HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 08-21-86
.
Centr.
Contra Costa Sanitar District
..
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 39
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Au ust 21, 1986
NO.
V.
DATE
Au ust 18, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
CONOOCT PUBLIC
HEARING
HEARINGS
1
SUBJECT
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING CN THE PROPOSED
1986-87 SCHEDULE OF FEES
SU6MITTED Bl
~arton . Brandenburg, Assoc. Engineer
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering Department/Planning Div.
LSSUE: A publ ic hearing is required by District Code prior to the adoption of a
new schedule of fees.
BACKGROUtI>: The current District schedule of fees has been in effect for one
year. Fees were establ ished 1 ast year after an in-depth study by District staff
and a publ ic heari ng which was hel d on August 1, 1985. Last year it was noted
that District staff would review the basis of these fees before the next fee
adjustment. As part of the annual Rates and Charges review, District staff has
analyzed the available data for the cost of providing the various services. An
updated fee schedule has been developed.
The information presented in Attachment A summarizes the findings and fees that
have been reviewed by District staff. Both the current charge and any recommended
revisions are shown. Attachment B provides a comparison of fees charged by other
agencies and Attachment C incl udes the backup materi al for the proposed 1986-87
fees. Attachments A and B are the same as those in the pos1ti on paper setti ng
the publ ic heari ng date. Part VIII of Attachment C has been modified, portions
that have been modified are noted in the text.
District staff has communicated with representatives from industries, the Building
Industry Associ ati on of Northern Cal iforni a, the Underground Contractors'
Association, and the Association of General Contractors to respond to preliminary
questions and to provide copies of all appropriate background information.
Attachment D presents a summary of their comments.
Legal notice of this public hearing was published on August 9 and 15 in the Contra
Costa Times. In additi on, all persons attendi ng the publ ic heari ng will be
provided with a copy of this Position Paper and Attachments A and B. Attachments
C and D will be provided if requested.
RECOtIEtI>ATION: Conduct publ ic heari ng on the proposed new schedul e of fees.
Consider, revise as appropriate, and adopt the findings as set forth in
Attachments A and C. Consider approval of the proposed fee schedule and adoption
of an ordinance to be effective on or about September 8, 1986.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
t..;:J
J;t1L
~
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
130211.9/85
BLB
JMK
RAB
----_.. ....---.---------..-.-.---...-...--------...------.....-._---
Pc 2 of '39
ATTAai~NT A
SUM'4ARY OF FIfC)INGS AND 5afEDUlE OF FEES
This attachment provides the summary of findings and proposed schedule of fees
which have been reviewed by District staff. The findings are as follows:
1. Review of plan review fees indicates that the District is collecting sufficient
funds under the current rate schedule to cover costs.
2. No inspection fee increases are recommended, except for an increase in overtime
fees to reflect the 5 percent wage rate increase for 1986-87 and additional
fees to recover part of the cost of new structure inspection. The mainline
inspection fee includes the cost of the initial televising of new sewer
systems. It is expected that the television inspection crews will be able to
increase their productivity because the contractor is now required to leave a
lead line (connects to TV camera) in newly constructed sewers. However, this
productivity increase is expected to be offset by the 5 percent wage rate
increase for 1986-87.
3. TV Rerun fees (fees charged for televising sewers to confirm the contractor has
performed corrective work) are recommended to be modified to more accurately
reflect actual cost. A $418 minimum cost has been identified for each TV Rerun
proj ect. The 2.5-hour mi nimum inspection time agrees with the minimum time
charge for initial television inspection.
4. The sewer tap fee is recommended to be increased to reflect the 5 percent wage
rate increase for 1986-87 and depreciation of the tapping machine.
5. Dye testing, right-of-way, and surveying fees are recommended to be increased
to reflect the 5 percent wage rate increase.
6. Two new fees are recommended whereby contractors will be charged if they do not
give the CSO crews 24-hour advance cancellation notice prior to a scheduled TV
inspection or sewer tap. The cancellation fee would also apply if the site is
not ready or accessib1 e when the crew arrives. Thi s fee is suggested because
several instances have arisen where crews have arrived at a job site to find
that they could not gain access, thus losing productive time. These fees are
based on lost crew labor time of two hours for TV inspection and one hour for
sewer taps. The fees are described in the District's Standard Specifications.
7. It is recommended that Concord's industri es be charged an annual permit fee
after an agreement is ratified between Concord and the District formalizing
incorporation of Concord's industries into the District's pretreatment program.
The first year the fee would be based on the average cost for similar
industries located in the District. A prorated fee would be charged for
parti a1-year partiei pati on.
8. A new industry permit fee is recommended to recover the cost associated with
review ing app1 ieations for possib1 e industri al connections. The recommended
fee is the actual District staff cost, with a minimum of $500. If the $500 is
exceeded, the industry would be notified and written authorization obtained to
bill the additi ona1 costs. Authorizati on wou1 d be obtai ned in increments of
$500.
A-l
Pa 3 of 39
9. At this time, no change is being recommended in the septage disposal fees. As
part of the current work to revise septage disposal procedures, new fee$ will
be developed. Recommendations are anticipated in October.
10. New residential living units within the Rossmoor development have been paying a
reduced fixture fee based upon a lower than District-wide occupancy rate and
fixture fees established in 1965. It is proposed to raise these fees by basing
them on the current District-wide fixture fees and current occupancy rates.
A-2
SCHEOOlE OF FEES
Activitv
(A) PLAN ~VIEW:
r ~ 4 of 39
Current
1985-1986
Fees
Reconvnended
1986-1987
Fees
(A-l) 2 Preliminary + 1 F i na 1 $0.76/ ft. No Change
Pl an Reviews ($304 minimum)
( A-2) 3rd & Subsequent Preliminary $38 each No Change
Pl an Reviews
(A-3 ) 2nd & Subsequent Ff nal Pl an $57 each No Change
Reviews
( B) I NSPECTI.-OO :
(8-1) Mainline Inspection
(8-2) lateral, House Connection, or
Side Sewer Alteration Inspection
(8-3) Side Sewer Repair Inspection
(8-4) Inspection of Manhole Connection
(8-5) Overtime Inspection
Weekends & Holidays (4-hour Min.)
Overtime Inspection Credit
(8-6) Inspect Construction of New
Structure (MH or RI)
See Table A-l No Change
$48 each No Change
$10 each No Change
$48 each No Change
Combined with B-2
$39/hour $41/hour
$156 $164
See Tabl e A-2 No Change
$70 each Sloo each
(C) CQ.L.l,ECTION SYSTE~:
(C-l) TV Inspection:
- TV Overtime - Initial $1,044/day
$116/ hour
No Change
Weekends & Holidays (4-hr min.) $464
No Change
TV Overtime - Initi al - Credit $0.41/ ft.
No Change
- TV Rerun Sl,OOS/day
$l12/hour
(2-hour minimum) $224
A-3
S170 + S99/ hr
(2.5 hour min.)
$418
P 5 of 39
Current
1985-1986
Actfvfty fees
- TV Overtfme Rerun $1,161/day
Sl29/hour
Weekends & Holidays (4-hr min.) $516
(C-2) Sewer Tap
(C-3) Dye Test
(C-4) Collection System Repair
(C-5) Noncancellation
<Initial TV and TV Rerun)
(C-6) Noncancellation
(Sewer Tap)
(0) RIGHT-Of-WAY:
(0-1) Segregation of LID Assessment
(0- 2) Processing of Quitclaim Deeds
(0-3 ) Preparation and Processfng of
Agreements Relating to Real
Property
(E) MISCELLANEOUS
( E-1 ) Engineering for Private Sewer
Proj acts
(E-2) Soils Evaluation for Private
Sewer Proj acts
( E- 3 ) Survey i ng
( F) INDUSTRIAL PERMIT FEE:
( F-l) District Industries
Annual Permit Fee
A-4
$146 each
$54 each
Based on actual
cost
S27/ hour
(S81 mi nimum)
S30/ L ID Segrega-
tion
survey ing as
requi red (See
E-3)
Estimate required
Based on actual
cost
S95/hour
fee based on
actual cost of
service for prior
fiscal year.
Annual permit
fee for 1985-86
varies from $673
to $3,245
Recommended
1986-1987
fees
$170 + S116/ hr
$634
S171
S56
No Change
$198
$54
S28/hour
(S84 min.)
S32/LID
segregatation
No Change
No Change
No Change
S100/ hour
fee based
on actual
cost of ser-
vice for
prfor fiscal
year and
annual permit
fee for 1986-
1987; varies
from Sl,108
to S2,049
. -'.'--.'...----..--.-.--....----.--....---.---.-.-.-.----_..~._----..-._-"--,-~-_._--_.._- ..~"--"._'~-~-~'_.._._---_._"-----.._-,.._~.__.__._--_.---..--......-----------.---
Pc 6 of 39
Aci:fv f1:v
Current
1985-1986
Fees
Recommended
1986-1987
Fees
(F-2) Concord Industries
Annual Permit Fee
--------
F1 rst year
fees based on
average cost
for simfl ar
District
industries.
Subsequent
years based on
actual cost
of service.
Annual permit
fee for 1986-
87 vari es
from $1,270
to $2,050.*
*Fees would be charged after ratification of an agreement between Concord and the
District which would formalize incorporation of Concord's industries into the
District's pretreatment program. A prorated fee would be charged for partial year
participation.
(F-3 )
New Industry Permit Fee
---------
Fee based on
actua 1 Oi stri ct
cost pr i or to
connection
($500 minimum)
(G) SEPTAGE mSPOSAl*
( G-1)
(G-2)
Annual Permit Fee
$100
No Change
Disposal Charge
Grease Interceptor within
the District
$0.0l/ga1
No Change
Septage Volume per truck
<2,000 gall ons
~2,000 gallons
$7.00 + $0.05/ga1.
$20.35 + $0.05/ga1.
No Change
No Change
*Fees anticipated to change after review of septage disposal procedures.
A-5
Ac;tivitv
( H) UXTURE FEES FOR ROSSNJOR
(~l) Living Units*
- 1 Bath Unit
- 2 Bath Unit
- 2-1/2 Bath Unit
Current
1985-1986
Fees
$66.34
$88.43
$99.49
*Assumes kitchen and laundry facilities
A-6
Page 7 of 39
Recommended
1986-1987
~es
$281.25
$375.00
$412.50
Pa 8 of 39
TABLE A-l
1986-87
MINI.. INE INSPECTION FEE
(NO OiANGE FROM 1985-86)
Proj act
lAnoth (ft) Eouation
0< ~100 Fee = $300 + $3.001 ft.
100< i200 Fee = $350 + $2.501 ft.
200< ~300 Fee = $450 + $2.00/ft.
300< <400 Fee = $525 + $1.75/ft.
-.
400< ~500 Fee = $625 + $1.50/ft.
500< <600 Fee = $750 + $1.25/ft.
-
600< Fee = $810 + $1.151 ft.
TMlE A-2
1986-87
OYERTIM: MAINL INE INSPECTION mEDIT
(NO OiANGE FROM 1985-86)
T ota 1 Project Overtime
Overtime Hours Credit HOULS
< 4 1
....
4 < < 8 2
....
8 < < 16 4
-.
16 < < 32 6
-
32 < 8
A-7
. ---'-_._--_._~--_.__._-,--_.._,---_.__.._..._._.--.-._--.-...--.-
a:l
I- >-
z U
I.LJ z:
::E I.LJ
X to!)
U c:c
c:c
I- a:
I- I.LJ
c:c :I:
I-
o
en
I.LJ
I.LJ
LL.
IV
t:.
S
oa
L.
+'
C
8
1;:
Q)
:a:
'0
Gl
'0
C
Glr--
ECO
8':'
Uco
GlO\
0:: .....
&1'100 "0
r--II'IO Gl III
M;;~....:t:
III ~ 0
Gl+' U
1IlL......Gl
IIl+'OIllGl.....~
~~Eg.'.-~~
.....O\s~o;;;tf>
00\ ....::Ioa
NIO ~
1.....0 c....
&I'IN.....____ 00
r - --...
I
0.....
IV >
Gl Gl
L.
+'
..........
III IV
8. a
Gl....
"O+'
.....
0'0
r-- '0
...,<
.s
.... E
C ::I
..... E
.....
o C
+' .....
....+'E
...........
o III 11'1
"'; 8.~
OGlM
..., '0....
.s
....
+,
N
&1'1.....
C\'l 0
""0
~
Ii
....
~
0::
.....
oa
c
....
LL.
....
+
>.
L. III
:! !
.... ....
.!~
.....0::
Gl
J L. C
: ~IV
_ Nii:
....
.....
J:
:2
o
&1'1
N
...,
....
!5
E
....
o C
+'....
....E
......
\0 ~
r--o
oC\'l
OM
...,....
.&: .....
U IV
IV C
Gl 0
.....
O+'
&1'1-
M '0
'0
<
.&:
U
'"
Gl
CO
C\'l
...,
.&:
U
'"
Gl
,....
&1'1
M
C
o
.....
t
Gl
0.
III
C
....
Gl
c
....
.....
c
1 :
CD
I
-
t:
!oJ
III
+'
!~=iOJ
&1'1- '0
III .....
+ ~
L ,
11'1 Q) 0
N> 11'1
~
t'
'"
C
-
.!
.....
Gl
L
0...
+'
c
Gl
::I
1711l
:l: I
~-
::I >
CIlGl
0::
..,
C
'0 IV
L......
C\'l~
C
IV
a::
.....
IV
C
-
LL.
+'
C
Gl
::I
l7
Gl
III
~
::I
CIlIll
..,1
-
~~
NO::
dl~
~8
...."0
OGl
+'
~2!
\0
~
o
+'
C\'l
~
+'01
- '0
C.....
::I~
...... ......
&1'1 &1'1
NN
..... .....
""""
....
N
J:
C\'l
J:
Gl
Gl
CIl
i
E
. -
+'C
....-
......E
o
&1'10
.~
0...,
..., ....
';i;
L. Gl
Gl III
+'::1
"'0
,.... .&:
&1'10
NN
MM
11'1
N
...,
.&:
U
IV
Gl
&1'1
N
M
J:
Gl
:c
'"
I-
Gl
Gl
CIl
.&:
U
IV
Gl
CO
~
M
C
o
L.....
Ot
.. Gl
co.
o III
..... C
t....
Gl C
CO
c_
Sf
Gl
Gl+'
III .....
::1<
o
XL.
Gl
...:1
"'CIl
L.
Gl Gl
+''0
"'-
...J CIl
N
~
.'- -----~'_.~,_._..._..-._.._-'"_._.,---_...."_._"._-------_.._-"~_.~_.,----.....-,._.".
9 of 39
'0
Gl
+'
'"
C E
--
'Ot:
Gl Gl
"0
::I .... III
&1'1 (jot:
..... c~ 8
...,~
III Gl 0 L.
UIIl+' 0
1:6,d>'O~~IIlC""
OCClGl::l~CDO'O
UW Lei) ...-....G).
.....- .~~ .'D.t.=t
Oij~i"o~~~::I!,
+'.....+'L.+'E 1Ili"0
1Il+,,,, C+'CL.L.
8 g.!~ s !s..... III c..
L.+'IIl..... O.....CIlCl)
~t:~8.~'bi';i;:ti
L.
CI)
!
.&:
U
oa
Gl
.&:
U
oa
Gl
......
o
N
...,
.&:
U
IV
CI)
o
.....
...,
.&: '0
U Gl
IV C
CD_
.0
~87
...,0 eo
C
o
.....
t
Gl
c..
III
C
....
C
o
-
t
Gl
C
C
o
o
Gl
.....
o
.&:
C
IV
::E:
L
....
IV
0.
CI)
0::
L
Gl
!
CIl
Gl
'0
-
CIl
.....
o
C
o
.....
t
~
III
C
....
C\'l
dJ
~
dJ
B-1
.&:
U
IV
Gl
......
Kl
...,
o
L.
.&:
......
11'1
l"'l
...,
o
L+
.&:
......0
&I'I~I
l"'l.....
...,...,
I I I
.&:
+'
-
~
; :c
o '"
.&: ~
......~
..... \0 Gl
~.....CIl
......., CIl
....
C
E
L
::I+'
0....
.&: '0
I Gl
~L
....0
C III C
o >. 0
-IV....
+''O+,
0.... 0
Gl..... Gl
0.00.
III X III
C C
.... .., ....
Q) III Q)
E'O E
....c.....
+'Gl+'
L. oX L.
Gl Gl Gl
> Q) >
03:0
lI'l
dJ
.&:
U
'"
Gl
......
o
lI'l
...,
N
J:
Gl
.&:
o
IV
Gl
o
o
.....
...,
!
z
....
o
C
o
-
+'....
u....
::10::
L.
+'L.
III 0
C
O::t:
O::E:
....
c
o Q)
....L.
+'::1
O+,
Q) U
c..:>
III L.
C+'
.... CIl
\0
dJ
Pi lOof 39
10
1;;. ~Ul1;; 0
8 e
- 0
e'-u I
10 -CD UI '-
I- ~:g~ - 00.
+' '- CD 'tl~
e CD-+> CD+>
8 ~ 01 '" CD '" 10 CD
:> e e ot-ee '-UI CD
....w_ 0-_ +'CD ot-
+> U +' M g'1;; e..1l: CD
UI e to- VI 81~ 0
CD ....OCl) U'lWCl) Z
~ ~
+> ';;;
- ....
VI,.... '" :>
8.~ :> +>
+' U
CD e U 10
~- 10
e e
. - e 0
+>e 0
to- ~ CII
...... U'l ~C11 :Rt:
U'l .... :Rt:
10 CD 10 0
. .... ~8 !DU
0_
,-/"'---...
e
0
-
t
c: 8-
Ul UI
! e 1;;
-
- -,.... CD
:;; >. +'
U'l ....
:> Ne 0
C ....0 Z
~
ot-
...... .
o+>
U'lot-
00
0
+..,.
01-
OCl)
N>
....0
~,.... ~ ';;;
~ :>
~e ...... 'tl
~ ......- 10
CD >. O\e .... 10
~ 101- ~ 0\ .... ~
e ~::l .... . .... U ~ e
CD...... ......0 ot- I- 10 U 0
eCD ..,.~ ...... +.c. + CD 10
e I ..,....... .... ...... CD ~
010 010 ..,. "";; o U'l CD 0 ..,- .... ...... :R1;;
~CD ...... 10 .... ..... .... M ...... ~
c:~ .... .... ..,. 0 ....N..,- ;; \0 .... 10 0
........ .... .... ....-.... .... .... .... !DU
,....
u
';;;
-
+'
-
e
....
';;;
-
+'
-
e
....
'-
-
10
a.
CD
c:
ID
1;;
>.
Ul
e
o
CII
>.
'"
~
-
'0
:1:,....
-<Ie
-
VI e
~
e: .
CD I-
..11: .c.
CD I
CD..,.
~-
CII
>.
10
~
-
'0
:1:,....
-<Ie:
-
CII e
~
e
CD '-
-" ~
CD,
CD..,.
3:-
e
:>
I-
CD
c:
CD
e
-
+>
L
CD
>
o
~
e
o
-
+>
u
CD
c-
UI
e
....
I
CD
!
+>
I-
CD
3
~
I
CD
e
-
+>
'-
CD+>
3:0
CD
~c's
e
::l
I-
CD
c:
a.
10
I-
1;;
CD
I-
CD
>.
o
~
~
I-
CD
!
Ul
....
'0
u
r:
,....
....
6
-
,....
N
6
'r
u
,....
..,.
I
U
-
B-2
P 11 of 39
'll
t:
8
J.
~
UI UI
Gl~
g8
~~
1$
:~
&J-
~o
'll,
~~
U~..><:
O)L
....-0
O~Ji:
c
~>.
00'll
0.....
~
CD
....
~~ 1;
0- ..
t:ai~
~UI~~""
+JQ).........'t-
C~CI~'ll
8:C1iiL~
./-
"'
'll
~
~
c
<3
~
UI
Gl
:a:
,.
>..'"
CD III
C r-
CD~r- -....
~o_ ~....
'll~oO UlCD'll
UI ~ f~~
CD UI'llCD
-8 ~ CD L --
CD 0"" CD ~Cl>.
Cl ....~ 0. COO
0:: CD ~c .... LO ~CD
en CI 8."iii ~~IIlr- 8.CD'g
I: ~ CD~CD
'll 0 OUl ~~ > ~~~
- ~ ..... ....Gl r-~OCD
:c u ...J CD U 'll III ~ CD>_
~f Cl.... ~ >- >
= ~ 0 CDlIlcO CD~CD
0 Z 00. ...J ~ 'll~ o 0. ~
~
0
"0 C
III 0
~
"0
CD :> CD
UI CD :5 UI
"0 C 'll UI ~~
CD 0 ~ L
"0 - Cl , 0 L
C L C .... c: "0 CD d, U :>
Ill,... :> - o III -CD .... 0
EC:O o E ..... Cl ~;: III CD.... ~
gob ~ ...JCD E ....Ill ,
co ;J);1; ,L >::J_ - :> 0
~co '" ..,. N Cl ; :57 ~ ~t: 0
o::~ r- LI'l N.... ~51 r-
.... .... ....~ en~w ILl Z'll ....
~ UI .... L
c: "0 0 CD
CD III r- ~ CD
c: E CD O)'ll ....
0 UI 0 c: CD V) III
- UI - cr >
~ CD E UI CD -
III C Ul - Ul 0 .... L.
r- 0 UI III CD.... III a..
r- :;:; cc U u >
1Il- 00) - L.
uc: 'll 0 .... L c: L 0
c: :> r- ..... - a.._ a.. ....
III L .... ...J :> ~
(JCD III d "0 III L c:
cr u .... e.... 0 0
c: c: 0 .... 01 CD .... _Ul
0"0 III 0 cr ........
_ c: (J c: c: 0) III 0
~Ill 0 0) o Ul c: :>CD
U 0. :;:; c: -.... - .... ..,
1Ilr- 'll - ....c:>. L. Ul III 0 0)
0.01 .- 01 Ul "'CIl~ CD.... >L c:
VI_ I 0) Ul ;ilP ~ ~ ILIa.. -
c~ L. III Gl ~
.....- CD L. 0 0. CD 0. - .., UlL.
C I CI 0 GlL.O ClO ....CD >
~~ CD L. L CI L c: L a! L
V) V) a.. a..cca.. ILIa.. :>
en V) V)
- - - -
LI'l ~ r- N 7 r- ~
, , , , N l"'l
(J 0 0 Cl ILl , I
ILl ILl
0 ILl
B-3
Pi 12 of 39
011
t:
8 0
.,.... .,
U ~
011 C - t: 011
L. -~ ....+'
+' ~5I8>. 011
C +'
8 CD L. gB,
'g L. &1;: OIl+'
1;: .....,L.::I 4/1.... C
U:aOll'O ~ 0. lIS
., ~S'5~ c81'Q.
. ~
.... CD
lIS ~
- :l
L.
1;: .... ....
+' 011011
::I 0 0101
~ C CD ...... ......
C 4/1 11'111'1
-51 4/1 OIl 00
CD CD o 0
0'" o L. 00
%.0 COl to"! to"!
01 '<rN'<rO
C \ON'<rN
- . . . .
.... ....fW'l0\'<r
0. ,....;!lS~ CD
E ~
~ 00 fW'l 011
................ ....+'
C~ lIS
I I I I +'
o C o CD
., r-.-~>- COl
- ~::I "'ftJr-r- OIl+'
.... 8li" ::I::I~~ 4/1 +' C
.0 CC....CD 80.'"
::I OIl L. CCCCD CD....
C co.... <~-R.. U10.
i ~
en
I I
UI
CD
L.
:J
"0
CD
L. .... .... g
0 '" III
- t 0101 L.
....L. ...... ...... 0..
00.. -0 E 11'111'1
C CL.+' :J 00 CD....
~ 0t:5~ Ot:L.C! CD '"
CD 0 00 .... III
~ '0 0"" CD ~-ooc ';;j ........ 0
C CDU >. Q)C~_..... +'0..
CD,.... UI CD III L.+'E 01 + + _Ill
Ea:> 1Or-0...... ",r- a.u ...... E-
e I .0.0:__101 .0011 CDO .... 011'1 L."O
010 :J > ~ :J+'CO 0 0 qro; CD
Ua:> CDtL. CD+'IIlCII'I 0 0..Q)
CD 0\ CD CD- CD 0 0 0.... .... 0 ,....0 OJ
et:.... u.. '" III .... u..OIlUU~ .... .... to"!N >.'"
to"! L.+'
+,0..
III CD
:J III
"0
c....
-0
C ~ ~
- ~ c_
* ~ u >
CD +' ::I Cl CD
CD - L. L.
u.. . +' L.
OL.
+' L. L. ....CD
- 0 8- +'
~ ~ 0....
0'"
$ CD CD B CD UI III 11'1
a.. CD E C C ....CD
u.. u.. CD lDt ::I 0 0 OJ
.... 01 ........ .... U1C
+' III +' L. +'- 0..... .... CD'"
- - * - 011 C L. >"'''' Ol.c
~ L. * ~ .c -t: 01 OJ L.O
+' U CD III
CD UI CD CD- 0100 ~o
a.. ::I < a.. .... U1C "'00 U+'
"0 en 011 OIl +'00
';;j C ~ ';;; UI CD CD 0.. .. .. c"C
..... 0 L.~ CDN N ::I CD
::I CI) ::I 0. t!l+' Cl)V^ U1+'
C ! ..... C UI -Ill
C C C ::10..
< Z < C en _
w ......0
~ "0 _
,... ,... ,... ,... ....+'
.... N t .... N CD C
I I d, d, - OIl
u.. u.. w ....
L. III
-CD
'" CD
8 u.. u..
* *
*
B-4
Page 13 of 39
ATTACHr.ENT C
1986-87
RATES AND CHARGES
PREPARED BY:
BARTON L. BRANDENBURG
AUGUST 18, 1986
Pc 14 of 39
INDEX
PART N).. ~ PAGE NO.
I PI. AN REV IEW fEES C-l
II CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES C-2
III COLLECTION SYSTEM fEES C-ll
IV RIGHT-Of-WAY FEES C-16
V MISCELLANEOUS fEES C-18
VI INDUSTRIAL PERMIT FEE C-19
VII SEPTAGE DISPOSAl fEE C-22
VIII ROSSMOOR fIXTURE FEES C-23
Pa 15 of 39
PART I
PI.. AA REV JEW FEES
A. DEFINITION
The plan review fee is required to reimburse the District for review
of sewer plans to ensure the design meets the criteria established
in the Standard Specifications. Comments on designs are made .with
the intent that when the p1 ans are ready for construction approval,
all required changes have been made.
B. 1985-86 FEES
The 1985-86 plan review fees are as follows:
Two preliminary and one final p1 an reviews
$0.761 ft.
($304 minimum)
Third and subsequent preliminary plan reviews
$38.00 each
Second and subsequent final plan reviews
S57.00 each
C. DISQJSSION
Costs for p1 an rev iew fees are primarily incurred in the
Construction Division. An analysis was made for a 19-month period
where 206 projects were completed. Interviews with personnel
involved in plan review were conducted to estimate their time spent.
From the avail abl e data, there does not appear to be a substanti al
change in pl an review level of effort. Current wage rates with a 43
percent employee benefit overhead factor were used. Current costs
are estimated to be about 9 percent higher than those determined in
1985-86. However, costs are still less than the SO.76/ft. current
charge.
D. RECOMMENDATION
1. Retain the current 1985-86 fees of SO.76/ft. (S304 minimum).
Subsequent preliminary and final pl an review charges shou1 d
a1 so remai n the same.
2. Establish an O&M account for plan review activities. This will
make it possib1 e to provide a better estimate of the overall
effort in the future.
C-l
p. ... 16 of 39
PART I I
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES
A. DEFINITIONS
1. Mainline Insoection
Fee required to reimburse the District for the costs incurred
in the field inspection of sewer installation projects by
private developers. Note that the mai n1ine inspection fee
includes the cost of the initial TV inspection.
2. Later~l. House Connection. Or Side Sewer Alteration Ins~ection
Inspection fee required to cover District costs associated with
inspecting the installation of a private lateral or house
connection into a mainline or a side sewer alteration (e.g.
installation of restaurant grease interceptor, etc.).
3. Side Ser~r Reoair. Insoection
Fee required to compensate the District for the costs involved
in inspecting a side sewer repair. (If more than ten feet of
lateral is replaced, a side sewer alteration permit is
requi red.)
4. Overtime Insoection
Inspection fee required to cover the cost of providing a
District inspector for a private sewer project at other than
normal work hours (after 4:30 p.m. and weekends). Overtime
inspection may be requested if a contractor is attempting to
fi ni sh an install ati on by worki ng 1 ate or is invo1 ved with an
emergency repa i r.
5. Insoect Construction of New Structure (MH or RI)
Inspection fee required to cover District costs associated with
inspecting the installation of a new manhole (MH) or rodding
inlet (RI) on an existing sewer line by a private contractor.
6. Jnsoection of Manhole Connection
Inspection fee required to cover District costs associated with
inspecting the installation of a private lateral into an
exi sti ng manho1 e by a private contractor. Contractor work
includes breaking into the wall of the manhole at the elevation
of the manhole shelf.
C-2
r 17 of 39
B. MAINLINE AND LATERAl HOUSE roNNECTION OR SIDE SEWER AlTERATION
INSPECTION
The mainline and lateral house connection or side sewer alteration
inspection are discussed together because the time inspecting each
is not recorded separately. A compari son of fees charged vs.
actual cost is only valid when all fees are considered.
1. 1985-86 Fee
The 1985-86 mainline inspection fee is as follows:
TABLE 1
1985-86 Mai n1ine
Inspection Fees
PROJ ECT
L.F.
FEE
$300 + $3.001 ft.
S350 + S2.50/ft.
S450 + S2.001 ft.
S525 + Sl.75/ft.
S625 + Sl.50/ ft.
$750 + Sl.25/ft..
$810 + $1.15/ft.
0< <100
100< <200
....
200< <300
300< <400
-
400< <500
500< <600
600< -
The above fee structure was approved for 1985-86 to more
accurately refl ect actual costs of inspecti on. The basi s of
the fee structure is summarized as follows:
a. The data included actual construction inspection time for
131 proj ects.
b. Costs included Construction Inspector's direct salary and
a 43 percent employee benefit overhead factor.
c. Pickup truck rental rate of S6.20/hour.
d. A $0.20/ft. charge was added to account for the Collection
System Inspection Supervisor and an Engineering Assistant.
e. The data base for television inspection costs included 63
projects. A best fit correlation of the time required to
televise these projects was found to be:
Hours = 2.43 + 0.0041 X project length (ft.>
f. The average television inspection production was
determined to be 1,100 ft./day. This assumes the lead
line was not left in the pipe by the contractor.
C-3
Pa~ .8 of 3~
g. Costs for television inspection included direct salary and
a 43 percent employee benefit overhead rate for a
supervisor (one hour/day) and a crew of three ($608/day).
h. other television inspection costs included the capitalized
and operat10n and mai ntenance expenses for the 1V van
($l74/day) and other equipment such as a pickup truck and
water truck ($105/day).
The 1985-86 1 atera1, house connecti on, or si de sewer a1 terati on
inspection fee is $48 each and is based on the following costs:
a. Estimated 1.5 hours inspection time for each lateral,
house connection, or alteration.
b. Direct labor and a 43 percent employee benefit overhead
factor.
c. Pickup truck rental rate of $6.20/hour.
2. Di scussi on
Table 2 shows the 11 mainline projects which were completed
prior to May 8, 1986, and where fees were collected under the
current rate structure (starting September 1, 1985). The Table
shows the accrued cost per the criteria discussed previously
and the total fees coll ected at the permit counter.
Construction of 47 mainline projects has begun since
September 1, 1985; however, only the 11 compl eted are shown.
This allows a true comparison of fees collected vs. the accrued
cost for the fi n i shed proj act.
The total fees collected generally compare with the accrued
cost with the exception of the Crow Canyon Road project (see
Table 3 without Crow Canyon Road). The fees collected for the
Crow Canyon project include $14,016 for the 292 laterals, a
larger than normal number of laterals per length of sewer. The
rates and charges analysis presented last year also mentioned a
project with a large number of laterals. The fees collected
for thi s proj ect greatly exceeded the estimated cost. The
recommendation made at that time was to expand the data base,
which may support a possible maximum charge for laterals
between 50 and 100. It would appear that this may still be the
case. Because the Crow Canyon Road proj ect skews the cost
comparison, further data comparison will be with only the ten
proj ects li sted in Tabl e 3.
C-4
Pa .9' of 39
The total fee collected for the ten projects is $21,206.45, and
the totul uccrued cost is $20,223.11. It would appear that the
District has adequately recovered its costs, although
admittedly this is a limited data base.
For 1986-87, two primary factors shou1 d be considered which
will affect District mainline inspection costs. First, a
general wage rate increase of 5 percent became effective May 1,
1986. Equipment costs are a1 so estimated to increase by a
similar percentage. Second, the District has recently started
to require that a lead 1 ine be left in the pipe by the
contractor. A lead line is used to pull the TV cable through
the sewer. It was estimated last year that 1,100 feet of pipe
could be televised by a crew in one day if the lead line was
placed by the District. If the lead line was already in place,
1,500 feet could be televised. This increased production could
lower the cost of televising from $0.81/ft. to $0.59/ft. (a 27
percent reduction). The 1985-86 fees were based on the lead
line being placed in the sewer by the District.
A 5 percent increase in wage and equipment rates (total costs)
would be $20,223.11 x 1.05 = $21,234.15, just slightly more
than collected in fees. From Table 3, TV costs are shown to be
$6,328; a 27 percent TV inspecti on reducti on woul d be $1,709
(8.5 percent of the total accrued cost) or TV costs of $4,619.
Factori ng in the $1,709 sav i ngs woul d bri ng the accrued cost
down to $19,525.15, only slightly less than the fees collected.
It should be noted that the $1,709 savings in increased
productivity may not be realized immediately since the new
policy has not been in place very long nor is there a
sufficient data base to determine actual production rates.
3. Recommendations
-
a. Retain the current mainline inspection rate structure for
1986-87. Because of the 1 engthy proj ect time, a 1 arger
data base will be available next year, which will aid in
a valid comparison.
b. Retain the same breakdown of fees for mainline inspection
by proj ect 1 i nea r feet.
c. Retain the lateral, house connection, and side sewer
alteration inspection fee. Accumul ate a data base to
determine whether a maximum lateral charge is supported.
The data base of 10 compl eted proj ects is 1 imited; however,
the general data trend indicates that the above recommendations
will provide the required revenue to offset costs in 1986-87.
C-5
:!
J
. Z
~ 0"_
-.~
... "'
-
..
~
I
~
~
;;;
-
-
-
..~
s
Pa~..: 20 of 39
...
~
...
~~=:~~~~~~:;~
_ - t'oI _ _ . ..... r.. .... _ ~
~~~;:~~~~:5:
w
i
i
..
~;
z~
...
....~iI=====i:=
....-----......----
-------......-.
.. .. u .. ~_ ... c ... to. ....
~ a! & ~'a! ~ ~.; ~ ~ ~
jg:
~....
;:~:;~=#~~::~~
:d:;i~==~r;i~i
....--~!::=~;e~1!:
...
...-
~...
-t;
4t:::
;;5
-....
~:;~::='!~:s::'!~~
!!=S5~~~~~~
----~~
~!
....!
e-
:0
~=;~:;~:;:;~~~:;
~~:;!.::~~::::~~~
__N_....______
.. on
lit
i~
i'"
~::~~~::'!:::~::~
:JI:~~:::=!!:t;;~:::;
-----------
- __n_
~;
==!
----------.
-:r-:~""!"':r_:~~~_:~
--...---..........-..0
_..~-~~~::;:;=::
s_
;::!i
.... ...
...!;
~...
8==::-.1:::11:
....,.;...:.,.;....;...;.,..;.:.n.;
-----------
-::~
...
!:
~-
;;-
i
;:=:~:.:~~~'=~=;~
....-._....N.............._
--......____IlI"1_
.....----..nlD__V'l
_ _"04_
~i -----------
!~
~~
-----------
--~
l!>
==~~~~~~~::.:c;
--_..,--:::::~
~
- ...
~...
...
li!
;I
~ _i _~~_
g~ '::::~g
;!i!;i~:~~;
~._~;:-~~_..~
c _ -' >UC:<It
Cl'c~_-,,, __~
~~~~=;~:;:;i!~_
iz;~5~!!~~~f5
~
'"
...
!!:-
--_CD".,,_.,.,-oC
.rt1ll"1__..04_.....,o--_
;;;:;;;;;:~:==:;
C-6
.
is:
j~
....
.~
!-
..
~
...
...
~
on
II!
~
..
...
~
...
-
..
;;:
...
-
~
...
.,
-
,.
...
...
~
~
...
~
..
~
...
Page 21 of 39
.
- I;~':~,!=';~~=;~ j -
- !!=E~~~~~~ I ~
... !
! ---.....- -
.
. i
i I
- ~=~ii' ~=.;-===
i~ ~- . '. __ t"<o -....._
--. ----.-
~i.l..I! ~ c .. ..
.. .. . .
.. ~ ....
----------
;- --...-....".-...".
~=ii~==~rE~:: ~
~8 .....--~~=~;e=: <-
iii ~
... .=IIt:!t~~=:!~~= on
-
-- i.~~i::i~=d !
~~ 1It"I__.."':.-:.~"':.~
a'~ ---....~ ~
oS
-...
.--------- ...
-. . ~ ~ -: ~ -: -: -:-:-: .
i~ ~."."..-----CD ~
..! _::.~:!:.:::.;:;:;:;=~
::-
:;0
___"....0_,"",,,,,,_
--..-......"-....,,.
.. ~:i~::i~:ii,:i on
...
~~ -....,.,,--::::-;:.~:; ...
.,
i'"
~~~~~~~~~:: .
...
... _mV"'l__""'_..o._ ...
i~ .. .. _ IICl ... ~.. _ _ _ '" ...
- -----~ ...
...
-~
~=;:;~~:::;~~~ ~
&- ~ ~ ~.;;::: ~ ~ ~ ;; ~ -
=21
......
-!S
~~
...
... ;:;r:~~~~=::;::~:; -
!: __CDtEI____._ ...
e- _ - ... .. _ ,., r. _ _ tr"I r.
.. - -----..""'~::::;:: ...
.
i
-- ~-----_.._-
=~
:!::
.., ~~ ___N__ - -.. - -
~ ...
..
C>
~ ==f;:::~~~~~~ r.
'" 15 ------=::~ ~
C> - ~
'"'
.... ~c..
i
-
... ~ -
... > _co
~ 0< oZ
.. =~ ~fi~
..... 0_ ->>
:i~ ~!!!:a::i ti"""".,.oI
~ ~ :i _..... ~
~ ~-"'~~ --g~
.. ~a_.zwz~.
C_S.a:...~"~~=
..... =:~~=itt:;;l:~
... ~
-- ~ ~~W~:Q a::t)oo~
! _",CU&...1C1oC'-ISC
S." ... ------..-."..
-- It"lV"l__..._..~..c.-
c." ~- __0-___.._._
-... E --...,~........-...-
C-7
p, 2-2 of 39
C. SIDE SEWER REPAIR INSPECTION
The 1985-86 fee is $10. It is recommended it remain at this amount
to encourage contractors and homeowers to obtai n a permit.
Currently. there is no mechanism which requires a contractor to
obtain a repair inspection perm ft.
D. OVERTIM: INSPECTION
1. 1985-86 Fees
Overtime Inspection
$39/ hou r
Weekends & Holidays
(4 hour minfmum)
$1S6
Overtime Inspectfon Credit
(See Tabl e 4. below)
TMLE 4
OVERTIM: CREDIT
Total Project
OY.ertime Hours
Overtime
Credit Hours
< 4
.-
1
4 < < 8 2
--
8 < < 16 4
...
16 < < 32 6
.....
32 < 8
2. Discussfon
The overtfme inspection credit polfcy was establfshed in
1985-86 as a response to contractors who stated they were being
billed twice when overtime was charged. The credit policy has
worked well over the 1 ast year. The only factor affecti ng the
1986-87 rates woul d be the 5 percent wage rate increase.
3. ~cQIDmendations
To reflect additional labor costs. the followfng fees are
recommended:
Overtime Inspection $41/hr
Weekends & Holidays
(4 hour minfmum) $164
C-8
Pi 23 of 39
E. INSPECT OONSlRUCTION OF NEW SlRUCTURE (MH 00 RI)
The 1985-86 fee for new structure inspection is $70. Table 5 shows
four new structure projects (either manholes or rodding inlets).
Two have been fi na 1 ed. The average 1 nspect 1 on cost of the two
f1naled projects is $494. Last year the average inspection cost was
$270. It is apparent the District is not recovering all the costs
for these proJ acts. It 1 s recommended that the fee be 1 ncreased to
$100 and continue monitoring cost to broaden the data base.
F. INSPECTION OF MANHOLE OONNECTION
The 1985-86 fee is $48. It is recommended that this fee remain the
same since it is similar to a lateral inspection.
C-9
...
Page 24 of 39
... --.- ;
... ~-:~~
... ~~i5~
w
i
i
.. ~=
i! - -
- ~
"'~
::l_ ..== :I:
::~ :!a~~ ~
...
.~
:;;eS
-...
.,,--- ..
III ~ ~ -: r-;. ...
iiii _..... _ CD ..
__.... 6f"t ~
iU ..,---
-i ~~~:; ~
__e41
~! ....4:::
...
... ~=== :-
...-
~... ~=~r: ...
e- -.....N"'1 ...
i"
:(
.. ~~ ----
...
E! !::
15 ...
~ .CO
:! ~~
oft
~
., ;~
~
co
..
..
~
... I i~ ..
-...
:~ - ~
... B=~~
~i ... _iS~c
OE all..f,,"~
... U~_~
-~ l!l-lS..
J5B~;C
~ - -.. -...
;: . ~- ;;;;
--
~~.. C E_ C
C-10
P. 25 of 39
PART II I
COLLECTION SYSTEM FEES
A. DEFINITIONS
1. TV Insoection
District policy is to conduct a TV inspection of all new sewer
lines in order to verify the interior condition of the pipe
pri or to final acceptance by the Di strict. The cost of the
initial TV inspection is currently included in the mainline
inspect i on fee.
a. TV Inspection Overtime - Fee required to compensate the
District for the costs of televising any new sewer main
installation during non-normal work hours (after 4:30 p.m.
or weekends).
b. TV Inspecti on Rerun - Fee requi red to compensate thE;!
District for the costs of re-televising a portion of a
private sewer main project to confirm that necessary
corrective work was performed by a private contractor.
The corrective work is required if excessive pipe joint
gaps, failed pipe sections, or pipe profile problems were
identified during the initial TV inspection of a new sewer
ma in.
c. Overtime Credit - When a contractor pays the mainline
inspection fee, he is actually paying for a certain number
of hours of TV inspection. He can elect to have this
inspection occur on overtime hours. For this overtime
work, he shoul d then pay the full overtime fee, but be
credited for that portion of the TV inspection cost
included in the mainline inspection.
2. Sewer TaD
A new lateral connection to an existing main requires a sewer
tap if an existing wye connection does not exist. The District
requires that the contractor perform the excavation work;
however, the actual sewer tap involving the drilling of a hole
into the existing pipe and installation of a saddle connection
must be performed by Di stri ct personnel.
3. Dve Test
A dye test is used to confirm a property is connected to the
public sewer or served by a private septic tank system. CSO
personnel add dye tabl ets to interior pl umbi ng fixtures and
observe evidence of the dye color in the downstream public
sewer mai n.
C-11
Par-"'" 26 of 39
B. TELEVISION INSPECTION
1. 1985-86 Fees
The 1985-86 television inspection fees are as follows:
a. Initi al TV
- Overtime
Sl,044/day
S1l6/hr
$464
- Weekends & Holidays (4 hour min.>
- Overtime Credit
$O.411L. F.
b. TV Rerun
- Regul ar
2 hour minimum
Sl,008/day
Sl12/hr
$224
- Overtime
Weekends & Holidays (4 hour min.>
$1,1611day
$129/hr
$516/ hr
2. oi scussi on
The two primary factors affecting 1986-87 television inspection
fees are the 5% general wage rate increase and the requirement
for the contractor to leave the lead line in the sewer. The
analysis conducted for the 1985-86 fees showed the following
comparison of costs with and without the lead line left in the
sewer.
TABLE 6
INITIAL AND TV RERUN roSTS
Without
Lead L 1..ne
With
Lead Line
Initi al TV
Regu 1 ar
Overtime
$887/day
$1,044
$721/day
$835
TV Rer un
Regu1 ar
Overtime
$1,008
$1,161
$841
$955
The primary basis for the lower cost if the lead line was left
in the sewer is the estimated increased productivity from 1,100
ft./day to 1,500 ft./day. This cost savings ranges from 20-25%
(see Table 6>. This would more than offset a 5% wage and
equipment price increase. See discussion in Part II.
C-12
Pa~..: 27 of 39
A review was conducted of CSO records to detenmine if any other
factors coul d affect the proj ected costs. A second TV van and
equipment is close to being operational. This will double CSO
TV capabilities. Current fees shoul d adequately recover the
costs of the new van and equipment.
Last year approximately one-ha1 f the
proj ects had a def i c i ency wh i ch req u ired
a TV Rerun of portions of the project.
following additional effort:
mainline inspection
corrective action and
TV Rerun creates the
a. The CSO crew must take additional time to note and record
deficiencies.
b. A review of the video tape showing deficiencies and
corrective action which must be made by Engineering.
c. A 1 etter must be sent to the contractor which states that
deficiencies exist and that additional fees are require~
before a TV Rerun can be scheduled.
d. The construction inspector must witness the corrective
action.
e. Additional fees must be paid and a TV Rerun scheduled.
f. A review of the video tape must be made by Engineering
after the TV Rerun.
g. Other priority projects such as potential repair projects,
Engi neeri ng requests for improvement proj ects, and jobs,
etc. must be del ayed. Currently the backlog for these
proj ects is one month.
To recover District rerun costs and to encourage contractors to
reduce the TV Rerun frequency, the District circulated a
proposal to increase the mi nimum TV Rerun fee from $224 to
$700. The proposal was circulated to private engineering finms
and contractors. The following comments were received:
Two thought it was a great idea.
Two thought it would hurt the small contractor.
One suggested that the District have a "high priority" TV
Rerun charge when the developer insists on getting the
work done as soon as possible and a "low priority" TV
Rerun charge if the work could be combined with other work
in the area.
Five thought the Di strict shou1 d charge the actual cost
and believed that $700 was excessive.
C-13
Pc? -- 28 of 39
Three methods of recovering District costs for TV Rerun
projects were considered. These methods offer various ways of
recovering costs while accommodating contractors scheduling TV"
Reruns with the District's limited resources.
a. Charge actual cost - the cost differential determined last
year between initial TV and TV Rerun was $13/ hr. Many
jobs are only charged $26 additional (2 hour minimum).
Interviews with District staff indicate that a minimum
additional TV Rerun cost is incurred for each project
which is based upon the following:
Additional CSO crew time
Video tape review
Supervision & rescheduling
0.5 hr X $99/hr =
2 hrs X $31.29/ hr =
2 hrs X $29.89/hr =
say
$ 49.50
62.58
59.78
$171.86
$170.00
Therefore, the actual TV Rerun cost would be $170 plus the
regular CSO initial TV rate of $99/hr. A 2.5 hour minimum
should be used to reflect the same minimum time charge for
initial TV work, which is built into the Mainline
Inspection Fee.
b. Charge more than actual cost - in addition to recovering
the apparent actual cost, the cost of the lost opportunity
to televise lower priority projects could be included.
c. Charge the actual cost with a surcharge for contractors
wanting high priority - this would require that CSO keep a
long term schedu1i ng log. Those contractors want i ng to
"wait their turn" to avoid the surcharge, would be
rescheduled after other District projects.
3. Recommendations
a. Retain the current TV overtime inspection fees. Increased
productivity is expected to offset the 5 percent wage rate
increase.
b. Modify the TV Rerun fees to refl ect the actual cost as
follows:
Regul ar
(2.5 hour minimum)
$170 + $99/hr
$418
Overtime
$170 + $1l6/hr
- Weekends & Holidays
(4 hour minimum)
$634
c. Consider a surcharge or changing the priority ranking for
TV Rerun jobs.
C-14
Pi 29, of 39
c. SEWER TAP
The 1985-86 fee for a sewer tap is $146. This fee includes two-
hours 1 abor for a two-member crew and the expense for truck
operation and a pipe saddle. It is recommended that the 1986-87 fee
include a $20 per tap depreciation in the tap machine and bit along
with a 5% wage rate increase. The new fee woul d be $171.
D. DYE lEST
The 1985-86 fee for dye testing is $54. This fee includes two-hours
labor for a two member crew and the expense for truck operation and
dye. It is recommended that the 1986-87 fee be increased to $56 to
reflect a 5% increase in wage rates.
E. NEW FEES
Several instances have arisen where CSO crews have arrived at a job
site to find that for one reason or another, they cannot gain access
to do the required work. It is recommended that a fee be charged if
the contractor does not give 24-hour notice cancell ing the work
request. The cancellation fee would also apply if the site was not
ready or accessibl e when the crew arrives. These fees shoul d only
be charged if arrangements are made with the Di stri ct and the
contractor at least 48 hours in advance of the date and approximate
time CSO is scheduled to arrive at the job site. The following fees
would apply.
TV Inspection -- Initial and Rerun (2 hours
cancellation fee)
Sewer Tap -- (one hour cancellation fee)
$198
$ 54
The above fees are described further in the District's Standard
Specif feati ons.
C-15
Pa 30 of 3'9
PART IV
RIGHT-Of-WAY fEES
A. DEfINITIONS
Seareaation of Local
Assessments
Imorovements District (LID) Bond
1.
As properties which have LID bonds assessed are divided, the
outstanding LID bond is segregated (apportioned) to the newly
created parcel s. The fee charged recovers the time spent
researching and establishing the apportionment.
2. Processina of Quitclaim Deeds
This fee recovers the cost of preparing a legal description and
Right-of-Way map for properties no long requiring sewer
easements.
3. Pro~ssinQ Real Prooertv Aareements
Thi s fee recovers the cost of executi ng agreements with a
property owner who wants to encroach into a Di strict easement
with any use which is not permitted by the Standard
Specifications.
B. 1985-86 FEES
The 1985-86 Right-of-Way fees are as follows:
Segregation of LID Assessment
$27 1 hr
($81 mi nimum)
Processing Quitclaim Deeds
$301 LID
segregation
Preparation and Processing of Agreements
Relating to Real Property
Surveying as
Requi red
C. DISOJSSION
Interviews were conducted to determine whether any changes in
operation had occurred since last year. The only factor affecting
the 1986-87 fees is the 5% wage rate increase.
D. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following fees are recommended to recover the costs expected in
1986-87:
Segregation of LID Assessment
$28/hr
($84 minimum)
C-16
Processing Quitclaim Deeds
Preparation and Processing of Agreements
Relating to Real Property
C-17
r
~ 31 of 39
S32/lID
segregation
Survey 1ng as
Requi red
, ._--_._--_._....._-..__.,_._----_.__._---'._.-,-~--_.__.-"..__.,--_..-._---~,-".."---,,~~--_.__.__._..__.-._-,,~.._,...__._----'_._--'--"'--~----'_._.._--'.....--
Pa 32 of 39
PART V
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
A. DEFINITIONS
Included in this part are services provided to engineers,
contractors, or other private and public agencies who request
engineering, sol1 evaluation, or surveying. Actual District staff
cost, including employee benefits and administrative overhead, is
charged to these projects.
B. 1985 -1986 FEES
The 1985-86 miscellaneous fees are as follows:
Engineering for Private Sewer Projects
Estimate
Requi red
Actua 1 Cost
Sol1 Eva 1 uati on for Private Sewer Proj ects
Surveying
S95/hour
c. DISCUSSION
The only factor affecting these fees is the 5% wage rate increase.
Only surveying costs would be affected by the published rate.
D. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following fees are recommended to recover the costs expected in
1986-87 .
Engineering for Private Sewer Projects
Estimate
Requi red
Actual Cost
Soil Evaluation for Private Sewer Projects
Survey i ng
S1001 hour
C-18
PC' 33 of 39
PART V I
INDUSTRIAL PERMIT FEE
A. DISOJSSION
Last year the District beg~n to recover a part of the cost of
administering the Industrial Pretreatment Program by billing each of
the 11 permitted industries. Each bill was based upon the following
components:
1. Planning Division force account for the particular industry
which inc1 udes office time and fie1 d time for routi ne
compliance and unannounced sampling of each industry.
2. laboratory cost which consists of a Senior Chemist's field time
for conducting the annual unannounced sampling of each industry
(three hours per unannounced sample) plus the associated
laboratory test cost.
3. Portion of Planning Division force account for administering
the Industri a1 Permit Program; estimated at 50 percent. The
remainder of the force account effort is spent reviewing permit
applications for potential industries and other related tasks.
4. Portion of Planning Division force account for administering
the Federal Pretreatment Program as it pertains to existing
agenc i es and prepa ri ng the Pretreatment Annua 1 Report;
est imated at 10 percent. The remai nder of the force account
effort is spent reviewing proposed EPA pretreatment guidelines,
monitoring changes, federal legislation, etc.
last year's permit fees and the recommended 1986-87 fees to be
billed to each industry are as follows:
TABLE 7
PERMIT FEES FOR DISTRICT INDUSTRIES
1985-86
Permit Fee
Recommended
1986-87
Permit Fee
Beckman
Chevron Park
Del Monte
Dow Chemical
Etch- Tek
ffi&E
Siemens
Tracor/M3A
Varian
Naval Weapons Station
EG&G
$ 673
1,534
1,459
1,365
3,245
1,443
1,584
2,364
1,914
1 ,6 88
2,693
$1 ,270
1,398
1,266
1.314
2,049
1,220
1,108
1,251
1,151
1,450
EG&G has been removed from the list of permitted industries since
their manufacturing facility has been moved out of the District.
C-19
Pa 14 of 39
In 1985, the District amended the contract with the City of Concord;
the amendment stipulated that the District would take over Concord's
Industrial Pretreatment Program. Details for assuming Concord's
pretreatment program were to be agreed upon at a later date. Since
then, a request has been made to the ~Q(B to approve the program
change which would incorporate Concord. Approval has not been given
at this time because of the possible ambiguity of enforcement
powers. A new anendment has been drafted which cl early defines the
District's enforcement authority. This has been verbally approved
by the R'lQ{B and is being reviewed by the District and Concord
staff. Once the agreement is ratified, it is recommended that the
District charge Concord industries in a similar manner as all other
i ndustri es.
Tabl e 8 shows the 1986-87 Industri al Permit Fees which woul d be
billed to each of Concord's industries presently in their
pretreatment program. These fees are based on the actual cost for
similar industries within the District and assumes full-year
participation in the District's program. A prorated amount would be
billed for partial-year participation.
TABLE 8
PERMIT FEES FOR OONCORD INOOSTRIES
Recommended
1986-87
Permit Fee
Analog
Annabel 1 e
ADL Ci rcuits
Systron Donner
Westl and
$ 1 ,270
1,270
2,050
1,270
1 , 27 0
A cost which has not been recovered in the past is the time
associ ated with review of new permits. There is no mechani sm to
recover costs associ ated with these reviews. All industries that
are required to submit an industrial questionnaire do not eventually
require an industrial permit.
The level of effort associated with new permit reviews varies
greatly. For example IT Corporation and GSF Inc. permits have
requi red much more staff and 1 egal time than other industri es
reviewed.
B. RECOMMENDATION
The following industrial permit fees are recommended:
1.
District Industries
Annual Permit Fee
Fee based on actual cost
of service for prior
fiscal year. Annual
permit fee for 1986-87
varies from $1,108 to
$2,049.
C-20
.__'__M_~__.._.__.,___,__,..___,__..__.__,~
Pc 35 of 39
2. It 1 s recommended that the above fee structure a1 so be the
basis for fees charged to Concord industries once formal
ratification between the District and Concord has taken place.
Concord Industries
Annual Permit Fee
Fi rst year fees based on
average cost for similar
District industries.
Subsequent years based
on actual cost of ser-
vice. Annual permit fee
for 1986-87 varies from
$1,270 to $2,050.
3.
New Industry Permit Fee
Fee based on actual costs
prior to connection to
the District ($500
minimum)
An account number wou1 d be estab1 i shed when an industry requests
connection to the District. A permit fee of $500 would be paid
prior to any work performed in reviewing the new industry
application. Costs which exceed $500 would be billed directly after
written authorizati on is obtai ned to bill additi ona1 costs.
Authorizations would be obtained in increments of $500.
C-21
Paae 36 of 39
PART V II
SEPTAGE DISPOSAL FEES
A. DISCUSSION
The 1985-86 fees are as follows:
Annual Permit Fee
$100
Disposal Charges
- Grease Interceptor within the
District
Septage Volume Per Truck
< 2,000 gal
l 2,000 gal
SO.OI/gal
S7.00 + SO.Os/gal
S20.3s + SO.Os/gal
The septage disposal practices and fees are currently being reviewed
by staff. Recommendations are to be available in October 1986. It
is premature at this time to recommend changes to the existing fee
structure.
B. RECX>t+ENDATION
Reta 1 n the 1985-86 fee structure until rev 1 s1 ons to the septage
disposal practices are approved.
C-22
Je 37 of 39
PART VIII
ROSSMOOR FIXTURE FEES (1)
A. DEFINITION
A fixture fee is the Cl.ount that a new user of the District's
sewerage facilities must pay for the privilege of using the available
treatment and disposal facilities owned an operated by the District.
The amount charged represents a prorated share of the average cost of
the capacity rep1ac8llent. Plumbing fixtures are used to determine
their fee because each fixture represents a potential flow and load
on the sewerage facilities.
B. DISCUSSION
District-wide fixture fees were last revised in 1974, prior to the
startup of the Stage 5A project. Fixture fees must be based on
future Plant expansion costs. A preliminary analysis of current
fixture fee revenue and the cost of the future Stage 6 expansion
indicates a 451 fee increase would be required to recover the cost
of the expansion (see calculation below).
Stage 6 05 MGD expansion) = $43,450,000 *
Cost per gallon per day = $43,450,000/15,000,000 ga1./day
= $2.90
Typical single f~i1y residence contributes 225 gal/day
Fixture fee required = $2.90 per gal/day x 225 gal/day
= $652.50
Current Fixture fee for 2 bath units = $450.00
Fee increase required = $652.50 - $450.00 (100) = 451
$450.00
* Does not include any outfall work
Further analysis of District-wide fixture fees is beyond the scope
of this rates and charges study but will be included in a forthcoming
analysis.
The scope of this part is to adjust Rossmoor's fixture fees to
current District-wide fees (prorated based on occupancy factors).
New residential living units within the Rossmoor development have
been paying a reduced fixture fee based on lower than District-wide
occupancy rates and fixture fees first established in a 1963
contract. It is proposed to raise these fees by basing them on the
current District-wide fixture fees and current occupancy rates.
(1) Bold face type indicates revision to August 4,1986, report of
1986-87 Rates and Charges.
C-23
B. RECOMMENDATION
Page 38 of 39
The following fixture fees are recommended for Rossmoor.
-
Fixtures
Kitchen
Tol1 ets
Lavatories
Bathtubs & Showers
Laundry Out1 ets
Wet Bar, Laundry Tray
Living Unit**
1 Bath Unit
2 Bath Unit
2-1/2 Bath Unit
TABLE 9
ROSSKlOR FIXTURE FEES
Occupancy
Factor*
Current
Di stri ct-Wi de
Fee
Current
Rossmoor
Fee
Recomend.
Rossmoor
Fee
1.5/1.8 x $112.50 = $ 93.75 $21.62
1.5/1.8 x $ 22.50 = $ 18.75 $ 5.53
1.5/1.8 x $ 22.50 = $ 18.75 $ 5.53
1.5/1.8 x $ 67.50 = $ 56.25 $11. 03
1.5/1.8 x $112.50 = $ 93.75 $22.63
1.5/1.8 x $ 22.50 = $ 18.75 $ 3.69
1.5/1.8 x $337.50
1.5/1.8 x $450.00
1.5/1.8 x $495.00
= $281.25
= $375.00
= $412.50
$66.34
$88.43
$99.49
* Current Rossmoor occupancy/District-wide occupancy for similar living
units
** Assumes kitchen and laundry facilities
C-24
Page 39 of 39
ATTACHr-ENT 0
PUB L Ie roMNT
Thi s attachment presents a summary of publ ic comment received as of
August 18, 1986. Although it is anticipated that additional comments
will be received at the publ ic heari ng, to date there has been only one
commenter; Mr. Joe Bristol with Roto Rooter. His comments are as
follows:
1. Non-cancellation (Initial TV and TV rerun) -- The commenter believes
this fee should only be charged if the Districts crew arrives on the
site at the schedul ed time and the contractor is not ready, thus
requi ri ng a reschedul e. Al so, cancel 1 ati on pri or to 24 hours, was
believed to be too much lead time. The commenter believes the
smaller contractors especially should be able to cancel before the
crew left for the job site and not 24-hours previously.
2. Non-cancellation fee (sewer tap) -- Same as above.
3. TV Rerun -- The commenter believes that the proposed rerun fee is
excessive. He believes the time necessary to review tapes,
reschedule and supervision is being padded.
4. Although comment was not received, Systron-Donner (a Concord
industry) stated they would attend the public hearing.
0-1
.
Centra Contra Costa Sanitar~ .:listrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF
POSITION . PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
SUBJECT
NO.
VI. BIDS AND AWARDS 1
DATE
AUTHORIZE ~AAD OF A CONTRACT TO PACIFIC MEOlANICAL
CORPORATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT PROJ ECT NO. 4060,
RAIN TREE A..ACE STORM DAMAGE REPAIRS; AUTHORIZE $77,730
FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE AWARD
AUTHORIZE FUNDS
Robert A. Simmons Associate En ineer
SUBMITTED BY
ISSUE: On August 14, 1986, sealed bids for the construction of District Project
No. 4060, Raintree Place Storm Damage Repairs were received and opened. The Board
must award the contract or rejected bids within 60 days of the opening of bids.
BACKGROOND: Increased creek flows caused by heavy winter rains in the early
1980's have resulted in downcutting and widening of Reliez Creek above its
confluence with Las Trampas Creek. This situation threatens an existing 8-inch
sewer crossing behind the residence at 926 Raintree Place in Lafayette. In the
fall of 1985 Di strict staff prepared pl ans and specificati ons for repl acement of
the sewer crossing. The project was advertised and bids were received; however, a
construction contract was not awarded because a bid dispute arose between the low
and second-low bidders. The delay caused by the bid dispute shifted the contract
completion time into the rainy season, and a decision was made not to proceed with
the work. The bi ds were rej ected at the September 23, 1985, Board meeti ng.
During the past winter the creek banks have continued to widen. In conference
with the Risk Management Committee, Engineering Department staff re-evaluated the
alternatives available to protect the sewer from the continued sloughing of the
creek banks. Rev isi ons to the ori gi nal constructi on pl ans were made which
minimized disturbance to the creek channel while insuring long-term protection of
the pipeline. The revised project involves the reconstruction of 100 lineal feet
of 8-inch pipe crossing Reliez Creek, installation of a box girder support, the
repl acement of another 100 1 ineal feet of underground 8-inch pi peline, and the
construction of appurtenant structures. Attachment No. 1 to this position paper
shows a plot pl an of the proj ect area.
The project was advertised on August 4 and 10, 1986. Three bids, ranging from
$57,630 to $104,604 were received on August 14, 1986. A tabulation of the bids is
shown on Attachment No.2. The Engineering Department conducted a technical and
commercial evaluation of the bids and concluded that the lowest responsible bidder
is Pacific Mechanical Corporation of Concord, CA. The Engineer's estimate for
construction was $66,600.
A Post Bid/Pre-Construction Cost Estimate
amount of $77,730 in sewer constructi on
contract and construction contingencies.
Raintree Storm Damage Repairs is $104,230.
is presented in Attachment No.3. An
funds is needed for the constructi on
The total est imated proj ect cost for
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BDARD ACTION
I JO:!A ..9/85
RAS
DRW
RJlB
INITIA TING DEPT./DIV.
f!A~
10/24J
fJ?J()
(
(
SUBJECT
NJTHORIZE NflARD OF A OONlRACT TO PACIFIC MEQfANICAI.
OORPORATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT PROJ ECT NO. 4060,
RAINTREE PLACE STORM DAMAGE REPAIRS; AUTHORIZE $77,730
FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
-POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
DATE
2
OF
5
AUQust 18, 1986
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of a construction contract for construction of
Raintree Place Storm Damage Repairs, District Project 4060, to Pacific Mechanical
Corporati on as the lowest responsive bi dder. Authorize $77,730 fran the Sewer
Construction Funds.
~-----_.
13028-9/85
..
'..._- - -~
(
(
Page 3 of 5
A1TACHMENT 1
(~;.
DP 4060 - RAlNTREE PlACE, I.AFA~1:1 II:
PROJECT PLOT PlAN
c
SUB
S 0/6 - \ ~
/8 -
/"
~UIJECr ro e~.8"
$T A- J+ 7545 i IIJE ~
20
19
I
I~
lct\
I:l.
~
~
""'i
~
-
r-
r-
J~CKSO}J
Mt _
.5TII.31"15-/5
.4- ~
~
/'j
\
\
Attachment No. 2 - Page 4 of 5
Central(- )ntra Costa Sani~ y District
. SUMMARY DF BIDS
PROJECT NO. 4060 - RAINTREE PLACE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR DATE Auqust 14. 1986
LocAnOti~ RaintreePlace. Lafavette ENGR. m.$ 66.600
It
~
BIDDER (Name, telephone & address)
BID PRICE
Pacific Mechanical Corp. ( ) 82]-4940 $ 57,630.00
1
2501 Annalisa Drlve. Concord. CA 94520
Richard Sawdon ( ) 820-2746 $ 59,850.00
2
Box 350, Diablo, CA 94528
.
Jardin Pipeline .> ( ) 581-6946 $ 104,604.00
3
2774 Jeffrey Ct., Castro Valley. CA ~q4 546
( ) $
-
( ) $
~
( ) $
-
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
-
( ) $
-
( ) $
PREPARED BY Rpy I imjoco
DATE AUQ. 14. 1986 SHEET NO. 1
OF 1
2503-9/84
(
ATTAOiMENT 3
POST BID - PRECONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE OF COSTS
FOR
DISTRICT PROJ ECT NO. 4060
ITEM
ITEM
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
1. Construction Contract (As Bid)
2. Estimated Construction Contingencies (@ 10%)
TOT AL
$ 57,640
$ 5,800
$ 63,430
3. Estimated Construction Incidentals to Project Completion
Survey $ 1,000
Inspection $ 6,250
(including Contract Admin.,
Engineering Submittal Review) $ 3,050
Total Estimated Construction Incidentals $
4. As-Built Drawings & 0 & M Manual
5. Total Estimate Required to Complete Project
6.
Pre-Bid Expenditures
District Survey, Engr.,
Special Services
Total Preconstruction Cost
(as of 8/18/86)
29,500
7.
Print,Advt Cqst $
$
$
8. Total Estimated Project Cost
<Items 5 & 7)
$ 10,300
$ 1,000
$ 74,730
$ 29,500
$104,230
9. Funds Previously Authorized $ 26,500
10. Total Additional Funds Required to Complete Project $ 77,730
(Item 8 minus Item 9)
Page 5 of 5
% CONST.
CONTRACT
100%
16
2
118
47
164
.
Centra ::ontra Costa Sanitar~ .Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF
NO.
VI. BIDS AND AWARDS 2
DATE
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
SUBJECT AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO KJM CONSTRUCTION CO.
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4093, WEST TRUNK
PARALLEL - WATERSHED 44; AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANPGER-
CH IEF ENG INEER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH CONTRA COSTA
WATER DISTRICT AND COMSTOCK ENGINEERING; AUTHORIZE $444,300
FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
TYPE OF ACTION
Thomas Chen, Assistant En ineer
JlVTHORIZE FUNDS
AUTHORIZE ItIARD
AUTHORIZE PGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY
ISSUE: Sealed bids for District Project No. 4093, West Trunk Parallel - Watershed
44, were received and opened on August 14, 1986. The Board must award a contract
or reject all bids within 60 days of the opening of bids. The Board must
authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute agreements with the Contra
Costa Water Di stri ct to relocate a secti on of water mai nand with Comstock
Engineering, Inc., to provide contract administration and inspection services.
BACKGROUND: An analysis of the sanitary sewer facil ities in the North Concord/
Clyde area (Watershed 44) identified the need to install a trunk sewer parallel to
the existing 12-inch sewer in Bates Avenue near Arnold Industrial Way. District
Proj ect No. 4093 consi sts of the install ati on of approximatel y 3,900 1 ineal feet
of 18-inch gravity sewer line together with 10 trunk manholes as described and
shown in Attachment 1.
The Contra Costa Water District will relocate a section of 24-inch water main that
confl icts with the proposed 18- inch sewer. Total rel ocati on costs are estimated
to be $25,000 including design, fabrication, and construction of this section of
water main. An agreement must be executed to authorize the Water District to
relocate the line. Due to a heavy workload, the Engineering Department is
currently unable to provide staffing to handle the contract administration and
inspection on this project. Based upon a review of experience, staff capability,
and cost submitted by John Carollo Engineers and Comstock Engineering, Inc., the
1 atter was sel ected to assi st the Di stri ct. The Di stri ct has negoti ated an
agrement with Comstock Engineering, Inc., for contract administration and
inspection service for a lump sum of $21,500.
Plans and specifications for the project were completed, and advertisements
inviting the submission of sealed bids were placed in the Contra Costa Times on
July 31 and August 7, 1986. Bids were received and opened on August 14, 1986.
The bid tabulation is Attachment 2. District staff has reviewed the bids that
ranged from $308,300 to $365,624 and has determined that the lowest responsi bl e
bidder is MGM Construction Co. of Concord, California, at $308,300. The
Engineer's estimate for construction cost was $445,000.
The post bid/preconstruction cost estimate is presented in Attachment 3 to this
position paper. A 15 percent contingency is being requestd on this project
because of the high possi bi 1 ity of change orders due to the crowded util ity
corri dor. (There will 1 ikely be unforeseen util ity confl icts even though an
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
BM
DRW
RAB
1302A-.9/85
TC
TC
~ .fJ(l\
,(),aJ
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
SUBJECT AlJTI..IORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO M3M CONSTRUCTION CO.
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4093, WEST TRUNK
PARAlLEL - WATERSHED 44; AUTHORIZE THE GENERAl MANPGER-
O-HEF ENGINEER TO EXEOJTE AN JlGREEMENT WITH CONTRA COSTA
WATER DISTRICT AND COMSTOCK ENGINEERING; AUTHORIZE $444,300
FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
POSITION PAPER
PAGE
DATE
2
OF
n
Auaust 18, 1986
attempt has been made to identify all conflicts.) The total project cost is
estimated to be $479,300. At this time $444,300 in additional funds are required
for the constructi on contract, constructi on management, i nspecti on, consul tant
serv ices, water mai n rel ocati on, and conti ngenci es. The proj ect is i ncl uded in
the Capital Improvement Plan.
RECO~ENDATION: Authorize award of the constructi on contract for the West Trunk
Parallel - Watershed 44, to M3M Construction Co., the lowest responsible bidder;
authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute agreements with the Contra
Costa Water District for the relocation of the water main and Comstock
Engineering, Inc., for contract administration and inspection services; and
authorize the expenditure of $444,300 from the Sewer Construction Fund.
--------.
13028-9/85
Page 3 of 6
ATTAOifENT 1
WEST TRUNK PARAlLEL - WATERSHED 44
DISTRICT PROJ ECT NO. 4093
PROJ ECT DESCRIPTION
Watershed 44, where the project is located, covers a part of North Concord, the
town of Clyde, a portion of the U.S. Naval Weapons Station, and unincorporated
1 and east and south of the Mall ard Reservoi r. Rapi d grQllth, consi sti ng of
commercial and light industrial development, is occurring in the area.
District Project No. 4093 is a part of the proposed sewage collection system
improvements for the Watershed 44 service area. The project includes the
installation of approximately 3,900 linear feet of l8-inch gravity trunk sewer
and 10 trunk manholes along Bates Avenue parallel to an existing 12-inch gravity
sewer as shQlln on page 2 of 2 of this Attachment 1.
The new trunk sewer line will cross over a 36-inch and a 48-inch water mains at
separate locations. A special steel casing will be provided at each crossing to
separate the water and sewer lines as requi red by the Department of Heal th
Services. At another location near the existing 48-inch water main, a section of
existing 24-inch water main that conflicts with the proposed trunk sewer will be
relocated by the Contra Costa Water District. The proposed trunk sewer along Bates
Avenue is in a very crowded utility corridor in which water, sanitary sewer,
storm drain, telephone, power, and an abandoned 2-inch gas line are located.
This project will be tied into District Project No. X4092 (East Bates Avenue
Assessment District 1984-2) upstl"eam. The latter project is currently under
construction under a joint powers agreement between the District and the County of
Contra Costa for the East Bates Avenue Assessment District. At the downstream end
this project will be connected to an existing 2l-inch gravity sewer.
Page 4 of 6
Page 2 of 2
of Attachment 1
'.
"
,,'
"
,
,
,
,
,
.'
"
:-.
,
,
~
,,~~~
~1-
,
,
~
,
,
>
,
SYSTEM MAP
SCALE: 11t= 600'
District Project No. 4093
West Trunk Parallel.
Watershed 44
. ... ATTACHMENT 2 Page 5 of 6
Centra' ~ontra' Costa Sanit-,-y District
SUMMARY OF BIDS
PROJECT NO.
4093 - WEST TRUNK PARALLEL - ws 44
DATE Auqust 14. 1986
ENGR.EST.~ 445,000
LOCATION
Bates Avenue, Concord
c
~
BIDDER (Name, telephone & address)
BID PRICE
I
5
MGM Construction Co. ( 415) 685-8812 $
308,300.00
P- O Rm{ 5757, r.onrord, r.A 94570
c
Fee Construction (415) 656-0451 $
313,313.00
p. o. Box 1774, Frp.mont, CA 94538
MJB Pipel ine (41';) 78t;-t;80t; $ 313 ,600.00
P. o. Box 197, Mt Fdp.n, CA '94557
Jardin Pipel ine ( 415) 581-61346 $ 341,600.00
2774 Jeffrey Ct., Castro Valley, CA 94546
Mountain Cascade (41t;) 8~7-t;8ot; $ 365,624.00
P. O. Box 116 ~ San Ramon, CA q4r;r;7
( ) $
.
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
2
3
4
PREPARED BY
DATE
SHEET NO.
OF
2503-9/84
10.
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT 3
POST BID - PRECONSTRlJCnON ESTIMATE OF COSTS
FOR
DISTRICT SEWERING PROJECT 4093
ITEM DESCRIPTION
%CONST.
CONTRACT
ITEM AMOUNT
TOTAL
1. a. Construction Contract (As Bid). . . . .
b. Relocation of water line by CCWO
c. Subtotal. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Estimated Construction Contingencies
308.300
25,000
333,300
50.000
. $
100.0
15.0
. . . . .. .$
3.
Estimated Construction Incidentals to Project Completion
Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Ins~ection, Contract Administration., Testing
Engineering. . . . . . . . . . $
10.000
30,000
9,000
Total Estimated Construction Incidentals . . . . . $ 4q,OOO $ 4q,OOO ~ 15.0
4. Street Resurfacing or Seal Coat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ n 0
5. Total Estimate Required to Complete Project . . . . . . . . . . $ 432.300 130.0
6.
Pre Bid Expenditures
Survey, Engineering, Printing, Advertising
Special Services
Right-ot-Way Acquisition .
. $
. $
. $
47,000
o
o
7.
Total Preconstruct ion Incidentals (as ot 7-31-86). . $
47,000
47 Mn
$
14 n
8.
Total Estimated Project Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 479,300
(Items 5 & 7)
144.0
9.
35,000
Funds Previously Authorized
. . . . . . . $
Total Additional Funds Required to Complete Project.
(Item 8 minus Item 9)
. L 444. ~OO
2505-8/78
.
Centra =ontra Costa Sanitar~ ")istrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
I PAGE 1
OF 4
POSITION PAPER I BOARD MEETING OF
Auaust 21, 1986
SUBJECT AUTHORIZE ftlAAD OF CONTRACT TO PACIFIC P-EOiANICAL
CORPORATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 20013,
CONCORD REVENUE ~TERS; AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MAN!GER-O-tIEF
ENGINEER TO EXEaJTE AMEN~ENT NO. 1 WITH J(}lN CAROLLO
ENGINEERS FOR SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION; AND AUTHORIZE
$476,150 FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
NO.
VI. BIDS AND AWARDS 3
DATE
AUQust 18, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE ~AAD
AUTHORIZE !GREE~NT
AUTHORIZE FUNDS
SUBMITTED BY
Bert Michalczyk, Senior Engineer
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Engineering Department
Engineering Division
ISSUE: On July 31, 1986, sealed bids for the construction of District Project No.
20013, Concord Revenue Meters, were received and opened. The Board must award the
contract or rej ect bi ds with i n 60 days of the openi ng of bi ds. An amendment to
the existing Engineering Services Agreement with John Carollo Engineers (JCE) is
required for services during construction.
BACKGROUND: The City of Concord and the District have entered into an Agreement
which requires that Concord reimburse the District for the cost of wastewater
treatment services. This reimbursement is based on flow vollllle and sewage
strength. Improvements to existing metering and sampling facilities are requi red
to increase the accuracy and reliability of those facilities. JCE was retained to
complete the design of the metering improvements which consist of the installation
of two flow meters, one at the Concord Pump Stati on and the other on an exi sti ng
trunk sewer serv i ng the North Concord area. At the Concord Pump Stati on, the
existing sampl ing system will be modified. At the North Concord site a metering
vault and new sampling system will be installed.
Pl ans and Spec1ficati ons for the proj ect were campl eted and adverti sements were
placed on July 14 and 25, 1986. Four bids, ranging from $343,000 to $423,674 were
received on July 31, 1986 and are presented in Attachment 1. The Engineering
Department conducted a technical and commercial evaluation of the bids and
concluded that the lowest responsible bidder is Pacific Mechanical Corporation of
Concord, Californi a. The Engi neer' s Estimate for constructi on was $337,000.
JCE is recommended as the firm to provide assistance during construction based on
their familiarity with the project and their satisfactory performance during
design. This will consist of shop drawing review, specialty inspections, and
operator training. An amendment to an existing Agreement has been negotiated with
JCE on an hourly rate basis with a cost ceiling of $21,400. Contract
administration and routine inspection will be performed by District forces.
A Post Bid/Pre--Construction Cost Estimate is presented in Attachment 2. The total
project cost is estimated to be $659,850. At this time $476,150 in additional
funds are requi red for the constructi on cost and conti ngenci es, prepurchased
equipment, JCE services, and force account costs for construction management, and
i nspecti on.
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
~).~1J!~
1302A.9185 BM
tOt8J
1ft>
GEN.
... \
. IEF ENG.
J IL
. ."."\
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
\'..
DRW
RAB
~~ER J. DOLAN
\
SUBJECT AUlHORIZE AWAAD OF CONTRACT TO PACIFIC MEQ-fANlCAL
CORPORATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT PROJ ECT NO. 20013,
CONCORD REVENUE METERS; AUlHORIZE lHE GENERAL MANPGER-CHIEF
ENGINEER TO EXEQJTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH Ja-tN CAROLLO
ENGINEERS FOR SERV ICES DURING CONSTRUCTION; AND AUlHORIZE
$476,150 lHE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
DATE
2
OF
4
August 18, 1986
The project is included in the Capital Improvement Plan. The District will
provide initial funding for the project and will be reimbursed for one half of the
total proj ect cost by the City of Concord upon proj ect closeout.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of the constructi on contract for the Concord
Revenue Meters to Pacific Mechanical Corporation, the lowest responsible bidder;
authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute Amendment No. 1 with John
Carollo Engineers for services during construction; and authorize the expenditure
of $476,150 from the Sewer Construction Fund.
.....-------.
13028-9/85
Attachment 1 Pa~e 3 of 4
Central ~ontra Costa Sanit-.y District
SUMMARY OF BIDS
PROJECT NO. 20013
Concord Revenue Meters
DATE July 31, 1986
ENGR. EST. $ 337,000
LOCATION Off Arnold Industrial Highway, Concord
a:
~
BIDDER (Name, telephone & address)
BID PRICE
Pacific Mechanical Corp. (415 ) 827-4940 $ 343,000
1
P. O. Box 4041. Concord. CA 94524
-
. $
Alh;lY Cnnc;t rllct inn (415 ) ??R-5400
2 P. O. Box 2568, Martinez, CA q4551 414 . 169
""-
Monterey Mechanical Co. (415 ) 632-3173 $
3 8275 San Leandro St.. Oakland. CA ~ q4621 416,000
K. G. Walt~rs Conc;trllctinn Co. (707 ) 5?7-99hR $
4 421,674
P. O. Box 4359, Santa Rosa, CA 95402
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
I--
( ) $
-
( ) $
-
( ) $
( ) $
PREPARED BY
R. Limioco
DATE July 31, 1986 SHEET NO.
OF 1
2503-9/84
,I
Page 4 of 4
Attachment 2
POST BID - PRECONSTRUCnON EsnMATE OF COSTS
FOR
DISTRICT SEWERING PROJECT 20013
1. a. Construction Contract (As Bid) .
b. Prepurchase Equipment. . . . . .
2. Estimated Construction Contingencies
%CONST.
ITEM AMOUNT TOTAL CONTRACT (a)
. . . . . $ 343.000 )
11 2 .000 t 100
. . . . . .
. ~ .45~500 10
ITEM DESCRIPTION
3.
Estimated Construction Incidentals to Project Completion
Survey. . . $
Inspection . $
Engineering . $
Construction Management . . . .
1 , 000
14,000
C; 000
21,000
. $ 41.000
$
41 .000
9
Total Estimated Construction Incidentals
4.
John Carollo Enqineers - Assistance during Construction $
21.400
4
5. Total Estimate Required to Complete Project (I telUs .1 through 4.) . . $ 562.900
6. Pre Bid Expenditures
Survey, Engineering, Printing, Advertising . $ 24.800
John Ca ro 110 Engineers Design Services .$ 72,150
Right-of-Way Acquisition . . . . . . $ -0-
7. Total Preconstruction Incidentals (as of 7-31-86 ) . . $ 96,950 $ 96 Q50
123
11
8.
Total Estimated Project Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 61)9.81)0
(Items 5 & 7)
144
9.
Funds Previously Authorized
. . . . . . . $
183,700
10.
Total Additional Funds Required to Complete Project.
(Item 8 minus Item 9)
. ~. 476, 1 50
(a) Percentage of Constuction Contract plus Prepurchase Equipment.
2505-8/78
.
Centre Contra Costa Sanitar District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Au ust 21, 1986
NO.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR 8
DATE
Au ust 15, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
SUBJECT
APPROVE JlGREEt-ENT RELATING TO REM. PROPERTY WITH
WILLIAM R. t-CQEARY, IT UX, JOO 4198, PAOfECO MEA
APPROV E REAL
PROPERTY AGREEt-ENT
SUBMITTED BY
Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer
INITIA TING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering Dept./Construction Div.
ISSUE: The property <Mner has proposed the construction of a 24 unit condominium
compl ex on thei r property. A wooden deck attached to one of the uni ts and the
roof overhang (eaves) of two units will be over a District easement.
BACKGROUND: The deck w ill be cantil evered above the easement area at a mi nimum
clearance of ten feet. The deck will encroach approximately five feet into the
exi sti ng easement which is ten feet w ide. The roof overhangs w ill encroach two
feet into the easement and w ill be about 15 feet above grade. The deck and the
roof overhangs w ill be high enough above the easement so that they will not
interfere with work on the existing sewers.
The property OrIner has cooperated with District staff by providing drawings of
the deck and has pai d the Di stri ct' s fee for processi ng the subj ect agreement.
Staff has determined that the improvements w ill not interfere with the present use
of our sewer; however, if the need should arise, the agreement requires the
property <Mner to relocate the sewer main at his expense.
RECOMt-ENDATION:
McCl ea ry , et ux,
of the District
recorded.
Approve the Agreement Relating to Real Property with William R.
Job 4198, authorize the President of the Board and the Secretary
to execute sai d Agreement and authorize the Agreement to be
JSM
RAB
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
13:>2,<1 .9/~5
~r
DH
, ntff)
INITlA TlNG DEPT./DIV.
._.,-'--~-_."-,.__._-------~--~--_...-------,~._--,._-"---.--______.____._~___.8'__'"____._.,______.,_,~,_,._.____._______'.
t
"_Tea CotTA eoL' CL..
I", ,.. .C.
o
t l~ l~~J -
-
-
1:-0' s.se. ,..- -
___ I _I \
- \
....-.::.; I
\~ \ \
\ \
\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
~
l.=naJ _ 6
+':/~~ 4-/"
I
REAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT
Job 4198, Parcel 1
Pacheco
.
Centra.. Contra Costa Sanitar ~ District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
August 21, 1986
NO.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR 9
PAGE 1 OF 4
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 86-19 (DANVILLE), P.A. 86-20
(WALNUT CREEK), AND P.A. 86-21 (DANVILLE) TO BE
INQUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT
DATE
August ll, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
ACCEPT ANNEXATION FOR
PROCES SING
SU~~ThR~~YHall, Associate Engineer
IN~H'gm~'rfn~VDept./Constructi on Div.
Parcel
No.
Area
86-19
Danville
( lOOC5 )
86-20
Wal nut
Creek
(50 B7)
86-21
Danv 111 e
( 98 A3 )
Owner, Address
Parcel No. & Acrea e
International Church
34 Al amo Square
Al amo CA 94507
215-090-015 (6.96 acres)
Wayne O. Wi bel
48 Orchard Estates Dr.
Walnut Creek CA 94598
13 8-080-03 ( 0 .6 acres)
Lea L. Mapl es
84 Orchard Estates Drive
Walnut Creek CA 94598
138-080-04 (0.60 acres)
13 8-080-05 (0.64 acres)
Habitat Development Corp.
2610 San Ramon Valley
Blvd., San Ramon CA 94583
199-080-001 (23.80 acres)
199-080-004 (15.98 acres)
Remarks
Owner pl ans to bull d a
50,000 sq. ft. ch urch
facility on site. The
City of Danville has
prepared a "Negative
Decl arati on" for the
ro.ect.
Existing House-Failing
Septic Tank System.
District to prepare
"Notice of Exemption"
II
II
Subdivision 6680-7 lots
for single fcmlly hanes.
The City of Danville has
prepared a "Negative
Decl arati on" for the
proj ect. A porti on of
this site is outside the
District's Sphere of
Influence. LAFCO has
adv i sed th at we shoul d
request the S.O.I.
modification when we
appl y for LAFCO
annexati on a roval.
Lead
A enc
Ci ty of
Danv ill e
CCCSD
CCCSD
City of
Danville
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 86-19, 86-20 and 86-21 to be included in a future
formal annexati on.
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
1302,0.9/85
if
DH
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
M
;;JAJ
~RAB
JSM
,
~OOK . MAZZA
+
II
8,%.,.
102
I.........
1:::::::::
:::;:::;:
;.:,:.:.
'::f:~:~
::::::
:::.:.'i:
':;:iJ:
.ti.
"':f
a
Ex./SIIAlG p.
c~c, c,s,
. 'OAf< Y)
J30ufV
J%&1*~;~~_!,
, L. L.~
{)p.~V
+
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
RA.86-/9
c
~///'~ t~~4" A<-';"'-'::\\.\2,V, '(.,,~~~._'-~~~~. I ~--
. _d ~ 'I. ~o ...,...;115 "t~<-; ~7 ittl~1\~1~~c\ ~ .,. 'r.y ,-~ .
\ ~ :'G/::\~ ~~ · 5 ,- h\\~~~~~~:\~ '" ;'~ "
-::; "'" /' .'" 111 24 ~ \ ~ \'
.... q,;.~/ ~ .,,10 ~ 25'5 ,. & ..~O '" ~6' ~>:-1,. ~~,. ~
- 4 \... .%I~h9c,;t "o\~,. 7\ '"\ ~~ -'Q~\ '~~ll:-; ,,;,
'1~~/-::: \70 ~,.,.O r-;;:/, ~/ ~'~ '?;'~ 12,J.\\ 171. I ., '.0\1 ,
y. 22 .. (,,~ .,/' ..\. ~ ~G), 4 39' ~\\ J-- ,,) 22 ~
2 /.~. 75 Ii!:~ \'5~' , ,/' , ~ 21~<0'\'1 '" ~- \ --' --
,/ /' ~~ \,.,~~ \C \ /". ("('1(7 ~ tu ;,.-0;...' '2.\ lr
'i. '\ " ,," ~~~" 51) /' Ai:> C~ C :J I~_~ ,\ II-- ,. ~
~ ,. "'~ ~\ ~ \ k_\~ I. \ ~~.,\,O 24.. i'
>X '.,,~;~. ~ 0, , 2 ~.'t='--lL~5~ ~~~ ~/.~- 9 ~'~ '~1 ^~ ~ i
~/ '\ ~ ," \-.;S #' ~ S' 6 0 0 ~
4;. '0 .~ \ " /A \~ \. .4),\ ' .. / r:~<1!" _' " lJ ~ u '" C' ...~
\ ~ ), t ~~' ~ \ I()I, \ If ,\_ ~ t ~ S
'~'"'' ,;.~~ ~\40_~4'05 ~~' ~"'. ,---' T' ~ 7'115 5 SO 3' .':/ u ~
'... " ~"'~ ..' ~3 ~ . I ~. O~ '0 iY:;
-~ 9 33~"- ~\ '"\-~ \... 40 =_ ~ ~ a l"'" t: &1 I
.."",.s, 109 _-f\--s.:,,~~~.] ~ ,_ ;..;:.' --" ~ ~.,./... 'I" "" ~.. ">..-
~4 3t ~-'I~""--~ - ~).:...--1. --- ,:" ~ IiIiIl;o 'oJ. _.1 ~ '
;3 4 7 3' 35 ~~-_/ ~' ~., JD ~ II ';>'T ,....J .J ;--r-,~II M ~ ~I I-" ' " :
. 5 ~<:- 52 ~.J--;'; Lu r :! c I~ ~ 40 - _ "'~1':AD " ~ I\-- I " ' ,~~~l
< // r~-r 1\1~'54 ;I-~ tT~~ ~"'1I -~~.~-o;,~\ V'IT-"':"If~'
~ 10"~ '!-t ,..\.~ - I.. .... EiI'.' 1 1'\8 '\~ v~~~t~ ---::; ~
"T, DIULO UN"ltD -.;:-,. . _ ~ ~20 It I' It !-~ ~ \.,\~ ,,~~..:..11 4 4 "".IU1~~~ ~ ~ ~
SCNOOL DIU . ~'g~'- .>r- ~ ~ \4, t}c T ~ ~ 1~1 ' " .1>1 II 12 ~ ~
II 51 Ae ~~ ~ ~n ..,\lI~(( 41 1 \ ~ \ .1" ,~.z&.,1\I ~ ~ ~'
, ""\ 1.J.P' ~ .. 11 1 \\~ ~
, 1 \ ~ ".. ",-.' E .."'.... -.:;~'O . '"~
4 I --r-- ~ - , , ~ 2 t! su L.\ ~r ~.~ 9 ;
.8~1"1 "..~'- \..}4 _ ~~.. ..D , 1'7-1 '; OT ____ 15 4 ~
~\. S5 L .~~ ...;... ~ -i; _~ 21;'" '\ ,\--I
.1l2 ~~~' ,.. .-1 1\ '5, ~dS - \ 'It '!- -;:llll ~ ~ 2\ 2 4Ir ,i !),,'. \ ~
_1,Dll0 ....1 14' oz;'Ai\ - A 21 . -'i ~ 2 T s" ,91 I. \.'~A
~ C ISO ~ ..:: 93. ~- GOi~- _ 1~4"y,/~ 14 \J ,.~ r- 'U"tLI! f '~ . ,~ \ 1--
~_'~14 17 11:t- nl~~ Ii - -+--\. 1 ~~ J- l ~ LIl CT"r"'!'; ~~f ,;\ ..~ M -
JI.. f-- I~ .TAl . /' ~"a~.l "1'0 .- ---
. - .5":00 .._~. 20' -:2 6 s I.l . · 122 2~ 2-' - -T-r,-o "'..tJ:' E ~I LIl .. C[RE'"IIIO
~, ------ ~ 75 10 IS-."AIl~ "", IS Z7" R I 2647 '" J
~ 70 74 n ~ ; .
\~. ..1-11"(1 e-l-J \-- 40; ,i \.L 4'0 AC 511 .. 'It
j~..O . 'j' 0~~~ ~~ '::"\57 \"Icj IP%t9. / ..~\ _42~'~ ~ ",I - ~:w.:!.g~\~ r;;~.o- 44
~ " '~34\ 33 l.. - ~ ~ 100.... , · ....,.,c
~'. ~4~1" .~2 ~~ \~ ~"-T- . \.,. r." j"'''.. - --!J'I'",,, '''11m.." ...~
"', 59 \ ~ .t.;:\ ~lJ.'S' -+ ~9 I. ~'7 I-- .. AI.. .r 8.Z~g$ ARaOL. I
~:~-.~o :~~~/i~1 ~>:; ~S7 \;; ~' 2. 24 OR l' \ (l , ~ T. .. ...~~~;O j t~~' ,.
103~. ~,,- \ 5 "" -;." 7~'t-l7fn\74 ~ ~,,,
~ 115 .OL~O :1 10 \ ' . \ ~ , ~ I d 42. J c 4
\ "4 ~:5 i, ,. 't ..L, '\. '\' 2 · ~.. ~ d 411. ~ , If 4
d- \'~.~ I 't4 ./~"';~.J~,j DI.. 1...- \'0\ ~ ..'II R~" W~.~ 40" '-'"l.HIT Ii ~ ~"~
\J;l" i"2 ~\\ '76AC IS ~ r-,\r.... aq.\\,'~4\ pt- 11 S u ~1..J."'- _~" ~.l;l "T\ \~ ._1,)' tl, fl ~
,~"O ,4 ,. 55 ...l.\\<'" ;f., ' 4ft '-;' \ 0 2 1. .;> s:! 'I ~ i-l ~
-:H. -17~ 0;. .r ~ . . ~ ~1C 4-'.!;."j :.... ~~~RI'" 8~~~T t ~ ~
. ~ I ~ )J~5SV"~ ,,1"". l;;~ CT C~ ".IL
)1: ," "20" ~ - .13 5~_(.~ ~~~f.'Oi \ 101 ~ ~ 10\1' "2' fl' >
~ . ~.. ....--::: ~4_0 (l' :. _1 j- L.A L." ...
!!:~ /~\~oTC~;.J -~ - r..~.L' J~ T/ ~ ~"'\..'1..1"~.....'~::f2;~. ...... ~ , 2 ~
~_"" ~ y ',/~ . :\ ."~~!::'<I'J71~1" .". " .
ij'~:,j :L\.~r~-t~~~:~;~T.'~"::<<' :~~~i/ ' ,~< ~~;;< ~
"i1 ill 'I' ~ ~OAe I II~::":";: i. · II ,. ~ .. , '.!!l1lliI {,lAi} ,',
~~. ~ ~. ;;.. <'II:~ ~'.. ;.; ,,/f77 .. ...... i~
.f i'~'(~~J~ r /';; t ,~~ .~'.-~ "Net.
: ~f'''~ C~<I', :; ~I~[ ~,~~~t c\. A ....e -i 1'1." ~ ~~;: :.O.R HuP "1*',
;;-.,.. ~;{("'Z ~ ~ &lJl~ . 2: ~ 7.1a ...
:-iii 2".. S U · 4YI'" I: fP' "-"- 71 . '\.0.' ~
5: ,\ ',..:1.- 1 ..2 110 ~/~ t..- ~16 110 r F\7' --' -.;~ v ~
~, \\ U"'- "!III oJ ~J:- .. 0.. I "~ ~ I. 1J.:7!,\ "' ~I ~ :' >- 'V W
~~ ~ I-- TjHf..' I ?f<..s! .. I,~, lA I' "I I ~ ~ "
<I' r- ~III::: 2 2S 2.,27 j:{' "' ."lrLl...L '~/&1-r-; 20 II!
· 15 ~ ...!. I ill... 2! ,.~ OR ~ .o!'~~' S2 at.11I . ~,,--. ,~
" '-"/ ,;.p!" = lOT DIA.L.O UIII"[D" I... eo .4.2.41U S2.1.. : ~~~r
}~~T0 .C',.~~ 4~~ II.'.'""."'" ~ ~.~12'2I1~~0 ~ .CNOOLDIST.c! <f;, ~~ "~Ii~1o I H_",'" 1_..
~ ~ 1 ~. ."" fl !I#,~ ,~.: .'/"<' ,.4 iilL<1 2 ...L'
}~ · ""-J r104~;'?:' PROPOSED ANNEXATION figL::ti.;:~i:~:~~u"T'<(<""
CITY 0" W"lNlIT CREEK
~B" AC
II
.:c:
I
642 AC
F!A. 86-20
(.50B7 )
, _fl_
,: ,~,~.
C",.,. p._...~-:.\"...".~.;'J
i .."" tJtifIbIo
JJ-
-~~. ctls"rA
:r.= AL-;;r=--.(~DA i ~.
\ ...
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
f?A · 86-2/
. ~__'._"'_.__'____".____'O____'___"~_"_"_""_~_~'____,'_._.~___.___ ____________ .~_ "_.~__
.
Centra.
Contra Costa Sanitar District
.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1
OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
August 21, 1986
NO.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR 10
SUBJECT
ACCEPT THE CXlNlRACT WORK FOR CONSlRUCTION OF THE
VIA ROBLE PUMP STATION PROJ ECT IN LAFAYETTE AND
AUTHORIZE THE FIL ING OF NOTICE OF COMPL ETION
<DISlRICT PROJ ECT 4014)
DATE
August 11, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
ACCEPT CXlNlRACT
WORK
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Thomas Trice, Engineering Assistant
Engineering Dept./Construction Div.
ISSUE: Work has been completed on the Via Roble residential pump station project
in Lafayette and the contract work is now ready for acceptance.
BACKGROUND: This pump station project was designed to correct a long term problem
with sewage overflowing in the backyard of the residence at 1064 Via Roble in
Lafayette. On June 5, 1986, the Board awarded the construction contract to MGM
Construction Co. The contract work included the installation of a residential
pump station, 80 feet of 4-inch pressure pipe into an existing manhole in Via
Roble, replacement of the property Ot/ner's 4-inch side sewer into the new pump
station, installation of a special bolt down lid on the existing manhole behind
1062 Via Roble, and miscellaneous other site work.
M G M Construction Company of Concord was issued a Notice to Proceed on July 14,
1986. On August 8,1986 the work was substantially completed by the contractor.
The completion date specified in the contract was August 8, 1986. It is
appropri ate to accept the contract work at th is time. A detail ed accounti ng of
the project cost will be provided to the Board at the time of project close out.
RECXlMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for construction of the Via Roble Pump
Station project in Lafayette <District Project 4014) and authorize the filing of
the Notice of Completion.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
--m/
1302A.9/85 TAT
RSK
JSM
RAB
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
.~
/;(f
f!JjJ
.-..----------------~.-~---~----_"'_"..~___.___,__________'~H"__..__~.,__~____4_,...__.___~..,"__._~_____...__.~_"'.__..__.___,,~___~.._"',_.._____..__
.
Centrt. Contra Costa Sanitar. District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
A st 21, 1986
NO.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR 11
CLOSE OUT TI-lE GRIT SYSTEM REFU~ISHMENT ffiOJ ECT, NO. 3773,
AND RETURN $1,526 TO SEWER OONSTRUCTION FUNDS
DATE
Au u st 12, 1986
SUBJECT
TYPE OF ACTION
IN FORMATION AL
SUBMITTED BY
Char1 es W. Batts,
Plant 0 erations De artment Mana er
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Plant 0 erations Department
ISSUE: All work has been completed on the grit system refurbishment project, and the
proj ect can now be closed out.
BACKGROOND: The coarse debris which enters the Treatment Plant passes through the
barscreens and settles in the preaeration tanks where low velocity allows sand and
other heavy particles to settle. This material is called "grit" and is removed to
prevent abrasive wear on downstream equipment. The initial plant design called for
the incineration of grit in the multiple-hearth furnace. Since this was not
feasible, grit was stored in an ash silo and trucked to a landfill. In 1983, the
imminent startup of the incineration process and the history of maintenance problems
with transporting grit from the primary area to the Solids Conditioning Building led
to a project to correct the situation. Earlier studies on the problems suggested a
grit removal and storage facil ity located near the source, i. e., the preaerati on
tanks.
The P1 ant Operati ons Department undertook the proj ect to relocate the grit removal
equipment from the Solids Conditioning Building and build a new facility in the
primary area. The work consi sted of the proj ect desi gn and constructi on which
included the demolition and relocation of the grit removal equipment to a new
facility which would allow the grit to be dropped into dumpsters for easy removal.
Work was comp1 eted by P1 ant Operati ons Depa rtment forces and outsi de contractors
prior to the date of furnace startup. The Board authorized the project in two phases
for a total project authorization of $97,333. The Board also awarded bids associated
with this project.
The total budget for th i s proj ect was $97 ,333, and the total coopl eted proj ect cost
was $95,809. Staff is closing out this capital project which will result in $1,526
being returned to sewer construction funds.
REOOMMENDATION: This item is presented to the Board for information. No action is
necessary.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
130211.9/85
CWB
.
Centra.. Contra Costa Sanitar.. District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 4
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Au ust 21, 1986
NO.
VII!.
ENGINEERING
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE THE GM-CE TO EXECUTE A CONlRACT WITH
WOODr'lARD-CL YDE CONSULTANTS AND AUTHORIZE $102,000
FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR THE OUTFALL
REHPB IL ITATION ffiOJ ECT
DATE
Au ust 18, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE GM-CE
EXECUTE AGREEMENT;
AUTHORIZE FUNDS
SUBMITTED BY
Jack Case, Associate Engineer
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering Dept./Planning Division
ISSUE: Board approval is required for the GM-CE to execute a contract with
Woodward-Clyde Consul tants and to authorize sewer construction funds for the
initial phase of the Outfall Rehabilitation Project.
BACKGROUND: The Wastewater Treatment Plant has a 3.5 mile outfall pipe which
extends from the plant site to Suisun Bay (see Attachment I). The outfall is in a
very compressible soil called bay mud. The outfall has been subjected to movement
in several locations and has been damaged as a result. The District has had
to pursue three major and numerous minor emergency projects since 1978 to keep the
outfall in operation.
The outfall was originally intended to have a capacity of 150 MJD, which was to be
accomplished by pumping treated effluent. Because of the outfall damage described
above and deficiencies in the effl uent pumping system, the outfall can only be
presently used in a gravity fl ow mode at a reduced capacity of 65 to 70 MJD. The
reduced outfall capacity 1 ewers the Wastewater Treatment Pl ant's capabil ity to
treat wet weather fl ows. Wastewater Treatment Pl ant overflows which occurred in
1983 an d 1986 coul d have been ei ther prevented or greatl y reduced if effl uent
could have been pumed through outfall.
The Engineering Department is currently developing a comprehensive project to
rehabilitate the outfall so that it can receive pumped flow. This position paper
requests the force account funds necessary to develop a proj ect approach and a
project budget. In addition, this position paper requests funds to expedite one
portion of the project, soils sampl ing.
Comprehensive soil s data will be needed as the basi s for the design of outfall
rehabilitation facilities. For example, it is likely that thrust blocks may have
to be installed at critical locations along the outfall. It is desirable to
perform the soil s sampl ing portion of the Outfall Rehabil itation Project before
the onset of winter rains makes access to the outfall impossible. Early
completion of this task could save nine months in the time necessary to complete
the proj ect.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/ON
JMt:...
JMK
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
.._---_.._-'--------~-'--,--_.,...,----,----._---,-_.__..~_.,------~_._----------,_._---_._~-
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE THE GM-CE TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH
WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS AND AUTHORIZE $102,000
FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR THE OUTFALL
REHABILITATION PROJECT
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE 2 OF
DATE
4
AUGUST 18, 1986
Woodward-Clyde Consultants was selected to perform the soils sampling work because
the firm has satisfactorily performed previous outfall stability studies for the
District. A lump sum contract of $70,000 has been negotiated with Woodward-Clyde
Consultants. It is expected that Woodward-Clyde will perform geotechnical design
services as part of the next phase of Outfall Rehabilitation Project; these
services will analyze data gathered by the soil sampling authorized herein and
develop geotechnical design criteria.
An initial authorization of $102,000 from the Sewer Construction Fund is requested
at this time. A break down of costs is included in Attachment II. A proposed
project scope and budget for the overall Outfall Rehabil itation Project will be
presented with the next request to the Board for authorization of funds for this
proj ect.
The project is included in the 1986-87 Capital Improvement Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize $102,000 from the Sewer Construction Fund for the
initial phase of the Outfall Rehabilitation Project. Authorize the General
Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a contract with Woodward-Clyde Consultants.
'-------.
13026-9/85
-.
~-.
'-: ---~\: -
- -
- --
- -
- -
Page 3 of 4
~- "". ~ .
. ~-cP------
.....0: ?......... e'
~O'''V- /,-\,
t---.
. .
Ai TACHMENT 1
- -
- --
~r
~ -:- ~~l
-\ -- '-,'- ,-' L' ,/~
. -'- /"
...- -'- / ,~
.....
---~~-
- -
..... - - ...
- - -.- - - A- ---
-- --- /_-...-.,
- ..
-
-- ...........
---- - ....-
~ - -.... - ....
- .....'.o...t.
... ~
1:24000
\
Sial! \
~ ,-<" .. \,
(~.;
))' - )\," -~ -
. .... '.-
- ., .
'.
..
..,J ...
'w,-
. It.
?, t..,.
. Ii::::/.
...... , '-\.. . :-. '. \ C>
OUTFALL & M-2 FORCEMAIN
Location Map
ATTACH~NT II
OUTFALL REH,68 IL IT ATrON PROJ ECT
COST SU~ARY
WOO[)l AAD-CL YDE
FORCE ACCOUNT
GM-CE AUTHORIZATION
TOTAL
LESS GM-CE
FUNDS REQUESTED
$70,000
32,000
10,000
$112,000
00,000)
$102,000
Page 4 bf 4
.
Centr~ Contra Costa Sanitar~ ~istrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 4
POSITION PAPER
NO.
IX. TREATMENT PLANT
SUBJECT
AUlHORIZE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXEaJTE A
CONlRACT WITH lRC ENV IRONMENTAL, INC. ~D ,6JJlHORIZE
$107,000 FROM THE SEWER OONSlRUCTION FUND FOR PHASE I OF
AN ODOR OONlROl STUDY
DATE
Au ust 15, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
AUlHORIZE AGREEt.tENT
AUlHORIZE FUNDS
SUBMITTED BY
William E. Brennan,
Plant 0 erations Division Mana er
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Operations/
Plant 0 erations De artment
ISSUE: Approval is requested for the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a
contract with lRC Environmental, Inc. and to authorize $107,000 fran the Sewer
Construction Fund for Odor Control Study - Phase I.
BACKGROUND: In recent years, the citizens of the Bay area have becane more sensitive
to the issue of odors ori gi nati ng at wastewater trea1ment p1 ant si tes. Th i s has
caused a number of wastewater facl1iti es to i niti ate odor studi es. ,Among them are
the city of San Francisco's water pollution control plants, East Bay Municipal
Utl1ity District's Special District No.1, and Union Sanitary District's Alvarado
Wastewater Trea1ment Facility.
In February of thi s year for the fi rst time, the treatment p1 ant received attenti on
fran both the Bay Area Ai r Quality Management Di stri ct and the County Heal th
Department due to odors ori gi nati ng fran stormwater/wastewater bypassed to the
holding basins as part of the normal wet weather operating procedures. The Phase I
wet weather hydrau1 ic improvements authorized at the May 15, 1986, Board meeting
will provide interim improvements to mitigate this particular problem. However, it
has become clear that the regulatory environment is changing and that the District
needs to develop a quality, systematic approach to identify and prioritize odor sources
and their control. This is the purpose of the odor control study as described in
Attachment A.
Proposals were solicited fran seven environmental engineering and air pollution
control firms. Three firms (James M. Montgomery, Cu1p-Wesner-Cu1p, and TRC
Environmental, Inc.> were formally interviewed. Based on the proposal, interview,
and a reference check, staff has se1 ected TRC Env i ronmenta1, Inc. to perform Phase I
of the odor control study.
TRC Environmental, Inc. is a nationally recognized expert in the fie1 d of odor
measurement, odor definition, odor monitoring, and odor control engineering. In the
Bay Area, TRC Environmental, Inc. has most recently completed a study entitled
"Evaluation and Control of Odors at Municipal Wastewater Facilities" for the city of
San Francisco's Clean Water Program.
TRC Environmental, Inc. will provide services for Phase I of the odor control study
via a cost reimbursement contract with a cost ceiling of $87,500.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/ON
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
VJ EJ;
1302,4.9/85 WEB
CWB
SUBJECT
AlJ1HORIZE GENERAL MANAGER-OiIEF ENGINEER TO EXEUJTE A
CONlRACT WITH lRC ENV IRONMENTAI..., INC. ,AND AUTHORIZE
$107,000 FROM THE SEWER CONSlRUCTION FUND FOR RiASE I OF
AN ODOR CONlRQ SlUOY
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 2 OF 4
DATE
August 15, 1986
The total funds being requested are $107,000. A summary of the funds being requested
is listed in Attachment B.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engi neer to execute a contract
for professional services with me Environmental, Inc., and authorize $107,000 fran
the Sewer Construction Fund for Odor Control Study - Phase I.
---------
13028-9/85
Page 3 of 4
ATTAa-tMENT A
ODOR CX>NlROl SllJDY
Phase I of this project will identify existing sources of odors, provide a
meteorological model applicable to the plant site, review current odor
control practices, recommend an odor monitoring program, train District
staff in community odor monitoring, install lRe Envirorwnental Inc.'s
proprietary meteorological model on the Plant Operations Department's
microcomputer, and implement a field study of plant odor sources in warm
weather prior to the 1986-1987 wet weather season. Phase I will concl ude
with an interim report to recommend an approach to Phase II.
At this time, Phase II is envisioned to include implementation of a wet
weather odor monitoring program which would most likely focus on odors
ori gi nati ng from the stormwater/wastewater in the pl ant hol di ng basi ns.
There will be an extended meteorological data gathering which will involve
examining data collected by Buchanan Field, the existing plant wind
monitoring system, and perhaps installation of temporary weather stations
on the plant site. The identification of sources in the odor monitoring
program and the meteorological information gathered will lead to the
development of al ternatives for odor control. These al ternatives may
incl ude operational modifications or capital projects. The alternatives
will be prioritized and a plan developed for implementation.
Phase III is envisioned to include design and construction of capital
projects as well as any operational changes.
Oescr i pti on
ATTAQ-IMENT B
ODOR OONlROL SlUOY - R-IASE I
August 12, 1986
Cost SlITImary
lRC Environmental, Inc.
Force Account
Subtota 1
Conti ngency
Total Authorization Requested
Page 4 of 4
Fun ds Req uested
$ 87,500
14,500
$102,000
5,000
$107,000
.
CentrL Contra Costa Sanitar. District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 3
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE EXEaJTION OF AGREE~NT WITH ROYSTON
HANA~TO ALLEY & ABEY, LANDSCAPE JlRQ-lITECTS FOR
DESIGN OF THE lREAT~NT A...ANT LANDSCAPE MASTER A...AN
N01X.
TREATMENT PLANT 2
DATE
Au ust 15, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
JlLIl1-IORIZE JlGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY
Ch arl es W. Batts,
Plant 0 erations De artment Mana er
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Plant 0 erations De artment
ISSUE: Board of Directors' authorization is required to execute a consulting
agreement for the Treatment Plant Landscape Master Plan.
BACKGROUND: The District is planning to landscape the Imhoff Place facilities over
the next several years in order to proj ect a better image to the publ i c. Staff
proposes to accanplish this project in fixed steps: a landscape master plan of the
entire facility (see Attachment A) followed by detailed final design of each of the
phases to be installed as appropriate. It is envisioned that the Landscape Master
Plan will be completed by December, 1986.
A canmittee was formed fran various District departments to provide input into the
planning phase and work with the landscape architect. This canmittee formally
requested proposals fran five firms with landscape design experience. After
evaluating these proposals, four firms were invited for an oral interview. Based on
the proposal, interview, reference checks, and site visits, the committee selected
the firm of Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey to provide the consulting services for the
Landscaping Master Plan. This firm is located in Mill Valley, CA, and has been
involved in similar projects throughout the United States.
Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey will provide the landscaping design services on a cost
reimbursement basis at a cost not to exceed $18,000. Total funds for the Landscaping
Master Plan design are budgeted in the fiscal year 1986-1987 Plant Operations
Department Operations and Maintenance budget. Future implementation phases for the
Master Plan design will be authorized by the Board as required.
RECX>MMENDATION: Authorize executi on of agreement with Royston Hanamoto All ey &
Abey, 1 andscape arch itects, for desi gn of the Treatment Pl ant Landscape Master Pl an.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/ON
./DIV.
130211.9/85
.-.,-----.-.-.-.-____,_______._..__w,_,~_,_,...._._.._,~"_._~.._._...___.____._..._____..___.,._._.,_,_
Page 2 of 3
ATTA(}fMENT A
SCX>PE OF WORK
TASK 1 - DEFINITION OF SOOPE/PROJ ECT PlANNING
a. Meet with District staff to gather background information
regarding the proposed Master Plan. Discuss existing conditions,
future requi ranents, proposed strategy, and establ ish goal s (with
District Board).
b. Prepare a detail ed work pl an and schedul e for Trea"bnent Pl ant
Landscape Master Plan.
c. Prepare existing site conditions map and site analysis plan.
TASK 2 - PRRIMINARY DESIGN
Confirm the landscape program, and prepare a prel iminary Landscape
Master Plan based on discussions with the District's staff that
incorporates the following:
a. Addresses the issues delineated in the site analysis plan
b. Compatibility with existing landscaping
c. Incorporates areas for future plant expansion
d. Projects an aesthetic image
e. Low-maintenance requirements, guidelines for maintenance, and
number of maintenance personnel
f. Installation of landscaping in phases
g. Preliminary cost estimate (approximately 20 percent)
h. Soil and microclimate conditions
i. Possible interpretive use of landscaping during plant tours
TASK 3 - IRRIGATION MASTER R..AN
As part of the Master Pl an, prepare an Irri gati on Master Pl an that
incorporates the following:
a. Use of reclaimed water on-site and possibly on adjacent properties
properties
b. Use of available existing lines and proposed location for new
mai nl i nes
c. Water conservation principles
d. Low-maintenance requirements
Page 3 of 3
e. Addresses remote control issues and possible connection of
controllers to the computer system
TASK 4 - REV IEW WITH DISlRICT STAFF, BOARD, PND PUBLIC
TASK 5 - FINAL DESIGN
Amend preliminary Treatment Plant Landscape Master Plan to incorporate
District comments, and review and revise Irrigation Master Plan as
req ui red.
Meet with District staff to separate Master Plan into logical phases
for implementation:
a. Prepare final Landscape Master Plan with proposed phasing
b. Prepare implementation schedule
c. Prepare detailed cost estimate (approximately 10 percent)
d. Maintenance guidelines (general)
e. Review with District staff and Board for final approval
.
Centrt.
Contra Costa Sanitar.. District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAPER
PAGE 1
OF
POSITION
NO.
XI. ITEMS LATE
DATE
1
SUBJECT
AUlHORIZE ~ARD OF CONTRACT TO FANFA, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT PROJ ECT NOS. 3886 AND 4223,
STORM DAMAGE REPAIRS - HILLCREST DRIVE, ORINDA, AND MORJlGA
SLIDE NO. I-A, MORJlGA; AND AUlHORIZE $157,475 FROM THE
SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND.
AUlHORIZE NIl ARD
AUlHORIZE FUNDS
Robert A. Simmons, Associate En ineer
SUBMITTED BY
ISSUE: On August 19, 1986, sealed bids for the construction of District Project
No. 3886 and 4223, Storm Damage Repairs - Hillcrest Drive, Orinda and Moraga Slide
No. I-A, Moraga, were received and opened. The Board must award the contract or
reject bids within 60 days of the opening of bids.
BACKGROUND: On June 19 and July 17, 1986, the Board authorized funds to design
Moraga I-A Slide Repairs and Hillcrest Drive Slide Repairs, respectively.
Woodward-Clyde, Inc., was retained to provide geotechnical engineering services
while District staff designed the coincident sewer replacement on the Hillcrest
repair and prepared the contract bid documents. Moraga I-A slide repair work
consists of excavating approximately 300 cubic yards of material and installing 71
gabi on revet mattresses above an exi sti ng rock buttress. The gabi on revet
mattresses, which consist of 6' x 9' x 9" wire mesh baskets filled with rock, will
serve to armor the embankment to protect it fran erosi on. Hill crest Drive sl ide
repair work consists of excavating the loose slide material and replacing it as
engineered fill after the installation of subdrains. Approximately 90 lineal feet
of 6-inch sewer 1 ine will also be replaced as part of the Hillcrest Drive sl ide
repai r work. The two proj ects were combi ned into a si ngl e construction contract
to encourage more competitive bid proposals and lessen construction administration
efforts. Attachments 1 - 4 show location plot plans of the project areas.
The project was advertised on August 4 and 10, 1986. Two bids were received on
August 19, 1986. A tabulation of the bids is shown on Attachment 5. The
Engineering Department, in conjunction with Woodward-Clyde Consultant, conducted a
technical and commercial evaluation of the bids and concluded that the lowest
responsible bidder is Fanfa, Inc., of San Lorenzo, CA, with a bid of $126,395.
The Engineer's estimate for construction was $141,700.
A Post Bid/Pre-Construction Cost Estimate is presented in Attachment 6. An amount
of $157,475 in sewer construction funds is needed for the construction contract,
Woodward-Clyde services, District forces, and construction contingencies. The
total estimated project cost for these projects is $203,775.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of the construction contract for construction of
District Project Nos. 3886 and 4223, Storm Damage Repairs, Hillcrest Drive,
Orinda, and Moraga 51 ide I-A, Moraga, to Fanfa, Inc. as the 1Cft1est responsive
bidder. Authorize $157,475 fran the Sewer Construction Fund.
1302A.9/85 RAS
RAB
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
M*
B;t~
DRW
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Page 2 of 7
ATTACHMENT 1
STORM DAMAGE REPAIR
HILLCREST DR., ORINDA
JOB NO. X3886
AftACHMENT 2
CCCSD ENGINEERING DIVISION
PROJECT , HIL'tHCRE ST ..................... .............. ..........
....................... .... .
SUBJECT............................. . ...... ..............................................
..SHEET
BY
CHK'O.
OF
OATE
.. .. OATE
-. - --. ___ _____.--t
HILLCREST
DR.
I ,
t-IlEAVOWS
;
I
I
I
~
UNIT
NO, .4
ll.s
IIEi
~
-
'---'"
2
7
-,
..:;;
II
!it
~ _OfJ'" _,.. "'~'
~ ~,
~lI>~ r""....~~;.;.,''''''''''~'''''--J
~""~....~
"-"', ~
.r... ..,
- 1"
.~-- ;--Vif-:---- ~...'
--;;-;:OOW Lv ---<: ro'
~rJl v" --'~"~::..__
------
DI?--- --_
. ----
---
---
. '_._______m~._.._____.___,______.._._,_._..,_..._,....~......~._,_"~_.~_._..____,..___._,_._.__.__~_.,...o,.,__.___'_____~_....._~_.____.~~_.__,_..__._._____.______...____
Page 4 of 7
A TT ACHMENT 3
+
+
Q
...,...
JOBSITE
ACCESS
+
,
,.
-I
PROJ~CT
LOCATION_
1
-j
STORM DAMAGE 1 A
MORAGA TRUNK SEWER
ST. MARY'S RP RD., LA FA YETTE
JOB NO. X4223
L
Page 5 of 7
ATTACHMENT 4
I!
I
! !
) l
(
(I)
0>
~
/
/;'
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ..,. ..,.
/ /
/(
, ~~'
..-' '!{-S",
C\
~
'0
.,~
---
'\
\
\
"\
\
) /'
/ I
/' ~ /
/ ~/
I /
I
/
CJI
01
9 :3
8~
o
o
a
o
o
\L
\\\
"
"
I
i
I
I
1
I
I
i
)
I
'-
'-
"
I
.1.;:-->, l.'. _"'.",r/ I
? 'f _~"'t,~' c/ ---\
STORM DAMAGE 1 A
MORAGA TRUNK SEWER
ST. MARY'S RP RD., LAFAYETTE
JOB NO. X4223
.'_______.._______..m_,_,...._..,...__.*,_.~,_.._.....,','._.. _"_.____'___..._'____,_.._,_,__~."._~___~.._.__'"_.".__._~__._~_,_.+_".~__.,._~.~.____._,_~_.__~._._,..*.__.._____~__,_~..._"_.__
/
8TTACH~NT 5 . . Page 6 of 7
Central ~n1:ra \;osta Sanlta-y District
DP 3886
PROJECT NO. DP 4223
Hillcrest Drive, Orinda
LOCATlON Mnr~g~ Nn 1-A I~f~~p~~p
. BUMMAay OaF IIIDS
HIllCrest brTve-Sllde~epalr
_ Moraga No. 1-A Sl ide Repa i r '
DATE August 19, 1986
$Hillcrest - $59,200
ENGR EST Mnr~g~ 1 -A R? 500
o
. r . . ~._1 t! , I" r 71
C
~ BIDDER (Name, telephone & address) BID PRICE
FANFA, INC. ENG. CONTRACTORS ( ) 278-8410 $
1 ? 401 r.r~n~ Avp S~n I nrE~n7n. CA 94580-1888 1'6,395 00
.
l-
. $
J. HUIZAR & SONS. INC. ( ) 682-3424
2 P~r:hpr:n, q4'i'i~ 127,44'i.00
111 Cpn~pr Avp I CA
( ) $
~
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
..
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
PREPARED BY
DATE
SHEET NO.
OF
2503-9/84
, I , ,
<~--'--.'..'"---~~'_.'-'-<-'_..'-----
f t 1 .
._--...--_._-_.._---_._-~
Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENT 6
POST 810 - PRECONSTRUCnON ESTIMATE OF COSTS
FOR
DISTRICT SEWERING PROJECT No. 3886 and 4223
ITEM DESCRIPTION
9.
10.
'''1 .
ITEM AMOUNT
1.
Construction Contract (As Bid) .
2.
Estimated Construction Contingencies (@ 10%)
3.
Estimated Construction Incidentals to Project Completion
Survey. . . . . . . . $
Inspection . . . . . . $
Engineering (including Contract Admin., . $
Submittal Review)
2.500
18.000
7 . 1 40
Total Estimated Construction Incidentals
. $
TOTAL
. $126.395
. $ 1?, h40
$139,035
$ 27.640
4.
As-Built Drawings & 0 & M Manual . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,800
5.
Total Estimate Required to Complete Project
6.
Pre Bid Expenditures
Survey, Engineering, Printing, Advertising
Special Services
Right-ot-Way Acquisition. . . . . .
.$ 34.300
. $
. $
7.
Total Preconstruction Incidentals (as of 8/18/86 ). . $
8.
Total Estimated Project Cost
(Items 5 & 7)
Funds Previously Authorized
Funds from Hillcrest Dr./Meadowview Road Homeowners
Total Additional Funds Required to Complete Project. . . . . .
(Item 8 minus Items 9 and 10)
. $ 169.475
$ 34.300
. . $ 203,775
. $ 31, ~OO
. . $ 15,000
.$ 11:)7, 47r;
% CONST.
CONTRACT
100%
20
2
1??
25
147
2505-8/78