and 7 of the Budget document as exempt
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing to receive comments on the
draft CIB. Approve the draft CIB for inclusion in the 1990-91 District
Budget. Authorize $3,200,000 for the Treatment Plant Program,
$10,894,000 for the Collection System Program, and $7,344,000 for the
General Improvements Program, for a total of $21,438,000, from the Sewer
Construction Fund.
1302B-9/85
E-4 ....
~ 0\
~ 6
t; 0\
HE-4O\
OIZl....
:Mg~
~~1Zl
E-4l1l:M
HE-4~
~~o
(/)::I:(/)
l!C~H
E-4Orz.
(/)~~
8~H
H(/)
~HE-4
E-4llCO
~8 ~~
13<~
l!C
~o:
E-4 0
~ ..,
t} ~
J,f
QI
~~
III ~
C1.~
I::
o
....
~
III
N
....
J,f
....0
1Il.s::
~~
O~
E-4llC
I::
'Co
QI-r!
~~><
1Il1llrz.
e U
..-1 0 m
~.... .r!
m.....s::
IZlllCE-4
I
'CQI
QI >
~o
.~ J,f
~J,f
mill
1Zl0
!
N
....
1
C1.
E-4
M....
MO\
I I
C1.C1.
E-4E-4
o
o
o
..
0\
N
III
N
00
00
00
.. ..
O\\D
"'0)
....M
........
o
o
o
00
o
o
..
\D
...
M
..
III
III
M
..
....
o
o
o
M
0)
....
N
00
00
00
0\....
"'M
....
..
....
a
~
C1.
E-4
~
C1.
E-4
~
~
llC
tl
E-4
....
III
.r!
I:: J,f
o ~
.... m
m ~
I:: 'C
III I::
~ H
>< ~......
IZl UI::
QI 0
m .,..,-.-1
QI O~
..-1 J,f III
~ C1.~l!C
.... t71.... ....
.... I:: U
U ..-IQIQI
III 'C~O\
rz.e;J,f~
mQl....QI(/)
~E-4l1l~
J,f I III I
o J,f QI )
)IIlO\QlQI
'CQI'C~1ll
1Il~~mo
QI .... III
::c (/)~
ATTACHMENT 1
III
I"-I"-N
I I I
(/)(/)(/)
000
000
000
000
.. .. ..
OOM
001"-
NO\O
........M
000
00
00
.. ..
OM
01"-
0\0
....M
000
o
o
..
o
o
N
..
....
0\0
O\M
I I
(/)(/)
00
00
00
00
.. ..
00
00\
NO\
....M
00
o
o
..
o
o
N
..
....
00
o
o
..
o
0\
0\
N'"
0)\D
I I
(/)(/)
00
00
00
00
1Il\D
N\D
"'1"-
N....
00
o
o
..
o
III
M
N
00
00
00
.. ..
1Il\D
I"-\D
I"-
..
M
0)
0)
1
(/)
o
o
0\
1
(/)
o
o 0
o 0
o 0
.. ..
III ....
0) 0)
III 0\
.. ..
.... ...
o
o
o
..
...
0)
III
o
o
o
..
0\
...
0\
..
....
..
...
o
o
o
o
o
o
N
M
..
....
..
....
I::
0\ I
-r!
m I I::
QI J,f H 0 H
'C QI III I::....H
QI ) 0 ~
J,f QI e~ 1::.... III m
13<l!C(/) ill... .... ~ > m
.... J,f0 m III 0 III
QI QI 0\..-1 III > I:: ~
I::QI> O~ moO 0 QI >..
....ml!C J,flll 1::00 I:: ~ III
Hill 13<U....~ QI
1.s::'C 0 Ill(/) ~ . I::
l!CC1.J,f 1::....::1:1 Ill)
..............-1 0 QI I:: I:: ~ 0
...s::....~.0 0 (/) ~
'C'CE-4 ~ U........ s::
>>...... 1IlJ,f J,f~ ~ ~ )
........m >QI 011I III e 0
lIlllll::mo) rz.> ~ ~ 0
QI~I::QI 0 (/) 13<
1Il1ll'CI::QI(/) ....1:: ~
~~J,fQl~ QIQI ~ m QI
mmllle ...H....~ e 'C QI
OO~QlJ,fNH"" -~HJ,fHJ,f
00 >QI~ IIlN....C1. >< 0
>"O)(/)QlJ,fQl~ QI QI
1Il1llJ,fJ,fQl......mllll::c.lllllmlllm~
J,f J,f ~ !:l.(/)O III 13<........ t711Il'C 1Il::l
~~ce CX).s:: ~OIll.s::C.s::C
I:: I:: ~HO\DC1.N J,f.....J,fC1...-IC1.....
000 (/)1 111I 0 J,f III
000 OH XX X 0 ~
a
~
13<
X
IZl
E-4
(/)
:M
(/)
~
o
H
E-4
o
IZl
H
H
8
\D
....
I
(/)
o
o
o
o
N
I"-
o
N
o
o
o
o
N
I"-
o
N
Page 3 of 3
a
~
C1.
(/)
E-4
~
fiJ
~
~
C1.
X
H
~
IZl
~
IZl
~
\D
1
H
~
o
o
o
..
o
o
0)
..
...
o
o
o
..
o
o
0)
..
...
o
I::
o
....
~
....
m
....
&
U
l!C
>..
~
J,f
8.
o
J,f
C1.
!
en-
o
o
o
..
\D
...
0\
..
M
III
en-
rIP
M
\D
I
en-
o
o
o
..
0)
M
...
..
\D
M
en-
rIP
0\
III
!
en-
o
o
o
rIP
....
I"-
..
0)
o
III
..
I"-
....
en-
....
III
~
o
E-4
m
~
U
QI
.,..,
o
J,f
C1.
~
o
.,..,
III
X
m
~
U
QI
.,..,
o
J,f
13<~
QI
J,f0\
~ 0 'C
QI .,..,::l
t7I IIllll
'C X
~ ....
III ~1Il
C~
.... QlO
III UE-4
~ J,f
o QlIl-l
E-4 C1.0
.
Central ....,;ontra Costa Sanitary
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
istrict
PAGE 1 OF 4
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
June 21
1990
NO.
4. BIDS AND AWARDS a.
DATE
June 18, 1990
TYPE OF ACTION
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO MONTEREY
MECHANICAL COMPANY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SLUDGE BLENDING PROJECT, DP 20080
AUTHORIZE AWARD
SUBMITTED BY
Jade A. Sullivan
Assistant Engineer
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Engineering Department
Engineering Division
ISSUE: The Board of Directors must authorize award of a contract
or reject bids within 60 days of the opening of the sealed bids.
BACKGROUND: The Plant's primary and secondary sludges are
dewatered in centrifuges and then burned in the incinerator. The
new centrifuges will operate more efficiently if they receive a
well-blended flow of primary and secondary sludge. The Sludge
Blending Project consists of constructing a pump mixing system to
mix and blend the primary and secondary sludge prior to being
pumped to the centrifuges for dewatering. The pump mixing system
will be installed in the existing centrate thickener tank.
The Sludge Blending Project was originally referred to as the DSI-
Mixing Project. The DSI-Mixing Project was intended to be
constructed under a change order to the Dewatering System
Improvements Project. With this intent, staff prepared change
order documents and cost estimates for the work. However, the
change order negotiations with the contractor, Dillingham
Contractors, were unsuccessful since the Dillingham proposal was
SUbstantially higher than staff's estimate to complete the work.
Due to the substantial cost difference, staff decided to prepare
plans and specifications for competitively bidding the work. The
decision was also made to add seven smaller needed projects,
thereby taking advantage of the bidding process. These additional
projects include:
1. Overflow piping from the Sludge Blending Tank (SBT) to the
Emergency Sludge Storage Tank (ESST).
2. Monorail and hoist system for safer maintenance of the
existing mixers in the ESST.
1302A-9/85
DJC
DRW
RAB
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
J)Je
~ AJM
'C>V'
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO MONTEREY
MECHANICAL COMPANY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SLUDGE BLENDING PROJECT, DP 20080
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE 2 OF
4
DATE
June 19, 1990
3. Miscellaneous piping changes in the Motor Control Center (MCC)
Room of the Solids Conditioning Building (SCB).
4. Hot water flushing lines for the centrifuges.
5. Carbon filter for the HVAC intake lines for the Furnace
Control Room in the SCB.
6. Two additional exit doors for the MCC Room in the SCB.
7. Separation of the electrical controllers and starters systems
of the four centrifuges.
Plans and specifications were completed and the project was
advertised on May 15 and May 22, 1990. Five (5) bids ranging from
a high of $1,465,000 and a low of $1,265,000 were received on June
12, 1990. Summary of bids is shown as Attachment I. The
Engineering Department conducted an evaluation of the bids and
concludes that the lowest responsible bidder is Monterey Mechanical
Company of Oakland, California, in the amount of $1,265,000. The
Engineer's construction estimate was $1,143,000. The required
budget to complete the project is $1,833,966 (see Attachment II).
The Sludge Blending Project is included in the 1990-1991 Capital
Improvement Budget, page TP-33.
After a detailed comparison of the low bid to the original
Dillingham change order proposal, staff calculated that the savings
associated with the decision to competitively bid the pump mixing
system amounts to approximately $312,000.
This project has been evaluated by staff and determined to be
covered under the Stage 5B Environmental Impact Report of 1982 and
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under
District CEQA Guidelines, Section 18.2, since it involves minor
alterations to an existing facility. A Notice of Exemption will be
filed with the County Clerk.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the award of the contract to Monterey
Mechanical Company, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of
$1,265,000 for construction of the Sludge Blending Project, DP
20080.
13026-9/85
ATTACHMENT I
Centra'~ontra Costa Sanit~"y District
SUMMARY OF BIDS
PROJECT NO. 20080
SludQe BlendinQ Project
DATE 6/12/90
ENGR. EST.~ 1,143,000
LOCATION
Solids Conditioning Building
It
~
BIDDER (Name, telephone & address)
BID PRle.
Monterey Mechanical ( ) $
1 8275 San Leandro St., Oakland, CA 94621 1,265,000
Kaweah Construction Co. ( ) $
P.O. Box 28057, Sacramento, CA 95828-0057 1,325,000
2
PMC ( ) $
3 1,390,000
P.O. Box 4041, Concord, CA 94524
Alan Bradford ( ) $
4 4970 Peabody Rd., Fairfield, CA 94533 1,425,000
Dal zell Corp. ( ) $ 1,465,000
5 P.O. Box 8284, Emeryville, CA 94662
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
.. ( ) $
( ) $
( ) $---
----
-
PREPARED BY
DATE
SHEET NO.
OF
250l-51/84
ATTACHMENT II
SLUDGE BLENDING PROJECT
DP 20080
Post-Bid Construction Estimate
Item
Description
Amount
% Construction
Contract
1.
Construction Contract
$1,265,000
2.
Estimated Construction
contingencies @ 15%
189,750
Subtotal
1,454,750
100%
3. Estimated Construction Services
to Completion
Inspection
Engineering during Construction
Force Account
Consultant
Contract Administration
As-Built Drawings
Legal
Survey & Testing
55,000
25,000
30,000
66,500
5,000
1,000
2,000
Subtotal
184,500
12.7%
4.
Total Estimated Construction Cost 1,639,250
112.7%
5.
Prebid Expenditures 194,716
13.4%
6.
Estimated Total Project Cost $1,833,966
126%
ED/PP/Sludge.jas
JAS/kg 5/25/90
.
Centra.. ~ontra Costa Sanitar) Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS I
PAGE 1 OF 7
POSITION PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
NO.
4. BIDS AND AWARDS b.
DATE
SUBJECT
CONSIDER RESPONSIVENESS OF DALTON CONSTRUCTION'S BID
TO CONSTRUCT M-2 PARALLEL FORCE MAIN, DP 4610, AND
CONSIDER AWARD TO LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER; AUTHORIZE
EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE
TYPE OF ACTION
RESPONSIVENESS HEARING
AUTHORIZE AWARD
AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT
ISSUE: The Board must authorize award of the construction contract or reject all
bids within 60 days of the opening of the bids. Authorization by the Board is
required to execute consulting engineering agreements for amounts greater than
$50,000.
BACKGROUND: The District annexed the City of Martinez sewer system in 1967. In
1970, three pump stations and force mains were placed into service to convey
wastewater from Martinez to the District treatment plant. Since then, the M-2
force main from the Maltby Pumping Station has suffered several failures due to
ground settlement and corrosive soils. When repairs are made to the M-2 force
main, sewer service for Martinez is interrupted; on occasion, raw sewage has been
bypassed at the Martinez Pumping Station.
District Project No. 4610, M-2 Parallel Force Main Project, includes construction
of approximately 4,200 feet of 20-inch (inside diameter) High Density
Polyethylene (HDPE) force main in an alignment parallel to the existing M-2 force
main. In addition, a 1,500-foot section of the existing M-2 force main, where
the history of failures is most frequent, will be replaced. Auxiliary
improvements include provisions for reclaimed water, electrical, and telemetry
service from the treatment plant to Maltby Pumping Station.
This project includes construction of force mains in the CCCSD easement through
the IT Baker site. Construction on the IT site dictates a particular awareness
of safety considerations. In addition, since groundwater obtained through the
dewatering process on the IT site must be tested and transported to an
appropriate disposal facility, it is important to complete the construction of
this project prior to the start of the next wet weather season.
Plans and specifications for the project were prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee,
Inc. (COM); the Engineer's Estimate for construction was $1,706,500. The project
was advertised on May 16 and 23, 1990. Five (5) sealed bids ranging from
$1,293,000 to $2,182,571 were received and publicly opened on June 13, 1990. A
Summary of the Bids and Bid Evaluation Sheet are shown in Attachment I.
The Engineering Department conducted a technical and commercial review of the
bids. It was found that the bid of Dalton Construction Company, the apparent low
bidder, contained the following irregularities:
1302A-9/85 KV A
DRW
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
KtI1t-
(JRvJ 1JM
SUBJECT
POSITION
PAPER
CONSIDER RESPONSIVENESS OF DALTON CONSTRUCTION'S BID
TO CONSTRUCT M-2 PARALLEL FORCE MAIN, DP 4610, AND
CONSIDER AWARD TO LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER; AUTHORIZE
EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE
PAGE 2
DA TE.,
June 19, 1990
OF
7
o No subcontractors were listed for any portion of the work as required by
the Public Contract Code and the Contract Documents,
o no material suppliers were listed as required by the Contract Documents,
and
o the technical ability and experience of Dalton Construction Company to
install polyethylene pipe as called for in the Proposal Form (Part III,
Section 5e) was not provided.
These irregularities were brought to the attention of staff of Dalton
Construction, who issued conflicting statements concerning the listing of
subcontractors. Initially, Mr. Philip Lee, Vice-President of Dalton and
signatory of the Dalton bid proposal, indicated that the boring and casing work
would be performed by a subcontractor: Precision Road Boring. This statement
was later recanted by Mr. Ron Zelaya, Dalton Project Manager and Estimator, who
stated that no subcontractor would be used for any portion of the work.
Engineering Department staff then contacted Ms. Carol Doolan, of Precision
Boring. She stated that her company had provided a quote to Dalton Construction
Company prior to the bid date, and that Philip Lee, of Dalton, had informed her
after the bid opening that the quote of Precision Boring had been used in their
bid proposal, and that Precision Boring would perform the boring and casing work
for this project.
Subsequent to the telephone conversations with District staff, Dalton
Construction sent a letter dated June 14, 1990. In that letter they stated that
they intended to perform the bori ng and cas i ng work themselves. They also
provi ded references on past bori ng projects. Engi neeri ng Department staff
contacted the four project references provided by Dalton to determine the
technical ability and experience of Dalton Construction to perform the boring
work. Each of the references contacted indicated that Dalton had not performed
the boring work but had supervised the work performed by another licensed boring
subcontractor.
The boring for this project is challenging because of number, length, and size
of the bori ngs and the diffi cult soil and groundwater conditions. Di stri ct
experience with tunneling and boring operations on recent projects has
demonstrated the importance of having a high level of skill and experience with
these operations. All of the other bidders for this project included a boring
subcontractor. On a previ ous Di stri ct project performed by Dalton, two
subcontractors were used and Dalton proposes to use a boring subcontractor for
a current District project (1680 Sewer Relocations--Phase II). The project
specifications for this project specifically state that the contractor "shall be
skilled and regularly engaged in the general class or type of work called for
under the Contract" (Instruction to Bidders, Part II, Section 5, page DP# 4610-
11-3) and that "The District expressly reserves the right to reject any proposal
if it determines that the bidder's. . . lack of successful experience in
13028-9/85
SUBJECT
POSITION
PAPER
CONSIDER RESPONSIVENESS OF DALTON CONSTRUCTION'S BID
TO CONSTRUCT M-2 PARALLEL FORCE MAIN, DP 4610, AND
CONSIDER AWARD TO LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER; AUTHORIZE
EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE
PAGE
3
OF
7
DATE,
June 19, 1990
performing work, or lack of successful experience in performing work of similar
type and magnitude, is such that it is not in the District's best interests to
accept the bidder's proposal"(Instruction to Bidders, Part II, Section 9, page
DP# 4610-11-5).
Engi neeri ng Department staff has determi ned that Dalton Construct i on Company does
not have the necessary experience to perform the boring work associated with this
project.
Bid proposals may be rejected by the Board of Directors if there are any
variances from the Contract Documents which are determined by the Board to be
material variances. Staff bel ieves that the variances of the bid proposal
submitted by Dalton are material.
The Board of Directors has the following three options to consider:
1. Declare the bid of Dalton Construction Company to be neither responsive
nor responsible, and award the construction contract to Fee Construction,
Inc. as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder,
2. declare the bid of Dalton Construction Company to be responsive and
responsible, and award the construction contract to Dalton Construction
Company as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, or
3. reject all bids.
Prior to considering what action to take, it is appropriate for the Board to
conduct a responsiveness hearing to receive information from interested parties.
Dalton Construction Company representatives have been informed of the award and
heari ng process, and of the staff's recommendat ions. Dalton representat i ves have
advised staff that they will be present at the Responsiveness Hearing.
If the Board determines that the Dalton bid is neither responsive nor responsible
and it is rejected, staff has evaluated the remaining bids and determined that
the second low bidder, Fee Construction, Inc. of Livermore, is the lowest,
responsive, and responsible bidder.
If the Board decides to reject all of the bids, then the Engineering Department
will conduct a new bid for thi s project. Thi s approach may el imi nate the
opportunity to complete construction prior to the start of the wet weather
season.
The budget to complete this project is $1,901,000 as shown in Attachment II.
Since the costs of construction through the IT site are somewhat unpredictable,
a larger contingency allowance has been provided. The total project cost for
this project was estimated in the draft 1990/91 Capital Improvement Budget to be
$2,815,000 (pages CS-82 to CS-84).
13028-9/85
SUBJECT
POSITION PAPER
CONSIDER RESPONSIVENESS OF DALTON CONSTRUCTION'S BID
TO CONSTRUCT M-2 PARALLEL FORCE MAIN, DP 4610, AND
CONSIDER AWARD TO LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER; AUTHORIZE
EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE
PAGE 4 OF 7
DAT:June 19, 1990
District staff will administer the construction contract. Resident engineering
and office engineering services, including shop drawing review, will be provided
by CDM. CDM prepared the plans and specifications for the M-2 Parallel Force
Main Project and has provided resident engineering services for a previous
District construction project. Because of previous satisfactory performance and
knowledge of the project, CDM was selected to provide resident engineering and
office engineering services for the M-2 Parallel Force Main Project. A cost
reimbursement agreement has been negotiated with CDM with a cost ceil ing of
$137,000.
This project has been evaluated by staff and determined to be exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), District CEQA Section 18.3, since
it includes replacement of 1,500 lineal feet of an existing public facility
involving negligible or no expansion of capacity, and under CEQA Statute Section
21080.21, since it involves new construction of less than one mile in length
(4,200 lineal feet). A Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Clerk.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Conduct a responsiveness hearing on the bid proposal submitted by Dalton
Construction Company,
2. reject the bid of Dalton Construction Company as being neither responsive
nor responsible,
3. authorize award of contract for construction of District Project No. 4610,
M-2 Parallel Force Main Project, to Fee Construction, Inc. in the amount
of $1,311,000 as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, and
4. authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a cost
reimbursement agreement with a cost ceiling of $137,000 with Camp Dresser
& McKee, Inc.
13028- 9/85
ATTACH~,1ENT I
Centra'~ontra Costa Sanit-yy District
SUMMARY OF BICS
PROJECT NO. 4610
M-2 Parallel Force Main
DATE 6/13/90
ENGR. EST. $ 1 ,706,500
LOCATION Martinez, CA
a:
~
BIDDER (Name, telephone & address)
BID PRle.
1
Dalton Construction Co. (415 ) 786-9426 $
27577 Industrial Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545 1. 293 .888
Fee Construction, Inc. (415 ) 373-0900 $
2021 Las Positas Ct., Ste. 127 94550 1,311 ,000
Llvermore. CA
Ranger Pipelines, Inc. (415 ) 822-3700 $
1296 Armstrong Ave., San Francisco, CA 94124 1,472,000
Western Utility Contractors (801 ) 785-3401 $
P.O. Box 1148, Palmdale, CA 93550 1,472,000
D. W. Younq Construction Co. (415 ) 837-0724 $
140A Town & Country Dr., Danville, CA 94526 2,182,571
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
. ( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
2
3T
5
PREPARED BY
Joyce E. McMillan
SHEET NO.
DATE 6/13/90
1 OF 1
2503-51/84
I+-
0 a
Ol
~ .......
M
11I ~
t:7l .......
III 1.0
Q..
ell
iii
0
..,
C1>
C1>
- .r:.
I- m
z c
1&1 0
2 .-
..,
z ca
U ~
-
~ ca
>
= W
"a
.-
m
e:
....
III
::E:
11I
U
'-
0
1.1..
Qj
~
';;;
"-
III
Q.. <
U
N
I
::E: N
11I
C
....
a +->
~ "-
1.0 III
V ::E:
ell
E
., c:
z .2
o(l iii
0 (,J
0
Z ....J
i) i)
ell ell
'0 '0
... ...
C1. C1.
.._----~
,.....
III
jt
...
.,
E
ell
a:
"2
(;
z x x x x x
)0.
OJ
~
~
e:
S x x x x X
-0
cii
,
)0.-
., ~
lICe: < < < < <
-0
0.. z z z z z
~~
e:
.2.,
tj"3
2"2 x x x x x
-.::
~ell
8
l;-.,
~~g
g<,!! 0 x x x x
.. ....
'=~ ~ z
'" J(
~w
~
0
.b~ 11I
e: x x x x
" ~ 0
(/)-
c z
8
.!:?~
,!j e x x x x
.,c:.
-c:. z
i~
.!.
"0
"2~
'::00 X X X X X
ell..
-oE
.- .,
Ill:
.,ii
sJl
;00 x x x x x
g..,
iij'"
0
~g
'>> 'ii! x x x x x
..~..
~5.0
u"
::;W
E
"-0
-0., X X X
c_ x x
.,0
~z
00(
VI
"- 0
0 u
+->
0 u e:
U III U e
u '- :;:;
e: +-> e:
e: ..... e: ..... u
0 0 0 ::3
.... . u . "-
i) +-> e: VI +->
., u 0 1J 11I VI
... ::3 .... e: e:
C '- ..... .... .... e
0 +-> u ~ Qj u
l) VI ::3 ....
e: "- ..... c.. 01
0 +-> ::> .... e:
U VI Q.. ::3
e: e: e
e: e '- '- >-
e u 11I 11I
+-> ..... 01
~ 11I VI e: :J:
III 11I 11I III
C 1.1.. :J: a: c
ATTACHMENT II
M-2 PARALLEL FORCE MAIN PROJECT (DP 4610)
POST BID PRECONSTRUCT ION ESTIMATE
Item
DescriDtion
Construction Contract
1
2
Contingency @ 20%
Subtota 1
3 Construction Management--District Forces
Administration/Inspection
Surveying
Lega 1
Engineering/As-Built Drawings
Collection System Operations Dept.
Plant Operations Department
Subtota 1
4 Consultants/Contractors
Geotechnical (Woodward-Clyde)
Resident Engineer (CDM)
Inspectors (Angus Nelson, Ltd.)
Material Testing
Subtota 1
5 Miscellaneous
Outside Agency Fees
Security Guards
Hazardous Materials Site Training
Subtota 1
6
7
8
Prebid Expenditure
Total Project Cost
Funds Authorized to Date
9
Total Project Costs Required
to Complete Project
Total
$1 ,311 ,000
262. 200
1,573,200
39,000
10,000
5,000
12,000
2,000
4.000
72 , 000
28,000
137,000
49,000
4.000
218,000
15,000
9,000
14.000
38,000
460,900
2.362.100
460,900
$1.901.200
Percent of
Construction
Contract Costs
100.0
4.6
13.9
2.4
150.2
.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary Oistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1
OF
4
POSITION PAPER BOJg~~ET~1:~F 1990
NO
5. CONSENT CALENDAR a.
SUBJECT
CONTINUE THE PROCESS TO ESTABLISH LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 57 (MIDHILL SEWER
PROJECT) AND SET A HEARING DATE TO
CONSIDER PUBLIC TESTIMONY
DATE
June 13, 1990
TYP~95&~~\rARIOUS
RESOLUTIONS AND
ESTABLISH
SUBMllj@:ftffiis Hall
Associate Engineer
INIEfi~'E!rl't1g Department/
Construction Division
ISSUE: As part of the process to establish Local Improvement
District (LID) 57, various resolutions must be adopted and a
hearing date must be established to consider public testimony on
the formation of the LID and the establishment of assessments on
properties within the LID.
BACKGROUND: A group of seven property owners in the Brown Avenue
area of Lafayette have petitioned this District to form a LID for
the purpose of financing and constructing a public sewer system
which will benefit their properties. The proposed sewer includes
approximately 2,000 feet of 8-inch sewer main which will serve the
proponents' seven existing properties with the potential to provide
sewer connections to four other properties not within LID
boundaries. The seven proponent properties and the proposed sewer
system are shown on Exhibit A.
The Board has had three prior meetings on this issue. On April 6,
1989, the Board of Directors considered and concurred with the
concept of the formation of the LID. During preliminary review of
the project by District staff, long-term issues related to
geotechnical considerations became a major concern. Because of
these concerns the Board on October 19, 1989, required that all
property owners within the LID be required to execute a
"Declaration of Restrictions" document. This document will limit
the District's long-term liability for soil instability problems.
Staff has received executed documents from all LID participants.
The Board formally initiated LID proceedings on November 16, 1989,
by accepting the property owners' petitions, approving the
assessment district boundary map, and requesting jurisdiction from
the city of Lafayette. Exhibit B, Board Actions Required for
Formation of LID 57, shows other actions which have been completed
or which will be completed by the Board.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
I:JO?A 9'8~,
DR
JSM
RAB
JJI)
j)M
INITIATING DEPT iDlV
SUBJECT
CONTINUE THE PROCESS TO ESTABLISH LOCAL IMPROVEMEN'I POSITION PAPER
DISTRICT 57 (MIDHILL SEWER PROJECT) AND SET A 2 4
HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER PUBLIC TESTIMONY PAGE OF
DATE
June 13, 1990
The following resolutions are proposed for adoption by the Board
at the June 21, 1990 Board meeting:
o Resolution of Intention to order improvements.
o Resolution accepting the engineer's report for LID
57 and setting August 2, 1990, as the hearing date
for receiving public testimony on LID 57
o Resolution calling for construction bids.
A preliminary cost estimate for the LID improvements, including
construction, engineering, District fees and charges, bond counsel,
and bonding is approximately $300,000.00. Advertisement for bids
is tentatively scheduled for June 24, 1990. The spread of
assessments between properties will occur after bids are received
and just prior to award of contract.
The public hearing which is scheduled for August 2, 1990, is
required to consider testimony on the engineer's report and any
other comments by those wishing to speak. After the hearing, the
District must decide to formally approve or not approve this LID as
proposed, approve the assessments or make modifications as deemed
necessary. The Board at that time may also award the construction
contract to the lowest responsible bidder, reject all bids, or hold
the award over to a later date.
The project has been evaluated by staff and determined to be exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District
CEQA statute section 18.4d since it involves the construction of a
sewer pipeline to serve up to three single family residences which
may be constructed in the service area.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolutions for the following actions:
o Intention to order improvements.
o Accepting the engineer's report for the LID and setting
the hearing date.
o Call for construction bids.
13028-9/85
/
1 MACIAS
2 SULLIVAN
3 GROSSGART
4 CHAPMAN
5 SWANSON
6 SPONZILLI
7 LENCI/DOLL
UNIMPROVED
IMPROVED
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
~
MID-HILL SEWER PROJECT
Exhibit
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
A
2523.9/88
EXHIBIT B
BOARD ACTIONS REQUIRED FOR FORMATION OF LID 57
(MID-HILL SEWER PROJECT)
1.
Adopt a Resolution accepting petitions.
Adopt a Resolution approving a proposed boundary
map.
Completed
Completed
2.
3.
Adopt a Resolution requesting consent to conduct
assessment proceedings from the city of Lafayette.
completed
4.
Adopt a Resolution approving agreement for legal
services with the Bond Counsel. (Sturgis, Ness,
Brunsell, Sperry)
Completed
5.
Adopt a Resolution approving agreement for
engineer's services with the LID engineer.
(David B. Hop)
Completed
6.
Adopt a Resolution of Intention to order
improvements.
Subject of this
position Paper
7.
Adopt a Resolution accepting the engineer's
report for the LID and setting the
hearing date for receiving public
testimony on the LID.
Subject of this
position Paper
8. Adopt a Resolution calling for construction
bids.
Subject of this
position Paper
Scheduled for
8/2/90
Scheduled for
8/2/90
Scheduled for
8/2/90
Scheduled for
8/2/90
Scheduled for
9/6/90
Scheduled for
9/6/90
Scheduled for
9/6/90
Scheduled for
9/6/90
9. Hold a Public Hearing, approve the engineer's
report, assessment spreads, and assessment
district. Adopt Resolution overruling protests.
10. Adopt a Resolution awarding the construction
contract.
11. Adopt a Resolution authorizing approval of
change orders.
12. Authorize funds for the project.
13. Adopt a Resolution to claim exemption from
audit by the State Treasurer's Office.
14. Adopt a Resolution determining assessments
remaining unpaid.
15. Adopt a Resolution ordering the sale of bonds.
16. Adopt a Resolution ordering the issuance of
bonds.
.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary !listrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 12
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETINW<U!le 21, 1990
NO.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR b.
DATE June 18, 1990
SUBJECT
ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE CLOSE OUT OF 37
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
TYPE OF ACTION
INFORMATIONAL
SUBMlTTED BY .
Jonn J. Mercur10
Administrative Analyst
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV
Engineering Department/
Planning Division
ISSUE: Work has been completed on 37 capital improvement projects, and
these projects will be closed out.
BACKGROUND: The capital improvement projects listed on Attachment 1
have been completed. A description of each project follows on
Attachment 2.
The total authorized budget for the 37 projects is $7,802,512. The
total completed project cost is $7,291,067 which is $494,236 less than
budgeted. Staff is closing out the 37 project accounts, which will
result in $322,327 being returned to the Treatment Plant Program,
$162,894 being returned to the Collection System Program and $9,015
being returned to the General Improvements Program.
A summary of the total authorized budgets and expenditures for the
projects to be closed is presented by program in the following table:
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL PROJECTS TO BE CLOSED OUT
AUTHORIZED ONDERRUN
PROGRAM BUDGET EXPENDITURES (OVERRUNS)
Treatment Plant $4,086,150 $3,763,843 $322,327
Collection 2,076,441 1,896,338 162,894
System
General 1,639,901 1,630,886 9,015
Improvements
Totals $7,802,512 $7,291,067 $494,236
RECOMMENDATION: This item is presented to the Board of Directors for
information only. No action is necessary.
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
[JIUJ
JJM
RAB
Page 2 of 12
ATTACHMENT 1
Treatment Plant Program
Capital Projects To Be Closed Out
District
Project Authorized Underrun
Number Project Title Budget Expenditures (Overrun)
20067 SCB Miscellaneous $ 21,800 $ 19,566 $ 2,234
Modifications
10058 SCB Control Room 25,000 1,732 23,268
HVAC Filtration
20071 Sludge/Ash Handling 520,000 479,045 40,955
20026 Industrial Water 1,021,420 972,045 48,610
Reclamation
20045 Treatment Plant 550,000 538,936 11,064
Master Plan
20060 critical Projects - 300,000 257,952 42,048
Treatment Plant
20085 Solids Handling 420,000 417,600* 2,400
Facility Plan
10015 Inlet Buildings Vent 87,400 53,335 34,068
Mods
10030 S02 Facility 100,000 97,035 2,969
Improvements
10036 S02 Injection 36,150 36,518 (368 )
Improvements
10054 Underground Storage 70,000 36,821 33,182
Tanks T.P.
10056 Lime Slaker 60,000 55,500 4,500
10062 Upgrade PEM System 23,000 19,750 3,250
10065 Influent Sampler 6,500 4,535 1,965
10039 Treatment Plant 326,000 286,596 39,409
Remodel
10019 Odor Control Study 161,000 158,117 2,883
Phases I and II
10020 Control System 203,900 203,721 181
Software Conversion
Page 3 of 12
ATTACHMENT 1 (CONTINUED)
Treatment Plant Program
Capital Projects To Be Closed Out
10045 Furnace Fuel Valve $ 94,000 $ 88,594 $ 5,406
Modifications
10052 Furnace Burner 60,000 35,680 24,320
Modifications
Totals $4,086,170 $3,763,843 $322,327
* Estimated Final Expenditures
Page 4 of 12
ATTACHMENT 1 (CONTINUED)
Collection System Program
Capital Projects To Be Closed Out
District
Project Authorized Under run
Number Project Title Budget Expenditures (Overrun)
4545 Martinez Access $ 31,000 $ 27,402 $ 3,598
Structures
3700 Collection System 636,000 634,470 1,530
Master Plan
20009 Orinda Crossroads 19,500 15,790 3,710
Pumping station
Corrosion Protection
4537 Buchanan Field Project 15,000 3,031 11,969
4652 FlowMole Demo Project 36,714 36,406 308
4015 M-2 Force Main 65,000 52,667 12,333
Corrosion Protection
4595 Flow Control Structure 104,000 28,252 75,748
4500 Replacement 392,000 353,191 38,809
Demonstration
9510 PIM 1989 352,227 352,227 0
9518 Montair Place 25,000 5,257* 2,534
10037 Pumping stations 160,000 159,754 248
Telemetry
10057 Larwin Pumping station 215,000 213,184 1,819
Upgrade
10048 Orinda Crossroads Force 25,000 14,707 10,293
Mains
Totals $2,076,441 $1,896,338 $ 162,894
*Net District expenditure after settlement from private contractor's
insurance company.
Page 5 of 12
ATTACHMENT 1 (CONTINUED)
General Improvements Program
Capital Projects To Be Closed Out
District
Project Authorized Underrun
Number Project Title Budget Expenditures (Overrun)
30017 Early 1988-89 Vehicle $ 142,400 $ 139,866 $ 2,534
Purchase
3799 Cooperative Bay 7,500 5,183 2,317
Monitoring Joint Powers
Agreement
20090 HOB Space utilization 131,801 131,702 99
Project
20102 Property Acquisition - 1,350,000 1,347,327 2,673
CSO Caltrans
20068 Walnut Creek Building 8,200 6,808 1,392
Code Compliance
Totals 1,639,901 1,630,886 9,015
Page 6 of 12
ATTACHMENT 2
Treatment Plant Program
capital Projects To Be Closed Out
o The Solids Conditioning Building (SCB) . Miscellaneous
Modifications Project, DP 20067, was initiated to provide
several improvements in the SCB. These improvements include
the rerouting of water and drain lines in the Motor Control
Center (MCC), installation of supplemental doors to the MCC,
and the installation of an overflow line from the Sludge
Blending Tank to the Emergency Sludge Storage Tank. Design
and construction of this work are included as part of the
Sludge Blending Project, DP 20080, which bid on June 12, 1990.
o The SCB Control Room HVAC Filtration Project, DP 10058, was
initiated to provide improved air filtration for the SCB
Control Room. This improvement will protect District
personnel and computer systems from dust and odors.
Construction of this work is included as part of the Sludge
Blending Project, DP 20080, which bid on June 12, 1990.
o The Sludge/Ash Handling Project, DP 20071, was initiated to
develop short- and long-term disposal and treatment options
for sludge and ash. As a result of this project, short-term
ash conditioning and sludge stabilization programs have been
implemented. Long-term sludge and ash projects were further
developed through the Solids Handling Facilities Plan and are
now being pursued through individual "spin-off" projects
including the Sludge Dryer Project, DP 20104; the Residual
Materials Handling Project, DP 20103; the Sludge: Lime
Stabilization Project, DP 20098; and the Ash Conditioning
Project, DP 20097.
o The Demonstration Phase of the Industrial Water Reclamation
Project, DP 20026, has been completed. It successfully
demonstrated the ability of CCCSD and the Contra Costa Water
District to provide between 1.0 and 2.5 mgd of reclaimed water
to the Shell and TOSCO refineries. A contract is now being
negotiated with the water district to allow this project to
proceed. Future work on the Industrial Water Reclamation
Project will be managed under a separate District project
number.
o The Treatment Plant Master Plan, DP 20045, has been completed.
This project identified and prioritized critical progects and
organized future work at the treatment plant into three major
programs. The three major programs are: 1) the Solids
Handling Program, 2) the Secondary Facilities Program, and 3)
the Wet Weather Flow Routing Program. These programs are now
being implemented.
o critical Projects-Treatment Plant, DP 20060, planned for a
number of critically needed treatment plant improvements which
were identified at the inception of the Treatment Plant Master
Plan. Design and construction of these improvements were
included in several "spin-off" projects, including: 1) the
Headworks Facilities Expansion, DP 20069, 2) the
Page 7 of 12
Influent/Primary Effluent Samplers, DP 10065, 3) the
Sludge/Ash Handling Project, OP 20071 and OP 20099, 4) the
Influent Gate Operators, DP 20070, 5) the Secondary Clarifier
Improvments, DP 20089, 6) the LP Gas Standby System, DP 10049,
and 7) the Furnace Performance optimization, DP 20086.
o The Solids Handling Facility Plan, DP 20085, took a long-term
view of the sludge handling needs of the District. It
examined various aspects of sludge handling including
stabilization and disposal of sludge. The report recommended
continued use of incineration and the installation of an
indirect steam dryer as the most cost-effective means of
providing standby capacity for the incinerators. pilot
testing of an indirect steam dryer is being pursued under a
separate project number at this time. The report also
recommended that the District investigate the availability of
off-site agricultural land for sludge disposal, such as is
currently being pursued with the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood
Control District's Tubbs Island site.
o The Inlet Building Ventilation Project, DP 10015, was
initiated to improve the supply and exhaust air distribution
within the Barscreen Room and to correct deficiencies noted in
the performance of Odor Control unit No.1. Modifications
were made to the existing odor control unit's chemical
treatment system to improve odor removal efficiency. District
forces replaced the open inlet channel grating with solid
fiber glass covers to reduce loading to the odor control unit.
The planned modifications to the supply and exhaust system
were not made pending the outcome of the Headworks Project.
Close-out of this project is appropriate at this time since
the existing facility will be replaced by the new headworks.
o The Sulfur Dioxide Facility Improvements Project, DP 10030,
provided two additional sulfur dioxide evaporators and one
additional sulfonator as back-up equipment and an incremental
increase in capacity. The equipment was prepurchased in order
to match existing Wallace and Tiernan chlorine and sulfur
dioxide equipment. New system piping and controls were
installed by outside contractors. The work has been
completed, and the project can now be closed out.
o Sulfur Dioxide Injections Improvements, DP 10036, was
successfully completed providing 10,000 pounds per day
dechlorination capacity from an electric motor-driven
injector. This new injector or the existing pump-driven
diffuser can provide our dechlorination needs. The new
system, however, provides a completely mixed
postdechlorination sample for a more reliable strip chart
record of dechlorination without overdosing. It also uses
less power since the sulfur dioxide is directly mixed in the
outfall instead of into water pumped out of the outfall.
o The Treatment Plant Underground Storage Project, DP 10054,
addressed the new federal and state requirements for existing
underground storage tanks. A tank monitoring program was
established to comply wi th county requirements, and
al ternati ve waste storage methods were investigated. The
Page 8 of 12
three waste oil tanks at the treatment plant were removed, and
an existing methanol storage tank and portion of the steam
cleaning system were utilized for an above-ground storage
facility. Fortunately, leaking had not occurred from any of
the buried tanks, and cleanup of ground contamination was not
required. Project close-out is recommended at this time.
o Lime Slaker, DP 10056, replaced one of three original Wallace
and Tiernan 8,000 pounds per hour units with a new 5,500
pounds per hour unit. With the addition of this new unit,
there are now two operating lime slakers. This project was
installed by the Maintenance Division and was completed in
June 1990.
o Upgrade PEM Project, DP 10062, was initiated to upgrade the
PEM (plant equipment management) software to the latest
version offered by the supplier. This software was installed
and all data converted to the new system.
o Influent Sampler, DP 10065, was initiated to comply with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES ) permit
requiring the District to sample influent flow with a flow
proportional refrigerated composite sampler. Since the
original sampler failure, the sampling was done manually,
which was time consuming and did not fully meet the NPDES
permit conditions. A new sampler was requested and approved
by the Board of Directors in June 1989. The sampler purchase
and installation has been successfully completed.
o Treatment Plant Remodel Project, DP 10039, provided additional
laboratory office and gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer
(GC/MS) equipment space. In addition a new women's locker
room facility was constructed utilizing existing space in the
West Wing of the Plant Operations Department Administration
Building.
o Odor Control Phases I and II, DP 10019 was comprised of a
study to prioritize sources and make recommendations for odor
control at the treatment plant. The reports produced have
been useful in directing District activities in this important
area.
o Control System Software Conversion, DP 10020. The plant
computer control system software upgrade project was
successfully completed providing access to more than 2
megabytes of memory. The upgrade will allow the computer to
run faster and more reliably under the new Modcomp MAX IV
operating system. The increased capacity provided the ability
to connect two new telemetry systems to the ModComp, one from
the pumping station alarm system and one from the sludge
dewatering system.
o Furnace Fuel Valve MOdifications, DP 10045. The automatically
operated valves supplied with the multiple hearth furnaces,
which were used to control the flow of gas to the burners,
developed recurring problems. The reliability of this
equipment was unsatisfactory. A different type of valve was
identified as being suitable, was purchased, and was installed
Page 9 of 12
on each of the furnace burners. These valves have been in
service for over a year and have proven to be satisfactory.
o Furnace Burner Modifications, DP 10052. The furnace burners
were modified to decrease the burner flame temperature when
using landfill gas. This was done to address problems of
clinker formation. These modified burners have been in
service since early 1989 and have operated successfully.
Page 10 of 12
ATTACHMENT 2 (CONTINUED)
Collection System Program
Capital Projects To Be Closed out
o The Martinez Access structures Project, DP 4545, was initiated
to provide new manholes and to repair existing manholes in
Martinez. These improvements were undertaken to improve the
hydraulics and maintenance access of the system. Design and
construction of these structures were included in the Martinez
Early start Project, DP 4429.
o The Collection System Master Plan, DP 3700, provided
comprehensive master planning for needed capacity improvements
in the District's 144 miles of large sewers (i.e., those ten
inches in diameter and larger). Approximately $144 million
(1985 dollars) in needed capital improvements were identified
and prioritized for subsequent facilities planning, design,
and construction.
o The Orinda Crossroads Pumping station Corrosion Protection
Project, DP 20009, was initiated to determine whether stray
electrical current from the Bay Area Rapid Transit system has
caused corrosion of the forcemains from the Orinda Crossroads
Pump station and to correct any problems which were
identified. Initial field investigations indicated a
potential for stray current corrosion. More sophisticated
field monitoring and bonding of the pipe joints are necessary
to obtain information for design of cathodic protection
improvements. This follow-on work has been incorporated into
the larger Cathodic Protection of Forcemains Project, DP 4706,
to take advantage of the economy of scale of a larger
construction contract.
o The Buchanan Field Relocations Project, DP 4537, was initiated
to accommodate proposed County Flood Control modifications
associated with the Diamond Blvd. extension. Relocation of
the existing trunks sewering Buchanan Field are further
impacted by the routing/configuration of the Pleasant Hill
Interceptor. To facilitate coordination of these related
projets, the Buchanan Field project has been incorporated into
the Pleasant Hill/"A" Line Interceptor Project, DP 4717.
o The Flowmole Demo Project, DP 4652, evaluated a new technology
known as FlowMole and developed designs for implementation.
The FlowMole process allows the District to install new small
diameter pipelines without utilizing open-cut construction.
Actual construction of the Demo projects occurred under the
Storm Damage Repair-Longworth Project, DP 4293.
o The M-2 Force Main Corrosion Project, DP 4015, was initiated
to replace a failing cathodic protection system. Construction
of the new system was included in the Treatment Plant Cathodic
Protection Project, DP 20055.
Page 11 of 12
o The Flow Control structure Project, DP 4595, provided a
comprehensive look at flow routing in the Walnut Creek area.
The study identified the potential to bypass 10 mgd into the
Newell trunk, thus reducing the ultimate size of the future
Lamorinda Interceptor by 10 mgd. Part of the study
recommendations have been designed and are under construction
as part of the I-680/SR-24 Sewer Relocations, Phase 2, DP
4654.
o The Replacement Demonstration Project, DP 4500, utilized the
Pipeline Insertion Method (PIM) NO-Dig pipe replacement
technology in the summer of 1988. Approximately 4100 linear
feet of deteriorated 6 inch diameter clay pipe was replaced
wi th new 8 inch diameter polyethylene pipe at four si tes
located in Lafayette and Walnut Creek.
o The Pipe Bursting Project, DP 9510, utilized the PIM No-Dig
pipe replacement technology in the summer of 1989.
Approximately 3400 linear feet of deteriorated 6 inch diameter
clay pipe was replaced with new 8 inch diameter polyethylene
pipe at 5 sites in Lafayette and Orinda.
o The Montair Place Project, DP 9518, was an emergency project
in July, 1989 to repair a 6-inch diameter sewer damaged by a
private contractor in Danville. CSOD field operations forces
were utilized and approximately 150 linear feet of sewer were
replaced with the Flowmole No-Dig technology. The District
has received $25,600 from the private contractor's insurance
company as settlement for its damages.
o The Pumping stations Telemetry Project, DP 10037, replaced a
direct current (DC) pumping station alarm system with digital
alarm equipment utilizing the Pacific Bell telephone system
network. The system connects over 200 discrete alarm points
from 14 remote pumping stations to the treatment plant
mainframe computer. System start-up problems have all been
resolved, and all equipment is operating reliably. The
project can now be closed out.
o The Larwin Pumping station Upgrade, DP 10057, replaced two 18-
horsepower Flygt dry pit pumps and variable-speed controls
with new vertical non-clog, 100-horsepower pumps and variable-
frequency drives. The District prepurchased the new pumps and
drive equipment for the project. Installation of the
equipment was completed by Classic Electric and Data, and the
Notice of Completion was filed with the county. The project
can now be closed out.
o Orinda Crossroads Force Mains, DP 10048, was initiated to
repair multiple leaking joints on the 30-inch force main at
Orinda Crossroads Pumping Station. This repair installed
seven Weko seals at the separated joints of the force main to
eliminate leakage of pumped waste water. The force main was
successfully placed in operation after the repair.
Page 12 of 12
ATTACHMENT 2 (CONTINUED)
General Improvements Program
Capital Projects To Be Closed Out
o The Early 1988-89 Vehicle Purchase Project, DP 30017, utilized
cooperative vehicle purchase services provided by the state of
California. The purchase was authorized ahead of the 1988-89
Equipment Budget to provide a significant cost savings.
o The Cooperative Bay Monitoring - Joint Powers Agreement
Project, DP 3799, was undertaken in 1982. The District paid
a proportionate share of the costs for a Cooperative Bay
Monitoring project conducted by the District, EBMUD, City &
County of San Francisco and South Bay Dischargers. This
project helped establish BADA.
o The HOB Space Utilization project, DP 20090, was started in
September 1989 and completed/accepted in December 1989. The
construction portion of the project consisted of a graphics
office addition, remodeling the Informal Conference Room into
two offices, and remodeling the purchasing secretarial area
into a photo/layout work area. The construction contract
amount was $68,777 and $4,979 was expended for construction
inspection services. This project also included $57,946 for
purchase of modular furniture, panels, desks and chairs, and
reconditioning of existing panels to accommodate eleven
people.
o The Property Acquisition - CSO Caltrans project, DP 20102, was
established to acquire property to help compensate for
Caltrans' taking of a large portion of our Collection System
operations facility located at 1251 Springbrook Road, Walnut
Creek, California. In December 1989 the board approved the
purchase and in February 1990 the property was acquired.
Property cost, including all fees, was $1,342,662 and legal
costs were $4,665.
o The Walnut Creek Building Code Compliance project, DP 20068,
was undertaken in 1987 to bring the upper portion of 1250
Springbrook Road building up to handicap code compliance to
facilitate the leasing of this portion. Architect and permit
fees were $1,436; and contractor and material costs were
$5,372.
.
Centra. ':ontra Costa Sanitar~ ..listrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
June 21, 1990
NO.
S. CONSENT CALENDAR c.
DATE
June 18, 1990
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE THE ATTENDANCE OF MARK BENSON,
INSTRUMENT TECHNICIAN, AT THE KRATOS SERVICE
TRAINING COURSE, AT A COST OF $1,100 FOR THE
WEEK OF JULY 23, 1990, AT TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, MUSSEL SHOALS, ALABAMA
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE TRAVEL
SUBMITTED BY
Bhupinder S. Dhaliwal
Laborator Su erintendent
INITIATING DEPT/DIV.
Plant Operations Department
ISSUE: Approval of the Board of Directors is required for
unbudgeted travel outside of California and/or where the expense
will exceed $500
BACKGROUND: The District purchased its Kratos Analytical (Kratos)
gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) in October 1988. The
purchase price included a week-long service training course for one
of the District's Instrument Technicians. The purpose of this
course was to have an in-house, front-line service capability to
reduce instrument downtime and manufacturer's service calls, which
may cost the District up to $2,500 a service call.
Mark Benson, Instrument Technician, received limited GC/MS
maintenance training from Kratos on site at the time of instrument
installation and startup. Additional training is essential to
perform preventive maintenance and other services necessary to keep
the instrument in proper operating condition. The manufacturer
requires preventive maintenance at least yearly. The
manufacturer's warranty expired in April 1990. The District now
has two options. Option No. 1 is to call Kratos to perform
maintenance at a cost of approximately $2,500 per year, and Option
No. 2 is to train a District Instrument Technician to perform these
functions. The latter is most cost effective both in the short and
long term.
The cost of this training course would be $1,100 for travel and
lodging expenses. Kratos has agreed to waive the $1,400 tuition
fees. The cost and availability of the training course was not
received in time to be included in the 1990-1991 Operations and
Maintenance budget. The budget will be amended to include this
training in the Technical Training and Conference account.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the attendance of Mark Benson,
Instrument Technician, at the Kratos Service Training Course at a
cost of $1,100 at Tennessee Valley Authority in Mussel Shoals,
Alabama, for the week of July 23, 1990.
INITIATING DEPT/DIV.
ECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
Sf)
1302A-9/BS BSD
l'IHI-.c::.c::-J.::>::>~ J.CI...,):> rr<;UII "r<;I"'1IU.;;l ,-u"r.v~'" .n~
1'-'
"KRA:. DS
.'ANALYTICAL
Pctge 2 of 2
SERVICE TRAINING COURSE
A one week course for the technically minded, to enable them to perform front line servicing
of their mass spectrometer. This course is designed to give basic operating knowledge of the
system, sufficient to be able to identify most electronic problems. Knowledge of basic
electronics is essential for this course. The course covers the following aspects:
Introduction to Mass Spectrometry.
AutocOllsole.
- theory of sector instruments.
- theory of operation.
- diagnostics.
Main block diagram.
Data system.
. identification of major units.
- intercommunication of units.
- identification of hardware.
- theory of operation.
- file manipulation.
{,'1',
Vacuum system.
System faults.
- pressure measurement.
- types of pumps.
- use of vacuum seals.
- vacuum protection.
- identification of console units.
- practical fault finding.
Mechanics.
DS90 system.
- source cleaning.
- identification of tube \lnit parts.
- menu structure.
- simple data acquisition.
Electronics.
. ion beam production circuitry.
. magnet circuit.
- signal detection and amplification.
Tuition: $1,4QO
KRATOS ANALYTICAL INC.
535 E. Crescent Avenue. Ramsey, NJ 07446 . (201) 825-7500 . Telex: 8258624 · Fax: (201) 825-8659
.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
June 21 1990
NO.
5.
CONSENT CALENDAR d.
SUBJECT
DATE
AUTHORIZE $4,500 FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION
FUND TO THE GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TO SUPPLEMENT THE 1989-90
EQUIPMENT BUDGET FOR PURCHASE OF FLOW METERING
EQUIPMENT
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE FUNDS
SUBMITTED BY
Barton L. Brandenburg
Associate En ineer
INITIATING DEPT/DIV
Engineering Department/
Plannin Division
ISSUE: Additional funds are required to supplement the 1989-90
Equipment Budget for the purchase of flow metering equipment.
BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors authorized $4,900 in the 1989-90
Equipment Budget for the purchase of flow metering equipment for the
Source Control Section.
The Source Control Section requested the flow meter because the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that flow-proportional
sampling be used when determining mass emissions for industrial users.
Flow proportional sampling may also be used to verify the typical
wastewater strength of residential sewage or wastewater from a variety
of businesses such as restaurants and bakeries to establish connection
and sewer service charges.
When the 1989-90 Equipment Budget was prepared, staff requested a flow
monitoring system manufactured by ISCO, Inc. Unfortunately, the ISCO
equipment was found to be unreliable during a prepurchase test because
it obstructed flow, frequently clogged and did not produce consistent
results.
The Source Control Section has recently investigated a new flow metering
system manufactured by Montedoro-WhitneYi this system will allow flow
monitoring without confined space entry and does not create an
obstruction in the sewer. This flow meter uses a portable computer to
retrieve data at the site without the removal of the flow metering
equipment.
The total cost of the flow metering equipment and accessories is $9,400,
which is $4,500 more than the budget authorization for flow monitoring
equipment. Consequently, authorization of $4,500 from the Sewer
Construction Fund to the General Improvements Contingency Account is
requested to supplement the 1989-90 Equipment Budget for the purchase of
the needed equipment. Permitted industries, as well as the City of
Concord, reimburse the District for the cost of equipment purchased for
Source Control.
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
If/-6
1302A-9/85 BLB
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
:7:::"NG.
ROGER J. DOLAN
JMK
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE $4,500 FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION
FUND TO SUPPLEMENT THE 1989-90 EQUIPMENT
BUDGET FOR PURCHASE OF FLOW METERING EQUIPMENT
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 2
OF 2
DATE
June 18, 1990
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize $4,500 from the Sewer Construction Fund to
the General Improvements Contingency Account to supplement the 1989-90
Equipment Budget for the purchase of Montedoro-Whitney flow metering
equipment and accessories.
'--------.
13028-9/85
'~'_'_________~"_'___""_U_______U'_"______~_"__'_'_'_''''.__''''__''''''_''___'__'~'____'~_~_____'_'__''_'''__._.__.._._.__.._...__._........________"..___..._.____.,_....__ ___.._______~__."____.
.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary aJistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF June 21, 1990
NO.
S . CONSENT CA.LENDA.R e.
DATE June 15, 1990
SUBJECT
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY WITHDRAWAL
OF FUNDS FROM THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
TYPE OF ACTION
CONSIDER
EMERGENCY
WITHDRAWAL
SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Administrative/Finance
Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer & Accounting
ISSUE: Authorization by the Board of Directors is required for
emergency withdrawal of funds from the Deferrred Compensation Plan.
BACKGROUND: Derhyl F. Houck, Maintenance Technician III, has
requested a $8,509 emergency withdrawal from the Deferred
Compensation Plan based on extreme financial hardship caused by a
medical leave of absence. The Deferred Compensation Plan Advisory
Committee has reviewed the request and determined that it meets the
requirements for emergency withdrawal.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request of Derhyl F. Houck for an
emergency withdrawal of $8,509 from the Deferred Compensation Plan,
as recommended by the Deferred Compensation Plan Advisory
Committee.
REVIEWED AND
MMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
/~
L
PM KA
Paper #2/ErnergWithd.PP
.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary Llistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 5
POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF June 21, 1990
NO.
6 . SOLID WAS'IE a.
DATE June 12, 1990
SUBJECT
ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING VALLEY WASTE
MANAGEMENT TO CONDUCT AN AUTOMATED GARBAGE/
YARD TRIMMINGS COLLECTION PILOT PROGRAM
TYPE OF ACTION
ADOPT
RESOLUTION
SUBMITTED BY
Paul Morsen, Deputy General
Manager
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Administrative Department
ISSUE: A Board resolution is presented for adoption which will
authorize Valley Waste Management to conduct a six-month automated
garbage/yard trimmings collection pilot program using the Waste
Management System (WMS) in the Town of Danville.
BACKGROUND: It is proposed that, in cooperation with Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District and Valley Waste Management, the
Town of Danville will participate in an automated curbside garbage
and collection pilot program using a new type of collection system.
Starting in September 1990, approximately 7,000 homes in Danville
will use either a special 32-, 63-, or 95-gallon container for
their garbage, and a separate 63-gallon container for their yard
trimmings. The reason for conducting this pilot program is to
determine if garbage rates can be reduced by using this new
technology. The pilot program will be conducted for six months.
Valley Waste Management will utilize their new WMS to collect
garbage and transport it directly to the landfill without the
expense of processing the garbage through a transfer station. The
WMS is comprised of a packer truck with a detachable 22-yard body,
and a transport truck that can hold three truck bodies. The packer
truck uses a mechanical arm to pick up garbage/yard trimmings
containers. Only one person is required to operate this truck,
thus increasing garbage collection efficiency.
When the truck body is full, it is removed from the packer truck
and temporarily placed in an exchange area. It will be picked up
wi thin hours by a transport truck which will haul three truck
bodies at one time directly to the Altamont Landfill. During the
pilot program, the Green Valley Shopping Center and the Sycamore
Square parking lots will be used as exchange areas. A maximum of
five containers will be stored at one time at the Sycamore Square
site, and 4-5 containers at the Green Valley site.
Because the truck bodies used by the WMS can be exchanged from the
packer truck directly to the transport vehicle, which hauls garbage
directly to the landfill, the need to use a transfer station is
significantly reduced and a concurrent savings are anticipated.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A-
SUBJECT
ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING VALLEY WASTE
MANAGEMENT TO CONDUCT AN AUTOMATED GARBAGE/
YARD TRIMMINGS COLLECTION PILOT PROGRAM
POSITION PAPER
PAGE
DATE
2
OF
5
June 12, 1990
However, some commercial garbage and garbage from the hard to
service "hilly" areas which cannot be accessed with the WMS must
still be collected with conventional equipment and disposed of at
a transfer station.
Valley Waste Management obtained a three-month approval from the
shopping centers with a three-month extension for use of their
parking lots. If there are no problems with the use of the sites
after three months, a three-month extension will be granted for the
term of the pilot program. After the six-month pilot program is
completed, rate payer acceptance and cost effectiveness will be
evaluated to determine the feasibility of full-scale
implementation. Central San and Valley Waste Management will
determine if sufficient labor savings along with a reduction in
transfer station costs adequately offset the costs associated with
the new system to provide a cost savings to the rate payers.
During the pilot programs, rate payers will pay the same garbage
collection rates as they normally pay.
A second component of this pilot program is yard trimmings
collection. Assembly Bill AB 939, mandates stringent solid waste
diversion/reduction goals by the years 1995 and 2000.
Specifically, 25 percent of all solid waste must be diverted from
landfills and transformation facilities by January 1, 1995 and 50
percent by 2000. District staff believes that these goals are not
attainable without the diversion of yard wastes.
Yard trimmings, which according to the 1989 County Solid Waste
Management Plan, comprise at least 13.7 percent of the total
residential waste stream, can play an important role in reducing
solid waste. AB 939 suggests composting to manage yard trimmings.
A large scale composting program would be expensive for rate payers
considering land acquisition, capital, and O&M costs. As an
alternative, Valley Waste Management, with District staff support,
has developed a separate yard trimmings collection program using
the WMS in the pilot area and using conventional collection
equipment outside the WMS pilot area. Valley Waste Management is
arranging with Waste Management's Durham Road landfill to use the
yard trimmings as a soil amendment for landfill (daily,
intermediate, and final) cover. The yard trimmings used as
landfill cover should cost less than landfilling or a large scale
composting program. In addition, if approved by the California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), yard trimmings, used as
landfill cover, should count towards our franchised cities' state-
mandated solid waste reduction goals. Valley Waste Management and
Central San will work to convince the CIWMB that this should be an
allowable diversion which does not use landfill capacity.
13028-9/85
SUBJECT
ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING VALLEY WASTE
MANAGEMENT TO CONDUCT AN AUTOMATED GARBAGE/
YARD TRIMMINGS COLLECTION PILOT PROGRAM
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 3 OF 5
DAT~une 12, 1990
Once the program is implemented, residents will continue to set out
their yard trimmings separately from their regular garbage. In the
WMS pilot area, a G3-gallon automated container will be used. It
is hoped that the green waste pilot program will begin in September
along with the WMS program. However, equipment needed at the
Durham Road landfill may take longer to get in place. The green
waste program will commence as close to September as possible.
It is anticipated that the effect of these two pilot programs on
rates will be determined during rate setting in June of 1991. The
time line for a Board decision regarding full-scale implementation
follows:
WMS garbage and yard trimmings
pilot
Sept. 1, 1990 to March 1, 1991
Evaluation of acceptance
and rate implications
January - March 1991
pilot Results (Report)
and notification to the
communities of Alamo
and Lafayette
May 1991
Presentation for Board Decision
June 1991
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing Valley Waste
Management to conduct a six-month automated garbage collection
pilot program in the Town of Danville and a green waste collection
pilot program throughout the Valley Waste Management service area,
commencing in September 1990.
SSS/Pos. Papers#3/ProgDanv.PP
13028-9/85
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING VALLEY WASTE
MANAGEMENT TO CONDUCT AN AUTOMATED GARBAGE/YARD
TRIMMINGS COLLECTION PILOT PROGRAM IN THE TOWN OF DANVILLE
Whereas, AB939, effective January 1, 1990, mandates that each
county or city must prepare a source reduction and recycling
element including an implementation schedule to divert 25 percent
of all solid waste from landfills or transformation facilities by
January 1, 1995 and 50 percent by 2000; and
Whereas, AB939 established a hierarchy of solid waste
diversion methods and lists compostable material third, following
source reduction and recycling; and
Whereas,
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District has
implemented both residential and commercial recycling and is
prepared to address the next level of the AB939 solid waste
diversion hierarchy - green wastes; and
Whereas, the 1989 final revision of the County Solid Waste
Management Plan states that yard trimmings comprise at least
13.7 percent of the total residential solid waste stream; and
Whereas, yard trimmings can be used as a soil amendment for
landfill cover, an alternative to more costly landfill disposal or
large scale composting program; and
Whereas, the California Integrated Waste Management Board is
in the process of determining whether or not yard trimmings used as
a soil amendment for landfill cover will count towards the state-
mandated 25 percent/50 percent solid waste reduction goals; and
Whereas, landfill disposal fees, which are beyond the
regulatory control of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Board of Directors, have risen drastically over the past five
years; and
Whereas, alternative methods of garbage collection, which is
regulated by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board of
Directors, have become necessary to prevent a continual drastic
increase in garbage rates; and
Whereas, Valley Waste Management, franchised by the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District, is willing to evaluate a new
innovative garbage collection technology called the WMS (Waste
Management System) that may reduce garbage collection costs; and
Whereas, Valley Waste Management has designed a yard trimmings
collection pilot program;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED;
That, Valley Waste Management in cooperation with the District
conduct a six-month automated garbage collection pilot program in
the Town of Danville at no additional cost to rate payers, to
determine if garbage collection rates can be reduced and a green
waste collection program throughout the Valley Waste Management
service area to meet the state-mandated 25 percent/50 percent solid
waste reduction goals by 1995 and 2000, respectively.
SSS/Position Paper #2/ProgDanv.Res
.
Centra~ ~ontra Costa Sanitary LJistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF16
POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING Qlfune 21, 1990
NO.
SUBJECT
6. SOLID WASTE b.
DATE June 13, 1990
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY VALLEY
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL
SERVICES, INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP
TYPE OF ACTION
REVIEW REFUSE
OLLECTION RATE
ANALYSES
Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer
INITIATING DEPT /DIV
Administrative/Finance
& Accounting
SUBMITTED BY
ISSUE: Valley Waste Management and orinda-Moraga Disposal Service,
Inc. have submitted applications for rate increases effective July
1, 1990. The applications and related staff analyses will be
reviewed at a Board Workshop on June 21, 1990, and will be the
subject of a public hearing on July 12, 1990.
BACKGROUND: Applications for rate increases effective July 1, 1990
have been submitted by two of the three franchised refuse
collectors: Valley Waste Management has submitted an application
for a 6.52 percent rate increase; Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service,
Inc. has requested a 21.34 percent rate increase. Pleasant Hill
Bay Shore Disposal did not submit a rate application.
The staff analyses and rate applications are being distributed to
the Board of Directors with this position Paper. copies of these
documents are also being provided to the affected cities of Orinda,
Moraga, Lafayette and Danville with a request that they provide
comments for the Board's consideration at the July 12, 1990 public
hearing.
A major issue common to both rate analyses, and which was addressed
at the last rate-setting in February 1990, is the closure and post-
closure costs of the Acme landfill.
Closure Cost Assessments
The County Board of supervisors approved a $52.22 per ton fee at
the Acme interim transfer station which began operations on
December 19, 1989. The $52.22 per ton transfer station fee does
not include closure and post-closure costs of the Acme landfill.
Assessment of the unfunded proj ected closure and post-closure
maintenance costs are intended to be made by the county against the
refuse collectors on a quarterly basis over ten years, apportioned
on the basis of historic use of the landfill by the communities
served and payments made. The county will begin the closure cost
~
~
WNF
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
1302A-9/85
PM
SUBJECT
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY VALLEY
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL
SERVICES, INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP
POSITION PAPER
2
16
PAGE
OF
DAjbne 13, 1990
assessment program after development of a Memorandum of
Understanding with the refuse collection franchising agencies, a
trust agreement governing the closure fund, and a transfer of
assets agreement for the transfer of closure funds collected to-
date by Acme Fill Corporation into a trust fund. The development
and execution of these documents are expected to be completed in
1990; at that time, the County intends to implement the assessment
program by billing refuse collectors retroactively to December
1989. Sara Hoffman, County Solid Waste Manager, has suggested that
collection rate adjustments under current review include a
provision for the unbilled closure cost assessment.
The unfunded closure and post-closure cost assessment prepared by
Deloitte & Touche, the County's consultant, projects an unfunded
balance of $18,829,000, which does not include hazardous waste
closure and post-closure costs.
The above issue, and other issues which are unique to individual
refuse collectors, are described for each refuse collector in the
balance of this position Paper.
Valley Waste Manaqement
The major rate-setting issues are summarized in the following
sections:
Closure Cost Assessments
When it implements its assessment program, the County intends
to bill refuse collectors for the Acme landfill closure and
post-closure costs retroactively to December 1989, contending
that funding of such costs must be continuous from the date
the Acme interim transfer station began operations.
Valley Waste Management has included $431,000 of closure cost
assessment representing a one year assessment, in its
projected disposal expense for the 1990-1991 rate year under
review. In the staff analysis, the $431,000 has been
segregated from operating expenses as it was in the last rate-
setting, and its effect on the rate adjustment calculation
separately presented.
13028-9/85
___... ,,__,_~_,___,,_,_,______~_____,~~,________"_.c._..~~~___.,.._...___~_._.___,___.~_~,.__.".."......_,,___.__......,,.-._____.___..___,____.___._...__.~__~_...__________,______
SUBJECT
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY VALLEY
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL
SERVICES, INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP
POSITION PAPER
3 16
PAGE
OF
DUane 13, 1990
Intercompanv Charqes
The following intercompany charges are assessed by Waste
Management, Inc. to Valley Waste Management, and are claimed
in the rate application as operating expenses in General and
Administrative Expenses - Other:
Management Fee - A charge of one percent of gross
revenues is made for regional support services to
operating divisions in the areas of purchasing, safety,
maintenance, information systems, finance, legal,
environmental management, governmental affairs, and
employee relations. No Management Fee was claimed for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990; the fee claimed for
the 1990-1991 rate year under review is $116,000.
corporate Services and Development Fee - A charge of one
percent of gross revenues is made for corporate services
to operating divisions in the following areas:
purchasing; risk management; human resources;
vehicle/equipment maintenance programs; safety programs;
governmental affairs, legal, finance" and accounting,
public affairs, employee relations, and internal audit.
No Corporate Services and Development Fee was claimed for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990; the fee claimed for
the 1990-1991 rate year under review is $116,000.
In a letter dated June 11, 1990, which is attached to this
position Paper, James E. Landa, Controller of Valley Waste
Management, asserts that expense savings of $263,000 and
$421,000 were achieved in calendar years 1988 and 1989,
respectively, in purchase discounts and lowered insurance
premiums because of more favorable terms obtained through the
corporate programs.
In the staff analysis, the Management Fee and Corporate
Services and Development Fee have been segregated from
operating expenses, and their effect on the rate adjustment
calculation separately presented.
13026-9/85
SUBJECT
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY VALLEY
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL
SERVICES, INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP
POSITION PAPER
4
PAGE OF 16
D.l\JlUne 13, 1990
Commercial Recvclinq Increment
Implementation of commercial recycling during the 1990-1991
rate-setting period was approved by the Board of Directors.
The incremental expense to be assessed will be determined by
District staff and the refuse collector for consideration at
the July 12, 1990 public hearing.
Orinda-Moraqa DisDosal Service. Inc.
The major rate-setting issues are summarized in the following
sections:
Closure Cost Assessments
Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. did not include the Acme
landfill closure and post-closure cost assessment in the 1990-
1991 rate application under review. In the staff analysis,
the $110,000 annual assessment has been considered in the rate
adjustment calculation and its effect separately presented.
Sale of Franchisee
The Board of Directors approved the request for consent to the
assignment of the franchise agreement with Orinda-Moraga
Disposal Service, Inc. to W. Douglas Lomow et al on May 31,
1990. The Board indicated that, in granting the assignment,
it does not commit itself to approving recovery of any costs
resulting from the acquisition of the franchisee through the
collection rates. In the staff analysis, expenses which are
considered to be acquisition costs are excluded from operating
expenses.
commercial Recvclinq Increment
Implementation of commercial recycling during the 1990-1991
rate-setting period was approved by the Board of Directors.
The incremental expense to be assessed will be determined by
District staff and the refuse collector for consideration at
the July 12, 1990 public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the analyses of the applications for rate
increases submitted by Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga
Disposal Service, Inc., and provide staff wi th comments and
guidance.
SSS/Pos. Paper #2/StaffAna.PP
13028-9/85
.
Valley Waste Management
P.O. Box 4007
2658 N. Main Street
Walnut Creek, California 94596
415/935-8900
~
\eJ
A Waste Management Company
June 11, 1990
Nels Carlsen, President
and Members of the Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553-4392
Dear Members,
Valley submitted a rate application on April 3, 1990 requesting, among other things,
pass-through of its Corporate and Regional charges in the amount of $232,000 for the
fiscal period ending June 30, 1991.
A review of these expenses was performed by Price Waterhouse for the Alameda
County Joint Refuse Rate Review Committee (the Committee), joined by the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD), the City of Walnut Creek, and the City of San
Ramon. Page 4 of the final report by Price Waterhouse, dated May 31, 1989,
concluded the following:
"Approximately three-fourths of fiscal year 1988 corporate costs (or 1.2%
of revenue) and regional costs (or 2.2% of revenue) could be considered
to be related to the operations of WMI and reasonably allocated to Valley."
Although a review of Corporate and Regional charges was performed by Price
Waterhouse, I believe there is still concern by the CCCSD Board and staff as to what
these charges are, and how they benefit our customers. I would like to explain these
fees:
Corporate Service and Development
Included in this expense category are costs incurred at the corporate level
for a wide variety of services which are provided to Valley Waste
Management. These services include PURCHASING - national account
buying power that allows our divisions to purchase items at costs lower
than if purchased separately, RISK MANAGEMENT - to coordinate various
risk/insurance programs and obtain the highest quality, best possible rates
using the resources of our company as a whole thereby receiving more
favorable rates than if secured separately, HUMAN RESOURCES - to
provide our employees with the services that are necessary in today's
a division of SAWDCO
Honorable Nels Carlsen, President
and Members of the Board of Directors
June 11, 1990
Page 2
IQ
\eJ
A Waste Management Company
society thereby enhancing the work environment, VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS - that provide guidelines to effectively service
and maximize vehicle performance, SAFElY PROGRAMS - to assure that
personnel, equipment, vehicles, general public safety, and the work
environment conform to policies that promote worker satisfaction,
equipment productivity and ultimately the lowest possible insurance rates.
Other services include GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS - keeping local
management abreast of existing, as well as new trends that are affecting
the wastes of today's society, LEGAL - provide assistance and guidelines
that promote the highest level of business ethics, FINANCE AND
ACCOUNTING - provides the resources of our large company to obtain
the most favorable rates as well as providing highly advanced information
systems to provide local management with the tools to make the decisions
necessary on a daily basis. In addition, other services include PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, and INTERNAL AUDIT functions.
Management Fees
To effectively manage and carry out the items discussed in the corporate
service and development section, as well as programs that are unique to
our local division, personnel must be situated closer to our division to
provide assistance to these necessary services and programs. Expenses
in this category are the costs charged to support thes~ services.
This includes the regional expenses incurred to support the services and
programs required by our divisions. Personnel are employed in
purchasing, safety, maintenance, information systems, finance, legal,
environmental management, governmental affairs, and employee relations.
It is Waste Management of North America's policy to charge each collection division
two percent (~A>) of their gross revenue for these services. This charge is allocated on
the basis of revenue rather than being direct costed because to do so would result in
more employees to handle the same functions and thereby increase costs.
Following is an analysis of the CCCSD's portion of major cost savings contributed
through Corporate Programs:
Honorable Nels Carlsen, President
and Members of the Board of Directors
June 11, 1990
Page 3
.IQ
\e,I
A Waste Management Company
Valley
Disposal
Service Vallev Waste Manaaement
Total
Projected
Projected Savings
~ ~ 1989 1990 @ 12-31-90
Purchasing
Corporate Discounts
@ 15% $ 92,000 $ 93,000 $ 97,600 $ 282,600
Risk Management
Annual Insurance
Expense $ 975,500 804,500 647,100 750,000
(A) (B) (C) (D)
Annual Insurance
Savings In
Comparison
to 1987 171.000 328.400 225.500 724.900
(A-B) (A-C) (A-D)
Total Annual Savings
from WMI Corporate
Programs $ 263.000 $ 421.400 $ 323.100 $ 1.007.500
As you can see, Waste Management's Corporate Programs have reduced expenses
dramatically for purchases and insurance. When purchasing heavy equipment, Valley
may obtain savings from 20 to 30 percent. In 1988 Valley's Worker's Compensation
expense dropped 40% due to WMI Corporate safety programs. Insurance savings
shown in the above analysis represent savings in comparison to the base year 1987.
In reality, insurance expense would have increased at an average of 15% per year from
1987, making insurance savings of Valley Waste Management greater than those shown
in the analysis.
There are other cost savings not shown here in areas of interest. Currently, Valley is
charged interest @ 9%, when compared to Valley Disposal's high cost of funds . 12
to 13 percent at acquisition.
-
.
Honorable Nels Carlsen, President
and Members of the Board of Directors
June 11, 1990
Page 4
IQ
\eJ
A Waste Management Company
It is our hope that when you review this letter in conjunction with the CCCSD position
paper, a fair and equitable decision will be made in the best interests of everyone.
Thank you for your attention in this matter and please call me at 415/935-8900 if you
or your staff have any questions.
Sincerely,
es E. Landa
Controller
sl
cc: Roger Dolan
Paul Morsen
Walter Funasaki
Ron Proto
V')
Z
o
~
<
~
UJ
0..
...0
Z~OO
UJOOO
~~~
UJ U. ..
(jUJ-
<~r"\
Zot
<U.c
~ZE
uJ_v
....u..u
V')O~
<UJ'O
~..Jv
:>-::>"0
UJOc
..JUJUJ
..J J: :;
<Uv
>V')r
c
o
'OE
>"l'3
...cc:
UC
III
V')
........:il:
o ::l V
>. .s V
.......'-
OEiu
- >"...
III '- U
'- Ill'-
.......'-
C .... ...
A' C II)
... Ill....
Ulna
'ia
...
o
...
N
00
N
r"\
00
r"\
.....
-
_OOr"\OON_OO-N~O':)""'~-"'r"\
"'0000~~00"'r"\~0-"'0~r"\-
r"\~"'O~OO.....O':)",~~"'~N'"
... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
_.::I"OO"'O~Or"\~-.::I-NNOOr"\~
r"\....._OO_.::I-ON.....O"'~~OOr"\r"\
~.::I""'- .::I-N~ OO-"'.....~ N
'"
-
..
r"\
...".
00
.....
.....
..
N~-N.....OO~r"\.::I--OON.::I-r"\ .....
_OO__N","'-r"\r"\OO-NO ~
r"\~""'~""'r"\N-~"'-.::I""'''''' .....
.. .. .. .. .. .. - ... .. ... .. .. .. ..
.::I-O.....~r"\~N"'No,:)-.....O?~ .....
r"\....."'N .::I"r"\N--~.::I"""'''' .....
~ N _ N"'N '"'
N
0':)
N
'"
N
...".
r"\
.....
~
..
N
.::I"
~
..
~
r"\r"\..........-00~"'~r"\~~"'~"'.....
~-r"\O\O\O\O.::t'O\"'~r"\\,ONr"\N
....._.....N"'OO~-O\N--r"\-N.....
.. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ..
.....NO\r"\N"'~.::t'.::I-r"\O\"'O\~r"\r"\
0000\" OO"O\r"\Nr"\OO.....Nr"\.::t'
___ _ '" r"\ Nr"\r"\ 0()
..
N
-
...".
-
r"\
'"
..
-
-
N
..
~O\"'O\.::I-"'~IN"'.::t'O\ON
.....O':)r"\OO.....NO\.....r"\N~ON-
N____OOOO.::l-N.....NO\~-
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
O\N_"'.::t'r"\O.::t'NO\.::I-O\.::I-r"\
OON~O':) _~Or"\"'''''''r''\O
~NN N 00 r"\ ~-IO
N - "
0':)
...".
UJ
::>
Z
UJ
>
UJ
~
G.I
'- "0", II)
o I/)'U; V ....
V.c~""..c II)
II) Ill._::l.... V 0 C I/)
C_....OOUU 0 V
~ 8. I I I I C II) .+:: ::!
V')~XVG.lVV~E>'CIll G.I>.
Z V V U U U U V'jU g.2'0 0.. '-
UJO"tlOcScc....-.......v xv
_ C III ... CC III C U .y ... V >
0.. V c c c c.- o...~ a. II) I/) 0
X ..c:';:: V G.I V V Ill" :::I U V v t: ~ U
uJ" ~ c c c c E ~ ~ ~ ,,~ 0'''' v
c v'- .- .-.- L.. 0 0.. L.. V u"3 '-
(jlllo..lllCCllllllvG.l G.lG.III) ccG.l
Z ~ 0 E E E E.5 g ~-o.5:.2 C;..c ~
~v.:il:.:il:.:il:.:il:.:il:IllIll:a.:il:IllU~"'::l
<.~ g g g g g ~ 5 ::: g ~ lii ~ ~ g
~ '- '- '- ... '- '- 0 ::! ::l '- 0 '-'_ .... G.I
UJo...............u_c:o...Uu.oo~
0..
o
'"
-
'"
~
-
o
'"
-
0\
~
.....
..
~
.::I-
-
..
N
r"\0\r"\.....0"'.....
~~o~ooo-
~o.....~o-~
.. .. .. .. ..
.::t'O\~~NN.::t
N.::I-r"\"'-~.::I"
00 -Nr"\('.lOO
-
-
o
..
"'OO\.....O~.....
oo.....-O':)ooo.::t
OO?--~""'~
.. ... ... .. ..
'"
-
r"\~0\~r"\~'"
- - '"' ~ '"' '"
_ N
~
.::t'
N
0\
0\
.....
......::I".::t'r"\O"'r"\
"'''r''\\'oO~O\
~-O\O\N""'~
.. .. .. .. ..
0\..........-0\-.....
~-~~o~'"
N - \,0
N
-
'"
..
~
0\
-
_"'0.....0.::1".....
"'N"'-N-.....
O\O~OO-"N
.. .. ... .. ..
_"'O\-~r"\-
_ N ~ r"\ '" r"\ r"\
.::t' ---~
-
UJ
~
o
u
Z
-
(j
Z
~
<
~
UJ
0..
o
V')
V')
o
~
(j
V')
UJ
V')
Z
UJ
0..
X
UJ
UJ
> I/)
~ ~
< G.lC
".j tlOG.I
1o'OI cco..
... ....x
V') ~G.I
- tlO 0.. G.I
~ .5 "0 .~
:E ....c....
o cllllll~
< gll);:G.I~
U G.I 1/).... C
u'-'-... G.I
Q CIS 0...5 c...o.
~ -og..g~~
,1/)~I/)IllG.l....
- V G.I tlO l!t
< 'L: - u '- CC ~
~ III ~;;:: l:! c cu
UJ"'iaG.l........cc....
zV')..Joo:;.s
UJ
(j
N
'"
-
-
-
'"
r"\
N
'"
~
N
-
V')
V')
o
..J
-
UJ
~
o
u
z
-
(j
Z
-
...
<
~
uJ
0..
o
VALLEY DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
SUPPLEMENT AL SCHEDULE OF INCOME FROM OPERATIONS
Year ended December 31, 1987
Central City of
Sanitary City of San
District Walnut Creek Ramon Total
Revenue $ 7 , 121 ,862 $ 5,783,937 $ 1,724,965 $14,630.764
Operating expenses:
Salaries and wages 2,428,094 1,667,790 296,975 4,392,859
Payroll taxes 216,436 152,531 26,430 395,397
Employee benefits (Note 5) 699,620 487,464 131,823 1,318,907
... Worker's compensation 1417 ,9921
insurance 291,598 80,454 790,044
Dumping charges (Note 6) 1,.5.51,117 1,198,33.5 439,22.5 3,188,677
Box rent (Note 6) 2,080 1,386 3,466
Yard rent 7,026 4,904 1,325 13,255
Supplies 2.5,862 19,662 5,891 51,415
Franchise fee 26,695 219,478 170,287 416,460
Telephone and utilities 17,142 11 ,891 3,205 32,238
Box repairs 91,313 62, 100 17,385 170,798
Gas, oil and diesel 187,192 129,312 54,621 371,125
Tires and tubes 79,900 54,612 15,590 150,102
Truck repairs 427 247 335,264 88,047 850,558
')t Insurance 1557:511j 391,520 110,603 1,059,634
Property taxes 14,368 10,027 2,710 27 , 105
Interest on boxes 2,115 2,115
Interest on trucks 50 , 911 28,213 42,731 121,855
Truck rent (Note 6) 69,502 92,293 161,795
Other truck expenses 77,154 59,650 21,451 158,255
Office supplies and postage 45, 194 30,028 10 ~540 85,762
Legal and accounting 148,266 115,182 22,558 286,006
Directors' fees 1,749 1,221 330 3,300
Depreciation and amortization 391,511 337,335 273,976 1,002,822
Office and yard repairs 17,988 12,738 3,599 34,325
Other administrative expenses 107,873 69,477 13,691 191,041
Compactor expense 1,940 1,940
Resource recovery 62,981 62,981
7,663,798 5,846,992 1,833,447 15,344,237
Loss from operations ~ (.541,936) $ (63,0.5.5) $ (108,482) ~ (713,473)
10flU ''187 ~uiAN,r eo!.+, :6 '1~(o~
SCHEDULE 1
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
tn
Z
o
j::
<:
~
LIJ
0.
....0
Z~Cl'\
L1JOOO
:E~~
LIJ 11.. ..
OLIJ....
<:~~
Zos...
<: ~
~~E
L1J....~
....11..u
tnO~
<:LIJ"O
~..J~
>::>"0
uJOc
..JuJuJ
..J:C~
<:U~
>tn>
C
o
(;E
>-"'
...~
....
Ula
tn
-...~
O:::J ~
>-.5 ~
"'-s...
(JEiu
.... >-...
"' s... U
s... ",.-
......s...
C.- ...
~ la'~
UtnCl
iO
...
o
....
It"\
'l)
It"\
..
~1t"\~C'f'\It"\N""~~OOOOIt"\C'f'\It"\'l)1t"\
....C'f'\OOCl'\It"\N'l)OOIt"\....'l)~OO....~1t"\
'l)C)'l)....'l)'l)C)OONIt"\NCl'\It"\It"\NC)
.. . . - ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. -
_OCl'\'l)It"\~It"\C'f'\"_Cl'\'l)Cl'\It"\,,~
'l)"It"\OO-OOO....It"\OOON"'l)-C'f'\
OO~,,- ~NC'f'\-'l)-Cl'\N- 'l)
.. ..
It"\ - 00 Cl'\
-
00
"
00
..
N
N
~
'l)
"
Cl'\
..
Cl'\
N
N
Cl'\ It"\ 'l) It"\ Cl'\ " 'l) 'l) ~ 0\ 00 ~ 00 00
O~It"\.:::t-"N~.::2-NIt"\'''''N-Cl'\
Cl'\C'f'\"OIt"\N~Cl'\~OO""'l)C'f'\'l)
.. ... .. .. .. .. ... - .. . ~ .. ... ..
~'l)~Cl'\C)~O~.::2-C7\O"NN
Cl'\"_N_"C'f'\Cl'\N~OOO"C'f'\
,,_ .... _ ~\D
.~
'1
..
~
-
~
-
It"\
It"\
..
00
-
"
..
00
NC'f'\"O".::2-~O'l)'l)Cl'\It"\,,'-O'l)N
O",,'-OCl'\....Cl'\It"\~OO""-~C'f'\~
1t"\000'-ONCl'\000"'-OCl'\-~NN"
.. .. - - .. .. .. - ~ ... - .. .. ..
Cl'\1t"\"ONOOIt"\.....'l)'l)....OOIt"\""~
'-000""'" ,....,....,....It"\_~Cl'\N~-C'f'\
O-N - ~ N C'f'\_ N
..
N
C'f'\
~
00
C'f'\
o
..
o
~
Cl'\
Cl'\
C'f'\
~
-
U
uJ
....
o
Z
-
~
"Os...
5 ""V; ~ ~
~.o~"'.c '"
'" "'.... :::J ... ~ 0 C '"
c_",oouu 0 ~
tn ~""c'" .... '"
uJ '" e- 4.1 4.1 4.1 CI "' E >- C ~ ij ?'-
;2 Qj 4.1 g g g g ij'n; g.g'u 0._
uJ oS- tIC)"' "' "' "' ... u ClS ... 4.1 X ~
0.4.lccccc.5 o.ClSs...", CI
x.c+2 4.1 4.1 ~ ~ ClS"O :::J'U go 4.1 ~ caS
uJ"O :!~~~~ E la tl ~"O~ ~.5 ~
c ~._.........- s... 0 o.s... CI 0"3 s...
O"'o.ClSClSClSClS4.I4.I 4.1~", "'~
?: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ .5~ ~ =5 i -: ~
....~uuuuu...s..."Ou...c8.4.lO
<:.... :::J :::J :::J :::J :::J Co ~:::::::J OC "' ",.c ~
~s...s...s...s...s...s... c::::Js... s..........-
uJO....t-t-t-....u....l:Ct-UL1.00~
0.
o
uJ
::>
Z
uJ
>
uJ
~
"
"
Cl'\
,....
"
o
,....
00
o
It"\
..
~
~
N
..
~
It"\ 0 ~ 'l) 0 0'.::2-
~"C'f'\C)000~
~""'l)001t"\00
.. e( .. .. ..
'l)C'f'\-"NCl'\....
'-000Cl'\"0"0
Cl'\ -~N~N
N
o
'-0
~
..
00 0 N It"\ N -~C<l
00 N ~ \,4) Cl'\ ~ .~
N N 00 00 C'f'\ - t..
... .. ~ ... ..
It"\ 0 \.0 N 00 C'f'\/\'o
C'f'\It"\NIt"\NIt"\.::2-
.... C'f'\
00
~
It"\
Cl'\
o
00
..
C'f'\
00
~
..
-
.... Cl'\ 00 .... 0 C'f'\IN
N"O\.OOOIt"\O
N"--Cl'\OO-
OO-"NON~
C'f'\-'l)C'f'\,,~1t"\
C'f'\ -....."
-
~
N
..
N
N
N
'-O-C'f'\OOO\.O.::t'
~"OOOONOOOO
00",....1t"\~1t"\Cl'\
--.......
N-"NC'f'\C'f'\-
Cl'\NCl'\Cl'\OCl'\O
.;:t .... ..... ..... .....
-
uJ
:E
o
U
Z
....
o
Z
j::
<:
~
uJ
0.
o
tn
tn
o
~
o
tn
III
tn
Z
uJ
0.
:><
uJ
uJ
> '"
j:: ~
<: ClC
I'J eo ~
.... n!o.
.... ....x
~ ~G)
Z 1lO 0. 4.1
- .5 "0 .::
:E ...c....OI)
o 5"'~~4.I
.... O"''''~'''
" u4.l"'-C
o u :::: 'c ... ~
ClS 0..._ C 0..
Z "Og.E~~
<:",c","OE...
..J~ClS 104.1",
.... ._..... 4.1 '- bO ~
" s... _ U A. ll:l s...
I'J "' ....- .., c cu
......... bO_.c "' ....
~~~OO~.5
uJ
o
'-0
"
'l)
N
.::2-
o
:1
~i
~
"
o
"
o
~
"
~I
~
It"\
N
o
N
....
....
uJ
:E
o
U
Z
....
o
z
j::
<
~
uJ
0.
o
JUN-19-90 TUE
~ !
8:59 HF&H
P.02
150 Almaden. ;Yard
San Jose, CA 91;)113
Telephone ~08 2821200
t' "
Price Wa'terhouse
.
May 31, 1989
Mr. Paul H. Causey
Chainnan
Joint Refuse Rate Review Committee
Oro Lorna Sanitary District
2600 Grant A venue
San LOrenzo, CA 94580
Dear Mr. Causey:
~E\'IEW OF WASlE MANAGEMENT. INC.'S
~ORPQ.RATE AND REGIONAL OVERHEAl) COS,!:
Al~LOCAIION METHODOLOGY
This letter is the final report on our findings and conclusions resulting from our
review of Waste Management, Inc.'s (Wlv.1lIS) corporate and regional overhead
cost allocation methodology.
Backerounq
vr.MI acquired Oakland Scavenger Company (the Company) on December 1,
1986. The first rate application submitted to the Alameda County Joint Refuse
Rate Review Conunittee (the Committee) by 'WMI, subs~uent to the
acquisition, was in September 1987. The rate application Included a request for
corporate and regional overhead charges of over $2.4 million.
The Committee was unwilling to allow the charges merely as a result of a
change in the ownership of the Com;Rany. During a series of meetings held
over an extended period of time) the Committee agreed to allow a one..time
incentive in 1987 for documented cost savings resulting from the acquisition.
The Committee adopted the policy that the future allowance of any portion of
the overhead charges was contingent upon the results of a review of WMJ's
overhead cost allocation methodology by the Committee.
On January 1, 1988 WMl acquired Valley Disposal Company (Valley) which
provides collection services to the City of Walnut Creek, City of San Ramon
and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. As a result of the IlrSt rate
:review subsequent to the acquisition of Valley by \VMI, the Central Contra
Costa Sanitaty District and the City of Walnut Creek did not allow the corporate
and regional overhead charges. (These charges were not included in the request
to the City of San Ramon.)
All three jurisdictions joined the Committee in commissioning this review of
WMI's cost allocation methodology.
JUN-19-9121 TUE
, I
8:59 HF&H
Mr. Paul H. Causey
May 31, 1989
Page 2
.
O-bje~ti ve~
The jurisdictions' concerns regarding the overhead allocations were primarily
two~fold: .
· Are the costs included in the overhead pool reasonable and necessary costs
which should be borne by the local ratepayers?
.
· Are the allocations performed on a consi.stent and equitable basis to all
divisions in accordance with corporate policy?
The review was to provide the jurisdictions with sufficient detailed
documentation to evaluate the reasonableness of the overhead charges relative to
their local company's operations and services received from the corporate and
regional office.
Approf:ls=h
Over a ~rlod of several months, Price Waterhouse (representing the
franchisin; agencies) reached an agreement with Arthur Andersen & Co. (AA)
(representmg 'WMl) regarding the scope of work 'to be perfonned by AA in
reviewing WMJ's corporate and regional cost allocations. This scope of work
includedaetail testing of corporate and regional expenses and documentation of
the corporate and regional organizational structure and deSCription of each
organizational cost center's activities.
AA conducted their review during November and December 1988. Price
Waterhouse (accompanied by Mi. Paul Causey, Chainnan of the Committee)
met with AA and WMI on January 16 and 17 in Oakbrook, Illinois. Price
Waterhouse reviewed the AA workpapers and (joined by l\1r. Causey)
discussed the results of the review with AA and:Mr. leny Girsch~ WMl Vice
President/Controller. During the meeting on the 17th~ Price Waterhouse
submitted a list of questions seeking more detailed descriptions of the duties
associated with the corporate and regional cost centers and clarification of
certain expense accounts which Price Waterhouse felt were included in the
scope of work~ but not adequately addressed in the work performed by AA (see
Attachment 2).
Mr. Girsch was reluctant to respond to the questions:
· He believed that they were beyond the scope of the review;
· He was concerned that responding to the questions would lead to additional
questions rather than to the resolution of the current issues; and
· He stated that the information was proprietary and confidential and that once
it was provided~ it could become part of the public record. .
P.12I3
JUN-19-9\2l TUE
I
9 ~\2l HF&H
P.\2l4
Mr. Paul H. Causey
May 31, 1989
Page 3
.
Rather than respond to the questions, MI. Girsch proposed to :Mr. Causey that:
.
Wlv1I verbally respond to the jurisdictions' specific concerns regarding the
appropriateness of costs included in the pool;
· w:MI would reduce the corporate and regional cost allocation rates to reflect
inappropriate costs (such as the cost of acquisitions); and
.
· The review conduct,ed by AA could be repeated as frequently as necessary,
given the relative costs and benefits of such a review.
Mr. Causey presented this proposal to each of the jurisdictions for their
consideration. All of the jurisdictions' staff agreed that, without responses to
the Pdce Waterhouse questions, the staff would not be in a position to reach a
conclusion as to the reasonableness of the overhead charges to the local
company.
Subsequently, Mr. Dave McDonald of the Company met with the Committee
and proposed the following procedures in responding to the Conunittee's
concerns:
· Mr. Girsch would meet with Price Waterhouse and provide, in confidence,
verbal responses to the questions submitted to WMI on lanuary 17;
· On 'the basis of those responses, Price Waterhouse would compute the
overhead allocations and report its fmdings to the Committee.
(No such proposal was made to or acce(lted by the other juriSdictions. Had the
proposal been made, it is likely that the Jurisdictions would have evaluated the
limitations of such procedures and either accepted the proposal or not. Since
these jurisdictions llave not aireed to these procedures, their application to
Valley is for purposes of illustration only).
After some discussion of the limitations of these procedures, the Committee
directed us to conduct the engagement in accordance with these agreed upon
procedures.
At a meeting on Apri117 in the Company's offices in Oakland, they provided
verbal responses based on their personal knowledge of their business to all of
the remaining questions regarding corporate overhead charges and provided
additional information regarding the regional overhead charges. After we had
reviewed the regional infonnation, we sought explanations to certain questions
regarding the regional costs and received verbal ~sponses from Mr. McDonald
on May 10. .
..:rUN-19-90 TUE
. \
9"';01 HF&H
P.05
Mr. Paul H. Causey
May 31, 1989
Page 4
.
Findine.s
AA issued a final report on their review in a letter dated January 17, 1989 (see
Attachment 3). In that report, they stated that, for calendar year 1987:
· Corporate policy was to charge each division 2% of revenue for corporate
oyerhead expenses and 2% of revenue for regional overhead expenses.
· COIpOrate overhead expenses amounted to 1.6% otWMI's consolidated
revenue, and the Company had been allowed an effective rate of 1.29%; and
· Regional overhead expenses amounted to 2.96% ofy/estern Region
revenue, and the Company had been allowed an effective rate of 1.18%.
Based on our' discussions with :Mr. Oirsch and M'r. McDonald and the
compilation of the data resulting from these discussions, it appears that:
· Por the Company, 51 % of the costs included in the corporate cost centers
could be considered to be related to 'WMI operations (as opposed to new
acquisitions and shareholder relations);
· For Valley. 75% of the costs included in the corporate cost centers could be
considered to be related to WMI operations (the difference exists because
Valley does not maintain its own computer systems, but utilizes WMl's
corporate systems); and
· 77% of the costs included in the regional cost centers could be considered to
be related to WMI o~rations (again, as opposed to new acquisitions and
shareholder relations).
eonclusions
We conclude that, based on the review ofWMI's corporate and regional cost
allocations by AA and our application of the special procedures agreed to
between the Committee and WMI:
· Approximately onewhalf of fiscal year 1988 corporate costs (or 0.8% of
revenue) and three-fourths of fiscal year 1988 regional costs (or 2.2% of
revenue) could be considered to be related to the operations ofW1v1l and
reasonably allocated to the Company; and
· Approximately three~fourths of fiscal year 1988 cozporate costs (or 1.2% of
revenue) and regional costs (or 2.2% of revenue) could be considered to be
related to the operations ofWMI and reasonably allocated to Valley.
JUN-19-90 TUE
, .
9-=.01 HF&H
P.06
I .
Mr. Paul H. Causey
May 31, 1989
Page 5
.
This conclusion is based to a great extent on verbal representations 'of WMl
officials who are knowledgeable of WMI operations, but not the result of their
detailed analysis of corporate and regional costs or activities. Therefore,
although we believe their representations to be authoritative, had a more detailed
analysis been possible, the conclusions reached may have been different.
* * * * * *
We appreciate the opportunit)' to have worked with each jurisdiction in this
review. We particularly thank Mr. Paul Causey for his efforts on behalf of all
th~ jU,risdictions.
Sincerely,
" ,./.i J 1\ /'
"Ifi''dt -t/q/-r('Gt r-~ '-'
Robert D. Hilton
CC: Mr. David McDonald, Oakland Scavenger Company
Mr. Marshall Grodin, Valley Waste Management
Mr. Walter Cercauschi. Arthur Andersen & Co.
.
Centra~ ~ontra Costa Sanitarv.Astrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 4
POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING O'June 21, 1990
NO.
7. ENGINEERING a.
DATE June 19, 1990
SUBJECT
RECONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REAL PROPERTY
AGREEMENT WITH PINEBROOK PARTNERS, JOB 1529,
PARCEL 1, LAFAYETTE AREA
TYPE OF ACTION
RECEIVE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
SUBMITTED BY John Larson
Manager
INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Collection System
Operations Department
ISSUE: The Board considered and did not approve a Real Property
Agreement with Pinebrook Partners at its meeting on June 8, 1990.
The project proponents have requested the opportunity to present
additional information to the Board for its consideration.
BACKGROUND: The Pinebrook Partners have requested that they be
allowed to present additional information regarding their request
to construct a portion of their condominium development over the
District's easement. A copy of their letter requesting
reconsideration is attached.
In their letter, Pinebrook Partners has offered to:
1. Install the foundation of the building adjacent to the
right of way to a depth that will protect the building in
the event that future excavation is required.
2. Grant additional easement rights to provide room in the
event that future excavation is required.
They have not proposed any modification to the $3,000 limit on
future liability; however, they are in agreement with a CPI
escalation clause.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive additional information and reconsider
approval of a Real Property Agreement with Pinebrook Partners, Job
1529, Parcell, Lafayette Area.
CSOD/C:\PosPaper\Pnebrook.JL
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
~
at"
JSM
RAB
PZNEBROOK PARTNERS
199 North Hartz, Suite C
Danville, CA 94526
(415) 820-4427
June 13, 1990
Mr. John Larson
Manager, Systems Maintenance
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Easement Encroachment
920 Dewing Avenue
Lafayette
Tract 7373
Thank you for reviewing the Board's questions in connection
with my request for an encroachment authorization early
today. I apologize for not being able to at tend last
Friday's Board meeting. I understand the Board's reluctance
to move ahead without additional background and answers to
several fundamental questions.
The purpose of this letter is to ask for "reconsideration" by
the Board and to provide additional data for this review. My
motivation is belief that greater benefit ensues to the
District and to the community by attempting to find a reason-
able solution to a very difficult site planning problem.
BACKGROUND
Pinebrook Partners acquired the .54 acre parcel in August
1989. With cooperation from Lafayette Planning and Engi-
neering staffs and with what I believe is an exceptional
"cottage style" one and two story design, the Lafayette
Planning Commission gave its approval last December.
The approval process is complex. It is detailed, and from
the start, we believed we were using accurate data with
respect to your District's sanitary easement. During the
construction design process, actual field pipeline location
checks revealed our data base was inaccurate.
Easement Encroachment
920 Dewing Avenue
Lafayette
Tract 7373
Page 2
DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
It is always difficult to create "in fill" residential
housing when preservation of the existing environment and a
community desire to blend new housing into the neighborhood
are primary goals. We support this objective, and through
creative design, we would like to meet the community's goals.
The site has a gentle slope to a nearby creek. It is
constrained with a sewer easement and a number of major trees
which must be preserved. Because the site is small and
because of appropriate building setbacks, it was always clear
our building would need to be built immediately adjacent to
the sanitary easement. This allowed preservation of two
significant trees. A 26 inch Incense Cedar and a 16 inch
Stone Pine. These two trees add significantly to not just
our 9 unit project, but the neighborhood as a whole.
With a small site, it is very difficult to accommodate site
design constraints. It is not just shifting a building. It
has to do with stairways, parking, and other matters, as you
might expect. Since discovering our initial encroachment, we
have been working closely with District personnel to satisfy
all concerns. We have shifted the effected unit as far south
as possible to reduce the encroachment and still maintain
minimum clearance from the existing trees. This shift moves
the unit to just within the canopy of the Stone Pine. We do
not have room to move further south.
In addition to shifting the unit, the foundation has been
revised to provide for cantilevering that portion of the unit
which encroaches in the easement.
Our conc1usion was that considering the 1eve1 of
encroachment and the un1ike1ihood of ever needing to
open the sewer 1ine, we shou1d take a course to
improve the District's position with respect to the
future whi1e not detracting from Lafayette's community
design goa1s.
COMPENSATION/VALUE
The $3,000 amount to be set aside to cover future maintenance
matters has attached to it a CPI cost escalator. This is
part of the agreement concluded with Bill Gregory. Our
agreement will be assumed by the Homeowners' Association. The
$3,000 "reserve fund" is established under very strict regu-
Easement Encroachment
920 Dewing Avenue
Lafayette
Tract 7373
Page 3
lations of California's Department of Real Estate. We are
required by law to disclose our agreement obligation to all
buyers. The fund will be maintained by the Homeowners'
Association budget reserves as required by State regulation.
FOUNDATION DESIGN
To accommodate the unlikely need to
building foundation, we are revising our
extend the 18 inch piers adjacent to the
pipe invert elevation.
excavate near the
foundation design to
easement line to the
WORKING ROOM
Today, there is very little room for easy access to this
section of the pipeline easement. This is due to three
parcels intersecting near the angle point in the line
(manhole). To make future access easier, we would be pleased
to dedicate an additional 5 feet on the northeast side
through our property should you so desire.
SUMMARY
I be~ieve we now have a practica~ so~ution which
benefits a~~ parties invo~ved. The Lafayette community
and the p~anned Pinebrook community benefit from tree
preservation. The District position with respect to
any required maintenance is enhanced by deep bui~ding
foundation piers, a wider easement, and avai~ab~e
funds to support future maintenance if ever required.
This matter appears at first to be just a simple redesign
problem, but redesign has taken place, and we seek the
District's cooperation to arrive at a practical solution that
is a benefit to all involved.
Thank you for your analysis and support. I appreciate the
opportunity to personally present this matter to the Board
for reconsideration.
~)~
Dudley Frost
General Partner
.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING oEfune 21, 1990
NO.
11. BUIX;ET AND FINANCE b.
DATE June 11, 1990
SUBJECT
APPROVE BOARD RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1990-1991
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, SELF-INSURANCE FUND, TYPE OF ACTION
PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET ADOPTION
BUDGETS, AS COMPRISING THE 1990-1991 DISTRICT
BUDGET
SUBMITTED BY
Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer
INITIATING DEPT IDIV
Administrative/Finance
& Accounting
ISSUE: The 1990-1991 Operations and Maintenance, Self-Insurance
Fund, Personnel, Equipment, and Capital Improvement Budgets are
submitted for adoption by the Board of Directors.
BACKGROUND: The 1990-1991 Operations and Maintenance and Self-
Insurance Fund Budgets were approved by the Board of Directors on
June 8, 1990. In its approval action, the Board increased the
present 1989-1990 Sewer Service Charge rate of $124 per year to
$136 per year for 1990-1991. The Board approved a recommendation
to eliminate a self-insurance expense charge in the 1990-1991
Operations and Maintenance Budget because the reserves of the Self-
Insurance Fund had achieved a satisfactory level, and approved the
1990-1991 Self-Insurance Fund Budget.
The 1990-1991 Personnel and Equipment Budgets were approved at the
April 19, 1990 and May 17, 1990 Board Meetings, respectively.
The Capital Improvement Budget was reviewed at the June 8, 1990
Board Meeting and is scheduled for approval at today's Board
Meeting, following a public hearing.
A copy of the Board resolution adopting the 1990-1991 Operations
and Maintenance, Self-Insurance Fund, Personnel, Equipment, and
Capital Improvement Budgets,and determining that no paYment by the
Running Expense Fund to the Self-Insurance Fund was required, is
attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Board resolution to adopt the 1990-1991
Operations and Maintenance, Self-Insurance Fund, Personnel,
Equipment, and Capital Improvement Budgets, as comprising the 1990-
1991 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Budget.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A-9/85
SSS/Position Paper #2jBudgetAd.PP
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1990-1991
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT BUDGET
The District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District does hereby resolve as follows:
THAT, the 1990-1991 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Budget, consisting of the Operations and Maintenance Budget, Self-
Insurance Fund Budget, Personnel Budget, Capital Improvement
Budget, and Equipment Budget, be adopted; and
THAT, payment by the Running Expense Fund to provide funding
for the District's Self-Insurance Fund for 1990-1991 would not be
required.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June 1990 by the District
Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the
following vote:
AYES: Members:
NOES: Members:
ABSENT: Members:
President of the Board of Directors,
Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District, County of Contra Costa,
State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary of the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District, county
of Contra Costa, State of California
Approved as to Form:
Kenton L. AIm
Counsel for the District
SSS/Position Paper #2/Budgetad.PP pg 2