The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 08-07-86 . Centra. Contra Costa Sanitar~ Oistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF August 7, 1986 NO. V. BIDS AND AWARDS DATE August 1, 1986 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD PURCHASE ORDER 1 SUBJECT AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD PURCHASE ORDER FOR $18,424.50 TO FLEXIBLE SYSTEMS, INC., FOR INSTALLATION OF A ClOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SYSTEM, DISTRICT PROJ ECT 30011 SU~errE~~YLaverty, Purchasing & Materials Officer INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Administrative/Purchasing ISSUE: A closed circuit television system, for installation in a District owned van, was authorized in the CCTV System Project No. 30011. Staff work has been completed and we request Board authorization to award the purchase and installation of the closed circuit T.V. system. BACKGROUND: On June 6, 1985, the Board authorized funds for a project to acquire a complete mobile closed circuit T.V. system (CCTV) for inspection of sewer pipelines. The new van and other associated equipment have been purchased over the past year, thereby leaving only the purchase and the installation of the CCTV into the van as the ranaining major component of the systan. The estimated cost of the CCTV equipment was $24,000.00. The request for bids to acquire the CCTV portion was publicly advertised June 20, 1986, and bids were publicly opened July 16, 1986. Four bids were received as foll ows: Company Total Installed Price Flexible Systems, Inc. Arata Equipment Co. Underground Surveys Telespector Corporation $18,424.50 19,170.00 20,776.94 24,617.48 A technical and commercial evaluation was conducted by Collection System Operations Department (CSO) and Purchasing (see Attachment 1), which indicates that Flexible Systems is the lowest responsible bidder. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of a purchase order to Flexible Systems, Inc. for purchase and installation of one closed circuit television system for a total amount of $18,424.50. REVIEWED A Pt1 COMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION KFL v~ JAL 1302....9/85 I- ~ i5i! l- I') Q ~ cC l- i I') cC l- I') o ~ cC CI: I- ! ~ ~ I- ! ~ I I') ! j:: cC ~ i cC l- e iii ii Ci l- ... 0 00 00 - 0 o::t o::t . ...J LO N ~- ...J ~ ,.... e::: 2: - ....... 0 ....... 0 e::: ....... LO 1.0 U ~o- I- ~ ~ ~ V')ou M ....... o::t e:::...Jo::tu N il N O...JLO_ - il - I- - I ~ U:J: M ~ 1..1..1 ,....Z ~ZMcr: 0 ::::l V') C::-O M 0 V') V') V') V') V') V') 1..1..1 ::::lM V) 1..1..1 V') V') V') ...J co....... 1->- ~:J: 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 I..I..I::::lM e::: wcr: P-~ >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- I- cr:-2: zo V') 0 1.0 ~ >- N o::t 1..1..1 0 0'1 0 0'1 ::0- ,.... M e::: Z <a o::t 1.0 I') ::::l 0 ~ 0 0'1 N ,.... CI: V') M V') 0'1 N :: ,.... oe::: ~ ~ ..... 0 01..1..1 0'1 ....... 0 Q Zcr:N::O- ....... N ::::lU 11..1..1 - - Q 0 N - e::: ~O'I Z 1..1..1 . t.!:lONW ...J e:::z-co ::::l V') V') V') V') V') V') V') 0 I.I.l- ta 0'1 0 0 V') 01..1..10 ....... V') 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 Z 1..1..1 Ze:::Ne::: >- ~~ >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- ::::l.....-2: ~cr: NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 <a 0 I- >- Ci 0 ,.... ,.... zcr: 1..1..1 0 ....... ....... LUU"""'Z I- ~ ~ ~ 2: ,....e::: 00 ....... 0'1 ~ ~O:::l ....... ....... -1..1..10'11- - - ::::l:E:1 O'cr: 00 1..1..1 ...... l..I..It.!:lo::tZ ...J ZMI..I..I 0 ::::l 0 0 0 0 V') cr: --c.!l M 0 V') V') 0 V') I-...J LO V') ~~ Z z: z Z 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 Z 1..1..1 cr:e:::....... 1->- >- >- >- >- e:::::::lve::: 1..I..Icr: cr:co-2: ZO cr: 0 0 0 U 0 LO LO V') ii 0 o::t 2: ~ o::t 1..1..1>- Ci 0 N N I- 1..1..1,.... I- M ....... o::t V') e::: N ~ ~ >- ,.... ,.... ....... 00 V') ...J ,.... e::: ....... ....... 1..1..1 11..1..1 - - WONZ 1..1..1 ...J LO>- cocr:oocr: ...J .......z..........o::: 0 ::::l X-O M 0 V') V') V') V') V') we:::o V') 1..1..1 V') V') V') V') ...J~OOC:: 1->- ~~ 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 1..1..1 ..... -:c wcr: >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- ;:::0 Z 0 - <IJ ~ ~ I Vl <IJ :E: :E: Z 0 <IJ tC +J > "9.M It 1..1..1 1..1..1 cr: '+- ~ ue r- o::t Vl~ 1 l- I- ::0- t;:.:+J r-<IJ +J <IJ . V') V') tC '+-e a. N+J Vl'r- >- :c >- I- +J .e ;:;~ r- ~ r-+J +J 00 l- V') V') 1..1..1 ~ 1-0 ~ +J ~cr: +J ~ V') " ~ ...J 'r- <IJE U Vl ~. cr: u :<: iii . 0 .. ~+J a.o Vl or- 0 e::: ::0- 0 ::0- e::: 0 <IJ ~~ VlU <IJ ,... +J~ ~ ~ . 1..1..1 0 ::0- - > ~~ "'C ~+J tC - l- I- .. I- 1..1..1 co r- ~~ e tCU +J <IJ M ,~ :J: +J Vl 0 tC ;::~ ...J ...J e::: U :J: a. u 'r- . <IJ 0 cr: ...J ~ ~ a 0 I- r- eVl r-E ~ +J .; ,~ .... - cr: 1.0 ...J LO - ~ tCe ~~ <IJ tC e E,~ U I- 00 .;: 0 00 :5: u ~'r- ~ u E> 0 e::: V') "- u U 0'1 Vl ~ u~ 'r- ~ 'r- a. 1..1..1 <II Z 1.0 U ....... 0 ~ tCVl ~Vl .... ....<IJ +J 'bi :c - ....... Q Q ...J 1..1..1 ~- V') 'r- OVl tC :c "- "- is ...J '0 :J: E ~ "- +J f 0 :J: ,.... cr: 1..1..1 V') Vl<IJ Vl<IJVl .Vl e Vl~ U V') I- :J: V') - +J ,... ::0-- <IJ Vl'r- 0 ~~ - i V') V') :c Z ~~ ~,... ~ . ~ "'CN ~~ .... :J: Z Z - c:: e::: <IJ<IJ <IJ I- <IJ 'r- e '~':: l- e::: > - Z 1..1..1 ::::l ~Vl ~V')~ ~ <IJ +J ~~ - - ::::l '; e::: I- ..... ~ ~ ~~~ ~ +J e 3 ..... c! 0 ::::l ~ >- +J . +J ~ +JO +J~ e<IJ tC Vl ~ Z ..... LO l- e::: V') u::o- u u.... U+J <IJE ~ -: ,~ 1..1..1 cr: I Z 1..1..1 ...J tC . ~lD ~Vl tCtC E~ ~ ~ U <<l I- 1.0 1..1..1 ::0- cr: ....1- ....~ a.u Vl <IJ Z ~ ; :J: U 2: - I- ~ ~+J ~e ~ <IJ 'r- tC <IJ+J "'C ';tit cr: V') - x >- ...J I- e<IJ e~ co e.1-l ~+J E~"'C - ""l Q - e::: cr: cr: 1..1..1 - ~:5 ~Vl ~:; tC'r- CT+J tC tC'r- ~ ~ ...J Z l- I- ~ 0 :c :c..- wcr: zcco ~ ~ e::: V') co :c ::::l - ::::l ~ . . . 0 ..... 0 V') tC U "C <IJ .... 0> ~ U ~ .it I ~ R o - co 2: o e::: ..... o 1..1..1 l- I- - :c o il il . Centra. Contra Costa Sanitar) District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF August 7, 1986 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 7 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE $1,917.00 FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF DISTRICT MEETING ROOM LETTERING ( SIGN) DATE August 4, 1986 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Paul Morsen, Deputy General Manager Admi n i strative ISSUE: The Board has requested that a sign be installed to help guide the public to the District's meeting room. Authorization to proceed is requested of the Board. BACKGROUND: At the July 17th Board meeting, the staff informed the Board of various types and costs of signs to help identify the District's meeting room. The option selected was six inch case aluminum letters with spot lighting, at $1,800 plus tax, for a total cost of $1,917.00. The sign will be affixed to the north wall of the meeting room and will read: CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT MEETING ROOM REC<JI4ENDATION: Authorize $1,917.00 from the Sewer Construction Fund for the purchase and installation of the lettering for the District's meeting room. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. PIrB 'fL 1302A-9/85 PM ROGER J. DOLAN . Centra. Contra Costa Sanitar) District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF Au ust 7,1986 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 9 SUBJECT DATE CLOSE OUT UNDEREXPENDED CAPITAL PROJECTS, RETURNING $33,490 TO THE SEWER OONS"ffiUCTION FUND - CLOSE OUT OVEREXPENDED CAPITAL PROJECT JlND AUTHORIZE $819 IN SEWER OONS"ffiUCTION FUNDS AUTHORIZE FUNDS SUBMITTED BY Charl es W. Batts, INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ISSUE: Close out seven capital projects on which work has been canpleted by the Pl ant Operati ons Depar1ment, and authorize suppl emental fundi ng necessary to close out an overexpended capital project. BACKGROUND: The work on seven capital proj ects has been canpl eted by the Pl ant Operati ons Depar1ment, and these proj ect accounts can be closed. The attached Capital Projects SlJTImary lists these projects including the status of each project budget. A total surplus of $33,490 remains in six of the project accounts while one proj ect has an $819 overrun. REOOMMENDATION: Close out underexpended capital projects, and return $33,490 to the sewer constructi on fund. Authorize $819 in sewer constructi on funds, and close out the overexpended capital project. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/ON CAPITAL PROJECT SUtI4ARY PROJ ECT BOAAD REMAINING BALANCE NUM3ER DESaUPTION AUlHOR. SURA.. US DEFICIT 3749 I MUX Power Supplies- $35, 83 8 I $16,709 I I Fabricate new sol id state power I 1 I I 1 supplies for Plant field 1 1 processors 1 1 I 3750 I MUX Power Circuits - 1$ 5,4111 $ 2,031 3752 3754 10007 10014 I 110018 I I 1 1 I I Build circuits to indicate data updating function Computer Control Roam Move - Study move of Computer Control Roam to Solids Conditioning Building Primary Effluent Analog Backup Install backup instrument for primary effluent control Moisture/Solids Analyzer- Purchase solids analyzer to control furnace feed Versatec Printer - Purchase computer printer for Plant Control Roam Standby Generator for Solids Conditioning Building - Install backup generator for furnace cooling fan 1 I I I 1$14,0381 I I I I $56,196 I I I $10,000 I $ $ 3, 197 $11 , 186 280 $10,750 I I I $14,000 I I I I $ 87 $33,490 Net returned to sewer construction fund: $32,671 $ <819> I $ <819> I . Centra. Contra Costa Sanitar) District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF36 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF Au u st 7, 1986 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 8 SUBJECT DATE Au ust 4, 1986 ESTABLISH DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 1986-1987 SCHEDULE OF FEES TYPE OF ACTION SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Barton L. Brandenburg, Assoc. Engineer Engineering Department/Planning Div. ISSUE: A public hearing is required by District Code prior to the adoption of a new schedule of fees. BACKGROUND: The current District schedule of fees has been in effect for one year. Fees were establi shed 1 ast year after an in-depth study by Di stri ct staff and a public hearing which was held 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, Di strict staff has analyzed the avall abl e 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 rev i si ons are shown. Attachment B prov i des a compari son of fees charged by other agenci es and Attachment C incl udes the backup materi al for the proposed 1986-87 fees. District staff is in the process of scheduling meetings and notifying representatives from Concord industries, the Building Industry Association of Northern Cal Horni a, the Underground Contractors' Associ ati on, and the Associ ati on of General Contractors to respond to preliminary questions and to provide copies of all appropriate background information. RECOMMENDATION: Establish August 21, 1986 as the date for the public hearing on the proposed new schedule of fees and authorize District staff to publish a notice of the public hearing. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION RAB 130211.9/85 1,1> BLB Jf'vl '< JMI< "Y/Jj3 INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Pa~ ') of 36 ATTACHM:NT A SUt'I4ARY OF FINDINGS AND SafEDUlE OF FEES Thi s attachment prov i des the summary of fi ndi ngs and proposed schedu1 e 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 ref1 ect the 5 percent wage rate increase for 1986-87 and additional fees to recover part of the cost of new structure inspecti on. The mai n1 i ne 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 thei r productivity because the contractor is now requi red to 1 eave a 1 ead 1 ine (connects to IV camera) in newly constructed sewers. However, thi s productivity increase is expected to be offset by the 5 percent wage rate increase for 1986-87. 3. IV Rerun fees (fees charged for televising sewers to confirm the contractor has performed corrective work) are recommended to be modif ied to more accurately reflect actual cost. A $418 minimum cost has been identified for each IV Rerun project. The 2.5-hour minimum 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 IV 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 ata 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 IV inspection and one hour for sewer taps. The fees are described in the District's Standard Specifications. 7. It is recommended that Concord's industries be charged an annual permit fee after an agreement is ratified between Concord and the District formal izing 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 partial-year participation. 8. A new industry permit fee is recommended to recover the cost associ ated with reviewing app1 ications for possib1 e industri a1 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 additional costs. Authorization would be obtained in increments of $500. A-l Pa 3 of 36 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 fees 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 Activitv SC>IEDUl E OF FEES (A) PLAN REV IEW: (A-I) 2 Preliminary + 1 Final Pl an Rev i ews (A-2) 3rd & Subsequent Prel iminary Plan Reviews (A-3) 2nd & Subsequent Final Plan Reviews (8) INSPECTION: ( 8-1) (8-2) ( 8-3 ) (8-4 ) (8-5 ) ( 8-6 ) Mainline Inspection Lateral. House Connection. or Side Sewer Alteration Inspection Side Sewer Repair Inspection Inspection of Manhole Connection Overtime Inspection Weekends & Holidays (4-hour Min.) Overtime Inspection Credit Inspect Construction of New Structure (MH or RI) p~ ' 4 of 36 Current 1985-1986 Fees $0.76/ ft. ($304 mi nimum) $38 each $57 each See Tabl e A-1 $48 each $10 each $48 each Combined with 8-2 $39/ hour $156 See Table A-2 $70 each (C) COLLECTION SYSTEM: (C-1) TV Inspection: - TV Overtime - Initial $1,044/day $116/ hour Weekends & Holidays (4-hr min.) $464 TV Overtime - Initial - Credit $0.41/ft. - TV Rerun Sl.008/day $1l2/hour (2-hour minimum) $224 A-3 Recommended 1986-1987 Fees No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change $41/hour $164 No Change $100 each No Change No Change No Change $170 + $99/hr (2.5 hour min.) $418 Pa~ 5 of 36 Current 1985-1986 Activity Fees - TV Overtime Rerun $1,161/day $129/hour Weekends & Holidays (4-hr min.) $516 (C-2) Sewer Tap $146 each (C-3) Dye Test $54 each (C-4) Collection System Repair Based on actual cost (C-5) Noncancellation CIniti al TV and TV Rerun) (C-6) Noncancell ati on (Sewer Tap) (D) RIGHT-OF-WAY: (0-1) Segregation of LID Assessment $27 / hour ($81 mi nimum) (0-2) Processing of Quitclaim Deeds $30/LID Segrega- tion (0-3) Preparation and Processing of Agreements Relating to Real Property survey ing as required (See E-3) (E) MISCELLANEOUS Recommended 1986-1987 Fees $170 + $116/ hr $634 $171 $56 No Change $198 $54 $28/ hour ($84 min.) $32/LID segregatation No Change Estimate required No Change (E-l) Engineering for Private Sewer Proj ects (E-2) Soils Evaluation for Private Sewer Proj ects Based on actual No Change cost (E-3) Survey i ng $95/hour $lOO/hour (F) INDUSTRIAL PERMIT FEE: ( F-l) Fee based on actual cost of service for prior fi scal year. Annual permit fee for 1985-86 varies from $673 to $3,245 District Industries Annual Permit Fee A-4 Fee based on actual cost of ser- vice for prior fiscal year and annual permit fee for 1986- 1987; vari es from $1,108 to $2,049 Pa 6 of 36 Ac1:1v1tv Current 1985-1986 Fees Recommended 1986-1987 Fees (F-2) Concord Industries Annual Permit Fee Fi rst year fees based on average cost for simll ar District industries. Subsequent years based on actual cost of serv ice. 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 parti ci pati on. (F-3 ) New Industry Permit Fee Fee based on actua 1 Di str i ct cost pri or to connection ($500 mi nimum) (G) SEPTAGE DISPOSAL * ( G-l> Annual Permit Fee $100 No Change (G-2) Disposal Charge Grease Interceptor within the Di stri ct $O.OI/gal No Change Septage Volume per truck <2,000 gall ons ~2,000 gall ons $7.00 + $0.05/gal. $20.35 + $O.Os/gal. No Change No Change *Fees anticipated to change after review of septage disposal procedures. A-5 Pa! 7 of 36 Activitv Current 1985-1986 Fees (H) FIXTURE FEES FOR ROSS~OR (~l) Living Units* - 1 Bath Unit - 2 Bath Unit - 2-1/2 Bath Unit $66.34 $88.43 $99.49 *Assumes kitchen and laundry facilities **District's minimum fixture fee A-6 Recommended 1986-1987 Fees $375.00** $375.00 $412.50 Pa~ 7A of 36 TABLE A-l 1986-87 MAINl INE INSPECTION FEE (NO a-tANGE FROM 1985-86) Project Lenath ('f:t) Eauati on 0< i100 Fee = $300 + $3.001 ft. 100< ~200 Fee = $350 + $2.50/ft. 200< <300 Fee = $450 + $2.00/ ft. - 300< <400 Fee = $525 + $1.751 ft. .- 400< <500 Fee = $625 + $1.50/ ft. .... 500< <600 Fee = $750 + $1.25/ft. ...... 600< Fee = $810 + $1.151 ft. TABLE A-2 1986-87 OYERTI~ MAINl INE INSPECTION CREDIT (NO a-tANGE FROM 1985-86) T ota 1 P roj act Overtime Overtime Hours Credit Hours < 4 1 ..... 4 < < 8 2 .... 8 < < 16 4 - 16 < < 32 6 - 32 < 8 A-7 co I- z: I..LI ::E :J: U c:c I- ~ - o 0: VI UI ~ B -- :0 ~ ::s CD OVl VI I..LI I..LI u.. >- u z: I..LI c.::J c:c ex I..LI :J: I- o "Q CD "Q c: CD,... ECO ~ I ~:g O:~I.J... III t:' 8 III 1.0 +' c: 8 t:c: CD III 3:<Il c: III <Il ! - > t: o .... ..c III - o .b LnOO "Q ,...~~ 51 UI 4o't4o't4o't.....1Ilt: UI ..c 0 CD+' V UlI.-CD UI+'OUlQ)....~ +'OEO~IIlCD Or- Q.. :;,__ .... I.CD....+'f 0100 III V 001 ....::slll NIO ~ I .... 0 c: ~ LnN.... 00 r ~ .... c ] - E - . c: +' - ~+'E .....- OUlLn ~ &.~ OCD4o't 4o't"Q.... .... ~ +..... N Ln .... l\"l . 4o't0 ~ .- ~ f +' Ui~ &.0 CD- "Q+' - o "Q ,... "Q 4o't< ~ ! - ~ 0::: .c. .... V III III c: CD 0 o - Ln O+' N Ln- 4o't 4o't "Q "Q < ~ E - . c: +'- ~E ..... \O~ ,...0 . l\"l 04o't 4o't.... .... III c: - I.J... .... + >. I. UI :g ! -- .!~ .... 0::: ~ :~ ..... < .c. U III CD co l\"l 4o't .c. U ~ ,... Ln 4o't ....... z o I-< t; ~ <Il Z I-< co I - t: UJ UI +' !~'C c:::s.... ~ XlIII 0, U")----"1:J UI .... + CD.c I.E..... LnCD 0 N > Ln ~ P ! 8 of 36 "Q CD +' III c: E -- "Q~ CD Q) "Q ::s ~ UI Ln (jot: .... c:~o 4o't~ CD 0 I. UUl+' 0 l: 5,~"Q:;~ UI c: ~ OC:OCD::S~CDO"Q ow ~V) ...-....Q). ....'-' .';~ .o.t~~ Oc:.....cr +'o.CD::SGl o CD <ll 0 - III 0. i''''' t:-~I.+'E+'~I.l: otE+'I.CDC:- 0. U::S-_Oc.::s UI I..+,UI_ O....CDQ) ~t: ~ &.li'O 1ij';ii.efi .c. U III CD UI .c. U III CD ..... o N 4o't .c. V III CD ..... ~ 4o't . 1..+ .c. .....0 Ln~1 l\"l.... ~4o't I I I N .I: CD I. .... ::s ..c o III .s:: ~ .....~ .... \0 Q) ~.-<ll 4o't4o't VI c: E I. ::S+' 0- .s:: "Q I CD ~1.. ....u c: UI c: o >. 0 -11I_ t~t CD.... CD 0.00. UI:J: UI c: c: Ho<JH CD UI CD E"Q E _ c:_ +'CD+' 1.~1. ~ $ ~ 03:0 Ll') cb r.: .s:: ..... Ln l\"l 4o't .s:: V III CD ..... o Ln 4o't t' III c: - E - .- CD I. Il. +' c: CD ::s g-UI UI t ..c - ::s ~ <Ilo::: o<J c: "Q1Il 1...- l\"lll. c: III .... Il. .... III c: - I.J... +' c: CD ::s cr CD UI ..c ::s VlUI o<J~ .... "Q> c: CD NO: o,t: &58 ~"Q o CD +' ~2 ..... ~ I. Q) I .s:: U III CD o .... 4o't .s:: +' - ]0 .s:: "Q u CD III c: CD_ ..c C08N ~uch .c. U III CD o o .- 4o't ~ :z ~ o c: o - t~ ::so::: I. ~l5 c: 8i .... c: o CD _I.. t::s CDt 0. ::s UI I.. C:+' H <Il \0 ch ._--~--_.~--"'._.,~_._~*._~~---,-"~,._----~---_._._----_.._---- ..... N .I: .... l\"l .I: o +' l\"l ch CD CD <Il +,0, - "Q c:.- ::s..c ..... ..... Ln Ln NN .- .- 4o't4o't ~ E . - +'c: ~- .....E o Ln 0 .~ 04o't ~.... .... III I.. CD CD UI +'::s III 0 .... .s:: LnO NN ~4o't .c. U III CD Ln N 4o't Ln N ~ .... .I: CD .- ..c III ~ CD CD <Il .s:: u III CD co ~ 4o't c: o - t CD 0. UI c: H c: o 1.- Ot .. CD c:o. o UI _C: tH l!! S c: _ 8f CD$ UI.- ::s< ~1. CD .:! 1Il<ll I. CD CD +'"Q 11I_ -JVI CD c: - .- c: .... III :E ..... .- ch N ch c: o - t CD 0. UI c: H I. - III 0. CD 0::: I.. CD ! <Il CD "Q - <Il c: o .... t CD c: c: 8 CD .... o .s:: c: III :l!: ~ o c: o - t ~ UI c: H l\"l ch ~ ch B-1 IG tt. 8 ~ III q) 3: c c:: II) ! - :;; :;, c "Q CI) "Q c: C1)..... EIIO 81 l!l:8 c::~ c: o - ~ (J q) C. III c: .... 1 q) ~ ~ l.. q) 3 ~ ~ ~ ,... 6 ..... ~ ~ , 0 O~ ~~ 00 o +..,. Ol.. Oal ~~ >. IG l.. "Q:;, ,0 ..,..1: ..,., 0\0 """ ,... ,... lo'tlo't ,... IG - ~ - c: .... ~lIItt - 0 c: l.. (J -Gl "Q~~ C1)-~ "Q 01 IG :;, c: E ,...w_ (J ~ c:.... III ....Oal ~ - III~ &.! Gl E "Q - c: -tl'E ~ '1.0 1.0 ,... \0110 o lo't 0..... ..,. li lo't III >. IG "Q - '0 :I:~ ~C - III E "Q c: 0 al l.. ':'::.1: $.1t 3:..... ~ ~ , ,... ~ o lo't o ~ l.. 0 .l:C: ,- ~E lo't 0 l.. +.1: o 1.0 CXl " 0,... ,...Nq- lo't .....lo't ,... IG ;; - c: .... I q) E - ~ l.. al~ 3; q) ~13 c: :;, l.. al c:: ~ o c: III l.. I oc. ~$ t.;g CI) IG IG ~C:E l..1II 0-- ~CI) Ol~ c:.:.:: q) ~~:G 8~.e ~ ';ij :;, ~ (J IG c: o "Q III 5ltt ~8 ,..J'--.. s.: .I: , \0 ,... ,... lo't + o " ;;j q- M 10 lo't c: :;, l.. CI) c:: CI) E - ~ l.. q) > o III >. IG "Q - ,... o :I:~ ~C illS "Q c: 0 q) l.. .:.:: .I: GlI Gl..,. 3:..... ~ c: o - t ~ III c: - >. 1.0 ,... N c: lo'tO .I: (J IG q) , ,... ..... ,... lo't C. IG I- l.. Gl ~ II) N 6 B-2 Gl al ~ o z tt Gl ~ o z .I: (J IG CI) , ~ .... tt Gl I- al >. c 7 u ..... Pa 9 of 36 ';ij :;, t IG c: o "Q III 5ltt IG 0 OJ (J ,... IG :;, t IG c: o "Q 5l'li: IG 0 OJ (J l.. - IG C. CI) ex: ~ 'Ii: >. II) c: o - ~ ,... ,... o u ..,. I U ..... .... ..... .0 ::J o Pa 10 of 36 10 t: 8 I .... +' Ul Ul CDt: g 8 " " Q) CD Ul+' ~~ CD I 01..... L- 0 101 .&;+' (,).&;.>I: 0lL. +,-0 o L- . I: L->- o 0 10 0...... ~ Q) +' L-~ 1: 0-.. t ~~~ ~Ul~al..... +'Q)............. 1:L-0l>1O 8:C~Et: --- "' 10 L-O +' e 8 +' Ul CD ~ r >-" CD CD e..... Q)L-..... L-O_ 1O+'.o +' Ul 10 CD L- CD L- CD 0"'" 8- ~+'L-O IO"CD..... E CD.&; CD .....t~~ IOCD " 01..... " CDCDI:O ...JL-IO+' ... ..... L-..... Ul Q) 10 ~~t: .... .... .&;01>- 1:.0 L- Q) 8-CD~ ~t! Q)>.... >.... > Q) L- CD o e.. L- ~ Ul CD -8 o ..... ...J o Z 01 L- I: 8.Ui o Ul .....CD Q) g ~ L- oe.. CD 01 L- 10 .&; U o z 0 " e CD 0 L- - " CD ::J Q) Ul CD ~ Ul " I: 10 Ul ~t: CD ,.., 0 ...... " L. C .... 01 I 0 L- e +' e" Cll J> (,) ::J Cll,... ::J.... o 10 ....CD +' 0 Eco o E .....01 ~.; 10 CD..... .&; S I .&; ...JQ) E .....10 ..... co ~;g .....L- >::J,.., .... ::J 0 ~:g (l'l '"'" N01 L- g-l'l"l t: !t 0 0:: ~ I.L. ..... ll'l N.... ~lll ~L-J.. ..... .... .... .... ...... lJJ ZIO .... +' Ul ..... L. e " 0 Cll Cll lE ..... ! Cll I: E OlIO +' 0 Ul 0 I: Q) VI 10 - Ul ....0:: > +' 5l E Ul Cll .... 10 I: .... Ul 0 +' L. ..... 0 Ul 10 Cll+' 10 a.. ..... :;; < ..... g01 > CD,.., (,) - L- (,) I: 10 0 +' L- I: L. 0 I: ::J ..... ..... .... a...... a.. ..... 10 L- ..... ...J ::J +' UCll Cll 0 "10 L- e 0:: (,) ..... e..... 0 0 e e 0 ..... 10 Cll ..... ....Ul 0" 10 0 0:: ~~ _I: U e I: 01 tlO 0 01 o Ul e e.. .... I: ....+' .... ..... ....., CD..... 10 +' .... +'1:>- L- Ul 10 0 01 e..1O f- 10 Ul 10 ell+, ell+' >L. e Ul.... 01 Ul L. I L- en ~ ~ lJJa.. .... I:+' L- CD ell 10 CD B ~ .....- CD L- (,) e.. e.. .... ....., Ul L- I: ! 01 0 CDL-O lJJ 010 .....CD > ~~ CD L- t:. ~ t:. ~ I: L- a! L- en en a.. lJJQ.. ::J VI VI en ,.., ,.., ,.., ~ ,.., ll'l ~ ..... N 'r ..... 0 I I VI J.. N l'l"l 0 0 0 ..... L1 I ...... ...... ~ lJJ ,.., ,.., 0 lJJ B-3 c 65 I: .... ..... .0 :;, C Pc: 11 of 36 o Gl+' () c..... "r:~ ~51()~ -g I.. s,t: ,....Gll..:;, ():J:IO'Q ~5l'fi~ Gl .>J:. III +'+' 10 +' gs, IO+' UI +' c: Gl Cl. III OGl..... ~ ..... 10 .. I.. t: :;, 'Q c "lll o 10 ZoO Gl .>J:. :I +' o C Gl UI UI 10 Gl Gl o I.. cO) ..... ,.... 10 10 0)0) " U'l U'l 00 . . 00 W't W't 0) C .. ..... Cl. E :l! .. c~ o C Gl 'Q:;' 5li 10 I.. CD 00- '<tN'<tO ~~~~ .....l"'l0\'<t ,....;!lB~ l"'l W't W't W't W't I I I I ~r- >->. ","'..-r- :;':;,.c:.>J:. cC+'Gl CC:CGl <~~:s ~ (I) Gl .>J:. 10 +'+' 10 +' o Gl cO) IO+' U1+'C iCl.1O o5l'C. ~ I I UI Gl I.. :;, -.:I Gl I.. ..... ..... g 0 10 10 .. t 0) 0) I.. 00-1.. " Cl. 0Cl. ..0 ! U'l U'l C CI..+' ~q Gl..... -.:I otl5~ ot:I..C~ Gl III (I) 00 OO-1Il -.:I -.:IOOO-Gl -.:I..OOC ,.... W't W't 0 C Gl() >. Q)c____..... III +'Cl. Gl,.... UI Gl ~,.... ~t E 0) + + ..Ill EIO ,g....u..- , t::;; EI .0 Ill" 10 .010 GlO ..... 0U'l 0:8 :;, > &l ::J tl CO 0 0 ~l"1 Q) l6 3ltl.... Glt CU'l 0 0..(1) o::~"- "-1011100- ~ 10 8 8~ ..... 0 ,....0 0) W't W't ....N >'10 W't I.+' +,Cl. ~ 5l -.:I coo- "0 C ~! .. .>J:. C.. * .c: U > Gl +' :;, III Gl Gl .. .p I.. "- :J: I.. 01.. +' I.. I.. OO-Gl .. 0 ~ +' E ~ 000- 010 3l Gl Gl 8 iUlUl U'l ~ Gl C C W'tGl "- "- Gl it ::J 0 0 0) UJ ..... 0) .......... ..... III C +' 10 +' I.. ~"L: 0..... ,.... Gl 10 .. .. * .. 10 >1010 ~"fi E I.. * E .c: ..tl 0) 0) l- +' .. U Gl 10 ~ Gl UI 3? 5le; 0)00 .c:0 ~ :;, < ..... 10 00 u. +' 0:: -.:I (I) 10 10 +'00 ~ ..... C ~ ..... UI Gl Gl Cl. .. .. c'Q 10 .... 10 0 I...c: Gl N N :;, Gl :;, (I) :;, Cl. W+' (l)V^ U1+' c: ! .... c: UI "10 < c: C c: .. ::lCl. .... < Z < C (I) .. 1= UJ 'u ~ -.:I .. (I) .... .... .... .... .....+' ..... N Ii: ..... N Gl C I I <h <h ..10 Z "- "- UJ 00- .... (I) I.. III ..Gl 10 <I> .... @ "-"- "- * * * B-4 Pc 12 of 36 ATTACHM:NT C 1986-87 RATES AND CHARGES PREPARED BY: BARTON L. BRANDENB URJ AUGUST 4, 1986 Pa 13 of 36 INDEX PART t\O. I II III IV V VI VII VIII TITL E PL AN REV IEW FEES CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES COLLECTION SYSTEM FEES RIGHT-OF-WAY FEES MISCELLANEOUS FEES INDUSTRIAL PERMIT FEE SEPTAGE DISPOSAL FEE ROSSMOOR FIXTURE FEES PAGE NO. C-l C-2 C-ll C-l6 C-la C-l9 C-22 C-23 Pa 14 of 36 PART I PI.. AN REV IEW 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. Canments on designs are made .with the intent that when the pl 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 prel iminary and one final pl an reviews $0.761 ft. ($304 minimum) Third and subsequent preliminary plan reviews $38.00 each Second and subsequent final plan reviews $57.00 each C. DISClISSION Costs for pl an review fees are primarily incurred in the Construction Division. An analysis was made for a 19-month period where 206 proj acts were compl eted. Interviews with personnel involved in plan review were conducted to estimate their time spent. Fran the avail abl e data, there does not appear to be a substantial change in plan 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 $0.76/ft. current charge. D. RECOMMENDATION 1. Retain the current 1985-86 fees of $0.761 ft. ($304 minimum). Subsequent prel iminary and final pl an review charges shoul d al so remai n the same. 2. Establish an O&M account for plan review activities. This will make it possibl e to provide a better estimate of the overall effort in the future. C-1 Pi 15of36 PART I I CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES A. DEFINITIONS 1. Mai n1 i ne Insoecti Qn 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 n1 ine inspection fee includes the cost of the initial TV inspection. 2. Lateral. Hou~e Connection. Or Side Sewer Alteration Insoection Inspection fee required to cover District costs associated with inspecting the installation of a private lateral or house connection into a main1 ine or a side sewer alteration (e.g. installation of restaurant grease interceptor, etc.). 3. Side Sewer Reoair Insoection Fee required to compensate the District for the costs involved in inspecting a side sewer repair. (If more than ten feet of 1 atera1 is rep1 aced, a si de sewer a1 terati on 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 finish an installation by working late or is involved 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. Insoection 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 manho1 e shel f. C-2 Pi 16 of 36 B. MAINL INE AND LATERAL HOUSE CONNECTION 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 val id when all fees are considered. 1. 1985-86 Fee The 1985-86 mainline inspection fee is as follows: TABLE 1 1985-86 Mai nl ine Inspection Fees PROJ ECT L. F. FEE $300 + $3.001 ft. $350 + $2.50/ft. $450 + $2.001 ft. $525 + $l.75/ft. $625 + $l.50/ft. $750 + $l.25/ft. $810 + $1. 151ft. 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 13 1 proj ects. b. Costs included Construction Inspector's direct salary and a 43 percent employee benefit overhead factor. c. Pickup truck rental rate of $6.20/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 tel evi s1 on inspecti on costs incl uded 63 projects. A best fit correlation of the time required to televise these projects was found to be: Hours = 2.43 + 0.0041 X proj ect 1 ength (ft.) f. The average television inspection production was determined to be 1,100 ft.lday. This assumes the lead line was not left in the pipe by the contractor. C-3 Pa~ 17 of 36 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 ($60S/day). h. Other television inspection costs included the capitalized and operati on and ma1 ntenance expenses for the 1V van ($174/day) and other equipment such as a pickup truck and water truck ($105/day). The 1985-86 lateral, house connection, or side sewer alteration inspection fee is $48 each and is based on the following costs: a. Estimated 1.5 hours inspection time for each 1 atera1, house connection, or alteration. b. 01 rect 1 abor and a 43 percent employee benefit overhead factor. c. Pickup truck rental rate of $6.20/hour. 2. Discussion 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 co11 ected at the permit counter. Construction of 47 mainline projects has begun since September 1, 1985; however, only the 11 comp1 eted are shown. This allows a true comparison of fees collected vs. the accrued cost for the fi ni shed proj ect. The total fees co11 ected generally compare with the accrued cost with the exception of the Crow Canyon Road project (see Tab1 e 3 without Crow Canyon Road), The fees co11 ected 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 proj ect with a 1 arge number of 1 atera 1 s. The fees co 11 ected for this project 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 compari son, further data compari son w ill be with on1 y the ten proj ects 1 i sted in Tab1 e 3. C-4 Pa~ 18 of 36 The total fee collected for the ten projects is $21,206.45, and the total accrued 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 shoul d be consi dered w hi ch will affect District mainline inspection costs. First, a general wage rate increase of 5 percent became effective May 1, 1986. Equipment costs are also estimated to increase by a similar percentage. Second, the District has recently started to require that a lead line be left in the pipe by the contractor. A lead line is used to pull the TV cable through the sewer. It was estimated 1 ast year that 1,100 feet of pi pe could be televised by a crew in one day if the lead line was pl aced by the District. If the lead 1 ine was al ready in pl ace, 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 equi pment 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 inspection reduction would 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 $1,709 savings in increased productivity may not be realized immediately since the new policy has not been in place very long nor is there a sufficient data base to determine actual production rates. 3. Recommendations a. Retain the current mainline inspection rate structure for 1986-87. Because of the 1 engthy proj ect time, a 1 arger data base will be available next year, which will aid in a valid comparison. b. Retain the same breakdown of fees for mainl ine inspection by proj ect 1 i nea r feet. c. Retain the lateral, house connection, and side sewer alteration inspection fee. Accumulate a data base to determine whether a maximum lateral charge is supported. The data base of 10 compl eted proj acts is 1 imited; however, the general data trend indicates that the above recommendations wil 1 provi de the requi red revenue to offset costs in 1986-87. C-5 Page 19 of 36 ~:;'!='!~~~~~~~ .., ... - ... _ _ N ..... ,... ..0 ~. t'.. ..~. _ ~ ~ ... :t:;~~~~3-~~5: !ill a it i ... Glii:;:e8C;iI=C:=~= ...... ....-...CClm_r-t_....._1llQ -"" g= -_.-r..__N_N_ ~ ~ U "'~.G....C......>- ~~& ~.~ ~ ~ .::: :: ~;! ;:;~~~~o:'!~~~~ ... ... ... ...- ttJ--W'J___-_l"".l_ - => ... -NIIlI_D-....,NN_o-. '" co ......'IllO-N'"_CD-aCt-1lD ~ ~.... ------~ ~ ... ~:;~'!'!~~'!'!~~ ~ ...... ~e .~_-o-.CD___M_ ""~ In cI ~ ~ ~~~":.;:;_~ -~ ---,..,~~ ... 28 =!! =========== ~ lS- ~~~!~g~Si5~ ~ ....! '" .., e- :0; ;:::~;;!:i:~P::;~~ ... DO W 1Ii,j~~~~~:~":;; ~ ~~ .....MI.,,_CD:::_~!!!:~;:: 2 ~~~=!~':~~~::'! - ... ~i ~~;:=.~~#~t-;~ ... - -N___~o- ~ =$ ~~~~I!I!I!I!I!~l!; - ~- ... ~:!~;:;~~~&1~:g~ ~ =25 -~re ;~ ... - ... ~~~~~~=:~~I!~ i ... .. ~~ N-CDCDMNNN_N_ :::;;:;~~:!~~:i;~~~ i-- - -""'1"") :;i iili ----.---.-. ~= ~~ --... '" ... -__o-_N N g -"It; ~ ... ! 1Il: 0>->11').,.,.,..,10"')"'___ N .......V"'J..--..o,..._~o- :I ... ---"')--~:a ... co ... N .... -... N ~ ...- ... ... ... = - ... ~ ... ... ...... ... '" DC 1oUQ;;:lX'CllI ~ g=- >C4"C ""i~ IoU _:>>Q ~~=:5~l!5I.o..l~C:C -8 !i! i!g~::j~::a~5~ ~ ~ii_~z....~~-Q:l= C _ .....J >uCl:4, cz:.,z.:.c:W"j~~ __.:..:. ... ... ~~~~=;tt~i:::S_ -... '" ~==~~~~s~~=:~ ~ ~ _o:.n~UUoC:lCl:I.."lOCZ:U ... ~ --ma:llO-CD~_V"lI..oQ;l ~ ~~ ... .ntn__..o..o_o-,.....o-_ '" ..", ~- __0-_____.__ ... ~ ....-,...,,-...-...,...-..- C-6 ... ~ = ....~"' "" -- "" ~ "" _.... z ~ ~ e 5 ~ co "' ~ i ~ ~ "" ~ ... - .... 3=> -~ ... ... -~ ~ '- ... Page 20 of 36 ... ~ ~=;~~~~~~~~ !~5E~~~~~~ -__NCD lJt Ii' i co ...... i~ cI=&1~' ~==cg=c8 ,....-. CD"""'N_,....._ __. ___r-4__ ~~.I~i~~~~~ co !5:;; .. ... lit... ____CD-<l._....._ "':-:~"'";~o:~~o:~ ~~~~==~t=:~~ .._-~~=~;s~ ... ...- ...... ~::; ....... "" .... C;s - L> .=~~~~lC~~= ...:;cii~~~~~ ;;W"l_GlI..::~~~~ "'0< :n~ Ell: ~; :;0 ~~~~~=:~~~~ ~~~~~~~~.~ NNN____..-mClO . .... 'JI ~:n -8 2 ____aca__c......._ _-..0.........017"""_0--11":1 ~~~ig:=~;i~i __U"1_ca~_~~~ ... ii! -5 ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~=;o~:;~~:n _ _N_"'_~ &- =l!5 .... ... ... ... :'II=> !:'" ~~=;~I!=;~=;~~ ....U"lI-.,.,M....V1_IoI' __N....,.,...,,"O__,....CO ""~ ... - i: ~- i" ~ ___..om..o._....._ "":o:~_:~'"':o:o:'"':~ __l:DCO______ ..... r- 0-- _ _ p.-, ..... ,..... ,..., V'i _____c>-U"lI~~~ -~ ~~ .....~ :!~ __._.__a.__ =~ ... '" 5~ --_"..__.-0-_ :!; .=~~~~~~~~ ----,..,...~~ ~~ ! ... > co i i~ ~~~ _~~a;:; i;; . =: g ~ :j.:i ~ =- 5 5 ~Z_~:CWZ~o:DlZI cc5Q::~:j":>~~ ~~~~~;~tn!e~ :;~~~~15~~~ _cn~UL.J=~UOCE - ... ... Z; - ~- _f""tG:IICDD--CD__U'.,..o 1t')1n__...a__o-.--..o-- __0-_____._ __P')~--""'..-... C-7 . . . . - I.... !~ , ~ . I .... .... Ii: on - ~ .... = ~ .... on a- ~ - a- .... ~ .... .... lI!l - .. a- - "" ,. ., a- :: ,. .... ... Pa~ 21 of 36 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 permit. D. OVERTIME INSPECTION 1. 1985 -86 F ees Overtime Inspection $39/hour Weekends & Holidays (4 hour minimum) $156 Overtime Inspection Credit (See Tabl e 4, be 1 ow) T,68LE 4 OVERTIME CREDIT T ota 1 Proj act Overtime O'lertime Hours Credit Hours < 4 1 ..... 4 < < 8 2 ... 8 < < 16 4 .... 16 < < 32 6 .... 32 < 8 2. Discussion The overtime inspection credit policy was established 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 would be the 5 percent wage rate increase. 3. Recommendations To reflect additional labor costs, the following fees are recommended: Overtime Inspection Weekends & Holidays (4 hou r m1 n1mum) $41/ hr $164 C-8 Pas ?2 of 36 E. INSPECT roNSTRUCTION OF NEW STRUCTURE (MH OR RI> The 1985-86 fee for new structure 1nspect10n 1 s $70. Tabl e 5 shows four new structure proj ects (either manhol es or roddi n9 i nl ets) . Two have been fi na led. The average inspect i on cost of the two finaled projects is $494. Last year the average inspection cost was $270. It is apparent the District is not recovering all the costs for these projects. It is recommended that the fee be increased to $100 and continue monitoring cost to broaden the data base. F. INSPECTION OF MANHOLE roNNECTION 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 -! ~ =-~ ~Q!~ ... ~ I ~ ... ... .... ~ ... "'.... ;~ ~ c. ! .... Page 23 of 36 ~ ~ ... ! i ==== ---- .........~:- '" ij ... l&1~ ~-= ... ~'" ~i3 ;;!~ :;15 -u ...: ~~~~ _,...., N- \II ~~ an"" __ ~ ~ -: r-; _...... N CD ~~~~ ~ ~l/l ,.~ ~= :!:=~: cD"";cD~ ..oo-.",~ ... - ... ~ .. ~~ ~9 l:;" C ! ~~== ;.;~~~ _,....,r.."4 - ... ~~ =~ - - -- '" ii'" ",,!;!j ~'" S~ ~~ ~Q.. - - -- ~ E C 3' ... ~ :i!~ co'" '" .. -> c... ..... _ _ 1,0.1.:0 ~ g: ~ 0' I; Ulna: u-:_~ "" ....- =- _ ~ c:;I C> 3' u 389;: ... ... "" '" ... ~- _..d__ ;;;; a::-=_a: C-10 : ~ :I ~ '" ... '" ! .. lI! ~ ~ ~ Pas 24 of 36 PART II I COLLECTION SYSTEM FEES A. DEFINITIONS 1. 1V Insoecti on District pol iey is to conduct a 1V inspection of all new sewer 1 ines in order to verify the interior condition of the pipe prior to final acceptance by the District. The cost of the initial 1V inspection is currently included in the mainline inspection fee. a. 1V Inspection Overtime - Fee requ1 red 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. 1V Inspection Rerun - Fee required to compensate the District for the costs of re-telev1s1ng 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, falled pipe sections, or pipe profile problems were identified during the initial 1V inspection of a new sewer ma 1 n. c. Overtime Credit - When a contractor pays the ma1 nl1 ne inspection fee, he is actually paying for a certain number of hours of 1V 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 1V 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 District personnel. 3. Dve Test A dye test is used to confirm a property is connected to the publ ic sewer or served by a private septic tank system. CSO personnel add dye tabl ets to interior pl umbi n9 fixtures and observe evidence of the dye color in the downstream publ ic sewer ma1 n. C-ll Pa~ ~5 of 36 B. TELEVISION INSPECTION 1. 1985-86 F~es The 1985-86 television inspection fees are as follows: a. Initi al TV - Overtime Credit $l,044/day $116/ hr $464 $0.411L. F. - Overtime - Weekends & Holidays (4 hour min.) b. TV Rerun Regu1 ar $1 ,008/ day $112/ hr $224 2 hour minimum Weekends & Holidays (4 hour min.) $1,1611day $129/hr $516/ hr - Overtime 2. Discussion 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 Line With Lead Line Initi al TV Regul ar Overtime $887/ day $1,044 $7211day $835 TV Rer un Regul 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~ 26 of 36 A review was conducted of CSO records to determine if any other factors cou1 d affect the proj ected costs. A second TV van and equipment is close to being operational. This will double CSO TV capabfl iti es. Current fees shou1 d adequately recover the costs of the new van and equipment. Last year approximately one-hal f the projects had a deficiency which required a TV Rerun of porti ons of the proj ect. 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 letter must be sent to the contractor which states that deficiencies exist and that additional fees are required before a TV Rerun can be schedu1 ed. 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 req uests 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 minimum TV Rerun fee from $224 to $700. The proposal was circulated to private engineering firms 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 insi sts on getti ng the work done as soon as possi b1 e and a "low pri ority" TV Rerun charge if the work could be combined with other work in the area. Five thought the District shou1 d charge the actual cost and believed that $700 was excessive. C-13 Pa~ 27 of 36 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 S13/hr. Many jobs are only charged S26 additi onal (2 hour mi nimum) . 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 S99/hr = 2 hrs X S31.29/ hr = 2 hrs X S29.89/hr = say S 49.50 62.58 59.78 S17 1 . 86 $170.00 Therefore, the actual TV Rerun cost would be Sl70 plus the regular CSO initial TV rate of S99/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 Mainl ine 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 schedul ing log. Those contractors wanting 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) S170 + S99/hr S4l8 Overtime S170 + S116/ hr - Weekends & Holidays (4 hour mi nimum) S634 c. Consider a surcharge or changing the priority ranking for TV Rerun jobs. C-14 Pa~ 28 of 36 c. SEWER TAP The 1985-86 fee for a sewer tap is $146. This fee includes tw~ 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 would be $171. D. DYE TEST The 1985-86 fee for dye testing is $54. This fee includes two-hours 1 abor for a two member crew and the expense for truck operati on 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 cancelling the work request. The cancel 1 ati on fee woul d al so 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 District 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 woul d appl y. TV Inspection -- Initial and Rerun (2 hours cancellation fee) $198 Sewer Tap -- (one hour cancellation fee) $ 54 The above fees are described further in the Di stri ct' s Standard Specificati ons. C-15 Pa~ 29 of 36 PART IV RIGHT-Of-WAY fEES A. DEFINITIONS 1. Seareaation of Local Assessments Imorovements Di str i ct (LID) Bond 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. Processina Real Prooertv Aareements This fee recovers the cost of executing 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/ hr ($81 mi nimum) Processing Quitclaim Deeds $30/ LID segregation Preparation and Processing of Agreements Relating to Real Property Surveying as Requi red c. DISaJSSION 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 -- -_._"--------_._~-- - _ ~____ ______k~_.~_ ~_______".._ +-__.._..__ Processing Quitclaim Deeds Preparation and Processing of Agreements Relating to Real Property C-17 p, 30 of 36 $32/LID segregation Surveying as Requi red Pa~ 31 of 36 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, soil 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 Actual Cost Soil Evaluation for Private Sewer Projects Survey i ng $95/hour C. DISCUSSION The only factor affecting these fees is the 5% wage rate increase. Only survey i ng costs woul d be affected by the publ i shed rate. D. RECOMMENDATIONS The following fees are recommended to recover the costs expected in 1986-87 . Engineering for Private Sewer Projects Estimate Requi red Soil Evaluation for Private Sewer Projects Actual Cost Surveying SlOO/hour C-18 Par 12 of 36 PART V I INDUSTRIAL PERMIT FEE A. DISCUSSION Last year the District began 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 incl udes office time and fiel 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 al 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 agencies and preparing the Pretreatment Annual Report; estimated 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 PG&E Siemens Tracor/P-eA Varian Naval Weapons Station EG&G $ 673 1 , 53 4 1,459 1,365 3,245 1,443 1,584 2,364 1,914 1 ,688 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 Pas 33 of 36 In 1985, the District amended the contract with the City of Concord; the amendment stipulated that the District would take over Concord's Industri a1 Pretreatment Program. Detail s for assuming Concord's pretreatment program were to be agreed upon at a later date. Since then, a request has been made to the ~QCB 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 crnendment has been drafted which clearly defines the District's enforcement authority. This has been verbally approved by the ~QCB 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. Tab1 e 8 shows the 1986-87 Industri a1 Permit Fees which woul d be bill ed to each of Concord's industri es presently in thei r 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 CONCORD INDUSTRIES Recommended 1986-87 Permit Fee Ana 1 og Annabe11 e ADL Ci rcu its Systron Donner West1 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 associated 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 examp1 e IT Corporation and GSF Inc. permits have required much more staff and legal time than other industries 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 Pa~ 34 of 36 2. It is recommended that the above fee structure al 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 First year fees based on average cost for simfl ar 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 mi nimum) An account number woul d be establ ished 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 addfti onal costs. Authorizations would be obtained in increments of $500. C-21 Par 35 of 36 PART V II SEPTAGE DISPOSAL FEES A. DISCUSSION The 1985-86 fees are as follows: Annual Permit Fee $100 Di sposal Charges - Grease Interceptor within the District Septage Volume Per Truck < 2,000 gal ~ 2,000 gal $O.OI/gal $7.00 + $O.OS/gal $20.35 + $O.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. RECOMMENDATION Retain the 1985-86 fee structure until revisions to the septage disposal practices are approved. C-22 Pas 36 of 36 PART V III ROSSMOOR FIXTURE FEES A. DISCUSSION 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 established in 1965. It is proposed to raise these fees by basing them on the current District-wide fixture fees and current occupancy rates. The District's current minimum fixture charge is $375, which is proposed to be the minimum charge for Rossmoor. B. RECOMMENDATION The following fixture fees are recommended for Rossmoor. TABLE 9 ROSSMOOR FIXTURE FEES Current Recomend. Current Occupancy Di stri ct-Wi de Rossmoor Rossmoor Factor* Fee Fee Fee Fixtures Kitchen 1.5/1.8 x $112.50 = $ 93.75 $21.62 Tofl ets 1.5/1.8 x $ 22.50 = $ 18.75 $ 5.53 Lavatories 1.5/1.8 x $ 22.50 = $ 18.75 $ 5.53 Bathtubs & Showers 1.5/1.8 x $ 67.50 = $ 56 .25 $11 .03 Laundry Out1 ets 1.5/1.8 x $112.50 = $ 93.75 $22.63 Wet Bar, Laundry Tray 1.5/1.8 x $ 22.50 = $ 18.75 $ 3.69 Living Unit** 1 Bath Unit 1.5/1.8 x $337.50 = $281.25*** $66.34 2 Bath Unit 1.5/1.8 x $450.00 = $375.00 $ 88.43 2-1/2 Bath Unit 1.5/1.8 x $495.00 = $412.50 $99.49 * Current Rossmoor occupancy/District-wide occupancy for similar living un its ** Assumes kitchen and laundry facilities *** Fee would be $375, which is the District's minimum charge C-23 . Centra. Contra Costa Sanitar) District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF NO. VI!. ENGINEERING 1 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF SUBJECT DATE AUTHORIZE $207,300 FROM THE SEWER <X>NSTRUCTION FUND FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF BLENDING TANK K>DIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANJlGER-OUEF ENGINEER TO EXEQJTE AUTHORIZE FUNDS A <X>NTRACT AMEN[)IIENT WITH J(}fN CAROLLO ENGINEERS AUTHORIZE AMENDMENT Bert Michalcz k, Senior En ineer SUBMITTED BY ISSUE: Board approval is requested to authorize sewer construction funds for the design and construction of blending tank modifications and to authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute Amendment No.5 to the existing Stage 5B Engineering Services Agreement with John Carollo Engineers for design services. BACKGROUND: When the sludge thickening portion of the Stage 5B Project is placed in service in October 1986, sludge handling operating procedures will have to be modified. Due to the addition of the Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners, two separate sl udge streams (raw sl udge and thickened waste activated sl udge) with different physical properties will be produced which must be combined in a blending facility prior to dewatering. The blending facilities wil 1 provide a hanogenous mixture of sl udge that w ill all 0i'I effici ent dewateri ng and incineration. The design team of John Carollo Engineers (JCE) and District staff has recommended a two-phase approach to sludge blending as described in detail in Attachment A. The Phase 1 work will be implemented through a change order to the construction contract for the Stage 5B Project and is the subject of this authorization. The Phase 2 work will be incorporated into the design and construction of the Dewatering Project which is scheduled for completion in 1989. No significant additional costs will be incurred by the District because of the two-phased approach. John Carollo Engineers was selected to complete detailed design of the Phase 1 Improvements based upon their familiarity with both the Stage 5B and the Dewater- ing System Improvements projects. John Carollo Engineers will complete design of the Phase 1 modifications; a construction change order has been negotiated. The authorized funds will be applied to the existing consultant force account and conti ngency budgets for the Stage 5B Proj ect. The cost estimate of the Phase 1 work is $207,300 as presented in Attachment B. Th i s proj ect is i ncl uded in the Capital Improvement Plan. RE<X>MMENDATION: Authorize $207,300 in sewer construction funds for the design and construction of modifications to the existing sl udge thickener and authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a contract amendment with John Carollo Engineers on a cost times a multiplier basis with a cost ceiling of $17,500. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/ON 130211.9/85 BM DRW RAB INITIA0~DIV. J)c!?w JM3 Page 2 of 4 ATTAOiMENT "A" PROJECT DESCRIPTION BLENDING TANK ~DIFICATION - A-IASE 1 Upon completion of the sludge thickening portion of the Stage 5B Project in October 1986, some existing operating procedures for sludge handling will be modified and new procedures will by implemented. Among the modified procedures will be the cessation of the practice of pumping waste activated sl udge (WAS) to the primary sedimentation tanks. At the present the WAS is cosettled in the primary sedimentation tanks with the aid of lime. The combined WAS/primary sludge is then pumped to the existing sludge thickener where it is stored until it is pumped to the centrifuges for dewatering. After the startup of the Stage 5B project, the WAS will be directed to the new dissolved air flotation thickeners. In that unit process it will be conditioned with polymer and thickened by usi ng very small ai r bubbl es which attach to the sludge particles causing them to float. The thickened sludge will then be pumped to the sludge blending tank (the existing sludge thickener) and mixed with unlimed (or low limed) primary sludge which will still be produced by the primary sedimentation tanks. Because of the different physical properties of the separate sludges (density, dewaterability, etc.) it is necessary to integrally blend them together to achieve optimum dewatering and incineration. The necessary facilities will be installed in a phased approach. In Phase 1 the existing sludge thickener will be converted to a sludge blending tank by the addition of four mast-mounted axial flow mixers. These facilities will adequately blend the separate ;sludge streams until the Dewatering System Improvement Project is completed in early 1989. The Phase 2 work will be completed in conjunction with the Dewatering Project and will consist of modifying the existing centrate thickener to serve as a blending tank for 45 PoGO average dry weather flow by the addition of a pumped mixing system. At that time the Phase 1 blending tank will be modified slightly to serve as an emergency sludge storage tank. The modifications will consist of removal of the existing th ickener mechani sm, i nterconnecti ng pi pi ng, and mi nor structural improvements. Figure A-I shows the system schematically. , The blending facilities were initially envisioned to be completed as a part of the Stage 5B Thickening Project but the work was postponed during the Stage 5B design. This was because the layout of the blending facilities was influenced by both the Stage 5B Thickening Project and the separate Dewatering System Improvements Proj ect. At that time there were several unanswered questi ons on the Dewateri ng Project related to the design criteria and layout of the centrifuge facilities. If the blending facilities had been included in the Stage 58 Project, that project would have been delayed. Consequently, it was decided to proceed with the Stage 5B Project design and defer the blending facilities task until completion of the predesi gn phase of the Dewateri ng System Improvement Proj ect. The predesi gn of the Dewatering System Improvements Project has been completed and the outstanding design questions related to blending have been resolved. Page 3 of 4 ATTAOft-ENT "B" PHASE 1 BLENDING TANK MODIFICATIONS PROJ ECT COST ESTIMATE John Carollo Engineers $ 17,500 District Force Account 2,000 Construction 182,800 Subtota 1 202,300 Contingency(a) 5,000 Total Proj ect Costs $ 207,300 (a) Contingency to be applied to John Carollo Engineers/District Force Account or Construction as needed. iFIGtBE A-l Page 4 of 4 en ,en w Q I~ ~ ;w 1< CD I-t :m UJ,i 2 ~ < 81~ z . ~ ~.~ 0 ~ - l- e( U I - : ,... U. L- a> - c D a> ,~ 0 .... ,i, (:. ~ i~li & "0 = I~ I- ,... ~ en "0 2 a> .... It- .... e( "0 I~ I- eI . en 2 I~ - D Q 2 >- w Q ~ w i 8 UJ > W ..I I-t ::) ~ ~~ f ..J m en ..J 1-4 ~ en i= ~ :. l~ !~ ,... , 0:: l;' I 11-4 l5 I < l5 0:: .... I W ,... 1-4 Q 1-4 ~ .... !c I~ !c ~ >-i; d b 1-4 Ll.. I~ Ei j!: I 11-4 1-4 Z I-tffi Q ..... fen . Centra. Contra Costa Sanitar) District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF SUBJECT NO. VI I. DATE ENGINEERING 2 AUlHORIZE $45,000 FROM lHE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR SEWER DESIGN AND SETTLEMENT OF SKY-HY CIRClE STORM DAMAG E TYPE OF ACTION AUlHORIZE FUNDS SUBMITTED BY Robert A. Simmons Associate En ineer ISSUE: Funds are required to design the sewer relocation and to settle with the Sky-Hy Homeowners' Association, Inc. BACKGROUND: A landslide occurred during heavy rains in 1982 resulting in the destruction of one residence and damage to two others within the Sky-Hy Subdivision in Lafayette (see Figure 1). Approximately 600 linear feet of 8-inch gravity sewer was also displaced as a result of the slide. Plastic liner pipe was installed above ground as an emergency measure to restore temporary sewer service to the subdivision. The piping has been maintained by the Collection System Operations Department personnel for the past four years. A lawsuit was filed against the developers of the Sky-Hy Subdivision by the Homeowners' Associ ati on. The suit sought the recovery of damages caused by the slide, including the cost of repairing the hillside which was estimated to be in excess of $1.0 mi 11 i on. The sui twas settl ed in 1985 in favor of the HomeOt/ ners' Association. The District was never made a party to the suit but the Homeowners' Association's attorney sought and received an estimate of the sewer line reinstallation costs from the District. The attorney represented that these costs woul d be used in the settl ement proceedi ngs and that the Homeowners' Associ ati on would share in the cost of reinstalling the sewer on a 50 percent basis. In the fall of 1985, repairs to the hillside began. The repair scheme, which was developed by Harding Lawson and Associates for the Homeowners' Association, called for the installation of a tieback retaining wall across the center of the landslide, excavation of the loose slide material, and the replacement of the material as recompacted engineered fill after installation of subsurface drains. The installation of the retaining wall prevents replacement of the sewer in the original easement. The contractor, Fanfa, Inc., is in the final stages of the slide repair at this time. In response to a request by the Homeowners' Associ ation to incorporate the sewer replacement work in their current hillside repair contract, District staff prepared and submitted detailed plans and specifications to the slide repair contractor for a cost proposal. A cost of $52,747.20 was submitted by the contractor to accomplish the work. This cost is approximately ten percent in excess of the en9i neer' s estimate of $47,500. Pursuant to pri or rev iew with the Board on July 17, 1986, legal counsel for the District entered into negotiations with the Homeowners' Association and an agreement was obtained whereby the REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. I?~p WtU ~/ \ GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. 11J$ 1302....9/85 RAS DRW RAB 3't..~ SUBJECT POSITION PAPER AUTHORIZE $45,000 FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR SEWER DESIGN AND SETTLEMENT OF SKY-HY CIRa..E STORM DAMAG E PAGE DATE 2 OF 4 August4,1986 Haneowners' Association would contribute $30,000 tOtlard the cost of reinstalling the sewer. The General Manager-Chief Engineer has executed the agreement. This agreement i ncl udes a full settl ement and rel ease of all out- standi ng potenti al cl aims between the Di stri ct and the HaneOtlners' Associ ati on. The agreement provides for Harding Lawson and Associates to be responsible for administering the change order and for backfill inspection and testing. The District will have the right to observe the construction of the sewer line. In addition, the Haneowners' Association will provide the District with new easements for the relocated sanitary sewerl ine at no cost to the District. In exchange, the District will reconvey to the Association at no cost the existing sanitary sewer easements which have been abandoned by virtue of the relocation. A breakdown of the estimated costs associated with the authorization is presented in Attachment 1 to this position paper. The total authorization being requested is $45,000. The total cost of the sewer project is estimated to be $75,000. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize $45,000 fran the Sewer Construction Fund to design the sewer relocation and to settle with the Sky-Hy Haneowners' Association. --------.. 13028- 9/85 CCCSD PkOJECT SUBJECT ENGINEERING DIVISION X3648 - E(8 Easement xff -2366) o ... SKY HY , Lafayette, 7286 FIG. 1 Page 3 of 4 SHEET BY KEG CHK'D. 8 61(l{~HV 6U~V. Comt10~ AlZM 9LIDE A ilEA A / ~, a 2511-7/85 Page 4 of 4 ATTAa-tMENT 1 SKY-HY DRIVE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR PROJ ECT DISTRICT PROJ ECT NO. 4250 BREAKDOWN OF COSTS District Forces o o o o Proj ect Management Engineering Design and Drafting Survey Inspecti on $ 500.00 4,500.00 2,500.00 3,000.00 Consultants o o o o Harding Lawson Associates L ega 1 Sewerline Replacement Contingencies at 10 percent of Construction Cost 4,400.00 2,000.00 52,747.20 5,300.00 $74,947.20 Homeowners' Association Contribution (30,000.00) $44,947.20 Funds Requested $45,000.00 . Centra. Contra Costa Sanitar) District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 4 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF Au ust 7, 1986 NO. VI!. ENGINEERING 3 RECEIVE 11-tE 1986 TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN DATE Au ust 1, 1986 TYPE OF ACTION RECEIVE CAPITAL IMPROVEt-ENT PLAN SUBJECT SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Jarred Miyamoto-Mills, Assoc. Engineer Engineering Department/Planning Div. ISSUE: Staff requests that the Board of Directors receive the 1986 Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan. BACKGROUND: The Capital Improvement Pl an was first presented to the Board of Directors in 1981. The plan is revised annually in concert with preparation of the Operations and Maintenance budget. . The Capital Improvement Plan provides the basis for Board policy decisions concerning the District's Capital Improvement Program and management of the Sewer Construction Fund. The major policy issues are as follows: o Priority and Schedule - the establishment of appropriate project priorities and schedules to assure that the District continues to effectively accomplish its mission. o Staffing - the provision of sufficient staffing to complete the projects proposed in the Capital Improvement Plan. The contra labor budget for each fi scal year Operati ons and Mai ntenance budget is derived from the Capital Improvement Pl an schedul e. o Financing - the establishment of an appropriate capital fee schedule (for watershed, annexation, and fixture fees) to finance the projects proposed in the Capital Improvement Plan and to maintain the Sewer Construction Fund on a pay-as-you-go basi s. The draft 1986 Ten-Year Capital Improvement Pl an was presented to the Capital Projects Committee on April 1, 1986, for review. The draft plan was subsequently presented to the full Board of Directors on May 1, 1986. Alternative Capital Improvement Plan schedules which could be accomplished with and without additional staffi ng were di scussed. Because of the hi gh pri ori ty of several proj ects, a project schedule which required additional staffing was endorsed. A staffing plan to impl ement thi s schedul e through additi on of new positi ons for capital proj ect work was adopted by the Board as part of the 1986-87 budget. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 130211.9/85 J MM RAB ?J ....r- ~..M.k.... JMK ?1i3 INITIATING DEPT./DIV. SUBJECT RECEIVE iHE 1986 TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN POSITION PAPER 2 4 PAGE OF DATE I\ugust .1" 1986 Subsequent to presentation of the draft Capital Improvement Pl an" two major revi si ons were made to the income/expenditures proj ecti ons which have a negative impact on the Sewer Construction Fund balance. These were: o Implementation of the Property Loss Self-Insurance Program" which results in diversion of $1.0 million per year fran ad valorem tax revenue for fiscal years 1986-87" 1987-88" and 1988-89. o Modification of the capital fee revenue projection (watershed" fixture" and annexation) to reflect a more realistic modeling of development rates. Watershed" annexati on" and fixture fee rate setti ng is the major issue yet to be resol ved as part of the 1986-87 Capital Improvements Pl an process. The Sewer Construction Fund balance on June 30" 1986" was $66.0 million. Income from all sources for the first five years of the pl an (through fiscal year 1990-91) is proj ected to total $81.8 mil lion. Duri ng the same period" expenditures are projected to total $113.7 million. Income during the last five years of the plan (fiscal year 1991-92 through fiscal year 1995-96) is projected to total $94.2 million" while expenditures are expected to total $142.1 million. Based on a cash flow analysis" the Sewer Construction Fund will be depleted to $34.1 million after five years and to zero in fiscal year 1992-93" if no rate increases are instituted (see Attachment 1). The cash flow analysis is sensitive to interest" inflation" and capital expenditure rate assumpti ons. The timi ng of the Stage 6 treatment pl ant expansion wil 1 also have a significant effect on cash flow. It is evident that capital fee rate increases will be required to keep the District on a pay-as-you-go basis. Modest capital fee rate increases on the order of the assumed project cost inflation (5 percent per year) beginning this year would allow the fund to maintain a positive balance over the ten-year planning period (see Attachment 1). Larger rate increases or reduced expenditure levels woul d be required to achieve a prudent Sewer Construction Fund bal ance between $10-20 million at the end of the fiscal year 1995-96. Annual review and adjustment of capital fees would provide needed flexibility to deal with changing financial conditions or District capital improvement needs. Staff is currently reviewing capital fees. It is anticipated that a 5 percent increase to both watershed and fixture fees w 111 be recommended th i s year. A recommendation for revision of annexation fees will be presented to the Board for consideration in the next few months. The Wastewater Collection System Master Plan" which is near completion" provides the basis for projecting future trunk sewer (watershed) construction costs. These cost projections will be used to develop recommended further watershed fee adjustments to take place in fiscal year 1987-88. -------- 13028.9185 SUBJECT RECEIVE ll-tE 1986 TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVE~NT PLAN POSITION PAPER PAGE 3 OF 4 DATE August 1, 1986 The Planning Division will begin Treatment Plant and Pump Station master planning this year. These plans will provide the basis for projecting future Treatment Plant and Pump Station construction costs to be used to develop recommendations for further watershed and fixture fee rate adjustments. As in each of the years since the Capital Improvement Plan was first prepared, the pl an will be improved as part of the next update. In response to the Capital Projects Committee's request, the Engineering Department will investigate development of al ternative methods to establ ish a more specific capital improvement budget for fiscal year 1987-88. In addition, when the Treatment Plant and Pump Station Master Plans are completed, staff will be able to further refine future capital needs and costs. Boa rd fundi ng authorizati ons for pl anni ng and desi gn of several hi gh pri ority projects will be requested during the next few months. These authorizations are required to maintain the District's capital improvement schedule. These projects will be described by staff as part of the Capital Improvement Plan presentation. RECO~NDATION: Receive the 1986 Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan. -------- 13028-9/85 ~ m &.l (/) tI') < m LiJ 0:: U Z z <t: LiJ LiJ --.I N u.. m CL 0 "- J- ~ Z ,.... m W + ~ ... W 0:: t- O < > Z m LiJ w >- 0 ~ ...J :J: 0::: u < < u (L t- (lJ t- m u.. :2 < 0) --.I OJ <( OJ r- - (L 0:: < <t: "" w OJ >- U 0:: LiJ n. U) l!R 0) at') @ LiJ LiJ u.. at') "- 0) ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "" U) at') -ot t') N yo- ..... N I 0 (SUOUl!~) aNn..:! NOI::>n~.LSNO::> ~3,^3S Page 4 of 4 at') m "-~'__'_'_-_._-_._..._--~-----_.._"_.-.------_._.,,.._~.,-~-,._--_._.~,._.,.,_..__._. ....."_._.-.__..__.,-----~-~-------,_._-_.,.._--,,.....-.-.--.-..-..........-......-------..----.-.-.----.-.-.". .--....--..-...-.----- . Centra. Contra Costa Sanitar) ,District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF SUBJECT NO, IX. PERSONNEL 1 DATE ADOPT INDIVIDUAL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ( M.O.U.) WITH THE INCUMBENT DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER EFFECTIVE JULY 3, 1986 THROUGH APRIL 30, 1988 July 30, 1986 TYPE OF ACTION ADOPT M.O.U. SUBMITTED BY Joyce E. McMillan Secretary of the District INITIATING DEPT.lDIV, Administrative ISSUE: Paul Morsen, the Deputy General Manager, whose classification is covered under the Management Group has exercised his right to represent himself individually in the meet and confer process pursuant to Government Code Section 3502. Board representatives and the individual have agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding; accordingly, presentation to the Board of Directors for final adoption is now appropriate. BACKGROUND: Board representatives and the Deputy General Manager met and con- ferred in an effort to agree upon a Memorandum of Understanding specifying details of salaries, wages, and working conditions. The Memorandum of Understanding reflects the compensation levels and benefits previously granted by the Board of Directors to the Management Group, and in general, documents in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding, the agreement referenced in the attached April 29, 1985, position paper. The document is consistent with and parallels all provi- sions of the Management Group Memorandum of Understanding approved by the Board on July 3, 1986. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Memorandum of Understanding between the District and Paul Morsen, the incumbent Deputy General Manager, effective July 3, 1986 through April 30, 1988. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT.lDIV, fj1v 130211-9/85 JEM <c(sD ATTACHMENT Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. VIII. PERSONNEL POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATApril 29, 1985 TYP~ 9F 1jCT.J.ON AOOpt l.ompensation Changes for Management Group SUBJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS SUBMITTED BY Management Group INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ISSUE: The Management Group requests the Board of Directors to consider the following Management compensation proposal. BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors has received a Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) covering the General Employees Group. In recognition of its responsi- bilities to the Board, the public, and to the District employees, the Management Group proposes the following changes in management compensation which parallel the general guidelines of the General Employees Group M.O.U. 1. The Managers will receive the following general increases: o 5% effective May 1,1985 o 5% effective May 1,1986 o 3-8% effective May 1, 1987 (depending upon the Consumer Price Index) 2. The Managers will accept the two tier benefit plans for managers hired by the District after May 1, 1985, in the areas of vacation, sick leave policy, medical plans, and retirement program. 3. The Managers will receive the same benefit changes as stated in the General Employees Group M.O.U. in the areas of holidays and longevity compensation. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt salary and benefit adjustments as set forth in this position paper for employees designated as Management and for the Secretary of the District. This action would encompass members of the Management Team except for the General Manager-Chief Engineer, who requests that no change be made in his compensation or benefit package. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION f