The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 08-01-85 <C<SD Central \;ontra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer N~ IV. HEARINGS 1 8 1 85 JULY 26, 1985 POSITION PAPER DATE SUBJECT CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED NEW SCHEDULE OF TYPE OF ACTION FEES FOR PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION, COLLECTION CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING SYSTEM, RIGHT-OF-WAY, INDUSTRIAL PERMIT, SEPTAGE DISPOSAL, AND SUBMITTED BY JOYE KURASAKI, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ENGINEERING DEPT./PLANNING DIVISION ISSUE: A publ ic hearing is required prior to the adoption of a new schedule of fees. BACKGROUND: A new schedul e of fees has been developed to refl ect the current cost of plan review, construction inspection, collection system, right-of-way, industrial permit, septage disposal, and miscellaneous fees for private sewer construction projects. The District industrial permit and septage disposal fee schedule has been in effect since 1979-80 and Spring 1977, respectively. The current District schedule of fees for reviewing and inspecting private sewer construction projects has been in effect for one year. At the time that the fees for private sewer construction projects were increased last year, it was noted that District staff would review the basis of all fees during the upcoming year. As part of the ongoing Rates and Charges Update Study, District staff has reviewed the available data for the cost of providing the various services. An updated fee schedule has been developed based upon that data. Attachment A, Table A-l summarizes the fees that have been evaluated by District staff showing both the current and recommended charges. District staff has met or had telephone conversations with representatives of the permitted industries, permitted septage haulers, and the Building Industry Association of Northern California and Associated Bufl ders and Contractors, Inc. Contact has al so been made with two contractors (Overmiller, Inc. and J. Arthur White Corporation) who regularly install public mains in the District and have previously expressed a desire to meet with District staff on the fee issues. Comments received from these sources are incl uded in Attachment B for Board review. Legal notice of this publ ic hearing was publ ished on July 19 and 26 in the Contra Costa Times. In addition, all people attending the publ ic hearing will be provided with a copy of this Position Paper and the background information package that was attached to the July 18, 1985, Position Paper that set this hearing. This background information package with minor revisions is included in Attachment C. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION J At. [C RJD INITIATING DEPT./DIV. JK JMK RAB POSITION PAPER Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Conduct a public heari ng and receive comments on the proposed new schedule of fees. 2. Consider approval of the proposed fee schedu1 e with a September 1, 1985, implementation date. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District July 31, 1985 FROM: SUBJ ECT : HONORABLE MEMBERS OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS ROGER J. DOLAN ~ ROBERT A. BAKERj',(A.6:::- At>. ~ JAMES M. KELLY rT- JOYE KURASAKI qv- ADDENDUM TO FOREGOING POSITION PAPER - MAINLINE INSPECTION FEE AL TERNATIV E TO: VIA: The Positi on Paper to conduct a public heari ng on the proposed new schedule of fees contains District staff's proposed mainline inspection fee of: Mainline Inspecti on Fee = $847 + $l.1S/L.F. base charge In response to comments that the $847 base charge placed an unfair burden on developers of small projects, District staff has developed an alternative mainline inspection fee for Board consideration <Table 1). This alternative divides the mainline inspection fee into two components: a base cost which increases as the project linear feet increases and a cost per linear feet which decreases as the project linear feet increases. Overall this has a net effect of lowering the mainline inspection fee for small projects (i.e., projects less than 600 linear feet). Di stri ct staff has telephoned the contractors and bu 11 di ng and development associations regarding this alternative mainline inspection fee. Although District staff was unable to reach the appropriate contact person, it is staff's opinion that the contractors would be in favor of the alternative method since it does result in a lower inspection fee for small projects. District staff requests that this alternative be considered during the public hearing conducted on the proposed schedule of fees. JK: bc Attachments TABLE I MAINlINE INSPECTION FEE At TERNATIVE PROJ ECT L.F. EQUATION 0< <100 Fee = $300 + $3.00/1f 100< <200 fee = $350 + $2.50/1f 200< <300 Fee = $450 + $2.00/1f 300< <400 Fee = $52S + $1.75/1f 400< ~500 Fee = $625 + $1.50/1f 500< <600 Fee = $750 + $l.2S/lf 600< Fee = $810 + $1.15/1f N J: + Q) Q) .... C) .Q L. IG Q) IG ~ .r; L. 0 .. '010 . N < Q).r; Q)I.L cl1 UlO UI . +oJ 0 IG...J C 0...\0 .Q ...... .r; Q) 00:> Lt'l +oJ E L. I ,........ ..... .r; o..Lt'l Q) Q) Q) ;;5,..: Q) :. 0 0:> C) C) C) .r; C) .r; L. 10 .r; 0\ C C C 4oI"t 4oI"t 0 C o Q) ::s +>> 0 .... IG 10 10 IG IG IG C 0 ~ 10 .r; .r; .r; II Q) .r; Q)..... .r; Q) 0 0 0 0 .Q ......\0 Q) 0:> ~8 0\Lt'lQ) 0 0 0 0 Q) .q- 0 ('I'I....Q) ,.... Z Z Z I.L 4oI"t Z 4oI"t0 4oI"t 4oI"t en 4oI"t en Z 0 1-1 Q) en H L. ,.... ,.... > IG E E LLJ .r; ::s ::s < 0:: 0 . E . E . .... I.L ..... I.L ..... I.L ~ J: LU +>> . C .r; .r; . C . .r; .r; .r; L. .r; Z LLJ +>>0 ...J ..... 0 0 ...J ..... ...J 0 0 0 ::s 0 ~ I.L C..... ......E 10 10 ......E ...... IG IG 10 0 IG LU Q) L. \0 Q) Q) 0\ \0 Q) Q) Q) .r; Q) ~ ...J \0 L.+>> ......q- ,....0:> ('1'1 ...... \0 Q) ~ 0:> L. UI .0 CO ..... .0\ . ('1'1 0 .... .q-('I'IC N I ::s ..... 0('1'1 ('1'1 Lt'l ('I'IN .... ('1'1 .... N ('1'1....0 Lt'l ~ ~ Lt'l 00 4oI"t4ol"t 4oI"t 4oI"t 4oI"t 4oI"t 4oI"t 4oI"t 4oI"t 4oI"t 4oI"t4ol"tZ 4oI"t 0:> ..... 0\ .... 0 LU ,.... en c: . ~ 0 C ..... ..... 0 L.+>> E 0:: >. o 0 C 0.. L. C Q) 0 L. I IG IG ..0... ..... ::s+>> C .... C UI ~ 0..... Z ..... 0.. o C .r; "0 .... E ..... 1-1 Q) I Q) 'I- IG ..... .... +oJ 0... .q-L. 0 C .... IG o C UI Q) .....0 ..... Q) C Q) 0 C .... C,.... I.L L. ..... C C..... H 0 C UI C OH 0.. I.L 0 C+>> .r; o >. 0 .....0:: .... ..... o 10 L. C ..... 10..... +>> +>> +oJ +oJ OL. ..... IG +>>"O~ OL. + C C 0 Q) IG ~ 0..... ::s 0 Q) Q) Q) Q)+>> 0... Q)....Q) L. >. ::s ::s 0... UI.... Q) 'I- 0...00... 1;;i L. UI c:rUl c:r UI ::s< 0:: 0 UI::I:UI ~ I Q) :. Q) C 0 C C C..... UI Q) UI H 0 0 ::I:L. L. C C H"'H 0 ..... ..... .Q ..... .Q 0 0 Q) Q) o 0 OQ) E > ::s > ::s Q) .q- .q- .. :. it ..... ..... Q) UI Q) L. .....Q) enQ) en UI C V ^I ....Q) +>>+>> E"O E +oJ::s ....0:: 0:: I ..... IGen en o 0 ..... c..... O+>> Q) .., .., .... L. Q) Q) +oJQ)+oJ Q) 0 ~ L. C C ..... C UI UI Q) Q) Q) o...C L.~L. o...::s LU Q..IG "OIG "0 > Z ..... .Q .Q +>>"0 "0 UI C Q) Q) Q) UI L. H .... L..... C Q) 0 10 0 0 IG..... ..... C 0 >Q)> C+oJ > No.. ('1'10.. NO:: H ~ I"? I"? ...J en en 1-10 O~O Hen ~ t> ,.... ~ ,.... ,.... ,.... ,.... ,.... ,.... ~ .... N ('1'1 .... N ('1'1 .q- Lt'l \0 J: J: J: en ell ell ell ell clJ ell -l Z ..... 0.. H ..... > ..... +>> ,.... ,.... 0 < CO < 1 e 0 "'0 ~ ..... Q) Q) Ul ~ L. 0 ~ .... '- 0 0) ::3 "'O~ 0) CT Q).s::. ,.... L. 0) Ule.> ~ 0) L. 0 ::3 0) 8-lB ~ ,.... Ul Ul 0 E ~ L. I >. 0 >. >. ~ ::3 0 0....0 ~ L. ~ ~L. ~ L. .c E a 0) co "'0::3 0 "'0::3 "'0::3 0 .s::. e L..... 0 e,.... 0\ .......0 r- .......0 .......0 ~ 0 0 ::3 e I-l .... C'f'I r- ..,..s::. ....... co .s::. r- .s::. Q) ~ 0.... 0 >'1 ..,........ r- 0....... \0 ....... 0) "'0 .s::.E ....J Q)UJ 0\0 ..,. ..,. ON..,. r-O\\O \0 Q) ....... " > .. ..... \0 0 .. ..... N ..Nr- ..,. ..,. Ul ~a; 0 L.O) r- r- ..,. 0 r-,....N r- r- LO r- LO ~ C'f'I ::3 0) .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 0) .... .... .... Ulen + +..... ~ ~ "'0 Ul 0) 0 L. 0 .... ::3 0) r- CT ~ Q) L. ::3 L. ~ ~ .s::. 0 ,.... ,.... Ul e.> ~ E E ~ L. L. .s::. ,.... ::3 ::3 ~ >.::3 >.L. >.::3 0 .c e 0) E E 0) ~o ~ 0 ~ ::3 ~o ~ 0 0 0.... L..... L.e e.... "'0 .s::. "'00 "'0 .s::. Q) ~ L. e ::3 e ::3 .... Q) L. ....... ....... ........s::. ....... ....... 0) "'0 ~.... 0.... 0>. L.~ ""C'f'I N 0) CO....... 0 ""C'f'IN ..,. Q) a..E .s::.E .s::.Q) L. Ul NO r- e ""'0 CO NO,.... 0 r- Ul .......N ....... .......> ::3 .... COr- ..,. 0 .....O\r- CO,......,. r- N ~ r-N r- L. e.>a .... .... .... z .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... co ~\O N\O N::3 .... .... ~~ ....Ul ..... + ,.... ,.... 0 0 e e ..... ~ .... E .... E "'0 L. 0) L. ~ Ul ~ ::3 L. ::3 e "'0 0 0 e.> 0 Q) 0) r- .s::. .s::. E 0) O)~ I I I Ul a cO) ..,. ..,. L. Ul ....0:: r- r- ..... .... 0) E Ul ~ ~ ~ Ul .... Ul 0 .... Ul .... Ul a.. Ul ~ Q)~ ~ >. ~ >. Q) c:c: r- gO) .... ~ .... e ~ 0:: 0 e "'0 e ,.... ::3 "'0 0 ~ L. e I-l .... I-l E L. ..... i H ..... 0...... r- ::3 0) r- ..J a ~ I 0 I E 0:: 0 ~ "'O~ :::I: .... :::I: Ul ~ e,.... e 0) Q) e Q) >. 0 ~ ~ 0) 0 E ~ E .... E ~ en 0 c:: .... .... .... E .... e e :E ~ ~ Ul ~ e ~ Ul e 0 0) o Ul ~ 0 L. "'0 L. ::3 L. L. "'0 a.. 0 .... e ....~ Q) 0) e 0) L. ::3 0) e ~ ~ .... ~ .... ~e>. en a.. 3 0) > &! 0 3 0) I-- Ul ~ ~ Ul ~Q)~ >- Ul ~ 0 .s::. ~ 0) 0 0) Ul L.iL. en e Q) I Q) L. I-- Q) ~ 0) Q) ~ Q) I-l > Q) > > N > 0) Q) r- L. 0 a..Q)a.. :z I-- ~ I-- I-- I-- ~ . Q) r- ~ 0) 0 O)L.O 0 > 0) >. 0 I Q) L. L. 0) L. I-l I-- I I I en a e.> LL en 0.. o..c:c:o.. b 0 UJ ,.... ,.... t-!. ,.... ,.... ..J r- N cr ..,. :::I: r- N cr ...J I I I c.l' I I ~ 0 CJ CJ CJ CJ H C C C .... e.> 0:: ..... > .... ~ ,.... ,.... ~ e.> 0 2 r- L r- r- '" III r-'" r-'" ::J Q) Q) "'0> "'0> +.J III - 0>..... 0>..... Co) L ..... '<:t ..... '<:t '" ..... o '" . '<:t('f"l '<:tl'- Q) 0 L.>U"l ('1"10 1'-0 e '" ~ 0 . 0 . L. "0 0 +J Q)Q)N '0 '0 "0'" a> III >. a> .. 0_ 0_ a>.c. L "0 0 .....('1"1 - - III 0 - Q) Co) L. - + + 0 ::J III O+J + + 0..\0 tT '" e__ 0 ~ ~ OCO f ..c OL.E+J ~U ~U L. I 0..L. U ::J U::J O-U"l "0 a> ('f"l r-::JL ::JL CO a> L a> L 0.. I'- "'L+J L.+J 0\ +J $ ::J 1Il0 \0 O>+J , +J..... r- '" 0 "'.....r-_ "U"l 'U"l E ..... .&:. ..c '" r-O('l"l 0('1"1 - +J , a> ::J ~ 0 00 . 0 . ~ ~ III ~ a> U e 0 .. '0 '0 a> 0 Q)-eL r- Or-N r-N IJ.J ZU - l.L.><..... - --- -- "0 Q) Q) L. L. - '" ::J .c. tT 0 f +J r- r- r- r- r- +JU Q) L. "''''''' "'''' e.... +J ::J 0>0>0> 0> 0> Q)L. '" 0 .......... ..... " t~ E .c. r- r- r- U"l U"l - ..... 0 000 00 ::J_ +J ('1"1 0 .. .. . . . 00 III r- N r- 000 00 IJJ - - - --- - .... L Q) Q) ~ +J '" (I) > r- r- - '" '" a> L 0> 0> +J 0- '" 0 0 > L. L.O 0 - 0 00 0 L. ..... +J .. t .. 0- Q) Q) +J o..N N e Q) Q) U a>y - Y L 0 .. l.L. l.L. a> .... U L. 0 -Ill IJ.J 0> L L ~ ..... ~t ~ +J +J L ~ Q)r- r- - - '" +J'" - '" 0> ::JQ) E E .c. - c_ O - e r- ...., r- 0 0 -+J +J - '" 0 0> t-t Q) ...J Q) e Q) e L.1Il >L. e :E 0- < 0- r- e a> Q) III "0 Q) III $t IJ.JO- - 0:: (I) '" - III "0 L - "0 L (I) >. ~ r- ~ r- III .c. "'-Q) III -Q) B e a> III L. a> '" '" 0 +J a>1Il.c. +J 1Il.c. - ...., r-a> > ::J (I) ::J 0.. - L.Q)+J ::J Q)+J IJ.J 0>0 -~ L. ...J e H e III ~ O>LO 0 LO ~ e L. o Q) ::J < e 0 e - IJ.JO- (I) (I) (I) H < < 0 I ...J r:: IJ.J ...J ~ ~ ,.... ,.... ,.... (I) ,.... ,.... ,.... r- N ('1"1 5 r- lL r- N (I) LL I I I c!, c!, t-t UJ IJ.J Z l.L. UJ - :E t-t (I) ..... > - +J ,.... ,.... ,.... U IJ.J l.L. ~ < ..... 3 ATTACHf.ENT A TABLE A-2 OVERTIME MAINLINE INSPECTION CREDIT Total Project Overtime Overtime Hours Cred i tHou rs < 4 1 4 < < 8 2 8 < < 16 4 16 < i 32 6 > 32 8 EXAMPLE I T ota 1 Net T ota 1 Proj act Overtime Overtime Less Overtime Overtime Hours Credit Hours Cost Credit Fee A B C D E 2 1 78 32 46 4 1 156 32 124 6 2 234 64 170 8 2 312 64 248 12 4 468 128 340 16 4 624 128 496 18 6 702 192 510 33 8 1287 256 1031 Column B = Overtime credit hours from Table above C = Column A x S39/hour D = Column B x S321hour E = Column C - Column D NOTE: S39/hour and S321hour includes S6.20/hour for truck 4 -----------~- -- ---~ - ---------------------.----- ~_._-~ -----...--~------ ATTACHMENT B This Attachment summarizes the comments that had been received by July 26, 1985. The comments are organized according to the following: 1. Contractors and Building or Development Associations 2. Industrial Permit Fee 3. Septage Disposal Fee CONTRACTORS AND BUILDING OR DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATIONS Contact by letter and telephone has been made with two contractors and four associations. Their comments as of July 26, 1985, are: 1. No comments or responses received from one contractor (J. Arthur White Corporation) and three associations (Associated Bul1ders and Contractors, Bul1ding Industry Association, and Contra Costa Development Association). 2. One association (Underground Contractors Association) that the proposed schedule of fees did not apply membership. determined to their 3. One contractor (Overmill er, Inc.) commented that the fees are too high, in particular the "Inspect Construction of New Structure Fee." District staff has made a change to reflect this comment. INDUSTRIAL PERMIT FEE Currently, there are 11 permitted industries within the District's service area. All 11 industries were contacted by letter and telephone regarding the proposed new industrial permit fee. Their comments are summarized below: 1. Two industries (E.G.& G. and Tracor/MBA) preferred the average cost per industry method of computing the permit fee. Note that E.G.& G. is in the process of moving the industrial portion of its facilities outside the District and converting to a commercial facility. 2. Four industries (Chevron, Del Monte, PG&E Research, and Concord Naval Weapons Stati on, who were contacted by telephone) concurred with Di stri ct staff's proposed method. Letters from Del Monte and Concord Naval Weapons Station are attached. A District staff response letter was sent to Concord Naval Weapons Station. A subsequent telephone call indicated that there were no further questions or comments. 3. Two industries (Beckman Instruments and Varian) responded without adverse comments, but did not express a preference for a particular method for computing the permit fee. 4. Three industries (Dow Chemical, Etch-Tek, and Siemens Medical Laboratories) commented that the proposed fee was too high. a. Dow Chemical - had responded by a telephone call. They had expected a maximum fee increase of possibly up to $100 per year. Dow is already experiencing an increase in cost due to a change in the Pretreatment Ordinance, which requires analytical work to be done twice per year. Dow did not express a preference for a particular method for computing the permit fee. District staff offered to meet with Dow to explain the work done to compute the industrial permit fee. Dow refused since individual meetings were being scheduled with each industry instead of including all industries at a single meeting. Dow did not feel that they could influence the District's decision regarding thi s fee a1 though staff exp1 ai ned that a deci sion had not been made and that staff was seeking industry's input and comments. b. Etch-Tek - letter from Youngman and Chamberlin, attorney for Etch-Tek, is attached. This letter was discussed at a meeting with Etch-Tek and their attorney. District staff responded that the high pH discharge from Etch-Tek will not be of benefit to the District with the start-up of the Stage 5B project. District staff also clarified the difference in the purpose of the EQC and the industrial permit fee. A verbal request for information by Etch-Tek at the meeting was followed by a District staff response letter. A subsequent telephone call indicated that there were no further questions. c. Siemens Medical Laboratories - letter from Siemens Medical Laboratories is attached. In a telephone conversation, District staff expl ained how the man-hours per industry were obtained. District staff re-evaluated the laboratory cost and has reduced the cost to refl ect the second comment in the Siemen's letter. A follow-up telephone call to notify them of the change in the laboratory cost indicated that there were no further questions or comments. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. V. BIDS & AWARDS 1 8 1 85 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE Jul 25, 1985 SUBJECT AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR HOlDING BASIN "C" RENOV ATION, DISTRICT PROJ ECT NO. 3615 AND AUTI-lORIZE $406,000.00 FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND TYPE OF ACTION AWARD CONTRACT AUTHORIZE FUNDS SUBMITTED BY Jarred Miyamoto-Mills, Assoc. Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Dept./Engineering Division ISSUE: On July 25, 1985, sealed bids for construction of Holding Basin "C" Renovati on, Di stri ct Proj ect No. 3615 were received and opened. The Board of Directors must award a contract or reject bids within 60 days of bid opening. BACKGHOUND: There are three holding basins at the Treatment Plant providing storage capacity for wastewater bypassed during peak storm flows and emergencies. The renovati on of Hol di ng Basi n "C" is the fi nal phase of a program to improve the three holding basins so that maximum storage volume is provided. Holding Basin "A" was renovated in 1979 and Hol di ng Basi n "B" was renovated in 1980. The renovated Holding Basin "C" will provide approximately 30 million gallons of additional storage capacity. With this additional capacity, the total Plant storage capacity will be increased to 170 mill ion gallons of storage, which equates to roughly 5 days of dry weather storage. Plans and specifications for the project were prepared by District staff. On July 25, 1985, three (3) bids ranging from $296,220.71 to $345,535.00 were received. A tabul ati on of bi ds is presented in Attachment 1. After recei pt of bids, all bids were evaluated by staff. The lONest responsible bidder is Winton Jones Construction, Inc. The Engineer's Estimate, prepared by District staff, was $386,000. The difference between the apparent lON bid and the Engineer's Estimate is due to a very competitive bidding environment, lONer than estimated sludge disposal cost, and the lON bidder's low mobilization, debt service, and equipment capitalization costs. A post bid/pre-construction cost estimate is presented in Attachment 2. At this time $406,000.00 in additional funds are needed for the construction contract, force account costs for construction management, survey and inspection, and construction contingencies. The total project cost is estimated at $449,969.00. This project is included in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan. RECOM'-1ENDATIQN: Award the constructi on contract for Hol di ng Basi n "C" Renovati on, District Project No. 3615 to Winton Jones Construction, Inc., per their proposal received July 25, 1985. Authorize $406,000.00 from the Sewer Construction Fund for the contract, force account, and contingencies. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION fJRtJ DRW INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ATTACHMENT 1 CentraL ":ontra Costa Sani{ ry District .UMMARV DF .IDS PROJECT NO. 3615 - Holding Basin "C" Renovation DATE July 25. 1985 ENGR. EST. $ 386,000.00 LOCATION CCCSD Wastewater Treatment Plant II: ~ .IDDER (Name, telephone & address) BID PRICE 1 Wi nton Jones Construct; on, T nc. L41 ~) fiR?-l R7n $ 296,220.71 1949 Arnold Industrial Hwy..Concord. CA 94520 2 McGuire & Hester (415 ) 632-7676 $ 335.335.00 796 - 66th Avenue, Oakland, CA 94621 3 Hess Const. Co. (707 ) 255-8686 $ 345,535.00 552-7931 4484 Hess Drive, Vallejo, CA 9Miqn I-- ( ) $ - ( ) $ ( ) $ ( ) $ ( ) $ ( ) $ - ( ) $ - ( ) $ ( ) $ PREPARED BY J. r~iyamoto-Mi 11 s 7j25/85 DATE . . SHEET NO. 1 OF 1 2503-9/84 ! ^'-'-"'-~' ..-._-_.__._._,_.._..__.~_._-_._._...._-,-..~--_.,_._.."~~"-'-'--.~-" ATTAOitENT 2 POST BID - PRECONSTRUCTION ESTIMTE OF COSTS FOR DISTRICT PROJ ECT NO. 3615 HOlDING BASIN "e. RENOVATION ~ QE_SJlUF~rIQN 1. Construction Contract (As Bid) 2. Estimated Construction Contingencies 3. Estimated Construction Management Costs Survey Inspection Engineering Contract Administration Total Estimated Construction Management 4. Security (Gate Attendant) 5. As-Built Drawings 6. Total Estimated Post Bid Cost 7. Pre-Bid Expenditures Survey, Engineering, Printing, Adverti sing Special Services Equipment Prepurchase 8. Total Preconstruction Cost (as of 7/31/85) 9. Total Estimated Proj ect Cost <Items 6 & 8) 10. Funds Previously Authorized ITEM ~utn $ ___5.19JlQ $. 16.1~W.o $ ~.l.l.l4Q.O_ ~ $ A.aLS~Q.cL lQT.AL ~ CON ST. C9Rm.~CT $ 226,122(L.J1 _ .lQ.O _. ._ $ ...45.1_00.0 .29 . __15.__. __ $:'lat.5QQ.QO_ . l6.... " __ $ ... J>4.60O"...O'O .. ._.. Z ___ $"1 .1.1..1.00-,-0.0 ... ..L ._. . $39.8.122.1..0.o 13A._~._~ $ !3.L~48 $.. . 4.,,60.0_ $~ $ _5;1...1 48.. $ _Sl ..148 .00 ..._11._ . 11. Total Additional Funds Required to Complete Project (Item 9 minus Item 10) $4~9J.9.69...oQ 152..._ _. $ _4.3.1269...00 $.iO.Q.,QQ.O...OO . ..... <c(sD Central (iontra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE JULY 18 1985 SUBJECT ACCEPT THE CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MODI FICA- IONS OF COMPUTER ROOM HVAC SYSTEM (PROJECT 20017), AND AUTHOR- IZE THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK SUBMITTED BY UNAWAR HUSAIN, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER INITIATING DEPT./DIV. CONSTRUCTION AND SERVICES DIVISION ISSUE: Work has been completed on the Modifications of Computer Room HVAC System project and the project is now ready for acceptance. BACKGROUND: Work under this contract included installation of a District furnished process air conditioning unit and a condenser unit and making various duct work and electrical modifications to the Plant Operations Building Computer Room HVAC System. Cal-Neva Environmental Systems was awarded the contract for this work in March 1985. A Notice to Proceed was issued by the District on March 25, 1985. On July 16, 1985 the contractor completed the contract work. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Contract for construction of Modifications of Computer Room HVAC System (Project 20017) and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION Jjj, ~ RJD INITIATING DEPT./DIV. MH JSM RAB c((SD Central \,;ontra Costa Sanitar)' District BOARD OF DIRECTORS I VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN POSITION PAPER General Manager-Chief Engineer SUBJECT AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 85-15 (DANVILLE) AND P.A. 85-16 (DANVILLE) TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer Parcel No. Area 85-15 Danville (7 8C6) 85-16 Danville 100 K2 ,3&4 NO. VI. CONSENT CA7LE~DAR 3 8 1/85 DATE JULY 23, 1985 TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT FOR PROCESSING INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Dept.jConstruction Division I Owner I Address Parcel No. & Acreaae Darl a Stevens I 45 Spri ng Ln. Danv111e, CA 94526 200-220-016 (1.44 AC) I Shapell Industries of N. Calif. 1100 N. Mil pitas Blvd. Milpitas, CA 95035 I 202-100-016 and 1207-050-006 (248.52 AC) Remarks I Lead ~oencv Exi sti ng hone, I failing septic system. 01 s- trict to prepare "Not1 ce of Ex- emption" . CCCSD I I Proposed Sub. I Ci ty 6416-hav i ng 389 I of I single family lOan- I hones. An EIR I ville I has been com- I I pl eted and cer- I tif1ed, the prcr perty has been rezoned by the by the City of Danv ill e. Thi s area can be served by gravity RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 85-15 and 85-16 to included in a future formal annexation. INITIATING DEPT./DIV. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/ON j/;Jf " IIJ 'l DH JMc PfiP RAB G~~ 7/ HIEF ENG. -V ., 7""" RJD ~ - ~' r .,." _ 5'1 It .J ~ to CAMENSON 37588AC - SUB >. '1 50i,) - 'i:~ . j-*1~k1 h '~]!;j~:\\",\: }--- ~?:f ~ su ., '~~l :::::', . , " f) '. 1 ~l'" /B ~ LOT ., .. >;{26;!..........-:~......'...... ....~. , ~~. .~\~ 'Z.".-"~ ~ .~ . ~. ~ Jr-. ~-... ", ~ .:,alG'-,.; t2 ~l J: I ',:, \- ~ --. ~~' -0 > \ ~ ~~/ ~ez~ I~~"'~ .~~,' · D!1~':, ~ ""~\J' ". ~ ", /-~,. \~~ .... II }:'\ n ~ ' II t" I : .. " '0 ... S ) B I- 4'7 2 ... , j 10" 11'~ I :5 71~:-- za ~II ~ ",+ II ,;... if ~~. I~ ~J~ '7('- " !...'1' -,- ,., 14// I II '/ 1/ ,,1,' / I 91'" -95 .8 n . 1 . II' .. 14 _.....11 '.11 :::::'::;:;::" .. ~ II zo ZI 7 ~:. '4 ,~ · tl~ \-=~ tIP: ,. S~ 4999 ' ...u.~ -I i"" :!'oo..~~ I I ~ e...~< I :---~ .~ ~ S . '~O"tt I-- -.....; 14 0 11 ., 10' . "..., -o~, ~ ..~.. --I' Z1'r.- P"f'7 ~ fA.::t:t::~'tl 578 AC :-;.:.:.;.;." ~:::::::::::: ::::;:::::::;: :::::::::::::: ~ :::::::::::::: ..y ,::;\:~: I TaOMP ::'.........:.:::\..::.\;...\..:..::.\..:.f.~ U B 6 J 6 ~ ,;:;:;;;:; ~ 11 ~~ AC ~ · '1 w ::::::;:;: >,::: ::.:::::... ::. .it 10AC TIS "C 06~~ 21'(.C 1 1 ,1'9AC 11 .... _1._.,',' A , 7. I , !Ion N:J : , / ,j .......'.~. / ~~I t. aD ~ " 30tA 10llt g r,~ ! CO n ~ ., 79 4t 612 At eo A RANC 0 L 10 4.810AC 5400AC 272 AC J 36AC 220AC 208AC " 229 AC 1.I0AC 600C '2 2. 350 At L~ 113'" " , 2.72 At " o:I&C I 212)-..... 122:' O,,'AOA 'f ~~~CJs.M '-IOOJ .2 15 AC ,0 ar,.' "" 'h 1.0AC .~..:;.: , , -' I oeAC 117AC IOOC '" ..' ,02 ~;, to! 'OOC ,....t ... O~" : I I~ 1.241C ; '; 1]= 070C ; r / /1\ ~ I ----l I I .toOC v ~ >'.' 7t J> ."'- ~f' ~ ~" .. \. ~ 4~V~ .~,l .... ',"'. ~ ......... ..::~::::::::::;::::::-. %:1 .. !:... ~ t. ~...... .~... a~.~ ~ ".:\.~ 3 6~ r. ., ~ II ,,0 ;:-. - .. 17 -.! "17~_ .1 ~~ ,...~Z2'I":,, O'~ H ""j.. \~ \ 14 I' ~D. ., 10 .' 'If !rr " ~,~- lD'" 7070 ~i\ V .., ( ~ .....!!t ,u~ ~.-""' \ .~ .' . 1\. II; C::/A.' ~~~O '="": ,O~ ? ylr--4f f-t~ 2 PROP~~:~"'A~NE~:T10N .~:... ~ :: c' ".." ~ ~ :;. Jh--" ~~ RA. 85--/6 5:!~. .~'" rt.~.~~m1 ~ t1) <0 10 7a 71 01 " .~r-- II'" 1!9 i. I 71 su It.-V p~~'-J l' Z2 " irk I~:: .v..... I f:iN... 1*1~f: -::!l:$' I..... ~t{~ t;:::::: . ~ill!i~ .- ANNex .. R A. .,-" .~";;':':;';;::"3. ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE 1 8 1 85 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE J u 1 23, 1985 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION CONSIDER DEFERRED COMPENSATION PlAN EMERGENCY WITHDRAWAl... REQUEST CONSIDER EMERGENCY WITHDRAWAl... SUBMITTED BY Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Administrative/Finane A ISSUE: Authorization by the Board of Directors is required for emergency withdrawal from the Deferred Compensation Plan. BACKGROUND: Doyle M. Hill, Instrument Technician, has requested a $3,900 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 considered the request and concluded that it meets the requirements for emergency withdrawal. RECOMMENDATION: The Deferred Compensation Plan Advisory Committee recommends approval of Doyl e M. Hill's request for emergency withdrawal of $3 ,900 from the Deferred Compensation Plan. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION ~~~. HIEF ENG. INITIATING DEPT./DIV. WF PM JH RJD BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. 1 8/1/85 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE JULY 24, 1985 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 22, 1985, TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE NORTH CONCORD/ SET PUBLIC HEARING CLYDE SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. JACQUELINE L. ZAYAC, PLANNING/GRANTS TECH. ENGINEERING DEPT./PLANNING DIVISION ISSUE: A publ ic hearing must be conducted prior to adopting the Negative DeClaration for the proposed North Concord/Clyde Sewage Collection System Improvements Project, hereinafter called "the project." BACKGROUND: The project, located in Watershed 44, includes a portion of North Concord, the unincorporated town of Clyde, a portion of the United States Naval Weapons Station, and unincorporated land east and south of Mallard Reservoir. District flow capacity studies indicate that pump station and collection system improvements are needed in the immediate future to meet existing and projected demands from approved and anticipated land developments. The present ~stem has difficulty accommodating existing peak flows during storm periods, and it is projected by District staff that the present system will not be able to accommodate development projects which have been approved but not completed. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District is the lead agency in the mandated CEQA review process since it is the ,public agency proposing the project. An initial study of the proposed project to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment has been conducted and prepared by Earth Metrics, Inc., an environmental and planning consulting firm. The project consists of a phased construction of needed system improvements along with periodic flow monitoring which would match facilities to development needs, thereby limiting growth inducing effects and conserving public resources. Benefits from the proposed project would result from reducing the number of pump stations from four to two. These benefits include the conservation of energy, chemicals, labor, and maintenance expenses. The project involves install ation of trunk sewer and force main pipelines and pump station upgrading. Construction is scheduled in three phases during fiscal years 1985-86 through 1987-88. During Phase I, the Concord Industrial Pump Station would be upgraded from 120 gallons per minute (gpm) to approximately 1,100 gpm single pump capacity. A 1,700 lineal feet Cl.f.), 10-inch parallel force main would be constructed along a portion of Bates Avenue; a 1,750 l.f., 12-inch diameter trunk sewer pipeline would be constructed along Industrial Way and Bates Avenue to the Bates Avenue Pump Station; a 3,992 1. f. trunk sewer parallel pipeline ranging from 12 to 18 inches in diameter would be constructed REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION JLZ JMK RAB JML 14107 POSITION PAPER Page 2 from Bates Avenue to an area north of Lowe Road; and an emergency bypass of Bates Avenue Pump Station flows to Concord Industrial Pump Station would be constructed. In Phase II, a 1,700 1.f. sewer main would be constructed from the Port Chicago Pump Stati on to the Concord Industri a1 Pump Stati on and the Port Chicago Pump Stati on wou1 d be abandoned. The Clyde Pump Stati on wou1 d be abandoned in Phase III, and a 3,700 1.f., 10-inch sewer main would be constructed from the abandoned Clyde Pump Station to the Concord Industrial Pump Station (see Exhibit A). All pipe sizes are nominal and will be finalized in design based upon District design standards. Some pipe sizes may change by one size; however, changes will not significantly affect pipeline capacity. There is a current proposal to include the proposed Bates Avenue sewer improvements (the 1,700 1.f., 10-inch diameter force main, 1,750 1.f., 12-inch di ameter trunk sewer, and two grav ity connecti ons) in the East Bates Avenue Assessment Di strict now in the process of bei ng formed. If approved, the one-time opportunity for the District to incorporate the Bates Avenue project construction with other improvements in the East Bates Avenue Assessment District wou1 d be realized. The impact to the proj ect area duri ng constructi on and cost to the District would be reduced as a result of incorporating this work with the Assessment District project. This proposal is presented in a separate Position Paper for presentation at the August 1, 1985, Board meeting. Based on its evaluation, District staff concludes that the initial study adequately, accurately, and objectively eva1 uates the proposed project's effect on the environment, that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, that no mitigation measures are needed, and that a Negative Declaration would be the appropriate document for the project. RECOMMENDATlON: Set a pub1 ic hearing date of August 22, 1985, to consider adoption of the Negative Declaration for the North Concord/Clyde Sewage Collection System Improvements Project. " , l~t '/:' /// ..,,'I.t. \ \ \ /' -------- ...- / / // I :\ . ~---"""' /" /,./r" ., .. .-.....-...' '\ ~ ~l'\\.t...~ .~ ZC"l'J -- ------ -~- , ~~- " CO",., '- '\,., 't.., 'ftlf~t ."..'"'co. , , '3\ ,A0S't~\ ,A \(\V O~v , 0(\ (,O(\C S'<.J''t~ ,?0((\Q '3~}(\~ 0Q~~ / / / / \ "\ .. #,..~ ",,0 ~-<,..~ ./ ( 00> ,0, EXHIBIT A WATERSHED 44 PROPOSED COLLEcnON SYSTEM FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS c((SD Central t.;ontra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer No.VIII. ENGINEERING 2 8/1/85 DATE JULY 29, 1985 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHI EF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE TYPE OF ACTION JOINT EXCERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT WITH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE $290,000 FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR THE AUTHORIZE FUNDS W RK DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4092. SUBMITTED BY . I"UTIA'TING DEPT.lP,.IV. . Jay S. McCoy, Construction Divislon Manager tnglneerlng/~onstructlon ISSUE: Board approval is requested for the General Manager-Chief Engi neer to execute a J oi nt Exerci se of Powers Agreement (JPA) with Contra Costa County for the installation of sewer facilities in Watershed 44 (North Concord) and for the authorization of funds for the installation of the facilities. BACKGROUND: The East Bates Avenue Assessment District is located within Watershed 44 in North Concord. The Assessment District will construct road improvements on Port Chicago Highway, Bates Avenue and Industrial Way in 1985. A capacity analysis of the sanitary sewer facilities in watershed 44 has identified the need to install sewer facilities in Bates Avenue and Industrial Way in the 1985-86 time frame to adequately handle anticipated sewage flows. These sewer improvements include approximately 1800 feet of 12-inch gravity sewer and 1600 feet of ID-inch force main as shown on Attachment A. All pipe sizes are naninal and will be final ized in design based upon refined flow projections. These trunk sewer improvements are requi red to serve several properti es in Watershed 44. Consequently it is appropriate for C.C.C.S.D. to finance the improvements via the watershed fund. It is in the interests of the Assessment District to install needed sewer facil ities and to avoid future major excavations in the newly paved streets. It is advantageous to the Sanitary District to canbine the sewer work with the street work to lower the installation costs of the sewers. While the Sanitary District has the responsibility to install the sewer facilities, the Assessment District has agreed to perform this work, provided the Sanitary District bears the costs. The District and the County staffs have negotiated a JPA which provides for the installation of the needed sewer facilities in conjunction with the street work. JPA's have been utilized in the past for this purpose. In accordance with the terms of the JPA, the District would deposit funds with the County (the agency responsible for forming the Assessment District) equal to the estimated cost of the sewer work ($268,738) incl uding design, survey and contract administration as described on Attachment B. A parti al payment of one-quarter of the total estimated cost ($67,184 .50) is proposed to be deposited with the County pri or to the County's advertising a contract for construction. The remaining payment is proposed to be made pr i or to the County's aw ardi ng of the construction contract. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION JSM RAB ~fdB The cost of desi gn, survey and admi ni strati on is fixed in the J PA at 9 1/2 percent of the construction cost. The design and construction of the sewers will be made a part of the Assessment District work and will be performed in accordance with this District's standards. The Sanitary District will review the plans and specifications, will review and approve the bid prices before an award of contract is made and will also inspect the sewer construction. The total cost of the sewer project is estimated to be $290 ,000 and is shOll n on Attachment B. Because of the adm i ni strati ve structure of th is project, funds for the construction work are being requested at this time and are based on a preliminary design cost estimate. (If this project was designed and constructed as a Sanitary District project, the construction budget would normally be established at the time the construction contract is awarded.) If the estimated construction funds are found to be insufficient, staff will request additional funds fram the Board after bids are received. This $290,000 authorization includes a previous $5,000 authorization by the General Manager-Chief Engineer to initiate the project. This project is included in the 5 year Capital Improvement Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a J oi nt Exerci se of Powers Agreement with Contra Costa County and authorize $290,000 fram the Sewer Construction Fund for the work, Di stri ct Proj ect No. 4092. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION INITIATING OEPT./OIV. I GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. I I I~ WATERSHED 44 LEGEND 12. SEWER .f[~ 10. FORCE MAIN t____. .. o. c;. . ."'~E/>.TIAEtlT BOLLIA/>.tlpL/>.tlT ~... .... CITY OF CONCORD A ST"TE ATTACtIENT B COST ESTIMATE FOR EAST BATES AVENUE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT SEWER WORK Installation of Sewer Facilities $ 228,300 * Construction Contingency at 7.5% Engineering and Administration at 9.5% 17 ,123 $ 23 ,315 Funds to be Deposited with County $ 268,738 Preliminary Design $ 15,000 Inspecti on $ 6,262 TOTJl. PROO ECT COST $ 290,000** + * Based on a predesign level estimate (-25% accuracy) ** Incl udes the prey ious $5,000 General Manager-Ch ief Engi neer authorizati on. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT.!DIV. GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. VI I I. ENGINEERING 3 8 1 85 POSITION PAPER SUBJECT AU A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR DESIGN MODIFICATIONS TO THE INCINERATOR REPAIRS AND MODIFICATIONS PROJ ECT, DISTRICT PROJ ECT NO. 3694 SUBMITT~p BY INIT.IATING DEPiS./DIV. l,;neryl Creson, Associ ate Engi neer Engl neeri ng epartment/Engi neeri ng Div i si on ISSUE: Board approval is requested for the General Manager- ief ng neer 0 execute a contract amendment with John Carollo Engineers for design modifications to the Incinerator Repairs and Modifications Project, District Project No. 3694. VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE J u 1 y 5, 1985 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE CONTRACT AMENDMENT B~ROUNP: Currently there are two tasks remai ni ng in the Inci nerator Repai rs and Modifications Project. These tasks are (1) the Control Room task, which consists of constructing a centrally located furnace control room, and (2) the Electrical/Instrumentation task, which consists of all remaining electrical, instrumentation, and control aspects of the Incinerator Repairs and Modifications Project. On May 6, 1985, bids were received for construction of the Control Room, and on May 30, 1985, the Board of Directors, as recommended by staff, rejected al I bi ds. Si nce the low bi d was greater than the engi neer' s estimate, the enti re Incinerator Repairs and Modifications Project has been reviewed, not only to reduce costs, but also for overall cost effectiveness. Several design modifications to the Control Room task have been identified which reduce costs without substantially affecting function. The proposed modifications include reduction of concrete and demolition work, minor material changes, and a reduction in the size of the control room. In addition, the original schedule for completing the two remaining tasks was to bid the Electrical/Instrumentation work separately after the Control Room was substantially complete. During the review, it was decided to combine the Control Room and Electrical/Instrumentation work into one contract bid document. Staff believes that combining the tasks, thereby making the overall construction contract larger, will result in the reduction of the contractor's contingency allowance. In addition, District contract admi ni strati on and i nspecti on costs w ill be reduced not onl y as a resul t of the reduced admi ni strative effort, but al so due to the reducti on in the overall project schedule resulting from the combination of the two contracts. A change in approach to improve overall cost effectiveness involves the 1 ocker/ shower room porti on of the Control Room. The ori gi na 1 approach was to reserve space for the future development of a locker/shower room. During evaluation of the difficulties of retrofit construction in the Control Room area, it became apparent that it would be less expensive to include the locker/shower room construction in the Control Room task now, rather than defer it. Consequently, the Engi neeri ng Department recommends that the Inci nerator Repai rs and Modifications Project scope of work be expanded to include, under the Control Room task, the constructi on of a permanent 1 ocker/ shower room facility for the furnace operators. The work woul d i ncl ude fl oori n9, wall coati n9, cei 1 i n9, toilet and shower fixtures, and heating, ventilating and air conditioning REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION {J pc.. ~ ,l)q,u RJD INITIATING DEPT./DIV. CFC HSM DRW improvements. The preliminary cost estimate for the complete locker/shower room is approximately $50.000 to $75.000. No authorization for additional construction funds is requested at this time. The design modifications to the Control Room. including the design of the locker/ shower room. plus the merging of the Control Room task with the Electrical/ Instrumentation task. will cost $30.000. A lump-sum contract has been negotiated with John Carollo Engineers for this work. It is expected that the construction cost savings achieved by redesign and merging contracts will significantly exceed the engineering fees for the redesign. There are sufficient funds in the Incinerator Repairs and Modifications Project budget to cover the additional design costs. Board authorization is required to execute a contract amendment with John Carollo Engineers. The Incinerator Repairs and Modifications Project budget currently has a balance of $708.500. Staff estimates that this amount is sufficient to complete both the Control Room task (excluding the locker/shower room portion) and the El ectri call Instrumentati on task. Suppl emental authorizati on for funds to construct the locker/shower room will be requested at the time of award for the construction of the combined tasks. This project is included in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan. ~COMMEHPATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a contract amendment with John Carollo Engineers for design modifications to the Incinerator Repairs and Modifications Project. The contract amendment will be for a $30.000 1 ump sum. No authorizati on of funds is requested at thi s time because there are sufficient funds in the project budget for this design. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. <(I Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO.X. LEGAL/LITIGATION 1 8 1 85 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE SUBJECT DENIAL OF ADDITIONAL CLAIMS RELATED TO lHE PENNER- DEFFINA LANDSLIDE ON MERRILEE PLACE. DANVILLE July 24. 1985 TYPE OF ACTION DENY CLAIMS SUBMITTED BY Jack E. Cam INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Risk M mt. & Safe /Administrative ISSUE: Two codefendants in above landslide case, Martin Brothers. Inc. and Hillview Associates, have filed claims for indemnity and contribution against CCCSD. BACKGROOND: A major landslide occurred in March 1983 which affected the adjacent properties owned by the Penners at 321 Merrllee Place and the Deffinas at 317 Merrilee Place. Danville. There are multiple defendants to the lawsuits and several have filed claims for indemnity and contribution against the District. The latest are Martin Brothers. Inc.. one of the contractors. and Hillview Associates. a developer subsidiary of the Blackhawk Development Corporation. Although there are District sewer facll ities in the area. no information has been presented which substantiates the allegations; therefore the claims should be denied. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the Marti n Brothers. Inc. and Hill view Associ ates (Bl ackhawk Development Corporation) claims and refer them to the Risk Manager for further action as necessa ry . REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. D 1~ ~~I JEC PM Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. X. LEGAL/LITIGATION 2 8 1 85 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE July 24, 1985 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR INDEMNITY FROM STEPHEN AND DIANE WISE REJ ECT ClAIM SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Jack E. Campbell, Admin. Operations Manage Risk Mgmt. & Safety/Administrative ISSUE: One of the defendants in the DeJarnette landslide case has filed a claim for indemnity and contribution against CCCSD. BACKGROUND: The Town of Moraga, CCCSD, and the Wises are codefendants in a lawsuit fil ed by the DeJ arnettes to recover damages all egedly sustai ned as a resul t of the landslide occurring on their property. 'The District believes the suit ,was served on all the defendants in September of 1984; however, the Wises have now submitted a claim against the District for indemnity and contribution. Their claim is insufficient because it does not state the date upon which the Wises were first served with a Summons and Complaint. This has a bearing on the statutory requirements for claim submissions and the attorney handling the case for the District recommends that the claim be rejected because of this omission. RECOMMENDATION: Reject the claim as insufficient and direct the Risk Manager to inform the attorney for the Wises accordingly. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION AT?G ['/DIV' ~ JEC PM RJD <C<SD Central "ontra Costa Sanitar~ District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. XI1. ITEMS LATE 1 8 1 85 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE AUGUST 1, 1985 SUBJECT APPROVE AGREEMENT RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY WITH LESTER L. CROSBIE, ET UX, JOB 2947, SUBDIVISION 4983, LOT 4 IN THE LAFAYETTE AREA. TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE REAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering/Construction ISSUE: The property owner has requested permission to maintain in place, a porti on of the owner's recently compl eted house which was erroneously constructed within an existing District sewer easement 10 feet width. BACKGRClJND: This item is presented to the Board of Di rectors at this time because of a potential hardship to the property owner whose purchase is presentl y in escrow. The close of escrClrl has been made conti ngent upon the District's action. Any undue delay in the close of escrow will cause extra expense to the owner. The a rea of encroachment is 12 feet long and 2 1/2 feet wide and th e sewer main is located in the center of the sewer easement (see attached map). District staff has determined that the improvements will not interfere with the present use of our sewer; however, if the need should arise, the agreement requires the property owner to have the public sewer relocated at the owner's cost and to grant any new easements that may be requi red. The sewer main will be televised by District staff and the property owner has agreed to correct any deficiencies which may exist in the area of the encroachment. Staff requests that the Board approve the proposed agreement conti ngent upon sati sfactory compl eti on of the tel ev isi ng so that delays to the close of escrClrl will be minimized. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Agreement Rel ati ng to Real Property with Lester L. Crosbie, et ux, Job 2947, authorize the Presi dent of the District Board of Directors and the Secretary of the District to execute said agreement and authorize the agreement to be recorded contingent upon the satisfactory completion of a television inspection or upon the correction of any deficiencies which may be discovered during the television inspection. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 4- DH JMIC INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Jt~C f" () e...RAB nOD II ~ O/O";} ~'0tJ. . FEP.'::~R' Pc \,,0>( REAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT JOB 294 LAFAYETTE A 7 REA