HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 12-04-86
.
Centrt~- Contra Costa Sanitar District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 7
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
SUBJECT
NO.
IV.
DATE
HEARINGS
1
CONSIDER APPEAL BY MLM CONCEPTS REGARDING THE PAYMENT
FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING SEWER MAIN IN
PLEASANT HILL
TYPE OF ACTION
CONSIDER APPEAL
SUBMITTED BY INITtA TlNG DEPT.lDIV.
Jay S. McCoy, Construction Div. Manager Engineering Department
Cons uc i n D
ISSUE: MLM Concepts has appealed a staff decision and has requested reimbursement
by the District for sewer replacement costs.
BACKGROUND: MLM Concepts is building 24 apartment units in Pleasant Hill south of
Chilpancingo Parkway east of the Contra Costa Canal. District staff required the
replacement of an existing 8-inch asbestos cement sewer main with ductile iron as
a condition of connecting the proposed units to the publ ic sewer system. The
requirement was made for two reasons. First, the site grading would decrease the
amount of cover over the sewer main. Second, the site improvements would greatly
restrict future access for mai ntenance. MLM Concepts proceeded to have the
existing sewer replaced. This work has now been completed.
In September, after the replacement was done, MLM Concepts wrote a letter to the
Di strict expressi ng a desi re "to appeal to the District Board to reimburse" them
for the $19,000 in costs to install the new sewer. A letter was sent to MLM in
October stating the staff position and the reasons for it. MLM responded and
requested a meeting with staff to discuss the issues. This meeting was held on
October 29', 1986. MLM has decided to appeal the staff decision. Copies of
correspondence and maps are attached which provide more detail regarding this
matter.
The MLM position as stated to staff is that the existing sewer main was improperly
installed originally and, therefore, the District is obligated to pay the cost for
repl acement. District staff sees no justification for the expenditure of publ ic
funds for the replacement of the sewer. The staff position is presented in the
attached letter to MLM Concepts, dated October 10, 1986.
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal by MLM Concepts.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
JSM
RAB
L( (-r t6
----
Page 2 of 7 Pages
September 23, 1986
Mr. Dennis R. Hall
Associate Engineer
Construction & Services Division
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California 94553
Dear Mr. Hall:
I~l[i ~ m 0 \!1lt ill
SEP 24 1986
~J&,ON
We are writing to register our strong objection to paying for
the improvement to a main sewer line installed across our property
located on Chilpancingo Parkway, Pleasant Hill A.P. Number 153-020-002.
Recently, in order to improve the property by building 24 apart-
ment units, we applied for a sanitary sewer permit, forcing us to
correct the existing sewer main problems as well as install the
feeder links to our units.
The existing main that we were to replace was found to be inade-
quate by Central Sanitary District's own design and specification
standards. The cover over the main in the easement varied from
2'6" to 6'10" with over half of it less than the required minimum
of 5'. In addition, the existing slope was .0051, considerably
less than the minimum required slope of .0077.
We believe that the district allowed a sanitary sewer design
that did not meet their specifications and has subsequently penalized
the current owner by requiring complete replacement of the existing,
approximately 200LN Ft. of 8" main with 8" ductile iron including 2
manholes at property lines.
We wish to appeal to the district board to reimburse the owner!
developer for the cost incurred in replacing a sewer line that was
improperly installed originally. We have incurred a cost of $19,000
to complete this project.
We feel justified in our appeal and hope that this matter can
be settled expediently so as not to require further legal action.
Sincerely,
WRM: sk
Mi#OJ:
l!tam R. MC~
'J3(, DE\\i>.( J ,\\! "I i ,r, ;\!.\ ':TITE, C\LlFORNL-\ ')-j)'jlj (-~l 'i) 2Hj.",Q:l
Page 3 of 7 Pages
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place. Martinez. CA 94553-4392 (415)689-3890
ROGER J. IXXAN
General Manager
~E~
Jl'MES L ~
Cour=1 to( !he District
1~IS/'138-1430
JOYCE E. McM1lV\N
~f~a'Y of !he District
October 10, 1986
MLM Concepts
936 Dewing Avenue, Suite 1
Lafayette CA 94549
Gentl emen:
SEWER REA...ACEt-ENT CCCSD NO. 4198
This letter is in response to your letter dated September 23, 1986
regarding the District's requirement to replace an existing publ ic sewer
mai n crossi ng your proj ect on Ch il panci ngo Parkway in Pl easant Hill
(APN 153-010-002).
The subject sewer line was constructed in 1973 as part of Local
Improvement District #54. The portion of line crossing your property was
installed with high strength pipe (A.C.-3300) because of the lack of
normal cover over a portion of the al ignment. Upstream and downstream
design constraints required that the pipe be placed at lE:sS than norma-:
depth in this area.
Your project required a replacement of the existing sewer (approximately
200 feet) because of the following reasons.
1. Your proj ect' s site gradi ng resul ted in reduced cover along
approximately 170 feet of the sewer al ignment thereby increasing the
potent i al for damage duri ng construct i on operati ons. Si xty feet of
the regraded area had cover less than that permitted by the
District's Standard Specifications for A.C.-3300 sewer pipe.
2. Increased density of the site has permitted considerably more
structures to be placed on this parcel than originally allOl'/ed under
R-I0 zoning. Project buildings (2) are constructed directly
adjacent to the existing sanitary sewer epsement with building
overhangs and decks actually encroaching. into the easement.
Structure 1 ocati ons and encroachments of: th is type make it
impractical and inefficient for maintenance crews to do necessary
work. To mi nim ize future mai ntenance requi ranents, it is standard
practice to require the replacement of existing sewers.
Page 4 of 7 Pages
M.. M Concepts
Page 2
October 10, 1986
Your statement referring to the existing system as inadequate by CCCSD
standards is incorrect. As previously stated, the system was designed
with high strength pipe because of less than normal cover. This
condition is totally acceptable and meets District design criteria.
Based on the removal of cover by your site grading and the need to
mi nimize future mai ntenance because of bu i1 di ng 1 ocati ons, the Di stri ct
required a rep1 acement sewer. To put it another way, the original pipe
was adequate until the site was modified to meet your project design.
In conclusion, there is ample justification to require the pipe
replacement because site condition changes negatively impacted the
original system. Furthermore, no reimbursement of cost is warranted.
You may st ill appea 1 th ; s matter to the Boa rd of Director s. If you
choose to do so, staff will strongly recommend aga; nst any reimbursement.
S~~/t~^-
Denn; 5 Hall
Associate Engineer
--.....
DH:bbc
bee: J. McCoy
c//78
rn~@llgW(nID
OCT 241986
cccso
CONSTRUCTION
Page 5 of 7 Pages
October 23, 1986
Mr. Dennis Hall
Construction & Services Division
CCC Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Hall:
We are in receipt of your letter of 10/10/86 pertaining
to our earlier letter of 9/23/86 regarding sewer re-
placement in our Chilpancingo apartment project A.P.N.
153 010 002.
We believe, after reading your response to our appeal
and consulting with our engineers, that we are in fact
justified in making our request. We, therefore, wish to
appeal your decision to the Board of Directors. We
understand that staff will recommend against reimburse-
ment, but ask that you meet with us prior to our appear-
ance before the Board to discuss the matter. Please
schedule us for a Board meeting at the earliest possible
date.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Respectfully,
/ff \.
I' . ," II ' "'--------
! i,.' ~.
William R. McCleary
General Partner
. '~d : c j j
q-){J L1E\\ 1',,1,; ;^\\; ",' i.:
L\i\YFTTL, C \UF<)f,l\I:\ (),'j')..') 1-1)')1 ~K-i-)q~]
-~TTACHMENT
~
SITE PLAN
-
NO SCALE
-
~...
.......
...........
r::::::::J
PIWE-D RReA
EJUIU>/AJGS \
EXI.jTl~ .qc. 3~O SewER.
RE.PtAG6meur DUCrIl"B IROAJ
SeweR
---
,
,
NOTES
\'l
1. PREVIOUS COVER LESS THAN THAT REQUIRED FOR AC 3300 PIPE. REPLACEMENT REQUIRED BECAUSE
OF RESTRICTED ACCESS.
2. PREVIOUS COVER ADEQUATE FOR AC 3300 PIPE. REPLACEMENT REQUIRED BECAUSE FUTURE
COVER WILL BE LESS THAN THAT REQUIRED FOR AC 3300 PIPE.
3. PREVIOUS AND FUTURE COVER ADEQUATE FOR AC 3300 PIPE. REPLACEMENT REQUIRED BE-
CAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL DAMAGE FROM GRADING OPERATIONS AND RESTRICTED ACCESS.
ArrACHMENT
Page 7 of 7 Pages
2.'-0"
I
10'_0"
0" ouc..TlLE Itl!.DAJ PIPE-
"-0"
ELEVATION B-B
SCALE: ~4... /'-0"
&t.-O~. 8eYo~D
10'-0"
I
ELEVATION A-A
SCALE: v..... ,'- 0"
e" Duc.nl.2 IRDAJ PIPE:.
.
Centra. ~ontra Costa Sanitar) Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 3
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
December 4, 1986
NO.
v.
BIDS AND AWARDS
1
SUBJECT
DATE
AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A PURCHASE ORDER FOR $24,092.43 TO
PLS INTERNATIONAL FOR ONE PORTABLE, SELF-CONTAINED,
CLOSED CIRCUIT, BLACK AND WHITE TELEVISION SYSTEM
December 1, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE AWARD
SUBMITTED BY
Ken F. Laverty
Purchasing & Materials Officer
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Administrative/Purchasing and
Materials Control
ISSUE: One closed ci rcuit, portabl e, sel f-contained, bl ack and white tel evision
system for the inspection of small diameter sewer 1 ines was authorized in the
Collection System Operations Department's 1986-1987 Equipment Budget. Authorization
to award a purchase order to the lowest responsible bidder is requested.
BACKGROUND: The Bid Request was publicly advertised on September 23, 1986. Three
bids were received on October 14, 1986. The bids were:
Flexible Systems, Inc. . . . . $21,589.28
Telespector Corporation . . . $22,098.75
PLS International ...... $24,092.43
A commercial evaluation of the bids by Purchasing found all three bidders commer-
cially responsive to the Bid Request.
A technical evaluation of the bids was conducted by the Collection System Operations
Department, which concluded that only PLS International is responsive to the
technical and performance specifications requi red in the Bid Request. Staff finds
that PLS International is the only responsive bidder and, therefore, the lowest
responsible bidder. The PLS International bid price is $24,092.43. The Board
authorized budget for this equipment in the 1986-1987 Collection System Operations
Department's Equipment Budget is $24,000.00; however, there are sufficient funds in
the total Collection System Operations Equipment Budget to cover the $92.43.
A bid tabulation which summarizes the results of the technical evaluation is
presented on Attachment I. Whil e the requi red equipment and performance specifi-
cations were detailed and extensive, only those specifications which were not met by
any of the three bidders are shown on the tabulation.
The Flexible Systems' bid submittal listed equipment which failed to comply with the
District's technical specifications. The District specified that the television
system shall be able to inspect up to 300 feet of 4, 6, and 8-inch sewer pipes.
Flexible Systems' camera and cable assembly is only capable of televising up to 150
feet of sewer pipe. In addition, the District's technical specifications required
that the camera body be adaptabl e for use with a sel f-propel led camera carriage.
The camera carriage propels the camera up the pipeline when it is beyond the range
of pulling the camera. Flexible Systems' bid was based on a camera carriage which ;s
KFL
v~
JL
130211.9/85
JH
PM
i':7
, )L
J. DOLAN
/DIV.
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A PURCHASE ORDER FOR $24,092.43 TO
PLS INTERNATIONAL FOR ONE PORTABLE, SELF-CONTAINED,
CLOSED CIRCUIT, BLACK AND WHITE TELEVISION SYSTEM
POSITION PAPER
PAGE ? OF ":l
DATE
.
26. , QAA
not des i gned to adapt to thei r small diameter camera.
Systems' bid is nonresponsive to the Bid Request.
Therefore, the Fl exi b 1 e
The Telespector Corporation's bid submittal appeared to comply with the District's
technical specifications and they were requested, in accordance with Special
Condition C, Performance Demonstrations, to satisfactorily demonstrate their
equipment. The Telespector equipment was submitted for performance demonstration
and failed to perform satisfactorily on two separate dates. The District specifi-
cations require that the system be rugged and shall be designed to withstand shock,
vibration, and rigorous field use. On the first test, the power controls failed
completely and the system was sent back to Telespector for replacement. Telespector
stated that the probable cause was that the power control was damaged during
transportation. The Di str1ct' s speci f1cations requi re that the camera shall be
capable of being remote controlled and/or pushed or pulled through the sewer. Upon
testi ng the repl acement system, the camera carriage control di d not work. The
manual push rods were tested and both connectors broke. Based on the frequency and
type of failures encountered during these two demonstrations, it was concluded that
the Telespector Corporation equipment would not be able to perform as required under
normal field conditions and is therefore nonresponsive to the District's Bid
Request.
PLS International was requested to demonstrate their equipment. A demonstration was
hel d on November 14, 1986. The PLS system produced a cl ear picture with no
mechanical problems encountered. Therefore, it is concluded that the PLS
International bid meets all the District's technical specifications.
RECOMtENDATION: Authorize award of purchase order to PLS International for a
portabl e, sel f-contai ned, closed ci rcuit, bl ack and white tel evi si on system for a
total cost of $24,092.43.
---------
13028-9/85
~
(.)
!
en
0
~
e
~
i
en
e
~
en
..-l 0
(.)
I-- e
z es
L.1.J !
::E
:c (.)
u ~
c::(
I--
I-- ~
c::( !i
(.)
I
en
!
~
e
i
e
~
Q
iii
III
(11
.....
s.. ii ~
+>
III ~
~ a:
"1:l
C :i
....
s..
(11
e _CD
>, .- u
'0 C.-
Q. =>ct
III
U
....
C ~
0 ~
s..
+> 0 a:
u ~
(11 :i
r-
LLl
III
C.
0 _CD
r- .- U
U C._
CJ =>ct
~ Lt) '9.(11 ,-... Lt)
(1Ir-
,.... +> .0 I ..... ,....
c. . +> ro - ~
s.. III ~ CO .... U III ~ III III CO
en 0 ~ q- e.... (11 0 (11 (11 C7I
II: U r; ~~ ~ z: ... ~ 0
~
I&.l s.. ~ ..... N
Q 0 roro N
+> ~ -
Q u
- (11 .....
C.
ID III _CD ..+>
(11 .- u (11~
r- c.- +> .0
(11 =>ct ~
~
u ~
C \0 CO
.... \0 N
. .
~ - ~ ,.... C7I
rn III r- III III CO
is M (11 ~ (11 g 0 Lt)
+> ~ . ~ ~ z: ~
III ~ .... .....
~ N
-
(11
r-
oO
.... _ CD
X .- U
c._
(11 =>ct
....
.....
~ M M
.... q- q-
ro
C ii ~ 0 N
0 is ,.... en ~ III III III C7I
..... ~ ~ (11 (11 (11 (11 0
+> ~ ~ ... ~ ~
ro E ..... q-
C N
s.. -
(11
+>
C
.... _CD
.- u
en C._
...J . => ct
a..
-. .... 5
.0
ro .
~ ~~ +> g j
:il c.
.. .. ro .... +>
:;:; III . "1:l . I 0(11
E III ro :.... (11 "
e u ill ai (11.... ii
(11 (11 a r- :! (11 ....
+> ::: ~ .... .0 s..1Il .0 0
.~ e ro 0 9 0
~ (11 .... .s:; ~ .... +-(11 M
en +> ro .... III .... +> ro
c III .... ro ItJ g~ UItJ
. .2 .... ~ u U III :; .s::. s..
:> \0 ~ .2- u s.. .... ..... III C(1I (11(11
co ] (11 C III . 0> s.. .0 e
~ ....... l;) . ~ .s:; III ~ ~ ... (11 ro
q- fII :> u ro . 1Il"1:l III .... U
(11 ..... CD 0 (11 .s:; s . 0 ~:; ~ ....
:0 ....... Q Q ~ u ~ U .0 g 1tJ0>
, 0 is C .s:; C
ro ..... 'u (11 .s:; .s:; ro ~.~ ro ~ Ill....
+> +> +> +> s.. s.. = ....
~ s.. li .... .... .... (11 c+> ~ ~~ ~ ....
0 ,OJ .s:; ~ ~ ~ e 0>1tJ (11 (11
a: Q. > ~ Lt) ro ~1i ro c. ro c.
.; . (11 (11 u u co ..... 0
"1:l \0 U U (11.... 3~ s.. s.. s.. -
~ C C C (11 c> (11 c. s..c.
ro x ro ro .s:; .;C ro
CIl ro .... .... ~ ~ u
.= :; ~ e 9
0
.., Q 5 e
0
! ...... N U U
~
.;,
I
I
III
>,
ro
"1:l
C
(11
+>
C
....
.s:;
+>
....
~
(11
u
....
~
+>
+>
III
(11
+>
(11
u
C
E
o
....
s..
(11
C.
"1:l
(11
ro
.....
,-...
.....
-
.
Centr'~ Contra Costa Sanitar'.. District
BOARD OF DIRECTOR~
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
December 4, 1986
NO.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
16
SUBJECT
ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WORK FOR PROJECT 20029, WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM - PHASE I,
AND AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
DATE
November 10, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
ACCEPT CONTRACT
WORK
SUBMJTTED BY .
Munawar Husaln, Associate Engineer
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Engineering Department/
Construction Division
ISSUE: Work has been completed on the Wastewater Treatment Plant Cathodic
Protection System - Phase I Project and this work is now ready for acceptance.
BACKGROUND: The contract work included the installation of anode systems,
pipeline isolation flange kits, electrical bonding of pipelines, and installation
of test ports and test stations at various locations inside the Treatment Plant.
Harco Corporation was issued a Notice to Proceed on July 22, 1986. The contract
completion date was November 20, 1986. All work has been substantially completed
by the Contractor. It is appropriate to accept the contract work at this time. A
detailed accounting of the project costs will be provided to the Board at the time
of project closeout.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for Project 20029, Wastewater Treatment
Plant Cathodic Protection System - Phase I, and authorize the filing of the Notice
of Completion.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
13:l~" .9.'65
~JjJt
MH
.~
f/!f(jJ
RSK
JSM
RAB
INITIA TING DEPT/DIV.
((0)
Centr: Contra Costa Sanitar District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Decembe r 4. 1986
NO.
VI.
CONSENT CALENDAR 17
SUBJECT
ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WORK FOR PROJECT 20014. SEISMIC
STRENGTHENING OF SELECTED BUILDINGS. AND AUTHORIZE THE
FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
DATE
November 25. 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
ACCEPT CONTRACT
WORK
SUBMITTED BY
Munawar Husain. Associate Engineer
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Engineering Department/
Construction Division
ISSUE: Construction has been completed on the Seismic Strengthening of Selected
Buildings Project and this work is now ready for acceptance.
BACKGROUND: The contract work included seismic bracing of selected equipment and
building e.lements in the Solids Conditioning Building. seismic strengthening of
roof connections and building elements in the Plant Operations Building.
installation of new concrete walls in Substation 82. and seismic strengthening of
roof to wall connection in the Inlet Building.
S. J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc., was issued a Notice to Proceed on
January 15, 1986. The contract completion date was October 13, 1986. All work
has been substantially completed by the Contractor. It is appropriate to accept
the contract work at this time. A detailed accounting of the project costs will
be provided to the Board at the time of project closeout.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for Project 20014, Seismic Strengthening
of Selected Buildings, and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
13:12"9/65 MH
RSK
/~
G~MGR/~IEF ENG.
ROG J. DOLAN
INITIA TlNji.lD1V.
~
RAB
.
Centra. ~ontra Costa Sanitar~ )istrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER I ee~~~~5~1!N~?F1986
SUBJECT
I PAGE 1
OF 3
NO.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 18
DATE
November 24, 1986
AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 86-30 (PLEASANT HILL) AND P.A. 86-31
(DANVILLE) TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO
THE DISTRICT
SUBMITTED BY
Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer
Parcel
No. Area
Owner
Address
Parcel No. & Acreage
86-30
P.H.
(47A6)
M. K. Mehta
580 Little Road
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
152-070-24 (0.6e Ac.)
86-31
Danville
(78D5)
H. Timmons
2717 Stone Valley Road
Danville CA 94526
196-020-005 (4.22 Ac.)
TYPE OF ACTION
ACCEPT ANNEXATION FOR
PROCESSING
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering Department/
Construction Division
Remarks
Lead
Agency
Existing house, owner wants CCCSD
to annex so that he can con-
nect to the public sewer
~hich is going to be con-
~tructed soon. District to
prepare "Notice of Exemption'
xisting house on property. CCCSD
; here is a potential to
plit property into four
ites. No plans to develop
t present. Owner wants to
ock in the $l,OOO/acre
nnexation rate. District
o prepare "Notice of
xemption"
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 86-30 and P.A. 86-31 to be included in a future formal
annexation.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT./DIV. /11# fl GPJiI;;;:' 'NG
~
ROGEl7.J DOLAN
1302,4 .9.'85 DH JSM RAB
~~ ,.~'''~~. ~
W'~::- L- i--1~') \:\
~ 'oL--- '~ ~.. 1:::. \"
I~k 00 ...-~, ':.
----;'1 L- \ '\-:""", 2"LY 2--\
, ~'40 _ ., ,~~~'>-:;;; 0
j w,. ... L- ,c-_ 'L- " " '"
~ 4 ~ l_lL '4 ~
I ~ ,".~~'~''''h' ~. I
~;'j1';~L-~~~ I. ~~~~,.,'
/" ~\....\...:i. .... IJ I.. ~('12.
..... :::.: 1
.... RAn TO "':"\::=
:. 6 53 1 AC :::::::::::
..... ::\::)
....i I ~::.:.:..
'.: l- Imm
<I ". ,-".:
,,!iiAatUB ,;.
P.NN f.J Ii-'~ ...~
\
d
-;4-
~\
'If,; )~
i 87 ~"~8;~
i ao~,
,..10'''.... \ ~ - 0 \,0 ,T I
\ ~I. \JQ.
",..M~If) J'1 ."!"
C "
1/ 48 I
"1~ ~ . i
,=,e -
:\ N ... .
COLLEGE PARK
23.79AC
T
I C'TV OF 1
PL~AN; JIl
V II.;;;A LL
DR /..' 1
-
..
dill. ,,*R
~ ~b ~
.. PREnETE"' 995" 99'
,..-_ : _M. .. .. . ...,.
- J t--lTT .~;::::,' · .. .." -- ~
\:~' N ~,~,,""" , .,.- 05-0.
:-/j.&flNf, ", .,;:: 'I f~:~~;~~;~~~
i'f /o.~'lJ ' "". ..,"""Joot" .:. '4i'.1'
~ .... ,~ T T L11f!~- '. '~6' ~,. ~
'- ,. "<h ,"'" 1"',,, "",,,,0-.' .' .. r '
,/"8 ~ t."1I- II ~ I.] " I005C'~
.' ~,.....' ,:;1 l"l~."'~' ._'A~~78l"'. A
'T~T :! ~r..--" .-11 2/ ....-T-r=T' ~"Y<:" 608 _OjJ".~85~.J:~"
-i'C;,1I1r\ 1 ']I ,,",.,
.-" .' ~,," "..,' ,- "
. '/f:.,;}, ..... ~"" 1250\ ,\'fT],...t ----f 13'5 606'"" .,~. -
~.,U' ~5 ,'~cJ,," .~i.~l6,() .:4,.82ci !; ·
., />c~" ,.-,' ..~
.' ~," , ." !'1~}~t . . ~
. - ," -,,- .. ~ . . .
.. _ ,,'''' ,~ _"> ' " J
I '.'/~ .-a" . " It R,;-;" 7 7",71" 'I ..
. .,." . L;' ,,,...' . ,.
~:,.ot.l 'r'.... ,.. - ~ ~ · ""-~5,ti~~i
>1..~"" ' "'. ~ .
.' _ V: . _' ,.' i~ .., ....<-:.' ~~
"" _ ~ ~ ._~ V<}' " GOR,' -,4 ~ ~~~""""",
~,..." ; tt.o,.' .,' ".~. _ ~ y, ~ N':=~ - ~~~'/I617ro TI...-~
"J'.., .~'" ' ","~ ~ ~'.' ~ .; y.", ,'....' '0'
,...i" '" .... '" ','g~' ""~,,T,01~ _' .. · T '"I. "..f2 r~2- \/ I - - ...U,
, ,.~. -'" ,>" ,;;r'l" ." r =~
f: ..., t.. , I J. ' " .iT- _ i -,; '- W , ,.", n, ,"" -'
'1' , ' "',"1" .,,", "",I. . " _co::, '... "~ T", [;hf~'-=- O.QRAI<..
" ..' .~. z" -'"" ' U ".~ ,. m .,'....... ..;;!J
,~,it'ft.- ,"'- -r "i"f"";; .~- 7 -:~Y""l~~' ~"" 238-1 ,~'6 ~ '35-. ;1.; ~ . ."
~. ~ 41 .. () ~ .~ "';I~ '-""2 .........H V ,,6 I' ,IU"G'E
~ / iJOti '"'~, -" '" '. ;:~:'oL -.;;-,~.." ...,,' ., .. "" ii<~ ~
:~:f~t:~':;,~'P:"" t:A?~~,','~J~:r~ :;-~r;'}~ .p ..-'I:,~
:~~_ :~_ -~'I':L'~~1 .~~j.~~;:"F,.i'~~d.;ll..J. ,'Jotm "'- ' =
, ,,/ _, -Ie- .11' V.!'J. 1..1""'1.'"' ,m."' ~ - .. -,,~
. . \ ,~ '- , ,..,'= ~,". ,. ~I 11 206 4 ,ATH"T.'
'-M · · ' - .""" , ", - ·
r" f,- :;. ". ,",g --n ff " 'L" ~"" "'i - -' =
sr"A/IIDWOOD e: !I!, ~~. "n~"" -r; ., ,!,,;/ tI 'L ~ -
SC/IIOtX I-!U ~ '--I'... ~ , ~,..., ",.. ">" ,. ..i1 ,," ,"
'. ',. "" --'- ' ,.1 - ,. ". =
. ....=. ". " ..!ii1, -'T"" _ iiiI --'- 'G ~~ 'GREG RY
~ " ",.'I~" .; .. ooj .... ~ .. ,. _ roo,;; I;" "" '" ",
- ,,' .. ".... ~ c- - """".,,;.. .~
',' " "." ... .. III ~ "11,'1"" "" - ~"l-""'" ". '..
1:: S U IIlj I,....oi LU.... <::l< ;.).. ~_....,.. ., · ;; ;" b"~c;...:- '"', ~ "'-
_ ,n rT,'i'l"f' . 'f7W' ~I.I. " ] ,,' ,"" -"- '
'~1I1 !3;]T _ '" ~"" "'.' < ." " " .' ",- .'~[SCA"NT HILL PAR~
uI CL& . .,. . ~" " · " -~ ". " ..,," ....;... .0
'J~~l:~'II'~'O~ .~~Jl IP':I"I~" ; ~\. ~::Il ...." "
I <}J, ." "i;.it ;
~~'lj r Ji \.-~O~~III' 'RUN r '[ ~ ~
'0 I!\ m, ~ . ~ 1 E1izo . I \- z, 10100"' 't I',
om'" ~I~( J-.l.>.Ii! L - ,,;, " .. ", =
.." L._ f"', ,n~ ~t
r-' 1:
PROPOSED AN~EXATION
AA. 86 -30
~
1 A '( LO~
T
\
1..18-'~b7
I
~..
I 455AC
42AC
4......
HUMPHPEY
I ;"O_7~ AC
~ti-
~~
8!SCHOF"~
t 2 90 AC
74
OSBOR~;
32 20 AC
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
~:,.~.:~: :1;~...~I1n
43.30 At
..-.
19.15
15 OAe
\
~....i/\...
.. .........
::-' .::......:'/......:.....::
.
Centri Contra Costa Sanitar- District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Decembe
NO.
VI.
CONSENT CALENDAR
19
SUBJECT
DATE
ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE CLOSE OUT OF THE SAN RAMON
CREEK BYPASS CHANNEL SEWER RELOCATION PROJECT IN
WALNUT CREEK CDP 4046) AND RETURN $4,959 TO THE
SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
November 24, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
INFORMATIONAL
SUBMITTED BY
Ron Klimczak, Senior En ineer
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Engineering Department/
Construction Division
ISSUE: All work has been completed on the San Ramon Creek Bypass Channel Sewer
Relocation Project in Walnut Creek, and this project can now be closed out.
BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(Flood Control), in conjunction with the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (COE), is now
constructing a flood control channel in the abandoned Southern Pacific Rail road
right-of-way between Arroyo Way and Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek. The
construction of this channel required relocation of sanitary sewer lines in four
areas (Holcomb Court, Creekside Drive, Carmel Court and Newell Avenue). The
sanitary sewer work included the permanent relocation of 1,530 lineal feet of pipe
ranging in size from 6-inch to lO-inch diameter and the installation of a new
30-foot deep twin barrel 8-inch siphon, various manholes and rodding inlet
structures and appurtenances, as well as a temporary pump station.
The Contractor, Mountain Cascade, Inc. of San Ramon, commenced work on May 14,
1986. The contract completion dates were July 31, 1986 for the Creekside Drive
work; August 7, 1986 for the work at Newell Avenue; August 21, 1986 for the
Holcomb Court work; and August 29, 1986 for the Carmel Court site. All contract
work was substantially completed on or before the specified contract completion
dates. The project was accepted by the Board on September 4, 1986.
The engineer's estimate for the construction cost was $228,450. Mountain
Cascade's origi nal construction contract was for $237,618. The total contract
amount paid to Mountain Cascade, Inc. was $240,706. There were three change
orders issued on the project totaling $2,158 for relatively minor additional work
items. The contract amount was further increased by an additional $930 because of
increases in field measured quantities of bid items paid at contract unit prices.
In addition, a purchase order was issued to Pacific Bell in the amount of $20,348
for the relocation of a major telephone duct that was in confl ict with the new
sewer al ignment on Creekside Drive. Pacific Bell did not advise the District of
the location of the telephone duct at the time inquiries were made during design.
There was no feasible alternative alignment possible; consequently, the extra cost
was unavoidable.
The total budget for the Project was $429,800. The total completed project cost
was $424,841, which is $4,959 less than budget. Staff is closing out the project
which will result in $4,959 being returned to the Sewer Construction Fund.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIA T1NG DEPTlDIV.
~
1#1
1302. .9!~5
RSK
JSM
RAB
SUBJECT
ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE CLOSE OUT OF THE SAN RAMON CREEK
BYPASS CHANNEL SEWER RELOCATION PROJECT IN WALNUT CREEK
(DP 4046) AND RETURN $4,959 TO THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
POSITION PAPER
2
OF
2
PAGE
DATE
November 24, 1986
Under the terms of a September 10, 1985 agreement between our District and Flood
Control, we will be reimbursed for all design, construction, and contract
administration costs associated with this project.
RECOMMENDATION: This item is presented to the Board for information only. No
action is necessary.
~-----_.
13028-9/85
.
Centre... Contra Costa Sanitar ~ District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Decembe r 4. 1986
NO.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 20
DATE
November 25. 1986
SUBJECT
ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE CLOSEOUT OF THE DISTRICT MEETING
ROOM LETTERING PROJECT (DISTRICT PROJECT 20048)
TYPE OF ACTION
INFORMATIONAL
S~e~T"~? ~averty
Purchasing & Materials Officer
INITLATING CEPt:T.lDIY.. /P h . &
~amlnlS ra~lve urc aSlng
Materials Control
ISSUE: All work has been completed on the District meeting room lettering project.
and this project can now be closed.
BACKGROUND: The project was requested by the Board and funding was approved at the
August 7,1986, Board meeting. Staff was authorized to have installed six inch
aluminum case letters with appropriate spot lighting on the north meeting room wall.
The contractor. Descriptive Signage. Inc. (DSI). commenced work on August II. 1986.
and finished the work as scheduled on October 14. 1986.
The project was completed for the budgeted cost of $1.917. Staff is closing out the
project. which will result in no increase or decrease to the Sewer Construction
Fund. .
RECOMENDATION: This item is presented to the Board of Directors for information
only. No action is necessary.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
.
Centri.. Contra Costa Sanitar. District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Decembe r 4. 1986
NO.
VI.
CONSENT CALENDAR 21
SUBJECT
SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 18. 1986 TO
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REVISING SECTION
2.04.030 OF THE DISTRICT CODE. COMPENSATION OF
BOARD MEMBERS
DATE
December 1. 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
SCHEDULE PUBLIC
HEARING
S~cTeD~~ McMillan
Secretary of the District
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Administrative
ISSUE: Revisions to Section 2.04.030 of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District Code are required to conform to amendments to the California Health and
Safety Code effective January 1. 1987.
BACKGROUND: The District Code provides for compensation of Board Members in
accordance with the provisions of Section 6489 of the California Health and Safety
Code. At the November 20, 1986 Board Meeting, the Personnel Committee was asked
to review the section of the District Code dealing with Board Members' compensation
and to make a recommendation concerning amendment in accordance with revisions to
Section 6489 of the California Health and Safety Code. Following their review,
the Personnel Committee recommends that the Board of Di rectors set a public
hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance to reflect amendments to state law.
The proposed revisions to Section 2.04.030 of the District Code are attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Schedule a public hearing on December 18, 1986 to consider
adoption of an ordinance revising Section 2.04.030 of the District Code.
R VIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A.9/85
Efl\.-
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
JEM
JLH
2.04.030 Compensation of Board Members. Each Board Member shall
receive compensation in an amount not to exceed 3oveR~Y fivo one
hundred doll ars per day for each day's attendance at meeti ngs of the
Board or for each day's service rendered as a Director by request of the
Board, not exceeding a total of ~ six days in any calendar month
together with any expenses incident thereto, except as otherwise provided
by state law. W~QrQ 4 MQmbQr ~ ~ BOard ~ rQcQivei ~ ~ ~ ~
principal iource ~ income 4 ialary .fo.I: ier\ling .a. ~ full-time elected
official .()Q ..:t.h.e governing ~ ~ anotl:ler local agency, ..:t.h.e Melllber'i
cOlllpeniation sl:lall J:l.O.t exceed fifty dollari ~ .d.a.:Y .fo.I: .e.a.ch day's
attendance .a:t meeti ngi ~ ..:t.h.e Board ~ .fo.I: .e.a.ch day'i ier\l1ce rendered .a.
~ Director ~ req'l~it ~ ..:t.h.e Board, J:l.O.t exceeding ~ .total .of .:f.ou.I: ~ ~
~ calendar mOr::ltl:l, together ~ ~ expenses incident tl:lereto
COrd. 145, 1981: Ord. 130 (part), 1978: Ord. 126 (part), 1977: prior
code ~2-103)
.
Centrb. Contra Costa Sanitar ~ District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
NO.
VI.
CONSENT CALENDAR 22
SUBJECT DATE
AUTHORIZE AN EXTENDED THREE MONTH tJEDICAL LEAVE OF ABSENCE
FOR MICHAEL PARKINSON, MAINTENANCE CREW LEADER, EFFECTIVE TYPE OF ACTION
DECE~ER 7, 1986
AUTHORIZE LEAVE
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
John Larson, Mana er
ISSUE: Board Authorization is required for a medical leave of absence.
BACKGROUN>: Michael Parki nson has been off work si nce September 18, 1985 due to a
medical condition. He has exhausted his accumulated sick, vacation, and earned
overtime leave. Mr. Parkinson has applied for retirement, but requires a medical leave
of absence until a determination is made by the county on his reti rement application.
An extended medical leave of absence is requested for three months effective December
7, 1986.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize an extended three month medical leave of absence for Michael
Parkinson, Maintenance Crew Leader, effective December 7, 1986.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
LM7
.
Centr~ Contra Costa Sanita. District
..
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
I PAGE 1 OF 18
POSITION PAPER I BOARDMEED~~~~ber 4, 1986
SUBJECT
NO.
VII. ENGINEERING 1
CONSIDERATION OF FIXTURE FEES FOR ROSSMOOR
DATE
December 1, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
RATES AND CHARGES
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
ROGER J. DOLAN
GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
ISSUE: Consideration of fixture fees for Rossmoor was continued to December 4,
1986.
BACKGROUND: On August 21, 1986, the Board of Directors conducted a public hearing
to consider the proposed 1986-1987 Schedule of Fees. The decision concerning the
proposed fixture fees for Rossmoor was continued to September 4, 1986, to allow the
representative of the Rossmoor developer, UDC Homes, to submit their comments in
writing. At the September 4, 1986 meeting, the Board of Directors granted the
petition of UDC Homes to defer action on this matter pending further negotiation
between the developer and the District. At the October 16, 1986 meeting, it was
found that two members of the Board had potential conflicts that could prevent
them from acting on this matter. Counsel for the District was authorized to obtain
a written opinion from the Fair Political Practices Commission concerning the
potential conflicts and the procedure to be used in the event either or both Board
Members were precluded from voting.
Excerpts from the August 21, 1986 position paper concerning Rossmoor fixture fees
and related correspondence are attached hereto.
RECOMMENDATION: Adjourn to closed session pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(b) to consider an appropriate course of action.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG.
l)f;f;iJL
ROGE~J. DOLAN
130211.9/85
(UDC)
/ 1717 Rossmoor Parkwoy
PO. Box 2220
Walnut Creek, California 94595
(415) 932.3900
lJDe Homes
Limited Partnership
September 2, 1986
Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553-4392
Re: Proposed Rossmoor Fixture Fees
Dear Board Members:
At its August 21 meeting, The Board deferred action on the proposed
Rossmoor fee increase until September 4. UDC Homes was thereby given
an opportunity to present background and facts which, in our opinion,
strongly support our position of opposition to the proposed fee
increase.
Attached to this letter is a letter from our attorney, Allan Berland,
which outlines the history of the 1963 Agreement between Rossmoor
Corporation and The District, the 1965 Supplemental Agreement, and
several subsequent events. Since Mr. Berland's letter is in some
detail, I will not repeat its points. However, it strongly underscores
our position that the proposed fee increase is not consistent with
the 1963 Agreement and that the Agreement is enforceable.
Although we believe our position would be supported in any legal
action, we recognize that there is a wide and long-standing
disagreement between the parties. We believe, therefore, that it
is in both our interests to resolve this through negotiation rather
than the courts. Specifically, we propose that UDC Homes and The
District enter into negotiations as follows:
1. The Board defer action on the proposed fee increase for
a minimum of 90 days. Although we want this resolved quickly,
we be 1 ieve at leas t 90 days are needed. Further, tha t the
increase will not include our 72 unit Mutual 53 project
which is now being graded.
2. The fee for Mutual 53 would be consistent with the 1963
Agreement. Since each unit in Mutual 53 will have two baths,
we would .be agreeable, on this interim basis, to using the
appropriate 1963 two bath rate, adjusted for Rossmoor's
Listed on the New York Stock Exchange
Board of Directors
September 2, 1986
Page 2
current occupancy rate of approximately 1.49.
UDC Homes is conunitted to resolving this issue through negotiation,
and will make the time available to accomplish it. In addition,
we are prepared to negotiate a new agreement if it provides long-term
protection of any new agreed upon fee structure.
We appreciate your support of this interim means to resolve our
differences.
~
S. Comegys
Manager
LSC: jmb
Enclosure
cc: Allan Berland, Esq.
James Hazard, Esq.
Jim Kelley
. , a
'(l.. t'Lt.U((A
&0 ~ _ ~ ( l ~1~
" J
C.> "'~ V0 c,..b.'-"-'-" lA-J..-'-;V.
LAW OFFICES OF
ALLAN M. BERLAND
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING
601 CALIFORNIA STREET
TEL.EPHONE EXBROOK 7-6711
AREA CODE 415
SAN FRANCISCO 94108
August 29, 1986
Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California 94453-4392
Re: Rossmoor, Walnut Creek
Dear Members of the Board:
Larry Comegys has asked me to write to you on behalf
of UDC Homes Limited Partnership in view of the feelings
expressed by some Directors at the August 21, 1986 Board
meeting concerning the Rossmoor Agreement.
In order to understand the Rossmoor situation today,
we believe that it would be helpful to review some of the
history of the project and the District's Agreement with the
Rossmoor community. I am familiar with the history of
Rossmoor, having represented the Golden Rain Foundation
of Walnut Creek and the Mutual Corporations, the Rossmoor
homeowners' associations, from 1965 to 1968, and Terra Cali-
fornia, the developer, from 1968 to 1984. Since that time
I have represented UDC Homes Limited Partnership.
The Dollar Ranch was acquired by Rossmoor Corporation
in 1963, and masterplanned as an adult retirement community
of 10,000 moderate income dwelling units under Section 213
of the National Housing Act, as amended. In order to
Board of Directors
Page Two
August 29, 1986
satisfy the project's lenders and the Federal Housing
Administration (now the Department of Housing and Urban
Development), which was to insure the mortgages, certain
development requirements and costs had to be established
prior to the initiation of development. Accordingly,
Rossmoor Corporation entered into the 1963 Agreement for
the purpose of establishing the District's development
criteria to annex the Dollar Ranch into the District, and
to fix the development costs for sewage services for the planned
Rossmoor dwelling units.
The Agreement provided for the Dollar Ranch to be
annexed into the District, thereby increasing the District's
rate base, and Rossmoor Corporation was to construct the major
sewage facilities. All fees for connecting Rossmoor dwelling
units into the District's sewage system were based upon a formula
using the District's standard connection charge and the occupancy
ratio for the Rossmoor units. The Agreement covers the entire
development of the Dollar Ranch. Nowhere in the Agreement is
any time frame set forth in connection with this development.
e.g. see paragraphs 4(a) and 5(a) and (b). Indeed, the developer
was given the discretion to determine when the components
of the overall sewage system were to be completed in conjunction
with its development of the Dollar Ranch.
See paragraphs 2(b)
Board of Directors
Page Three
August 29, 1986
and 6 ( a ) .
Because the connection fees and other costs set forth
in the agreement ultimately impacted upon the entire Rossmoor
community, the Golden Rain Foundation of Walnut Creek and
all the Mutual Corporations were expressly made third party
beneficiaries of the District's Agreement with Rossmoor. See
paragraph 10(a)(iii).
In 1965, the District and Rossmoor executed a "Supplemental
Agreement Establishing the Time at Which Connection Rates Shall
be Determined." This Supplemental Agreement clarified the
intention of the parties under the 1963 Agreement concerning
whether connection rates for future Rossmoor dwelling units were
subject to change. The parties provided as follows:
"The connections charges provided for in the agreement
between the District and Rossmoor of September 5,
1963, referred to herein, shall be computed on the
basis of the rate schedule for connection charges
in effect at the time of the execution of said agree-
ment, namely September 5, 1963, and any changes in said
rate schedule subsequent to that time shall have no
effect on the amount of the connection charges made
pursuant to the agreement of September 5, 1963."
The purpose of the 1963 Agreement and 1965 Supplemental
Agreement, which were both drafted by the District, was to
establish the development requirements and costs for sewage
services for the planned 10,000 to 12,000 Rossmoor dwelling
units.
Board of Directors
Page Four
August 29, 1986
In 1980, the District affirmed the Rossmoor Agreement
in a Contra Costa Superior Court Action involving the District
and Terra California (Higby vs. Terra California, Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District et al., and Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District vs. Terra California et ale (No. 210228).
We realize that the District's costs have increased
since the Agreement was entered into, but a bargain was
struck between the District and Rossmoor to annex the
Dollar Ranch into the District and to have Rossmoor construct
the major sewage facilities to enable Rossmoor to pin down
its sewage costs for the dwelling units over the development
period. Utility districts have much the same situation when
they are faced with a need to pin down their supply costs, such
as for oil and gas. Sometimes, the shoe is on the other foot.
You may recall several years ago, the situation involving a
number of utilities who had entered into long-term supply
contracts with Westinghouse Electric Corporation for uranium
to be used for their power plants. The price of uranium sky-
rocketed in the 1970's, and Westinghouse found itself unable
to supply the uranium at the prices fixed by the agreements
without disastrous economic consequences. Accordingly, it
failed to fulfill the agreements. In spite of the extraordinary
and unexpected price increases, the agreements were upheld and
Board of Directors
Page Five
August 29, 1986
Westinghouse was obliged to pay hundreds of millions of dollars
to the utility companies and to deliver uranium at favorable
prices.
Our situation is more similar to a 1980 case (Robinson
v. Nevada Irrigation District, (1980) 101 CA3d 760) which
involved a water District that had entered into an agreement
in 1918 to supply water from a certain water source to a
user at $6 per acre. In 1972, 54 years later, the District
refused to supply the water at the $6 per acre rates and instead
supplied it at $30, its then current water rate for other users
in the District. In upholding the requirements of the 1918
agreement, the District Court of Appeals stated:
"It will no doubt be felt by some (certainly including
the District) that the result of this case is inequitable.
The short answer is that we are dealing with the
solemn and formal obligations of contract law.
The contract involved in this case is an excellent
illustration of the economic and legal hazards of
binding oneself, and especially one's heirs and
assigns, to a long-term binding agreement involving
the delivery of goods or services without inserting
provisions for adjustments due to inflationary or
deflationary economic cycles." Page 773.
The connection fees for Rossmoor units 5000-5999, using the
formula set forth in the Agreement, and the then existing
occupancy ratio of 1.49 occupants per unit,is $38.31 per unit.
See attached letter of David B. Wood. As of August 4, 1986
there were 5,598 occupied units with 7,862 occupants, for an
occupancy ratio of 1.40. Based upon this trend, it is antici-
pated that the connection fees for units 6000-6999 will be
Board of Directors
Page Six
August 29, 1986
$32-33 per dwelling unit.
The approximate 1000% increase proposed by the District
would have a substantial impact on the development of the
Rossmoor community.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act and case
law, an environmental impact report is required to address the
potential adverse effects of the proposed fee increase upon
the construction and sale of affordable housing, in particular
the regional housing needs of the elderly (Rossmoor is the
major retirement community in the Bay Area), and the substantial
public controversy involving the 7,862 residents of the
Rossmoor community.
Although I represent the developer of Rossmoor, I am also
representing the interests of the Rossmoor community, the
Golden Rain Foundation of Walnut Creek, and the Mutual Corpo-
rations, who were specifically made third party beneficiaries
under the Rossmoor Agreement because of their substantial
interest. The Rossmoor residents are solely dependent upon
the sales of new units:
(1) To retire the multi-million debt for existing
community facilities;
(2) To provide funds for the necessary additional com-
munity facilities;
Board of Directors
Page Seven
August 29, 1986
(3) To increase the resident base to share the substantial
fixed costs of operating the community.
Subjecting Rossmoor to an approximate 1000% increase in
connection fees would have a substantial adverse effect upon the
sales of new units in Rossmoor and, therefore, the pocketbooks
of the 7,862 Rossmoor residents.
In such event, we would be obliged to seek the enforcement
of the District's Agreement with the Rossmoor community along
with the ~olden Rain Foundation of Walnut creek, under the
joint defense provisions of a 1973 Agreement between Terra
California and Golden Rain Foundation of Walnut Creek, which
provides for the initiation and maintenance of appropriate
legal action, with both the developer and Golden Rain
Foundation of Walnut Creek as parties, whenever any action of
a governmental authority or utility company adversely effects
the planned development of Rossmoor.
We believe that it would not be in the interests of either
the District or UDC to become embroiled in a prolonged battle
between the District and the Rossmoor community.
The District has consistently regarded the Rossmoor
development as unique because of its planning and scope and,
on behalf of the Rossmooor developer, the Golden Rain Foundation
of Walnut Creek, the Walnut Creek Mutual Corporations and
Board of Directors
Page Eight
August 29, 1986
the 7,862 Rossmoor residents, we urge the Board to stand by
the Agreement it made with the Rossmoor community.
Very truly yours,
AMB/js
cc: Roger Dolan
James Kelly
James Hazard, Esq.
rr' '-) -r-) 1-") D C>:lll' -PC)ry) l' D,
~ c.. c:\" C \"_ J _ . Cl
$.itI.JO..CA.
~
Building America's Finest Adult Communities
October 30, 1980
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
P.O. Box 5266
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Re: CCCSD Agreement for
Rossmoor, Walnut Creek
Gentlemen:
This is to confirm the prior convers~tions between our
attorneys advising the District that the actual average
tenancy ratio of the Rossmoor, Walnut Creek project
("Dollar Ranch"), commencing with unit number 5000 is 1.49.
In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7(b) of the
Agreement for the project, any and all charges relating to
the addition or connection of a Rossmoor unit to the District's
sewage system, excluding the inspection and per acre annexa-
tion charges provided by the Agreement, should be computed
as follows:
$90 $38.31
3 . 5 - 1. 49
$38.31 = connection charge
We would ask that you notify your billing department of the
proper charges immediately to expedite the processing for
the addition of new units in the project.
In addition, we would appreciate your responding to our
request for a rebate of the prior excess charges the
District made in connection with the development of the
Rossmoor, Walnut Creek project. .
Sincerely,
TEwF~
ad B. Wood
President
DBW: la
cc: Allan Ber;1.'and, Esq. /
Please respond to:
o P.o. BOX 2220, WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. 94595 (415) 932-3900
02500 VILLAGES PARKWAY, SAN JOSE, CALIF. 95135 (408) 274-2871
Golden Rain Foundation
RD~A~~9gr
!f\ ;~:t r~ \~ 1 ,,~,. ~~::! TJJ
AUG 2 :J 1986
ecx,:>/l
SlOt';fooo/jRY OF THE r,:r::'!\,,.
August 29, 1986
Board of Directors
Contra Costa County Central Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California 94553-4392
Mr. President and Members of the Board:
We have been advised that the District has proposed a substantial
increase in the fixture fee charged for new homes in Rossmoor. We believe
that this level of increase, approximately five times those fees now paid,
is unwarranted, and potentially will have an impact on the sales rate of
new homes. Rossmoor's 7,800 residents rely on funds from new home sales to
1.) retire a several million dollar debt on existing community facilities,
2.) provide funds for essential new facilities, and 3.) increase the
resident base that shares fixed operating costs. We must be assured that
our responsibility to Rossmoor's residents will not be imperiled by the fee
increase.
We support the position of UDC Homes, and believe the provisions of
the 1963 Agreement between the District and Rossmoor Corporation are enforce-
able. The Golden Rain Foundation would be obligated, under joint defense
provisions outlined in an existing agreement between the Foundation and UDC,
to support any legal action on this issue. We hope no such action will be
necessary.
We recommend that the Board defer action on the increase in the Rossmoor
fixture fees. We recommend that the Board establish a six-month period in
which the District and UDC Homes negotiate a permanent solution to the long-
standing impasse on fees. We would support the negotiation of a new agree-
ment if it protected Rossmoor's interests and provided an agreed fee structure
for the approximately 1,200 units that remain to be built. In the interim,
we believe strongly that the existing fee structure should remain in place.
Since it is our understanding that only one project, the 72-unit Mutual 53,
will need permits in that period, we believe that to be a fair request.
RRM:ea
cc: General Manager
Bell, Rosenberg and Hughes
UDC Homes Limited Partnership
P. o. BOX 2070, DOLLAR RANCH STATION, WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94595 - 415 - 939- 1211
EXCERPTS FROM THE AUGUST 21,1986 POSITION PAPER
CONCERNING
ROSSMOOR DEVELOPMENT ARE ATTACHED
9. At this time, no change is being recommended in the septage disposal fees. As
part of the currAnt work to revise septage disposal procedures, new fees w 111
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 Di strict-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
Current
1985-1986
Fees
Recommended
1986-1987
fe.e~
(H) FI~RE FEES FOR ROSSKJOR
(H-l> l1v i n9 Units*
- 1 Bath Unit
- 2 Bath Unit
- 2-1/2 Bath Unit
$66.34
$88.43
$99.49
$281.25
$375.00
$412.50
*Assumes kitchen and laundry facilities
A-6
PART VIII
ROSSMOOR FIXTURE FEES (1)
A. DEFINITION
A fixture fee is the a.ount that a new user of the District's
sewerage facilities ~st pay for the privilege of using the available
treatment and disposal facilities owned an operated by the District.
The a.ount charged represents a prorated share of the average cost of
the capacity replac8llent. Plullbing fixtures are used to detenaine
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 ..st be based on
future Plant expansion costs. A prel i.inary analysis of current
fixture fee revenue and the cost of the future Stage 6 expansion
i nd i cates a 451 fee 1 ncrease would be requ 1 red to recover the cost
of the expansion (see calculation below).
Stage 6 U5 tG) expansion) = $43,450,000 .
Cost per gallon per day = $43.450,000/IS,000,000 ga1./day
= $2.90
Typ1cal s1ng1e f..ily residence contributes 225 gal/day
F1xture fee required = $2.90 per gal/day x 225 gal/day
= $652.50
Current Fixture fee for 2 bath un1ts = $450.00
Fee increase required = $652.50 - $450.00 (100) = 451
$450.00
· Does not 1nc1ude any outfall work
Further analysis of District-wide fixture fees is beyond the scope
of th1s rates and charges study but w111 be included in a forthcoming
analysis.
The scope of this part is to adjust RosSllOOr's fixture fees to
current D1strict-wide fees (prorated based on occupancy factors).
New residential 1 iving 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
The following fixture fees are recommended for Rossmoor.
-
Fixtures
Kitchen
Toil ets
lavatories
Bathtubs & Showers
Laundry Outl ets
Wet Bar, laundry Tray
L fvi ng Unit**
1 Bath Un it
2 Bath Unit
2-112 Bath Unit
TABLE 9
ROSSMOOR FIXTURE FEES
Occupancy
Factor*
Current
District-Wide
Fee
Recomend.
Rossmoor
Fee
Current
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 S 22.50 = S 18.75 S 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 S 22.50 = S 18.75 S 3.69
C-24
$66.34
$88.43
$99.49
* Current Rossmoor occupancy/District-wide occupancy for similar living
units
** Assumes kitchen and laundry facilities
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