HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 10-29-87
.
Centri.. Contra Costa Sanitar) District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 42
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
SUBJECT
NO.
IV.
HEARINGS
1
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ().! THE PROPOSED 1987-88
SCHEDULE OF FEES
DATE
October 27, 1987
TYPE OF ACTION
CONDUCT PUBLIC
HEARING
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
i neer
Division
ISSUE: A public hearing is required prior to the adoption of a new schedule of fees.
BACKGROUND: As part of the annual Rates and Charges review, District staff
has analyzed the available data for the cost of providing the services for which the
fees are assessed. An updated fee schedule has been developed and is recommended for
adoption by the Board.
A reduction in mainl ine inspection and IV inspection fees are proposed because of
recent actual cost experience and improved efficiency in the use of 1 abor and
equipment. Septage disposal and industrial permit fees are proposed to be increased
to reflect additional sampling, analysis, and staff time related to these activities.
other fees are recommended to be increased slightly to reflect the District's three
percent wage rate increase. In order to equitably recover District costs, several new
fees are proposed. These fees include plugging abandoned laterals, special discharge
permit, and a surcharge for multiple television inspections.
The information presented in Attachment A summarizes the findings and fees that have
been reviewed by District staff. Both the current charge and recommended revisions
are shown. Attachment B provides a comparison of fees charged by other agencies, and
Attachment C provides a detailed basis of the proposed 1987-1988 fees. Since the
October 15, 1987, submittal, Attachment A has been rewritten. A few pages in
Attachment C have also been revised as noted. Attachment B has not been changed.
Legal notice of the publ ic hearing on the proposed new fee schedule was publ ished on
October 20, 1987, in the Contra Costa Times. District staff has notified permitted
industries, waste haulers, representatives from the Building Industry Association of
Northern California, the Underground Contractors' Association, and the Association of
General Contractors of the publ ic heari ng date and suppl ied them with the necessary
documentation explaining the basis of the new fees. Only one response has been
received to date. Mr. Joe Bristol of Roto Rooter stated he did not have any comments
and would not be attending the Board meeting. If any further comments are received,
they will be presented at the Board meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing on the proposed new schedule of fees.
Consider, revise, as appropriate, and adopt the findings as set forth in Attachments A
and C. Consider approval of the proposed fee schedule and adoption of an ordinance to
be effective on or about November 16, 1987.
~J"A
Jt1A~
fCZ::
OGER J. DOLAN
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
1302A.9/85
BLB
JMK
Page )f 42
REVISED 10/27/87
ATTACHtlCNT A
SU~ARY OF FINDINGS AND SOiEOOLE OF FEES
The fees collected by the District from developers, contractors, and
users of the District's facilities are intended to recover costs incurred
by the District to provide service to the groups. This attachment
provides the summary of findings and proposed schedule of fees which have
been reviewed by District staff. Recommendations are noted in bold. The
findings and recommendations are as follows:
A. Development and Plan Review Fees*
1. The Development and Plan Review Fee has been analyzed to
determine actual District costs to provide this service. These
costs incl ude subdivi sion development review at the initi al
study stages as well as review of sewer plans and
specifications for new developments to ensure the design meets
the criteria established in the District's Standard
Specifications. The Plan Review Fee is reco_Bnded to be
adjusted 'to SO.85/f't. Can increase froll SO.16/f't. last year).
See A-l fee in Schedule of Fees.
2. Because of the increased efficiency in reviewing construction
drawings for conformance with District specifications, i't is
reco-.ended 'tha't subsequen't plan reviews be reduced by 18
percen't. See A-2 and A-3 fees in Schedule of Fees.
B. Construction Inspection Fees
1. For mainline projects, the District collects a Mainline
Inspection Fee and a Lateral Inspection Fee. A review of 88
mainline projects, which had been initiated and completed under
the existing rate structure, showed that District costs would
be recovered by collecting the Mainline Inspection Fee alone.
Mainline projects have a median of about 7 laterals per job.
If the $48 Lateral Inspection Fee is not charged for a median
size project, a contractor would pay $336 less in fees to the
District. For larger projects (several projects each year have
more than 100 laterals), the fee reduction would be much more
substanti al. Therefore. i't is rec:on8nded 'tha't a separa'te
la'teral Inspection Fee for .ainline projec'ts no't be charged.
2. It was also determined that current procedures had reduced TV
inspection costs by 54 percent because of higher productivity
from the TV inspection crews and more efficient use of existing
equipment. Since TV inspection represents about 36 percent of
* labor rates used to determine District costs for plan review and other
rates ref1 ect a 43 percent employee benefit overhead rate. At Board
direction, administrative overhead has not been included in any fee
ca1cul ations.
Page .") "f 42
REVISED 10/27/87
the Mainline Inspection Fee, the mainline fee could be reduced
by 19 percent. Therefore. i't is reca.ended 'tha't 'this fee be
reduced by 19 percerrt. See B-1 fee in Schedule of Fees.
3. La'teral inspections. ..nhole connections. and overti.
inspection fees are reco.ended 'to be increased 'to reflect 'the
3 percen't wage ra'te increase. See B-2. 8-4. and B-S fees in
the Schedule of Fees.
4. The inspection of structures fee is reeo.ended 'to be increased
fl'Oll $100 'to $150 'to recover 'the District's actual cos'ts in
inspecting these structures. See B-6 fee in the Schedule of
Fees.
c. Collection System Fees
1. 1V inspection fees which are not paid as part of the Main1 ine
Fee include initial TV inspections which occur on overtime or
TV reruns which occur on regu1 ar or overtime. These fees are
~nded 'to be reduced by approxi.'tely 19 percen't 'to
reflect increased efficiency and reduced labor and equipll8ll't
cos'ts. See 0-1 and c-6 fees in Schedule of Fees.
2. A new TV i nspecti on fee is proposed to recover the cost of
inspecting a mainline when the contractor chooses to split a
project into smaller segments. A surcharge for projects
segmented by the contractor would be assessed. I't is
rec:o.I8nded tha't 'the UIOun't of 'the surcharge be detel"llined by
CSO a't 'the ~letion of 'the project and would be based on 'the
actual cost of inspecting each 58g118n't of 'the project. A
credi't woul d be given 'the con'tractor for TV inspection fees
already paid. See 0-2 fee in 'the Schedule of Fees.
3. Sewer 'taps and dye 'tes'ts are ~nded 'to be increased 'to
reflect 'the 3 percen't wage rate increase. See 0-3. 0-4. and
0-7 fees in 'the Schedule of Fees. .
4. In order to reduce infiltration and inflow from private
1 ateral s, Oi strict specifications requi re that abandoned
laterals be plugged at the mainline. It is proposed that a new
fee be established to recover the cost of District personnel
plugging a lateral at the mainline when the lateral is
abandoned. Previously, this was done by the owner's demolition
contractor who may not be familiar with sewer construction.
The new approach is to have District personnel do the plugging
work. A Sewer P1 ug Fee woul d recover Di stri ct costs for an
encroachment permit, excavation, pl ugging, backfill, and
surface repairs. Typically, this will require a crew of three
ei ght hours to cornpl ete the work. The .-eco.I8nded fee for a
sewer pl ug is $1.300 and is condi'tioned on approval of a
District Code revision which will be considered by the Board on
Nov8llber 19. 1987. See c:HS fee in 'the Schedule of Fees.
D.
Right-of-Way ar ~iscellaneous Fees
Page I' f 42
REVISED 10/27/87
1. Fees for surveying. segregation of LID assesSll8nts. and
processing quit c1ai. deeds are recc..ended to be fncreased to
reflect the 3 percent wage rate fncrease. See 0-1. 0-2. and
E-3 fees 1n the Schedule of Fees.
2. It is proposed that a standard fee be established to recover
the cost of processing Real Property Agreements. Previously,
the fee was estimated, primarily for the cost of surveying.
Additional requirements should also be considered which include
the Real Property Special ist's time, site review, ferreting,
and televising the existing line. The ~nded fee for Real
Property Agreell8nts would be S8OO. See 0-3 fee in the Schedule
of Fees.
E. Industrial Permit Fee
1. The Industrial Permit Fee recovers the portion of the costs
allocable to individual industries for the administration of
the Industri al Pretreatment Program. Because of fncreased
s~p1ing. ana1ysfs, and staff tf~ related to a~fnfstratfon of
the progr.. and deal fng wfth specfffc fndustrfes. ft fs
recc:I..ended that these fees be fncreased by an average of 18
percent. See F-l and F-2 fees in the Schedule of Fees.
2. A new fee is recommended to recover the cost of investigating
and processing special discharge requests. These requests
range from clean water discharge for swimming pools to
wastewater from industrial holding tanks. This permit fee will
enabl e the Di stri ct to control these di sCharges more
effectively. Also, the District will be able to recover actual
costs involved in insuring that the discharge complies with the
Source Control Ordinance. The Specfal Dfscharge fee would be
$30 when an on-sfte fnspectfon fs not required, or $175 when an
on-sfte fnspectfon fs required. See F-4 fee in the Schedule of
Fees.
F. Septa~e Disposal Fees
1. It is proposed that septage disposal fees be increased to
recover the District's costs in administering and enforcing the
trucked-in waste program. This will allow the District to
recover the full cost of billing the waste haulers each month
and verify permit and waste source information. The greatest
percentage increase fs for the annual per'llft which fs
recc..ended to be increased fro. $100 to $350. The fixed cost
per truck load is reccl..ended to be increased froll S7 .00 to
S7 .50 for trucks less than 2.000 gallons' capacfty and frOll
$21.35 to $31.00 for trucks greater than 2,000 gallons'
capacfty.
2. Previous Board policy and staff recommendation was to keep the
volume charge low for grease interceptor waste to help
encourage restaurant owners to pump thei r grease interceptors
more frequently. The vo1a.e charge for trucked-fn waste
(excluding grease interceptor wastes) fs recGllll8nded to re.ain
unchanged at SO.05 per gallon. The vo1u.e charge for grease
interceptor waste is reon..anded to re.afn unchanged at SO.Ol
per gallon.
SCHEDULE OF FEES
Activity
(A) DEVELOPMENT AND PLAN REVIEW:
(A-l) Development Review and 2
Preliminary + 1 Final Plan
Reviews
(A-2) 3rd & Subsequent Preliminary
Pl an Reviews
(A-3) 2nd & Subsequent Final Plan
Reviews
(B) CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION:
(B-1) Mainline Inspection
(B-2) Lateral Inspection
(B-3) Side Sewer Repair Inspection
(B-4) Inspection of Manhole Connection
(B-S) Overtime Inspection
Weekends & Holidays (4-hour min.)
Overtime Inspection Credit
(B-6) Inspection of Structures
(MH or RI>
(C) COLLECTION SYSTEM:
(C-l) TV Inspection:
- TV Overtime - In1t1 al
- Weekends & Holidays
(4-hr. min.)
- TV Overtime - Initial -
Credit
- TV Rerun
(2.S-hr. mi n. )
- TV Overtime Rerun
- Weekends & Holidays
(4-hr. min.)
(C-2) Multiple TV Inspections
Current
, 986-87
Fees ..
Page 5 of 42
REVISED 10/27/87
Recommended
1987-88
Fees
SO.76/ft. SO.85/ft.
($304 mi nimum) ($304 mi nimum)
$38 each * IlJ.lm~~ii.tI
SS7 each * ~~iDlt~i.aiI
See Table A-1
$48 each
$10 each
S48 each
$41/hour
$164
See Table A-2
$100 each
$1,044/day
$1161 hour
$464
$0.41/ft.
$170 + $991 hr.
($418 min.)
$170 + $116/hr.
$634
* IIIiIliijUiIIli.[i1
$S2 each
No Change
$52 each
$42/hour
$168
No Change
$150 each
* 1111111;11[\[\\:
* mD1.im
* \:i!f:i\1.t[it~I
*lllllI11~lll~[I~lll
* i:\lii.jJ1IIIj)liftt~\\\
* ::::t:E.1i~:::
::::~::::
* Surcharge
~OTE: Activities indicated in bold type are proposed new or revised fee
~tegor1es, and fees indicated in a box are proposed to be reduced for 1987-88.
Activity
(C-3) Sewer Tap
(C-4) Dye Test
(C-S) Collection System Repair
(C-6) TV Inspection Cancellation
(Initial and Rerun)
(C-7) Sewer Tap Cancellation
(C-8) lateral Plug
(0) RIGHT-OF-WAY:
(0-1) Segregation of LID Assessment
(0-2) Processing of Quitclaim Deeds
(0-3) Preparation and Processing of
Agreements Relatfng to Real
Property
(E) MISCELLANEOUS:
(E-1) Engineering for Private Sewer
Proj ects
(E-2) Soils Evaluation for Private
Sewer Proj ects
(E-3) Surveying
(F) INDUSTRIAL PERMIT FEE:
( F-l)
Annual Permit Fee
Page 6 of 42
Current
1986-87
Fees
$171 each
SS6/ each
Based on actual
cost
$198
$54
S32/Parce1
$28/hour
($84 mi n. )
Estfmated
Hourly Rate
REVISED 10127/87
ReCOlllllended
1987-88
Fees
$176
SS8
No Change
* 0'1fi(
$56
* $1300
$33/Parce1
$29/hour
($87 min.)
* $800
Estimate required No Change
Based on actual No Change
cost
$100/hour $103/hour
Fee based on
actual cost of
service for prior
fi sca 1 year.
Annual permit fee
for 1986-87 varies
from $1108 to
$2049.
Fee based on
actual cost of
service for
pri or ff sca 1
year. Annual
permit fee for
1987-88 varies
from $1212 to
$2419.
Page "7 ')f 42
REVISED 10/27/87
Current
1986-87
Activity Fees
(F-2) Concord Industries
Annual Permit Fee
Recommended
1987-88
Fees
F1 rst year fees
based on average
cost for s1m1-
1 ar 01 strict
1 ndustr1 es.
Subsequent
'years based on
actual cost of
service.
Annual permit
fee for 1987-88
var1 es from
S1401 to S2367
(F-3) New Industrial Permit Fee
Fee based on
actual District
cost pri or to
connection
(SSOO m1 n1mum)
No Change
(F-4) Special Discharge Pe,..it Fee
- No On-site Inspection
- On-site Inspection
(G) SEPTAGE DISPOSAL:*
* $30
* $175
(G-1) Annual Permit Fee
S100
S350
(G-2) Disposal Charge
- Domestic Waste
<2,000 gallons/truck
>2,000 gallons/truck
S7.00 + SO.OS/ga1.
S20.3S + SO.OS/ga1.
S7.S0 + SO.OS/ga1.
S31.00 + SO.OS/ga1.
S31.00 + SO.OS/ga1.
- Non-Domestic Waste
*Grease interceptor waste will be charged the same fixed cost depending upon truck
capacity, but the volume charge is SO.01/ga1.
PROJ ECT
LENG11-I (FT)
0-100
101-200
201-300
301-400
401-500
501-600
601-
(
TABLE A-I
MAINLINE INSPECTION FEE
1986-87
MAINLINE INSPECTION FEE
$300 + $3.001 ft.
$350 + $2.501 ft.
$450 + $2.00/ft.
$525 + $1.751 ft.
$625 + $1.501 ft.
$750 + $1.25/ft.
$810 + $1.151 ft.
TABLE A-2
Page P f 42
1987-88
MAINLINE INSPECTION FEE
1987-88
OVERTIME MAINLINE INSPECTION CREOIT*
Total Project Overtime
Overtime Hours Credit Hours
< 4 1
4 < < 8 2
8 < < 16 4
-
16 < < 32 6
32 < 8
*Credit to contractors when Oi strict inspectors are requi red to work overtime.
en
m ~
i I
c !
.t
1;;_
81.
1;;
.-
L.Q
+>
I:
8.
+>
1;;~
..
.en
-
Q
e5111
A 8
--
:.;l;
l!~
,..
"0 Q
-8 en
J~~
......11I
~I
..... II..
.:
.
en
I
-
>
i
.
1;:
o
r-
.D
.
-
Q
1
.
+>
:!
11'I00
""11'I0
..:;;~
.
11I1.
11I1) S
1)r-
r- L.
0\0
00\
NIO
Ir-O
II'INr-
"0
I::
.11I
.DS
!Cil
~-
r-t>
~.f
~I:'"
coo
~
.
~ i
- Ii
-
. I:
+> -
"'+>E
.....-
011I0
~ &.!i
0."
.. "0 ....
t
+.....
N
11'I r-
C\'\ .
"0
~
I
-
J
o
lQ
..
i
Ii
-
. I:
+>-
"'E
.....
In"
coo
.C\'\
OM
.. ....
*
..
I:
.
No:
"0
I:r-
. .
I:
Ii:
-
>.-4
.
0::+
+>>.
I: I.
l~ III
~~I
....-
> . >
!~!
~
~
>
~
i
It
Q
i
~
~
..J
loJ
~
Q
.....
r-
.I:
....
.....
<
....
&. r-
U.
. I:
.0
-
o+>
11'I-
M "0
"0
<
&.
U
.
.
.-4
~
>.
L.
.
I:
-
E
-
...
.
L.
D..
+>
I:
.
~
fill
11I1
.D-
~ >
en.
0::
..,
C
"0.
;;0:
r-
.
~
t
.
c
o
"0
11;;
:S
&.
U
.
.
r;
..
.....
N
.I:
c
.
0:
...
.
c
-
II..
~
.
~
f
III
.D
~
enUl
..,1
-
"0>
~!
.....
C\'\
J:
..
!
~
~
~
en
Z
~
,..
CD
....
.
-
+>
II
loJ
011;;
~S
"'''0
0$
~I
Page 9 ')f 42
"0
:l ~ ... $
~!~:~~;i ~ ii
"0+ j.D . ~"'Ul
_ L......c r-O+>
1II . o. In U 1II
!lQ~ 1n'Q. ~
~ lit. 0 L
+> .-8' .. U 1II+> 0
_ Cl... I: ~.I. "0 :i :c 1II C'"
+>C"O.D 8cc5f~I-.0"O
~~:.;+> ~ -~ ~~fl.
=-.............,. ..... .::s.. .eau..
.....0!"0_L. Oc.....sr +>e..~
- 0 0 · t .a - · Go sr'"
~::::;;... t:~i: !+> ~ t e
+ +L. OUE+>L..C- e.
2i8$ U~__OGo:l 1II
~>... Mb1;;&.1IIL:...2::1~
..O~. ~1II. e.ol....+>
.....
I
.a
:E
cI
~
'i
E
.-
+>c
... -
.....E
o
1n0
...
0"
.. ....
...
.
L. .
. 1II
+>~
.0
r- &.
lQ~
....
&.
U
.
.
lQ
M
lQ
..
:i
.
r-
.D
~
&.
U
.
.
N
In
..
J
C
o
t
.
Q.
1II
C
....
g
1._
Ot
c!
o 1II
_C
t~
.c
co
c-
8t
.$
1II...
~<
~L.
.
~I
.en
L.
. .
+>"0
.-
..Jen
~
-
...
C
-
l.
.....
r-
ell
.....
N
ell
&.
U
.
.
.....
~
..
&.
U
.
.
.....
lQ
..
&.
U
.
.
o
r-
..
C
o
t
.
Q.
1II
C
~
I.
-
III
C.
CD
0::
I.
Gl
I
en
Gl
"0
-
en
:E
c:
&.
.....
In
l'l
..
c:+
&.
.....0
In",
C\'\...
....
1 1 I
&.
U
.
Gl
N
In
..
Gl
I. ...
:l .D
~ ~
.....co
~~I
.. .. en
g
t
~
C
8
,..
.
C
-
Ii
I.
~+>
0-
&. "0
-A-f
....0
g ~5
_11I_
t~t
!'O!
1II:1: 1II
I: I:
......,....
Gl
...
o
&.
C
l
...
o
c
o
t
Gl
e.
III
I:
....
I"Gl
"OE
_1:_
+>Gl+>
L.,lj: I.
GlIGl
~.~
,..
..
ell
.....
In
ell
&.
U
.
Gl
....
o
In
..
N
J:
&.
U
:
o
In
r-
..
I
...
o
I:
o
-
t~
~o::
I.
+>L.
1II 0
C
8i
....
c
o Gl
_I.
t~
!g
1IIL.
I:+>
~ en
.....
~
ell
c.
,...
~ 0
CD U)
iCIJ~
lor-
8"" III
CD CIJ :
a:~&&..
.t
t:_
8'-
t:
.-
L.O
+J
C
8.
+J
t:'C
CD.
.U)
.
C
.
U)
I
-
>
i
~
-
o
e511l
~8
--
~>
AL.
6~
o
~
A
.
-
o
.L
+J
8
-
>
-
~
..
x
~
U)
>-
U)
!
...
b
W
..J
S
o
-
~1IIt:
C~ 8
-CD
~!l
CD-+J
~Cll.
::ICE
~W-
g...t:
....OCD
~
CD L.
.1:::1
g ~,g
~
L.Cll
OC
...-
. ~
+J L.L.
... ::10
...... O.
11\"".1:
,... ....... C
.CII\.
0-,....1:
"'E"'+J
III
L.CD
...1;
0__
M ~t:
II\WCD
~
L.
::I
o
.I:
.....
11\
,...
...
...J'-\
"'--"-. ^~
,~' '....~ -- '"\
i
..... .
let
.
00
+~
0'-
lQ~
...0
>.'-
. ::I
~o
......1:
N.....
,...~
~...
10
CI'l
~
..
C
o
t
CD
CL
III
C
....
~
.
-
+J
-
C
...
I
CD
E
-
+J
L.
CD
~
~
III
>.
.
~
-
~...
IItIC
-
III E
~
c .
CD L.
~ .I:
I~
.....
~
,...
~
i
......
,...
...
.
o
...
~
.
-
+J
-
C
...
I
CD
E
-
+J
L.
CD+J
~~
~b
L.
::I
o
.I:
.....
o
11\
...
.
L.
.I:
.....
,........
~C
-
+ E
oeo
ION
_CI'l
... ...
-
.
L.
.I:
.....
~
...
+
o
10
-
...
C
::I
L.
I
~
C
::I
'-
I.
CD
E
t
CD
~
~
o
C
L. I
OCL
t~
.
L. III
+JCD
C ~ I
8=...
C
o
t
CD
CL
III
C
-
-,...
>.
lQ'C
"'0
~
.
...
.I:
U
.
CD
.....
10
,...
-
...
III
>.
.
~
-
i,...
IItIC
-
IIlE
~
C .
CD L.
~.I:
I~
.....
CL
III
....
'-
CD
J
,...
N
~
I
...
-i
t:
II
-i
.I:
U
.
CD
.....
eo
11\
...
1;;
~
-
~ 8
,... ,...
& ~
pag "0 of 42
.
L.
Cll
C
W
...
ot:
~8
-
III
::I
t
.
c
o
~U1
It:
:8
-
.
::I
~
~
~
It:
:8
..
..
-
...
L.
-
.
CL
I.
c
o
-
+J
.
-
Be
C ::I
l!'-
I.
g~
_c
till
l';
Ul_
C+J
... -
C
~:::
I
t:
~
c
o
~
,...
~
Pa~ 1 of 42
"
~t CD
c+'
Ill.... ...."'CD
8L. I EE+'
t: .... &J. III ....Ill
10.... t:1II L.O ~ ~ lQi~1
L.O 1Il~ 101 L. > tilt ~~
+' ~ +' 0.... ..
C g8 u~~ tL.L.~ ..... ?n-
8", OIL. Q.CDCD +,oOS
+'....0 fill! I....
+' ~~ ~L.. ....M L.
+'.... 1$ +'CD............ !l"'l+'CD
IIlC L.>. CL.OI>1ll III .
GlIO 1010 8 o III 8:Cift: .fs81
:aU) CDE .....
I~
,;,
III
U)
I
....
>
i >.~
GIGI
c...
GlL.... -....
L.O.... L.....
Ill+'~ IIlGl'"
. III +' f!t:
t: ~ ~llliL. .... ....
.... GI,a.... CD ~OI>.
0 01 L.i~
~1Il L. C t: L. g-
l'iii I~GI'" 1G11
A:5 GI .c GI
011I 0 L. ~ > ~1i:1
.... .... i~ .... ... L. oS
~~ .... IIIGI GI>....
i'....~ >.... >
6~ c!t. i fCO c!L.GI
.... "'+' Q.L.
(r.~
0
...
l ~
'"
-
0
.I.
+'
...
c!
~
f ...
.... III
:J :J
~ C ~ ~ t
ico~ u ... ,.. III
;: 8 . L.
L. C ~ g :II
\D L. :J_ 0
J~"'" '" C III 0& ~
tilt C a.. ~ E ~ ,
,....11I '" , ,,... C - It: S
col .. '" ~~ 2 +'
~I&.. ... ~ III :8 ...
tilt tilt ..... tilt W tilt
+' III .... '-
C ~ 0 CD
I 8 ... I CD
0111I 1i:
III ~l U)
III >
C CD E III CD ....
0 III - 1Il,a 1i: '-
- III III ~OI a..
1i: c ... >
U .... L.
... 0 +' L.C L. 0
... .... - a...... a.. ....
S .... a +'
'alii '- g
C .... c.... 0
~ 0 .... III GI .... ....11I
01 0 0:: +'+'
:J g gill 01 :~
a. 0: 01 C
{!!. .... C ....+' .... ... ....,
+' - +'C>. '- III 11I0 01
... '" III "'CD+' - I~ > L. C
'- III ~ 01 III L.IL. U) wa.. ....
'- GI ~ III III 8 t-
GI $ '- a. a. - .., III '-
! , 01 III '-0 W 010 ...CD >
III ~ '- 01 '- ~ C '- -. '-
.... ~ a.. a..Ca.. Wa.. ~~ :J
.... U)
~ ....
,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ~ ...
~ & ... :!: :!: ... ,.. ,..
~ .! U) I N "jl
.... W I
- 0:: :IE ..... w w
> ..... .....
-
~ Q ,..
w
..... .....
t
-
d~
'11-
L.O
+>
C
8;
+>
~c
1)'11
;a en
-
Q
a:
en III
.!:S
--
~t
5~
o
....
l. ~
I
'II
+>
8
"g C
I) en
ico~
lor'"
e,... III
~~ I
a:.....1L.
o
C
'II
en
I
-
>
i
t
-
>
~
1)$
U
c_+>
-~1II
"g18>.
-I I) l:;
:;OL.OlIII
,...I)L.:;O
ul'II"g
C ~ C
.... u-
,...
'II
-
L.
t:
:;0
"g
C
-I
:i~
Ol
C
-
'Q.
E
IX..
g~
I)
"g:;O
!l
CD'"
.N.O
\oN.N
~';'a..";
....;!le~
C'l'\
.... .... M M
I I I I
r-.- >. >.
-O"r-r-
:;o:;o~~
cC+,1)
CCCI)
<~i;a
J
L.
o
-
"'L.
oa.
g+,L.L.
1ft 0 'II
'0 8'" I)
8l >.
....8.-
.,Q '11- 'II
:;0 > U
.+'L.1ft
.Ul)-
IL. 'II 1ft ...
o.
W
~
I-
....
:IE
a:
~
:
+'
f
:.
,...
'II
:;0
C
C
<
..l
<
....
~
en
;
....
... ...
....'ON
I C I
IL. 'II IL.
... .....
...
IL.
...
"gCD
I)+'
+''11
'II>E
E- 1II
-L.1;;
i;~
... L.
O~I)
~81
t ...
g't$ !
~L.c.!
"g_ooc
Ic............
'II...atE
.,Q'II 1)0
:;o+'co
It 1ft 6~
IL.'IISu...
*
I
IL.
+'
f
:.
>.
L.
+'
1ft
:;0
'0
C
....
I
T
IL.
i
IL.
+'
E
:.
I)
Ol
L.
'II
~
U
III
-
o
....
'II
-
u
i
en
...
T
IL.
o
C'l'\
M
C
o
t
I)
a.
1ft
C
-
$
-
III
I
5
:i
III
....
..-
M
g
t
i
III
C
-
$
-
III
I
8
..
..l
<
~
en
....
Q
W
Cl
t
w
en
c:;
...
o
III
~
:
+'
E
:.
..-
'II
:;0
C
C
<
...
,...
c!,
I)
~
:l+>
'II
+'
g&
'II+'
III +' C
t a. 'II
~I'Q.
~
.
~
:l
+'
g I)
1ft
1ft'll
A~
I)
~
:l1i:
2&
'II+'
1ft +' C
t Cl. 'II
~8l'Q.
f'-I'-\
I)
Ol
L.
'II
t3
I)
~
'II
;a
U
-
1;;
I)
~
Ci
1ft
o
a.
1ft
-
Q
...
N
c!,
o 0
..- ,...
'11'11
Ol Ol
........
III III
00
o 0
00
M M
++
00
III 0
o 0
....,...
M C'l'\
M
~~
u u
:;0:;0
L.L.
+'+'
........
o 0
..- ..-
'11'11
0l0l
00
00
~~
NN
V^
Pa 12 of 42
"l:J
CD
!
~
1ft
III
~
t
:;0
1ft
L.
I)
~
~
o
I
-
f
+'
C
I
o
,...
I)
>
-8
I)
"l:J
:;0
g
+'
g
.a
t
-
L.
~
-
Q
t-
'II
+'
-
C
'II
en
;
D
)
:.'
o
....
'II
Ol
....
III
o
.
o
M
+
o
o
o
..-
~
.i
>'E
o 8l i
i! ...
1ft
"l:J-+'
C~-
'II E
L. I)
.0 a.
1ft...
S"l:J to
-I)+'
> Ollft
L. L. :;0
1)'II"l:J
CI)~c
u-
I!!
a: I)
~'II
c;L.
~CDOL.
.\:'0'" ,..
_co
..-'110
.,Q III
:;0 . M
Q8l111
.01)
0'" Ol
""c;
.,Q'II~
:! en u
o . C
:l~~
..-~;
c!o~
L.+'''O
0:;0..-
...CI)
..- -
'II'"
Ift;a L.
i+>';
.... 'II IL.
. ~*
+'*
.~
~~:..,.
CD
+>
III
'II
:a
u
-
+'
i
"l:J
I
C
:i
Page ," of 42
ATTACHMENT C
DETAILED BASIS OF FEE RECOMMENDATIONS
PART I
DEVELOPMENT AND PlAN REVIEW FEES
A. DEFINITION
The Development and Plan Review Fee is required to reimburse the
District for its review of developer sewer pl ans to ensure the
design meets the criteria established in the District's Standard
Specifications. Comments on designs are made with the intent that
when the p1 ans are ready for construction approval, all required
changes have been made.
B. 1986-87 FEES
The 1986-87 plan review fees are as follows:
Two preliminary and one final plan review
$0.76/ ft.
($304 mi nimum)
Third and subsequent preliminary plan reviews
$38.00 each
Second and subsequent final plan reviews
$57.00 each
C. DISOJSSION
In past years, estimates of plan review costs were determined from
interviews with staff members involved with plan review. Estimates
of time involved in plan review were determined from estimates of a
percentage of total work effort or as an estimate of average hours
spent per project.
In July 1986, District staff involved with this activity began
chargi ng thei r time to a specific Operati on and Mai ntenance (O&M)
account number. This enabled actual costs to be determined from the
O&M account balance.
Between July 1986 and July 1987, total staff costs, including salary
and benefits, were determined to be $69,300. During this same time
period, 100 projects were reviewed total 1 ing 112,000 feet.
Therefore, the cost per foot was $69,300/112,100 ft. = $0.62 ft.
It is proposed that for 1987-88 Di stri ct costs be recovered for
subdivision development review. The subdivision development review
effort is usually the initial contact between the District and the
developer. The developer's initial concepts are reviewed and
1 nformati on 1 s shared with the developer on items such as the
District's Hillside and Creek Crossing Policies. Also, an initial
sewer capacity assessment is made by the District. Since
development and pl an reviews are closely rel ated, the development
review is recommended to be incorporated with the a1 ready
established Plan Review Fee.
_._'------_."._._-~--,-<-~-~-~,.._-,-,~-_.._~_._.._-,._,---_._'_.._-_._----_._~-,---_._------
Page 111 of 42
REVISED 10/27/87
The annual cost of subdivision development reviews has been
estimated to be S26,300. This is estimated to result in an
incremental review cost of $26,3001112,100 ft. = $0.23/ft.
Therefore, the total Development and Plan Review Fee is SO.62/ft. +
SO.23/ft. = SO.85/ft.
Staff will establish categories for other types of development
reviews such as for county and city plan amendments and governmental
agency projects. Costs will be determined during the upcoming year
for these additional categories.
Because of the increased efficiency in reviewing construction
drawings for conformance with District specifications, it is
recommended that subsequent plan reviews be reduced by 18 percent.
D. RECOMMENDATION
Incl ude development review in the initial Pl an Review Fee. Revi se the other
Pl an Revi ew Fees to refl ect actual costs to the Di stri ct. The new fees a re as
follows:
Development review and two preliminary and
one final plan reviews
Third and subsequent preliminary plan reviews
Second and subsequent final plan reviews
SO. 851 ft.
($304 minimum)
S31.00 each
S47.00 each
Pa~ ' 5 of 42
PART II
CONSTRUCTlON INSPECTION FEES
A. DEFINITIONS
1. Mainline Inspection
Fee required to reimburse the District for the costs incurred
in the field inspection of sewer installation projects by
developers. The mainline inspection fee includes the cost of
the initial TV inspection.
2. lateral Inspection
Inspection fee required to cover District costs associated with
inspecting the install ation of a private 1 atera1 or house
connection into a mainline or a side sewer alteration (e.g.
installation of restaurant grease interceptor, etc.).
3. Side Sewer Repair Inspection
l
4.
Fee required to compensate the District for the costs involved
in inspecting a side sewer repai r. (If more than ten feet of
1 ateral is rep1 aced, a side sewer alteration permit is
requi red.)
Overtime Inspection
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., weekends, and District
ho'lidays). Overtime inspection may be requested if a
contractor is attempting to finish an installation by working
late or is involved with an emergency repair.
5. Inspect 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. Inspection of Manhole Connection
Inspection fee required to cover District costs associated with
inspecting the installation of a private lateral into an
existing manhole by a private contractor. Contractor work
includes breaking into the wall of the manhole at the elevation
of the manhole shelf.
Pa9 '6 of 42
B. W\INL INE AND LATERAL INSPECTION
The mainline and lateral inspection for subdivisions are discussed
together because the time inspecting each is not recorded
separately. A comparison of fees charged ys. actual cost is only
valid when all fees are considered.
1. 1986-87 Fee
The 1986-87 mainline inspection fee is as follows:
TABLE 0-1
1986-87 Mainline
Inspection Fees
PROJ ECT
LENGTH (FT)
FEE
$300 + $3.00/ft.
$350 + $2.50/ft.
$450 + $2.00/ft.
$525 + $1.75/ft.
$625 + $1.50/ft.
$750 + $1.25/ft.
$810 + $1.15/ft.
0-100
101-200
201-300
301-400
401-500
501-600
600-
L.
The above fee structure was first approved on September 1, 1985
and remained unchanged 1 ast year. The fee was not adjusted
last year because a larger data base was needed to provide a
valid comparison between fees collected and accrued cost. The
basis of the fee structure is summarized as follows:
a. The data included actual construction inspection time for
131 projects.
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 television inspection costs included 63
projects. A best fit correlation of the time required to
televise these projects was found to be:
Hours = 2.43 + 0.0041 X project length (ft.)
f. The average television inspection production was
determined to be 1,100 ft./day. This assumes the lead
line was not left in the pipe by the contractor.
l
Pa9 ' 7 of 42
g. Costs for television inspection included direct salary and
a 43 percent employee benefit overhead rate for a
supervisor (one hour/day) and a crew of three ($608/day).
h. other television inspection costs included the capitalized
and operation and maintenance expenses for the lV van
($174/day) and other equipment such as a pickup truck and
water truck C$10S/day).
The 1986-87 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 lateral,
house connection, or alteration.
b. Di rect 1 abor and a 43 percent employee benefit overhead
factor.
c. Pickup truck rental rate of S6.20/hour.
2.
Discussion
During 1 ast year's review of the 1986-87 fees, it was noted
that only 11 mainline projects had been initiated and completed
under the current rate structure. This did not provide a
sufficient data base for a valid comparison between fees
collected and accrued costs. It was recommended last year that
the fees be adj usted in 1987-88 when more projects had been
compl eted. In the future, it is believed that an appropriate
review of mainline inspection fees would be every two years to
allow sufficient data to be collected for a valid comparison of
costs and fees collected.
Table 0-2 shows 88 mainline projects which were completed prior
to July 1, 1987, 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 collected at the permit counter. The
projects are disaggregated by the schedule of fees shown in
Table 0-1. The mainline and lateral inspection fee/cost
comparison for these projects is also shown graphically in
Figure 0-1. Very good correlation is apparent for projects
less than 600 feet with the District collecting 3.2 percent
more in fees than costs accrued. However, for projects greater
than 600 feet, the fees collected exceeded accrued cost by 72
percent.
The formul a for mainline inspection fees developed in 1985 and
imp1 emented on September 1, 1985, inc1 uded Di strict costs for
mai nline inspection .!!l& 1 atera1 inspection. The reason for
this was that it was not practical for inspectors to record
their time separately for mainline and lateral inspections. It
was recognized that overcharging may occur on some projects,
especially those with a large number of laterals since a
...,
....
<D
G:
.:..
t
i
...
i:i
...
.....l!
1-
... ...
...
~a~
c_
...-
....
<:'
...
...
'f
....
'-
I
i
5
~
...
...
:5
I
w
;i
c
..
'"'
...
~~
=!
...
n=:;;;=cs:;;;:;;;
II I I I , I I
I' .... . ~ ~ ....CI
1l.!:.:::!:!Jt~
It . I I I , t
I. N......NN.....
.._____N
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
...~
~~
~...
... ...
en ...
B;;:
II
encall
......"
~t;n
.....~I
:!s
... ...
...
......
.."";a:iai"';.
:;:;:;llIl:lll=~
-.---.
~...
~~
:5
~~~~~~
.. CD CD CD .. ED
.........
------
... ...
... II
~I,....:.u.
w. .I"';"';_.O:N aN
_~::~:~:';:;~N~
~tll------5M
2~ II ...
! II
...
Bi
~...
U~ill!:;::~:;;;:
u.nstM.....:..o
II .L'S!3~:o~
n------
II
II
...!!
ii
... -
~:
c
II
n~!2:::;;;:~
!!s=~~~~
II NNNNt'fr.l
. ------
...
-
;i
-...
2
CD__N_~
,.....-........"
"';.ai....
!2::::~~n:;;::;
---..--
en
;!
~I!c
...
:::!!:.::
.: ~~=~~~
n-_____
II ...
II
n
II
!:
Si
~~
F.:.:.~:
=";"';..0"';..0..0
..------
.. ----.
II
II
II
H
~
..
....
~
~~
;i:;:
en lit
*
111l_1!~.~ II ='l
n~"';"';NN.nn.;
UIn!:!~~~~U;!
n------=;:
II U
r =
II
II
~...
~~
c -
.....
M___"""_
~
...
... ....
... -
... ....
...
~!2I:I:::;;
II
u~ 8
ii~ ...~
ut; ~l6/c.;:
~n.I_.::i1D
.lli.....l5~gt;
....= cc:.....~
IiiiUi!EI.13~l!il
__=E=~:C~S2
..lialiftlDa:::.
=-a~!:8~!!~
.................
-
II
r. _
u ..
II ...
II ...
: ...
II
"
II
'-'
L
'-'
w
....,
pag
;;
...
:;;;=cscscs==~cs:;;;cscs:;;;=:;;;:;;;cscs:;;;cs=
. I I I I I . I I I I I I . , I I I I I I
~~~&-~~&~~~&~~i~j~~&i
. I t I ~ . I I I , I I I:f. I I I I I I I
_MN~.~_...........m_.m~""'_M_.~
NNNNNNN_N___-N_NNN-N_
:
N
...
II'>
,..;
...
..~.=~.='l.='l~=~~.~~='l..~e~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H .
__~~M_M.~MM~.~~___~mM".
~~~.~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~=~
---.-.--~---~-~--~~-~=~
- -. -- .u-
II
........=..........:.
=~~~~:~~=~~#~~~:~.~~~
___N____.___._N__~~_M
. -- --- ---
..~..='l.~.~~.='l~.='l~~..~
n~~~~N~Nn~~-N~~NNN_-~
~~~::~~~~~~~~~~:Zm~:::
---------------------
~
N
g;
,..;
...
~~~~~N=~.~~~~~:~S~~~~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~.-.~NnnN-~.-.~.-M--~
~~~=~!2~~~~~g;~N~CS:;:;~g~~
-~----~-----~~----~--
- - -- -
...
....
.n
~
;;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~;~~~~~E;~~~~~~~~~~~~
---------------.-----
='l
~
N
...
N~~_~=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~
.~~N~~_~~~.~_~~~~.~m~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~ =
-~----~-----~--------
- - - ;
:!!:
.;.
l:
...
::~:!!:..:::!!:.~~=~~~~:I:~:
__~_~N.~.~.~.~~~..~-.
~~~~~~~~::_=~~~=-~==~
- - -- ----- -
I:
~
...
...
:!!:.=~s.:!!:=:..:!!:..~:!!::!!:.:::n~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5~
II ....
a ...
I
~~~_~#~;~N~~~~g~~~~~~n~
~~~~~~~=~~=~~~=~~~~~~U-
M__N_NmM_~M__~.M-~nMN"~
-~-------------------u.
- a ...
a
n
NN-~-__.~NNN~.~--~~-~
!====~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;
;i
....
...
...
m
=
en
A
~ ~ ~ ... g
= ~;: "'~A 8......
~ =... I ~ 8 ...~~
-~~...8~~ =~~... ~ ...~-~
~l!ii~l~en8~ci-2~...i~~z~~
;:1 - en:5...;: c~~z~ ~""'.......
-.~ =- ....5 ~Q _...c~_a~
m-i~2.!~2 ~=~~~S~~~~5
E.....5.~.....5...a -~m~a.5-...en...
5d...85wu~...d~...~...~Ez~~:5~
~1I'>~....._~~-..-~!2.....~......-
5;!a~~;~~~;;~;;;;;~5;
"-'
B of 42
u =
II .
" ~
n
n ...
II
.
r. Il
n ~
II I::;
e ~
...
.....
,-,'
:.:
.....
I
1iiG;:O~~cgcl
I t I I . I I
I~a.....~>~
..a-:!~Jt~c!::
t I I . I . I
__M.""'&t')_
N-NN_NM
=cs:;;;
I I ,
i~.I-
I I I
--...
-..........
..........
!i"';"'-N-cD-~"";
&:~g!=lQ~~~lIP:
...-... -..-..---
-------
-------
....:.....
....m';'.._r>>_cDcD
:::~~:~~:~
---...- ..
.....=:=:=
':=~~~:!~~~ai
&1......._-___:;1
----.:.:..:.:..::..:
------
,.,
....
~
..
cO
;;
~~;s:"!~~~~t:!=:&~
_..IMN_N....,~C
~:;;;~ ~~~~P:~=~
--,..;-- --~-.:NUM;;-
- - .. --a
.
-
~
~
-
....
...
s:~~~N:;;;:~&1:;:;
.,;NNmcDO:~,,:.....;,...;
p:::;~~~~~~~~
.-...-....-----
:!!:~~~~~g!~~:;:;
.;.....;...,;,...;..:N,,:.N
~~I?~~~~~I!~
-- -- --..-- ..
.... -
- -
:!!:
~=.I:.=.=~=' ~
O:...icD..o"":";"':...n-= ...:
::A=N:~:!::; II
- - - --
-
,.,
....
N
...
:~~~:!!:~:=:I: =
~~~;;~~tric=i~tii~
a ...
B
"
:!!:&1::::;;;~~g!~g;J:::
....:...:=N,..;!I!~.nN
!!=;!;.~;:;ii'iN~!;
-- --.---.....
.... -
... ...
N-_""'''''M..o~_..o
~~~~a;~~~:!::
NNNNNt""NNNC""
.....
c
...
...
i
en
w... ~,...
.....s~ w;:c ...
.:aClllGl:a :5D-~::
=8~i!;~w~8;:l!i
a::~=l5a~;Ic::t1D
z:lal~....IB...~-l5=
5e.~=l!:!lE:::~llid
D.....zzm-la::wc-'
~~~~;;~~!Si~
.................
,....i
:::
ci
.
.;
~
;;
.
cD
...
..
;;
"
U I:
:: ..0
01 ...
01 ....
II ,;:
U ...
"
e ~
: ....;
u ~
II ,...;
a ...
;;
.....
-
:t
...
.;.-
-
;;
n ~
U N
I: ~
"
" ~
01 ...
"
II
=
ii
...
Q
!i
en
....
*
e
....
(
....
I!
...
i3
...
....B
I
...-
...
...~
s'"
c.
--
...
...
,
;;
l
...
.
Ii
en
i
~
~
~
i
!It
~
C
E
....
~...
ill!
...
;S il
... "" II
.............
~Lt...
en L&.. II
Ban
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
m~
.....~
:!!e
12'"
II
..... II
:l! ... II
l!;!'" I'
~...
...
...
...
!Ii
.:::
i~
!
...
Bi
~...
CO<
'" :z:
- -
I!=
... -
-
:>
--
e
!It
~ii
c'"
E
'"
;~
l!!:~
...
l!
6i
~t:
!5
r:; II
... II
oM II
~ft'n
~I!!II
'&:II
il'll"
II
"
II
II
"
II
"
II
II
II
II
"
"
II
"
II
II
II
II
..... ...
:l!!i!!
~~
e_
.....
~
....~
... -
... ....
...
II iI;;gil~iliI~aU;
II · I · I I . I I I
n!i.l.!-.I.f.!.I.!
II . , . I I I I . I
=:ace=iI~NIt;_:iii
l!3l!3I!:!Il!ll!?l!?~lQll!l
mN....:N...;....:,;.~..:
......._...on....__
~~~~~~~~~
---------
~~~~~~~~~
NCD.,.,..._.oCD_
O-N..oIlllr...m,..,"'CD
_iI'__ .,..,.......
---- -- ..
lQlQl!:!~l!?I!:!~lQ~
~:~~!Ci::;?~r::
::~~~~~~::~
---------
~~'!~~~:;~~ ::l
-M...CD-M'tt')!R- ..;
S;J!it=~~=N:: I!!
-:-":":':--":N' ~
.. --- -.U.
II
~;::~~~~~;z~
~~"':o:~~:::=;i
....,......,.~....,t-')...,...,_....
----...-....-.
~~~=in=~!2~
......;,..: cD"": ui I.";
_NI"'N,..,-ctm G:I
1"'01,..,..0............-... _
-------- ..
_ ....
- ...
~s..::.~:t!
,..;O:'....:..NcD....;a:i.
N__N.-Oo-U'1...
N______-...
.. --- --
.~:::t!.::t!::
....;....;NM....;...;0:
............................................
II
"
II
II
"
II
~!::::;:::!.~~~~If~
N.:ai_N....o....;,;.Uai
~:!!:~~I;n;;;MIn::l II:!!:
----- -- -u.,;"
_n_
I!
II
"
..=~,..,-~......-~
~~:ri!:!2~&1:;J~
,..,,..,,..,,..,,..,...,,...,,..,,..,
II
"
II
II
II
II
"
II
II
n
I II
"
II
.... II
tl II
l!!: II
en II
...
li.... ........
~....2i... el!5'"
8"":!i... s:!...
i.....~""~ "''''':!
........!2Wl!!iW~t::""
::lelalco<ee:>i!l!
_~. ~en"''''en
~ - j!Sw.......
a.~ "".111
_ "!!!.o_""'''_N:-=N
===-li;i;~!e;;
~
,"';
....
-
~
...
II
II ....
II ...
n .
II ....
" on
II M
II ...
II
II
U ~
n .
l ...
....
,.:
...
l!!Il
,..;
I:;
II ...
II
II
II :t!
U oN
II ~
II ...
if
II
...
.
~
,
iliI~
, , ,
. ,.. ..
':::8:2
, , ,
.......-
....--
Il!l
..;
==
!i
-
~Il!l:ll:
.."";N
~~~
---
...... ...
.
em
CD
...
-
...
...
..,,;
- --
...-....
...-
~~~
NNN
...........
.... ... ...
---
- --
I!I!!::
1'" .. ..:
....-
..~ -:.
....--
......-
lQ~~
....:....;....;
- ... ...
---
-...-
~1Q~
,...;,..:,...:
......-
In on ...
-- -
....
...
~~~II:t!
-__n.
r;==:I~
...... _ fI'"
il
II
II
... II.
.,;,..;,..;11
CDo-D-n~
Ii -
1I
~~l;:!lIliiii
"':NNn...;
G:I!II~IIC=
':--UN'"
... II ...
II
II
II
II
- ... on
on on on
..........,
... ... -
.....
e
-
e:>
....
!l
en
i
~I
Z~...
en CI:
=- '" =-
... e
__e
:> -
t;!~
~~E
... ... ...,
:~~
--...
II
II :II:
II 0:
II :::t
II ..;-
II ...
II
II
II
II .
II oN
II ~
II ...
if
II
II
II Il!l
1I ,..:
I' I!
...
-
,
II _
II ...
Pa .9 of 42
~
~
~iliI~
I I I I
~C:_I:
..."""
C ... ... ...
I I I I
r- ..0..0 _
1'1-__
l!?1l!ll!?l!3
';'.':'00
_._V1
'"":. QQ.. ....... -:.
___N
.......... ..
....
..oNcDN
...., ,.., QQ ....
...,_N..o
--.-
1!:!~1!!l!3 llJ
MN"";..o ..;
~-NCD _
..:~~~ ~
---.9..
liil
~
.,;-
...
~~It~
.nE-o:..;
... on CD
.... ......
..:-
... ...-
on
In
..;
lIS
II
~~g:::II~
,,;.;....;..uo:
~~~~n~
.......... "
I! ;
II
...
-
em
....
...
...
...
...---
,..,.- -
.cDwi..o
... ...., 0- D'-
....... N m
-- ..-
;;
~.:!!:l!:
";Nan.
!::l4fllS!::
- ......
II
~~~I! I'.
_..0,......... ....;
!!!:!!= ~
...
...---
_ 0- _...
N_NcD
~~~:;
.. --..
,....,~N~
,...._0-0-.
-...,,...,=
U"J an V') U"1
-'
e
-
e:>
....
i!
...
!a!tl
E~
....
....w .....
gt::l~~
""esU;!i
:lilitle:>
B-~::
~~LJIo..
.,.,,....,~...,,
N..a CD-
----
......... IIIIr
II
II It
II ..;
!IllS
11.,;-
II ...
II
II
II
" -
II _
n .
II ~
U..;
II ...
II
II
U ~
II ,..:
II ~
II ...
iI
II
i')
..;
-
....
~ li
.1
II
...
...
..
-
,
...
"":
...
.
lQ
..;
...
...
,.:
-
II
1I1!:!
II
II
II ~
II .,;
II ~
II
.
em
....
...
-
-
II
~ ~
....
...
.0
-
I!:!
oN
M
.,;
-
-
n ~
u ..;
II Ii::
1I .0
on
-
~
,..:
...
....
~
-
lIS
0:
CD
on
.,;
...
-
llIJ
oN
;5l
,.:
...
.
~
...
N
...
II ~
U IN
II :G
II .,;
II ....
II _
II
I!
-'
e
-
e
!!
en
a
-
S
c:
..
....
....
'"
'"
~
z
-
e:>
....
...
!.f
....
I
l i
~
...
IS
....
i3
o..
Nil
1_
.... ...
....
... ...
I!!!
...-
.....
a
...
~
...
:I
W
it
i
II
... II
I!:! &oJ :1
at 1\
&: II
"
II
... &oJ II
tllll II
II
II
~ffi II
II
... o.. II
en o.. ..
8::: ..
II
II
e3c:l II
II
~~ II
II
~~ "
II
II
...is II
... .... II
... II
..
a! II
... &oJ
I!:!'"
co..
.....
...
~
lI!.
-...
.....-
--
i~1I
! II
..
... H
Bill
~""1I
...
en :z:
... -
m.
....-
-
e...
C
w
- ...
~B
C
.,
en
~~ ..
!!f~ II
... A- U
... -
...
B
-...
~1!5
~~
...
...
...
..
:0_"
lil!!
I&:
W
III
I'"
I!:!~
c~
.....
~
...Ie
...-
... A-
o..
I
...
tl
... e: ..
CD
I ... "
..-
~ CD II
I .... II
... -
- ..
Pa~- ?O of 42
~"~'~~~'~"~~"~"~~T~'~~~~"'~'~~
1~.C~~C~~.U~~~~.~~_~~~.~.CCiC~~=~~~
-~a~~~~~~~&~.~~a~M~.......~~~~~_~&~_~.~
~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~.~~..~
-NN--~--_N______~_~_N_______N_N__~N
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . .
~=~~n_.-_n_~~~-~Nn.~_..NM__~n~M_~.n
~~~~.~-~~~~~~=~~~:~~~~~~~=~~=~M~N~:
~NN~~NN~_NNM~~._M~~M.~~~m~_~m~_N_~~
------------------___________-__MNN
... ------
...=..........:....=.............::
Nm__._.._~.NN~...__m_._c..._NNN_.N.
~~=-:=~~~~=;~n~~~~~~~~z~=:~:~g=~_~N
.......... ............... -... .... ... ... .. - ..- .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ..
-- M N____ _N~~MN~MN_NM._~
-. ... ----- ---------------
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
M-~~~-.._~_~.~~__~~~_~_.._.~M.__~~~ _
~~~~~~~~~N~~~~~~g.~~~g=~~=~:~~~~~~~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.._~~~~~~~~~U~
------------------------::------;;;U.
II ;;
"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1I~
.-~~~-N-MM-~n~MN-..~M--.~nMMN~NN.~~=_
=;~~~~~~~;~.~~~~.~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Il~
N~~~~-NN~NNN~NNNNNM~"N~.N~~~n~~~.~~U_
-------------------------.-...----;=;U~
" -
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~H~
~~-NM-.n-~.__.N~._.-~-~-~.-~MM-.M-MU~
~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~#~=~N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lI~
----...------------~~~~~~~~~~~~NN~~~~"~
------------------U~
II
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ir~
.~~~.~~~N~~~~~-~e~~~~~-~=~~~~~.MM~~n~
~CD-~~.......~N...CD_.~....N....N.~-N...~.N~:~~...NII...
N-~--~~~-~~~~~~~~~N~N~NM~~~~~M~~~;~".
-... --- ---------------___________u.
-
~~~..~~.~~~~==~~~...~~~~~~=.~.~.~=~
~NN-~-~~_NM~_~~~._~~..M~~E~~~=~-N~~
=~~=~~~~~~~~N~~~~N:~~~~.~~~~S~~~~~~
-------- ---------------------~-~~~
- - --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N-~-~.~~~~-.~~~.N~MMM~m..~M~.~~-m-~
~~=~~~~N~~~~~~~R~=~:~~~~~~~._~~~~~~
-__NNM
=.~~~~~~~~:~~~s~~~~.~g..s~~~~:;~~~~n~
...................................u.
~~--~~~~~-.-~~N~~~.I.N~~.--N--N-N.m'l~
~.~.~~~~~~~~~~~~W~~ ~~~S~.~~S~~~~~~n~
~----~~~---~-~~~~-~~~-~~-~--~N~~~~~U~
- --- - ---- --- -- - -------U~
..
II
n--~-N-CD~~...CD~~-CD......~~....CD~-~N-=--...-N-N
- - - __NN N. = ~= ~_.~~~~
:~~~~g=~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~s~=~~~;~~
..~~~~~==~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:S~~~a~~
Q ~ w ! I
~ ~... wll! ~ d :o_~~ ~&oJE =CQ ~
5... "'~Q ~~w~~ .~~ aZi.......d......~~g~_
....~ B~8 i-...~...~ ...9....~_enen 8g~~~~...2~~~
~B...ai;~8~~~.~wi.i8~~i~~~~;;;:~i~!;z
~i~en...z .;...*~-~~..........~.i...B-~~~~:I~I~...3~~
...~...~9...~IIl~.~.~...~g~W~-~:o-~-E~~Z=...IS~_;<<
!~il!~.;~;@;!~~SII!&!!!SI~81;!~!~.i
N~__-~_._.-~~~_-n~N...-MN~".-..C_-~
;;;i;~;;;~;e5!!;S;;e;S5;;~;;i;5;;;;
...
-
N
...
o
...
1'0
,..;
~
.
II
II -
.. -
II ..
. ...
~
m
;:;;
-
:
..;
1'0
CD
,.;
~
-
.
,..:
...
I: ...
II N
.. -
..
" ~
II
n
ti ~
II i
. -
II -
II ...
II ..;
..
II ~
"
r. ..r
II ...
II -
U ~
.
r. ..;
II ...
" ...
II ,.;
II ~
.. ...
II
II ~
II ..
r. 1'0
-
II ,.;
II
II ....
II -
II -
"
II -
" ..;
II
U ~
II ..;
II ....
U -
II ~
II
.. N
H .
1'0
II ..r
II
n CD
II -
II
lG
cD
1'0
1'0
.-
<l3
-
-
-
..;
~
,.:
~
-
~
cD
~
.
!!f
-
-
-
..
...
...
,.;
1'0
-
..- en
- l!!l
= ...
. .....
....
co co:
..
.r:: a!
..- ...
... ...
:: ...
..
AI
...
~
a!
...
...
...
&D
9"'"
Z
0
(f) ~
9"'"
-
!k::
<!
a...
~ N
9"'"
0
U ."
CD
-
u
I- CD
(f) 0 0
- ()
. 9"'"
0 . f)
.... CD
U 0 . CD
0 ,...., . ...
" fto..
&D "tJ--
CD-O
W C o .... ~
0 IIOftO
W .c ::J..
..
La... '- ,g.+
.! ....
"""-'.....
l_- 0
Z f
,......- 0 0)
I "'0 .t! &D
UQJ
::l -
LLJ e: l- v
e::: .~ .
-
::> .j-J U e
<.!:Ie:
.....0 W D-
~u
........
a... ~
(f)
Z ..
ft
0
W 0
"tJ
Z N .
- ~
-1 v
v
Z <
-
<! 0 0
~
N 0 JIO &D ~ N 0 110 &D ~ N 0 110 &D ~ N 0
If') 11) N N N N N 9"'" 9"'" 9"'" 9"'" 9"'"
Par- ~2 of 42
(.pUD8n04l.)
...DlloO
Pa9' ~3 of 42
separate lateral fee was retained. It was suggested that once
a sufficient data base was developed, a maximtlll per project
lateral charge may be supported.
The data in Table 0-2 shows that the Mainl ine Inspection Fee
tracks very closely with the accrued cost. For all projects.
the accrued cost was 1.6 percent less than the fees collected
for mainline inspection only. This would support not charging
a separate lateral fee for mainline projects. The effect of
thi s action woul d be substantial in many cases. For exampl e.
for project 4163 (see Table 0-2, page 3) the fees collected for
110 lateral inspections was $5,280. while the fees collected
for mainline inspection was $5.144.35, for a total fees
collected of $10,424.35. The accrued cost to the District was
$3,323.21. If the lateral fee of $5.210 was not charged, the
fees collected would more closely approximate District costs.
As mentioned before. one of the components of the mainline
inspection cost is TV inspection. The TV inspection costs were
estimated in 1985 by determining the average length of pipe
which could be televised in one day and the associated cost of
labor and equipment. Costs were determined to be $99/hour with
the number of hours determined from the formul a shown in the
1986-87 fees presented previously. Several factors have led to
an increase in productivity since these costs were developed.
l
a. District specifications now require a lead line to be left
in the pipe by the contractor so that the TV camera can be
attached. This eliminates the need for the TV inspection
crew to float the lead line down the sewer.
b. A water truck and third crew member are no longer needed
because the lead line is left in place by the contractor.
c. A new television truck has been purchased which has the
ability to pull the camera greater distances, thus
requiring fewer setups.
Seventeen projects were selected to determine the productivity
under the new procedures discussed above. Figure 0-2 shows
that the best fit corre1 ation is represented by the foll owing
formula: Hours = 2.44 + 0.0021 x project length (ft). The
figure shows that 2,000 feet of pipe can be televised in 6.5
hours (including travel time). The remaining 1.5 hours in the
day is used for equipment maintenance and training. This
formul a only inc1 udes travel time to the project site for
projects which can be completed within one day or less. A
factor (based on one-hour travel time per day) to adjust for
travel time for projects over 2,000 feet would be 0.0005 x
project length Cft). Therefore, the formula Hours = 2.44 +
0.0026 x project length (ft.) would include the additional time
required to make multiple trips to the same project site.
o
Par. 2,4 of 42
.....
N
~
0
0
~
.
.....
"0
!.
z u
0 .
N 0-
i= ,....rJ
I 0 rJoE
::) "0
U C c-
O ~OO-
a:: . rJ-
a.. .....:ta..
W 0....
Z .1:0
e::: 0 C.s:
( i= -
:::> 0 Q
I.IJ C
'" a.. ~
en
- z
lL. GO
~ .
0
.....
.
0 0
0
0
[J
0
0 O"l GO ,.... ~ II) ..... Jot) ~ ..... 0
.....
(JeM).I.l 8ulpnJ:)uJ) ..InoH JDJO.l
Pag -25 of 42
A 61-percent increased productivity has been realized with the
new procedures and equipment (2,000 feet vs. 1,240 feet,
inspected in an eight-hour day). This increased productivity
has been accomplished with one less crew member and one less
vehicle. New labor and equipment costs are as follows:
Crew Leader - $18.64/hr. x 1.43 x 8 hrs. = $213.24
Crew Member - $16.14 x 1.43 x 8 hrs. = 184.64
Supervisor - $21.09/hr. x 1.43 x 1 hr. = 30.16
Total Labor Cost $428.04/day
Equipment capital recovery and operation and maintenance costs
are estimated to be as follows:
$ 6,400
4,500
4,000
3 ,800
2,900
$21,600 per year
*$45,000 capital cost with 10-year recovery at 7 percent
interest
TV Van*
Operating
Consumables
Cabl e
Light bulbs and headers
(-
Estimated TV van use is 4.5 days per week or 234 days per year.
Therefore, the daily rate is $21,600/234 = $92.31 per day.
The only other equipment used is a pickup truck which is
estimated to cost $6.50 per hour. The supervisor's time is one
hour per day.
The total daily labor and equipment cost is as follows:
labor
1V Van
Pickup Truck
$428.04
92.31
6.50
$526.85 or $530 per day
The $530 per day cost compares with the 1985-86 cost of $790
per day or 33 percent less. The labor cost is less because of
the two-man vs. three-man crew and the TV van cost is 1 ess
because of the higher maintenance cost associated with the
older TV van.
Page of 42
3. Recommendation
Review Schedule
a. It is recommended that a review of the mainline inspection
fee be conducted every two years in order to allow enough
time to collect a sufficient data base for a valid cost
vs. fee comparison.
b. Lateral Inspection Fee
The fee schedule shown in Table C-3 is adequate to recover
lateral inspection costs associated with mainline
projects. For mainline projects, sufficient fees are
collected in the Mainline Inspection Fee alone to recover
District costs. Therefore, it is recommended that a
separate Lateral Inspection Fee not be charged for
mainline projects. The lateral fee would still be charged
for other 1 atera1 inspecti ons where contractors have not
paid a mainline fee. An adjustment of the Lateral
Inspection Fee to $52 is recommended and includes salary
increases since the fee was first established in 1985.
c. Mainline Inspection Fee
The reduced TV costs from $lOO/hour to $67/hour and the
increased productivity from 1,240 feet/day to 2,000
feet/day transl ates into a 54-percent reduction in
television inspection costs. A comparison of TV costs vs.
total mainline inspection costs for the 88 projects listed
in Table C-12 shows that television inspection is 36
percent of the total mainline inspection cost. A
54-percent reduction in TV costs woul d mean a 19-percent
reduction in mainl ine inspection costs. Therefore, the
mainline inspection fee is recommended to be reduced by 19
percent to reflect lower television inspection costs. The
mainline inspection fee with a reduction of 19 percent is
shown in Table C-3.
TABLE C-3
MAINLINE INSPECTION FEE SCHEDULE
PROJ ECT
LENGTH (FT.)
0-100
101-200
201-300
301-400
401-500
501-600
601-
1986-87
FEE
$300 + $3.00/ft.
$350 + $2.50
$450 + $2.00
$525 + $1.75
$625 + $1.50
$750 + $1.25
$810 + $1. 15
1987-88
FEE
$245 + $2.40/ft.
$285 + $2.00
$365 + $1.60
$425 + $1.40
$505 + $1 .20
$605 + $1.00
$665 + $0.90
Pa~~ ?7 of 42
C. SIDE SEWER REPAIR INSPECTION
The 1986-87 fee is $10.
recommended.
A fee adjustment for 1987-88 is not
O. OVERTIME INSPECTION
1. 1986-87 Fees
Overtime Inspection
S41/hour
Weekends & Holidays
(4 hour mi nimum)
S164
Overtime Inspection Credit
(See Table 4, below)
TABLE C-4
OVERTIME CREDIT
T ota 1 Proj ect
Overtime Hours
Overtime
Credit Hours
l
< 4
-
4 < < 8
-
8 < ~ 16
16 < ~ 32
32 <
Discussion
1
2
4
6
8
2.
The overtime inspection credit policy was established in
September 1985 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 two years. The only
factor affecting the 1987-88 rates would be the 3 percent wage
rate increase.
3. Recommendations
To reflect additional labor costs, the following fees are
recomended:
Overtime Inspection S42/hr
Weekends & Holidays
(4 hour minimum) $168
Page ':)" of 42
REVISED 10/27/87
E. INSPECT CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STRUCTURE CMH OR RI>
The 1986-87 fee for new structure inspection is S100. Table C-5
shows three new manhole structure projects which have "been finaled.
The average inspection cost of these projects is $360. Last year
the average inspection cost was $494. Although costs for the
limited data show a decrease from last year, it is apparent the
District is not recovering all the costs for these projects. It is
recommended that the fee be increased to S150 and continue
monitoring cost to broaden the data base.
F. INSPECTION OF MANHOLE CONNECTION
The 1986-87 19tt7w88"fee is $48. It is recommended that this fee be increased to
$52 to reflect salary increases since the fee was f1r~stab1ished
1 n 1985. b.e.c a IIC;~ -it. -1.s. -s:fJn..U...ar... ~ ..a. -1.a.ter..a.l.. -1.nspe.c:t:lon.
PaC1" 29 of 42
co ... I"- I"-
ID CD ID
ii ID - ....
....--
li'l
... ... ... ...
tl a.. -
..
... II! Ii
lit
it
i
en a:: :
e~ ..om aD ~
l. a!fl:l ~~: -
....~
eB
:z
c en
en :lit
Q: 8 ...-... ....
<C .... lit -....- CD
i: t:l -.... ...;r.;. 0:
c ~B ~NI"- I"-
G- ....- ~
L,) en
.... ~ II
en
c -
u ....
.... co::
It') LU
I LU Q::
U L4. C I!!l-- I!!l
1.1.1 z: ! II --
..... 8 S..;...: .....
m .... .... ~
CI: ....
.... u ~ ....
1.1.1
G-
el) ....
:!; g I
LU co:: ... I
.... ....
:lit en i.. I I"- _ I"- ....
.... I .......- ~
! ~ I ~~::
~~ I I"-
Z CD
<C I ....- - CD
.. .. I
z: 1I I
;i !
... I
!a ....--
fa
.. -
....
co
..
.
w c
- ...
- ....1.
.... ~...~
tl -c
a!c
I!! IU""
... zl!
....c
.... "" z
~!ia!
- .
CD ~....- .
L
;:; II. N_ t
.... ....
... .. .. ..
~ ... - I .. ... .. ~
...
Pa('l" 30 of 42
PART III
COLLECTION SYSTEM FEES
A. DEFINITIONS
1. TV Inspection
The District's Coll ection System Operations CCSO) Department
conducts a TV 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 TV
inspection is included in the mainline inspection fee.
However, TV inspection fees not included in the mainline
inspection fee are as follows:
a. TV Inspection Overtime - Fee requi red to canpensate the
District for the costs of televising any new sewer main
installation during non-normal work hours Cafter 4:30 p.m.
or weekends).
b.
TV Inspection Rerun - Fee required to compensate the
District for the costs of re-televising a portion of a
private sewer main project to confirm that necessary
corrective work was performed by a private contractor.
The corrective work is required if excessive pipe joint
gaps, failed pipe sections, or pipe profile problems were
identified during the initial TV inspection of a new sewer
main.
l
c. Overtime Credit - When a contractor pays the mai nl ine
inspection fee, he is actually paying for a certain number
of hours of TV inspection. The contractor can el ect to
have this inspection occur on overtime hours. For this
overtime work, the full overtime fee is pai d but a credit
given for that portion of the TV inspection cost included
in the mainline inspection.
2. Sewer Tap
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 cutting of a hole
into the existing pipe and installation of a saddle connection
must be performed by District personnel.
3. Dye Test
A dye test is used to confi rm a property is connected to the
pub' ic sewer or served by a private septic tank system. CSO
personnel add dye tabl ets to interior pl umbing fixtures and
observe evidence of the dye color in the downstream public
sewer mai n.
Page
of 42
REVISED 10/27/87
4. Non-cancellation
This fee is charged if 'the contractor does not give 24-hour
notice cancelling a TV inspection or sewer tap work request.
B. TELEVISION INSPECTION
1. 1986-87 Fees
The 1986-87 television inspection fees are as follows:
a. Initial TV
- Overtime
$1,044/day
$1l6/hr.
$464
- Weekends & Holidays
(4-hr. min.)
- Overtime Credit
SO.41/L.F.
b. 1V Rerun
- Regu1 ar
(2.S hour minimum)
Weekends & Holidays
(4-hr. min.)
S170 + $99/hr.
$418
$170 + $1l6/hr.
$634
- Overtime
2. Discussion
a. T.V. Overtime
Television inspection costs were discussed in Part II of
this attachment where the basis for a $67/hr. charge was
presented. The labor portion of the $67/hr. charge is
$S3 .SO/hr., whfl e the remaining $13.S0/hr. ref1 ects
equipment costs. The new overtime rate wou1 d be
$53.50/hr. x 1.5 = $80.50/hr. plus $13.50/hr. =-Si4~~~Pr
$94.00/hr.
b. Overtime Credit
Also discussed in Part II of this attachment was the
formula for 1V inspection productivity (Hrs. = 2.44 +
0.0026 x project length (ft.)). The new overtime credit
rate is determined by the base production rate of 0.0026
hrs./ft. Therefore, the new credit rate is as fo11ows~
Overtime Credit = 0.0026 hrs./ft. x S67/hr. = SO.17/ft.
l
Pa~l'" 32 of 42
c. T.V. Rerun
The TV rerun cost incurred is determined as follows:
Additional CSO
Crew Time
0.5 hrs. x $67/hr. · $ 33.50
Video Tape
Review
2 hrs. x $32.23/hr. · $ 64.46
Supervision and
Rescheduling
2 hrs. x $30.79/hr. ~ $ 61.58
$159.54
Use $160.00
CSO crew time, video tape review, supervision, and
reschedul ing costs refl ect current production and wage
rates.
d.
Multiple T.V. Inspections
A new TV inspection fee is proposed to recover the cost of
inspecting a mainline when the contractor chooses to split
the project into smaller segments. When the contractor
pays the mainline inspection fee, he pays for the cost of
televising the entire project in one day if it is less
than 2,000 ft. or in subsequent days if it is more than
2,000 ft. Several contractors have been requesting a TV
inspection of a portion of a project as it is campl eted.
For exampl e, a 2,800-foot project which cou1 d ordinarily
be televised in 9.7 hours (one full day and a portion of
another) may be split by the contractor into four
different segments, each 700 ft. in length. The TV
portion of the mainline inspection fee, which the
contractor paid is as follows:
(2.44 hrs. + 0.0026 hrs./ft. x 2,800 ft.) <$67/hr.) = $651
However, because the contractor split the project into
four segments requiring CSO to make four trips to the site
on separate days, the actual cost is as follows:
(4) (2.44 hrs. + 0.0026 hrs./ft. x 700 ft.) ($67/hr.) =
$1,142
Therefore, an additional fee of $1,142-$651=$491 should be
charged to recover costs. This fee or surcharge would be
assessed at the completion of the mainline project. CSO
wou1 d not incl ude in the surcharge any project segmenti ng
which was caused by their actions or del aYe For examp1 e,
if CSO arrived at the proj ect site di scussed above, where
700 ft. was available for inspection but because of
equipment malfunction they could only televise 400 ft.
before the end of the day and had to return the next day
to complete the last 300 feet of the segment, there would
still be four 700-ft. segments included in the surcharge
calculation.
3. Recommendat-,
Page .,... of 42
REVISED 10/27/87
a. Reduce the 1V overtime and 1V rerun fees to ref1 ect CSO's
increased efficiency to the following rates:
Initial 1V
Overtime
~~~~ $752/day
-$84{~- $941 hr.
Weekends & Holidays
(4-hr. min.)
~ $376
Overtime Credit
$O.17/ft.
1V Rerun
Regu1 ar
(2.5-hour mi n. )
$160 + $67/hr.
Overtime
-$-l6O-.....-$94I-hfo...- $160 + $941 hr.
Weekends & Holidays
(4-hr. min.)
-$496- $536
-
b. Assess a surcharge for projects segmented by the
contractor. The amount of the surcharge would be
determined by CSO at the completion of the project and
wou1 d be based on the actual cost of inspecting each
segment of the project. A credit would be given the
contractor for T.V. inspection fees already paid.
C. SEWER TAP
The 1986-87 fee for a sewer tap is $171. This fee includes two
hours' labor for a two-member crew, the expense for truck operation,
a pipe saddle, and tap machine depreciation. A three percent
increase in 1 abor and expenses is requi red. Therefore, the new fee
wou1 d be $176.
D. DYE TEST
The 1986-87 fee for dye testing is $56. This fee includes one-hour
labor for a two-member crew and the expense for truck operation and
dye. It is recommended that the 1987-88 fee be increased to $58 to
reflect a 3% increase in wage rates and expenses.
E. NON-CANCELLATION
These fees are based on lost crew time when a contractor schedu1 es
work with CSO and a crew arrives at the project site and finds that
it is inaccessible or otherwise not ready.
The 1986-87 non-cancellation fees for 1V inspection and sewer tap
should be adjusted to reflect the 1987-88 costs as follows:
1V Inspection - Initial and Rerun
(2 hrs. charged)
$144
Sewer Tap
(1 hr. charged)
$ 56
Par~4 of 42
F. LATERAL PLUG
Before a building connected to the District's sewer system is
removed or modified in a manner which requires a physical
disconnection of the building from the sewer, District
specifications require that the owner of the building obtain an
abandonment permit from the Di strict at no cost to the owner. The
purpose of this physical disconnection is to reduce infiltration and
inflow from private laterals.
In the past, the work required was done by the owner's demolition
contractor. Since a demolition contractor is not necessarily
familiar with sewer construction and is often not equipped to
properly plug a lateral, it is proposed that CSO personnel be
required to provide all equipment and labor necessary to complete
the job. This includes obtaining an encroachment permit from the
City if needed, excavating to the lateral and mainline, plugging the
lateral at the main line, backfilling, and repairing the surface.
It is estimated that a typical job will take a crew of three about
eight hours to complete the work. The following is an estimate of
the cost.
Equipment
Paving
Labor
$ 420.00
270.00
640.00
Total $1,330.00
Use $1,300
(
It is recommended that a 1 ateral pl ug permit fee of $1,300 be
established to recover the District's cost to abandon the lateral.
Page' of 42
PART IV
RIGHT-Of-WAY fEES
A. DEFINITIONS
1. Segregation of Local Improvements District (LID) Bond
Assessments
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. Processing of Quitclaim Deeds
This fee recovers the cost of preparing a legal description and
Right-of-Way map for public sewer easements no longer required
by the District.
3. Processing Real Property Agreements
This fee recovers the cost of investigating and processing
agreements with a property owner who wants to encroach into a
District easement with any use which is not permitted by the
District's Standard Specifications.
B. 1986-87 FEES
The 1986-87 Right-of-Way fees are as follows:
Segregation of LID Assessment
$32/Parcel
Processing Quitclaim Deeds
(3-hr. min.)
$28/hr.
( $84 )
Processing Real Property Agreements
Surveying as
Requi red
c. DISClJSSION
The only change for the 1986-87 fees for Segregation of LID
Assessments and Processing of Quitclaim Deeds is the 3 percent wage
rate increase.
In past years, the Processing Real Property Agreement Fee was
estimated for each project, primarily from the cost of surveying.
However, this year interviews with the Construction Division and CSO
staff have provided enough information to develop a standard charge.
Pa9' ~6 of 42
The following is recommended to be the fee for this activity:
Real Property Specialist $84
(3-hr. min.)
Survey of Easement $412
(4-hr. min.'
Site Review, Ferreting, and Televising
Existing Sewers $288
(4 hours)
Total Fee $784
Use $800
D. RECOt+1ENDATIONS
The following fees are recommended to recover the costs expected in
1987-88:
Segregation of LID Assessment
$33/Parcel
Processing Quitclaim Deeds
(3-hr. min.)
$29/hr.
($87 mi n. )
Processing Real Property Agreements
$800
~
Par 37 of 42
PART V
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
A. DEFINITIONS
Incl uded in this part are services provided to engineers,
contractors, or other private and public agencies who request
engineering, so11 eval uation, or surveying. Actual District staff
cost, incl uding employee benefits and administrative overhead, is
charged to these projects.
B. 1986-1987 FEES
The 1986-87 miscellaneous fees are as follows:
Soil Evaluation for Private Sewer Projects
Surveying
Estimate
Requi red
Actual Cost
$lOO/hour
Engineering for Private Sewer Projects
c.
DISaJSSION
l
The only factor affecting these fees is the 3 percent wage rate
increase. Onl y surveying costs woul d be affected by the published
rate.
D.
RECOt41ENDATIONS
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 Sl03/hour
(
Par 18 of 42
PART V I
INDUSTRIAL PERMIT FEE
A. DEFINITIONS
1. Industrial Permit Fee
This fee recovers a portion of the cost associated with the
administration of the Industrial Pretreatment Program by
billing each of the District's permitted industries. Each bill
is based on the following components: source control force
account for each industry, 1 aboratory costs for unannounced
sampling by the District, and pretreatment program
administration.
2. New Industry Permit Fee
This fee recovers the cost to the District when an industry
requests connection. District costs are associated with a
review of the proposed industrial discharge and developing an
industrial permit.
B. DISQJSSION
1.
Industrial Permit Fee
(
1986-87 industrial permit fees which were billed to each
industry are as follows:
TABLE C-7
PERMIT FEES FOR DISTRICT INDUSTRIES
1986-87
Permit Fee
Recommended
1987-88
Permit Fee
Beckman
Chevron Park
Del Monte
Dow Chemical
Etch-Tek
PG&E
Siemens
Tracor/MBA
Varian
Naval Weapons Station
$1,270
1,398
1,266
1,314
2,049
1,220
1,108
1,251
1,151
1,450
$1,503
2,314
1,252
1,289
2,419
1,790
1,241
1,633
1,288
1,212
In 1985, the District amended its existing contract with the
City of Concord: the amendment sti pul ated that the Di stri ct
would take over Concord's Industrial Pretreatment Program.
Details for assuming Concord's pretreatment program were to be
agreed upon at a later date. Earlier this year, the District
and the City of Concord developed and approved a fourth
pa9{ -=l9 of 42
amendment to the existing agreement and a memorandum of
understanding which defines the District's authority and
enforcement powers as it pertains to the pretreatment program.
Consequently, beginning this year, the District will charge
permitted industries within the City of Concord in a similar
manner as the District's industries.
Tab1 e C-8 shows the 1987-88 Industri a1 Permit Fees which will
be billed to each of the industries transferred from the
Concord 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 C-8
PERMIT FEES FOR INDUSTRIES TRANSFERRED FROM CONCORD
Recommended
1987-88
Permit Fee
Analog
Annabelle
ADL Ci rcuits
Systron Donner
$1,401
1,401
2,367
1,401
(
2: New Industry Permit Fee
.. ,
Starting in 1986, the District initiated a fee "mechanism to
recover costs associated with the review of potential new
industri a1 users. The new Industry Permit Fee is assessed to
new industries at the beginning of the review process once an
Industrial Wastewater Discharge Questionnaire is completed and
returned by the industry. The fee is based on actual costs
incurred by the District prior to connection or prior to an
Industrial Discharge Permit being issued with a $500 minimum
fee.
Two industries were billed new industry permit fees in 1986-87.
They are GSF Energy and Internati ona1 Technology (1. T.) Corp.
Staff has developed the di scharge requi rements for GSF Energy
and forwarded a permit contract for them to execute. GSF is in
the process of finalizing their pretreatment facility design
and connection to the District is expected this year. The I.T.
application is still under review, with the major work effort
involving review of their pilot plant testing and the draft
Environmental Impact Report to be received later this year.
3. Special DischarQe Permit Fee
This is a new fee which is proposed to be implemented. A
special discharge can be from any source not normally connected
to the District's sewer system. These discharges would
normally be infrequent and the permit either issued for a
Pag' 4{) of 42
one-time discharge or for a specified period, usually not
exceeding one year. If the nature of the source results in a
continued discharge beyond a year or if the discharge may
contai n a significant quantity of poll utants, an industrial
permit would be required, as described previously.
A permit for a special discharge woul d be issued before the
owner is allowed to discharge the wastewater into the sewer or
it is trucked to the trea'bnent pl ant. Source Control staff
effort depends on the nature of the waste. For examp1 e, a
wastewater from a hol ding tank reportedly contai ns domestic
sewage, but the business that di scharges to the hol ding tank
uses toxic chemicals which may also have been discharged to the
tank. In this case, a staff member from the Source Control
Section would make a site visit to inspect the facility,
interview employees, and witness a wastewater sample. The
analysis would be conducted by a private laboratory, and staff
would provide information to the prospective discharger on the
analyses required and other information on District
requi rements. It is estimated that the average staff time
requi red to process this permit woul d be six hours or $175,
including labor and benefits.
l_
If a waste does not contain pollutants such as the contents of
a swimming pool but the owner wishes to discharge the water to
the sewer, a permit would be issued without an on-site
inspection and sampling. In this case, the average staff time
required to process the permit would be one hour or $30.
C.
RECOtJMENDATION
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 1987-88
varies from $1,212 to
$2,419.
2. Concord Industries
Annual Permit Fee
First year fees based on
average cost for similar
District industries.
Annual permit fee
for 1987-88 varies from
$1,401 to $2,367.
3. New Industry Permit Fee
Fee based on actual costs
prior to connection to
the District ($500
minimum)
4. Special Discharge Permit Fee
No on-site inspection
On-site inspection
$30
$175
Pagf' 41 of 42
PART V II
SEPTAGE DISPOSAL FEES
A. DEFINITION
The septage disposal fee allows the District to recover the cx>st of
administering the trucked-in waste program and treating the waste.
B. 1986-87 FEES
The 1986-87 septage disposal fees are as follows:
Annual Permit Fee
S100
Disposal Charges
- Grease Interceptor within the
Di stri ct
- Septage
< 2,000 gal
~ 2,000 gal
DISCUSSION
SO.01/ga1
S7.00 + SO.05/ga1
S20.35 + SO.05/ga1
C.
~
The septage disposal fees were last evaluated two years ago.
Recently, the District has revised the septage disposal procedures
to include more administrative and enforcement involvement. There
are three components to the septage di sposa1 fees: the annual
permit, fixed cost per truck, and volume charge.
The annual permit fee is recOl'llTlended to be revised to reflect
additional administrative effort. The cx>st includes the following
components: monthly billing, periodic verification of reported
waste sources, and verification and processing of the annual permit.
The annual permit fee allocation of costs is as follows:
Accounting
Source Control
Permit Dept.
S192.00
146.00
12.00
S350.00
The fixed cost portion of the disposal fee depends on the size of
the truck and the level of District testing required before
disposal.
If a truck has a capacity of less than 2,000 gall ons and contai ns
waste from a domestic origin, the fixed cost segment inc1 udes the
gate guard time in checking manifests, special discharge, and
recei pt forms to he1 p ensure accuracy and compl eteness. It al so
1 nc1 udes the p1 ant operator time 1 n taking a sampl e to be he1 din
case there is a pl ant upset. Therefore, the fixed portion of the
disposal fee is $7.50.
Pa9 42 of 42
If a truck contains more than 2.000 gallons of domestic waste or if
the truck contains nondornestic waste. the gate guard has the same
involvement in checking the forms. but the operator must take a
sample to the District laboratory where toxicity. pH. and visual
tests are performed before the truck is allowed to dispose of the
waste. Therefore. the fixed portion of the disposal fee is S31.
The volume charge' is primarily based on the estimated cost of
treatment and ref1 ects average vol ume and strength characteristics
for a typical waste load. The other component of this charge is for
laboratory costs. The laboratory will select a number of trucks
each month to perform additional analyses for heavy metals. BOD. Oil
and Grease. and TSS. Additionally. one sample each month will be
analyzed for toxic organics. Thi s data. although coll ected after
dumping, will provide valuable information regarding the
characteristics of the waste discharged and whether they have met
the District's local limits. The data will also provide staff with
a basis for adjusting the average strength characteristics for
subsequent fee reviews. The volume charge is reconrnended to be
SO.05/ga110n.
c
Although the cost for the treatment of trucked-in waste is
SO.05/ga110n, it is recommended that the charge for restaurant
grease interceptor waste remain at the SO.Ol/gallon rate.
Hopefully, the lower rate will encourage restaurant owners to have
their interceptors pumped at appropriate time intervals, assuming
the waste haulers pass this cost savings on to their customers. The
District's charge of SO.01/gal10n represents about one third of the
cost of pumping an interceptor. The remaining cost is the waste
hauler's charge for pumping and transportation.
D.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following fees are recommended to recover the District's costs
in 1987-88:
Annual Permit Fee
$350
Disposal Charges
- Domestic Waste
< 2.000 gal/truck
> 2,000 gal/truck
Non-domestic Waste
$7.S0 + $0.05/gal*
$31.00 + $0.05/ga1*
$31.00 + $0.OS/ga1
*Grease interceptor waste will be charged the same fixed cost as
domestic wastes. but the volume charge is $O.Ol/gal.
.
Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary ..Astrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE
OF 5
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
October 29, 1987
NO.
V.
BIDS AND AWARDS
1
SUBJECT
AWARD A CONTRACT TO PACIFIC MECHANICAL CORP.
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4257, SOLDIER
PILE INSTALLATION FOR PROTECTION OF FUTURE A-I LINE
EXCAVATION
DATE
October 23, 1987
TYPE OF ACTION
AWARD CONTRACT
APPROVE ALLOCATION
OF FUNDS
SUBM'tI'[P ~Y. Pilecki
Associate Engineer
INITI'E:~R'SJt'iIXg Department
Engineering Division
ISSUE: A soldier pile installation is needed now to protect a section of the
future A..,.lline excavation in Walnut Creek. On October 22, 1987, sealed bids for
the construction of District Project No. 4257, Soldier Pile Installation, were
received and opened. The Board must award the contract to the lowest responsible
bidder or reject all bids within 60 days of opening of bids. Approval of the
Board of Directors is required to allocate program contingency funds for new
projects in excess of $25,000.
BACKGROUND: The City of Walnut Creek has recently approved the construction of a
three-story sports health center (Lupois Building) at the corner of Ygnacio Valley
Road and the old Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way (see Exhibit A). The
District's future A~lline will be installed immediately east of the east wall of
the sports health center. Due to a zero setback requirement on the proposed
building, the clearance between the future pipe and the building foundation is
estimated to be less than 10 feet. Extreme difficulty is anticipated in
installing shoring for the future A-Iline excavation without causing any damage to
the adjacent building. The proposed soldier pile project will facilitate the
installation of the A-l1ine in the future and greatly lessen the possibility for
damage. The proposed sports health center is scheduled for completion in the
spring of 1988. Construction of the A-lline in this area is at least three years
in the future.
Plans and specifications for the soldier pile project were completed in October
and the project was advertised on October 9 and 15, 1987. A total of 3 bids were
received. A tabulation of the bids is shown in Attachment 1. The Engineering
Department conducted a technical and commercial evaluation of the bids and
concluded that the lowest responsible bidder is Pacific Mechanical Corp., with a
bid price of $49,000. The Engineer's Estimate for construction is $48,000.
The budget to complete this project is $65,600. The total project cost is
anticipated to be $82,600. as shown in Attachment 2. This project is not included
in the Capital Improvement Budget. Funds will be allocated from the Collection
System Program contingency account. CEQA consideration for this project has been
covered under the Negative Declaration for the Walnut Creek Downtown Bypass and
the EIR for the San Ramon Valley Trunk Sewer.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A-9/85
~~-J
DRW
-,.,--~--~_.._..__._---,---,~-------,-~.__.~-----_.__..,_.....~._._---"~._-_.,--_._~--_.._-_._._..._-----_.,..._..._---~."_..._--
SUBJECT
AWARD A CONTRACT TO PACIFIC MECHANICAL CORP.
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4257, SOLDIER
PILE INSTALLATION FOR PROTECTION OF FUTURE A-I LINE
EXCAVATION
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 2 OF 5
DATE
October 23, 1987
RECOMMENDATION: Award a contract for the construction of District Project No.
4257, Soldier Pile Installation to Pacific Mechanical Corp. as the lowest
responsible bidder and approve allocation of $65,600. from the Collection System
Program contingency account.
....------.
13028-9/85
'"
\
\
1\\
~~~ ~ \ \\
\\ \\ \ \ \ ..l..
\\ \\ \ \ \ ~
\\ \\ \ \ \ ~
~ ~\\ 0
t ~\ t
\\ ~.:;::.-:;::.~r~ ~
r;-........ \\ ,\ J j\ ."
I; ......""...... \~ \\::: ;:::;;:::; \\f( \ 9
I;......~ ~ \ \
I; ~ PROPOSED ~ \ \
'J SPORTS HEALTH CENTER~. ~ \ 1\
kSOLDIER PILE I; 785 YGNACIO VALLEY BLVD. ~l~ \ \ / \
(Typical) I; ~ < \ PROPERTY
/7=-~ -~ I; j \ ~LINESPRR
/.r- ,-'L--d \ \ R/W
~ /t-ty- L~--.J5-u 15 CT"O-CT'1')=cT~=o-=O=cr-o=O" -0 ----
\
r----:--- _-- -:----:---~ --~-- -::---- -~--:-r-__:____l
--CC=--~T~~~L~;E "7 -----------_____"\-=--=o-
~----------------------:7I ----~~
~--E~~~IA~I; 7--~--E~~~~~E~- -~~-\~~
o
c::
~
D::
D::
D::
ll.
lJ)
li-
o
f!!
~
..J
SPRR RlW~
----------------------'---------------- -
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
~
i 1 0/87
Exibit
IA
SOLDIER PILE INSTALLATION
DISTRICT PROJECT 4257
2523-1/87
----.--....-...--,..,.-.--.--...-......-...........-..--.~,..__.__...."...._----._~......,.-._,._._...__.__._.-_._---_.,_._.._._..~~,.,'"..'"-_.~--_..,,--'"'----
ATTACHMENT 1
Central ~ontra Costa Sanit,-ty District
8UMMARY OF BIDS
PROJECT NO. 4257
Soldier Pile Installation
DATE 1 g 22 S7
ENGR. EST. $ 48.000
LOCATION Ygnacio Valley Rd. @ former SPRR R/W
a:
~ BIDDER (Nome, telephone & address) BID PRICE
.-=-
1 PMC ( 415) 827-4940 $
P. O. Box 4041 ~ Concord 94524 49,000 00
~
2 Valentine Corp. ( ) 453-3732 $
P. O. Box 9337. San Rafael 9491? 87.354.00
3 Judd Drilling ( 415) 825-4212 $
1926 Arnold Industrial Way. Con co rd 9411?0 88~136.00
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
( ) $
-
( ) $
-
( ) $
-
( ) $
-
( ) $
PREPARED BY
DATE
SHEET NO.
OF
...__._._-_._-----~---~>--~~-,,_._-_.,._,-----_._-_.._---*----.-..,,---
?c;O'l-q 'A4
ATTACHMENT 2
POST-BID PRECONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE OF COSTS
FOR
SOLDIER PILE INSTALLATION
Item
Description
Item Amount
Total
% Total
Constr. Cost
1
Construction Contract (as bid)
$ 49,000
2
Estimated construction contingencies*
7,300
3
Total construction cost
56,300
100.00
4 Estimated construction incidentals to
project completion
Contract Administration
Contract Inspection
Engineering During Construction
Legal
As-Built Drawings
Survey
Clerical
$ 700
4,000
800
500
500
2,500
300
Total estimated construction
incidentals
~
16.5
5
Total estimate required to complete
project
65,600
116.5
6
Prebid expenditures
17.000
30.2
7
Total estimated project cost
82,600
146.7
8
Less funds previously authorized
(17 ,000)
9
Total additional funds required to
complete project (Item 7 minus Item 8)
$65,600
* Contingency will be used for change orders, force accounts, or engineering assistance
as necessary.
.
Centr&..w Contra Costa Sanltar ~ District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION
PAPER BOARD MEETING OF
October 29, 1987
NO.
VI.
CONSENT CALENDAR 3
SUBJECT
APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT
TO STATE UTILITIES AGREEMENT 106.09.6 CONCERNING
RELOCATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF CERTAIN DISTRICT FACILITIES
IN NORRIS CANYON ROAD AND EAST OF FREEWAY 680 (DP 4042)
DATE
October 21, 1987
TYPE OF ACTION
APPROVE AMENDMENT/
ADOPT RESOLUTION
SUBMITTED BY
J ay McCoy
Construction Division Manager
~ITIATING DEPT./DLY.
engineering uepartment
Construction Division
ISSUE: Utilities' agreement 106.09.6 has been amended to reflect an increase in
cost of the relocation work. The Board of Directors must approve the amendment.
BACKGROUND: In December of 1986, the District and the state of Cal ifornia,
Department of Transportation, entered into an agreement to relocate certain sewer
facilities to accommodate the state's proposed widening of the Norris Canyon Road
overcrossing of Freeway 680 in San Ramon. The agreement provided for the District
performing the relocation work and for the state reimbursing the District for the
cost of the relocation work which was estimated at $3,500. The work actually cost
$5,065.15. Since the actual cost exceeded the estimated cost by more than 25
percent, the state requires and has prepared an amendment which shows the actual
cost of the work to the state ($5,065.15). The increased costs were due to
interferences with existing underground utility conduits, cables, and vaults.
An invoice has been sent to the state in the amount of $5,065.15. The state will
pay the invoice after receipt of an executed amendment.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve an Amendment to Utility Agreement No. 106.09.6 with the
state of California, Department of Transportation, and adopt a resolution
authorizing the President and Secretary to execute the Agreement.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A.9/85
RAB
.
Centrc.~ Contra Costa Sanitar) District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF16
POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF
October 29, 1987
NO.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 4
DATE
October 21, 1987
TYPE OF ~TION
INITIAlt ANNEXATION
DA 98
SUBJECT
INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORMALLY ANNEX TEN SEPARATE
AREAS UNDER THE TITLE OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION 98
s'D~MrrhTf~ EJ.lall
Associate Engineer
~~~~~~P,~TgD~epartment/
Construction Division
ISSUE: This District must initiate the annexation process with the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) before the annexation process can be officially
completed.
BACKGROUND: LAFCO has requested that the District submit no more than 10 separate
areas under anyone proceedi ng to avoi d overl oadi ng thei r schedul e. The subj ect
areas are generally located in Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Lafayette, Concord,
Orinda, and Danville (see attached maps). LAFCO has indicated that they may add
adjoining unannexed parcels to the separate areas we submit to eliminate islands
or straighten boundary lines. The District will have to hold a public hearing to
consider the annexation of any parcel added by LAFCO.
RECOMMENDATION: Pass a Resolution of Application for the annexation of properties
to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District under District Annexation 98.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
~
1302A--9/85 D H
.'
-,
,.
,.
,.
,.
,.
.
~~; DA. 38/
/{
~ \
-Y'
:/
.'1
'1
--~""..
"-
-:/'
-: reek
,
,'\
\ ---
.J '
,. )t:::~::-7-_u'--"---':I--;;t.:. -:'.':',
,.' ! ..'/
----_/ . (,..~~
". f' ..... "-
~. \"\',..
-"-2;-'
l
r
~~JOA. 981
\
't'\
\\
, .
~/
,.
./
\,p?--
r,-
I~
\
~. ."
,-
(
\.
I,',
,
" "
--'..:': ./
'-1, i': ~ /"
'~~:' ~/
'\,:\/ .,>-;~
/ " ,.y------------.:::::,
~---5 f
't:;.....-.k.) /----~...
",! \\
~~ \ I !.
..r}:~ .-1~ \ ,/ ,/
...... \ "'-../
\/
<~:-. ,..~
--:..~
;~"'1-"'--....
'. -. '.
" '
....
'"
;DA. 381
\J
. .Spring
t'
/' \ "-~-..... -.::'.'l"-
..
, .--./
-- ._--""~
~<c:-:
".
."
\,
....~!
" .
\,
I .
\ ,.~
......, '
\ .
,
, .,
'i,S~ri~gs .,
. .,
.,
~'.
~ .>'
..
,
.
,
y-J:
.
.
,
.
'.
'.
'-.-
.
,'a -
, ,
M .~.~.... "
.~ ,Eugene",
. Spring. \,
", ~ "'""c '",-~..
.
",
'1',:
.~
/
,
:.
\l\
\
\l,
A
//..
.t"
\Spring
,,--_.~.._--,...,.,
~
~
@
1~"1
.::::....::~Ifi@.!ltt4=mS~'ti:::::.:~.::.....:.::
NBI ae'E If\ 5'2"1.1 '
Z~
~~
~~
<iig;
cn$
2~
a:a:
il~
~
N810'28'E 4"10.6'3'
~ -
- :8
(\l .
r ~
CD (\I
2 o:l\I
or-
Z-:
UJa:
lIlci
4<f
:iltl
-\II
>~
2
2l\l
4.
~o:
a:ci
S~
~
STEVENSON-DUNN CO.
'7565 O.R. '2'24
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 98
PARCEL NO. 1 MARTINEZ AREA
(1)- g:
0:>,
"'U1
~
Z
-l
o
i1
(Jl
m
...... Q2
z
Z
::::::'::::::::;:;::::::::=;:;::::=;:;::=;::=:=::;' .::=;:;:.......
~
<
~
V)
:;::::
f~~
....
"
~ p ~ (i)
~ :iii~ I ~~I~
.!! ~ ~ ~ ; ). Ii!!!!!
~_~ ~ .rN ~x
Z ,+ .o~U1 . .z,
o ~ ~~~~ 1+1 !1
dl!! . - N -i tD * .Q;
6'I~Z,!, 'k~
lT1 N mN fft
N 8900S'E 202,94' J. -< U1 :......
~~~~*;; ~.'t0
~>~ ~.I I
N e9005' E 202.94' {if
z_........
~~ 111111111
i..... II:
LITTLE LANE mT-
/II 87.()/J'~ - .
\
20'~
t....... ~
~ c,
V) '..J
~
~
~
Z
-I
o
11
m
ill
z
z
Z
tj)
......
::l:: .....
....
m:
~:
~l
I:
tf ~
I~ P>
0.:: ~
-m
2:
:~:
:1
It 8
@f ~
fi
.:.:<<
:2 ()) p 8 lJ)
:ffi S' ~ U1 rn *
~U1-1
i~i 0> P - (JI >
::0 - .
:~ ~ .Orn(J)
I::! ~~;If
::::::: CD p = Ol -
::::::: ~ ;Xl \J\ Jl1
:::::::.... ~ ~ j *
::~: III
:::l N 8905"1'W 2'21'.00'
N B9"OS'E
2.74.'50
~
'"
~e
IE
/z
~
I
c:'I~
~~ .......
~<
'" ~ :-i
~I'\ ~
~ I\l ~ v)
~~ ~
)o;~
\'~~
t.N
Cl?,j
~
11\
~..-J
"t!
~
P(\lOl;U
::tl;.Jm)O
~-J::t~
~lJ1UiN
*6'
Ul~~:U
. -, }>
"., t: ::u .
::00>
~
~
I
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 98
PARCELS 2 & 3 PLEASANT HILL
.- - -~
Nlt\IMl ~
~~.
N63046'sooe 3~.10'
N4tO"OG'31"e ~.G3'
....:~;t....
(';<...
~<::. ..,...
w' ...'
o (.'<"
'3 ,-Z..v
N 3~o~e'04"W 4n. 58'
F'OINrOF
BEGINNING
NGZ04Z'SS"E
~ 10,.12'
1>~
~
N,soQ4'O"w lOe.67'
Nze.,e'03'W 88.59'
N e04,'07"e 1/1.31'
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 98
Parcel 4 LAFAYETTE AREA
POINT OF BEG\NN\NG .
~
~
TRA CT 2937
/
/
/ A\.
/
@
19<09
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 98
PARCEL NO. 5 CONCORD AREA
Q
~
INT OF BEGINNING
)
20
U1VTJ
(')
h
~
-
~
o
i
I
!
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 98
PARCELS 6 & 7 ORINDA AREA
L4k:E O"i'/ N 04 -"'/G-"'L4IVOS
UNlr CWe f20 "r Si?8)
"'>-'0
~
~~
<
NcSO/3,W IGo'j:
JOHN A. c..t~ONIN
(/798 QR. 569)
.2
~
~
-4
I
o 98
DISTRICT ANNEXATION N. A
ORINDA ARE
PARCELS 8 & 9
~
/ ~v
/ ~&
~ ~-9GJ
. Q"'<'
~-<.. .
~
4"1-
\<3'1.
vJT DJABLO fSTATE PARK
DIABLO
ROAD
~~:~:~:~;;~;;;;~;~~~~~~~~;~;~;~~~~ii~~~~l~l~~~lll~~llllt~l~l~l~l~l~lil~l~~ilillilf~l~l~m~llll~l~~rmlrrilil;l;;il~;~;~;i;i;~;~;immmm~~rtr~mmmmmttI~l~~~~~~~tt~~~~~l~~~~llt~l~~;;~~t:~:~~:::::
'385' ~
@
1961
A
~
SUBD 4937
220 j\jj 47
@
\<3Ba
OF BEGINNING
N4"'1036'41"W
S'C.l61
N ~Oo25141"W
9.00'
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 98
PARCEL NO. 10 DANVILLE AREA ;
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 98
Tabulation of Parcels
Parcel
No.
P.A. No.
& Area
Lead
Aaencv
Owner Address
Parcel No. & Acreaae
Date Approved by Board
and Remarks
1
87-5
Martinez
J. Foran
760 Vine Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
155-060-001 (1.0 Ac.>
155-060-002 (0.51 Ac.>
E. Barnum
740 Vine Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
155-060-003 (0.49 Ac.>
G. Miller
736 Vine Hill Way
Martnez, CA 94553
155-060-004 (0.95 Ac.>
H.G. Golden
730 Vine Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
155-060-005 (0.97 Ac.>
Stevenson-Dunn Co.
310 Preda Street
San Leandro, CA 94557
155-060-006 (0.51 Ac.>
L. Gorman
735 Vine Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
162-030-07 (2.090 Ac.>
F. Vi 11 asenor
741 Vine Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
162-030-008 (2.07 Ac.>
S.M. Thanas
15 Dickson Lane
Martinez, CA 94553
162-030-006 (1.02 Ac.>
162-030-009 (0.5 Ac.>
February 19, 1987
"Notice of Exemption"
by District
CCCSD
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 98
Tabulation of Parcels
P a rce 1
No.
P.A. No. Owner Address Date Approved by Board
& Area Parcel No. & AcreaQe and Remarks '
Lead
AQencv
1
( cont. )
M. T. Hoyles
725 Vine Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
162-030-010 (0.62 Ac.)
F.V. Higby
749 Vine Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
162-110-002 (0.55 Ac.)
C.E. Smalley
947 N. 11th Street
Lake View, OR 97630
162-110-003 (0.45 Ac.)
162-110-005 (0.82 Ac.)
T.R. Lavino
777 Vine Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
162-110-006 (0.55 Ac.)
D.O. Simonsen
801 Vine Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
162-110-007 (0.61 Ac.)
H. Burns
811 Vine Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
162-110-008 (1.00 Ac.)
R.M. Hall
825 Vine Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
162-110-009 (1.00 Ac.)
R.L. Smith
827 Vine Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
162-110-010 (0.20 Ac.)
162-110-015 (0.04 Ac.)
J. A. Reeves
803 Vine Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
162-110-017 (0.42 Ac.)
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 98
Tabulation of Parcels
Parcel
N
P.A. No. Owner Address
& A P 1 N & A
Lead
A
Date Approved by Board
d R k
o. rea arce o. creaae an emar s \aencv
1
(cont. ) C.B. Taylor
831 Vi ne Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
162-110-011 (0.71 Ac)
J. Lucas
745 Vine Hill Way
Martinez, CA 94553
162-110-019 (1.10 Ac)
2 87-33 John T. Figoni October 1, 1987 CCCSD
Pleasant I 185 Harriet Drive I "Notice of Exemption" I
Hill Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 by District I
I I
85-25 Gary W. Whitney, et ux November 7, 1985 CCCSD
8 Bristol Court "Notice of Exemption"
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 by District
152-070-013 (0.45 Ac)
3 85-21 Madelle R. Bettis October 17, 1985 CCCSD
Pleasant 581 Best Road "Notice of Exemption"
Hill Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 by District
(152-092-009) 0.42 Ac.
Margie E. Best October 17, 1985 CCCSD
589 Best Road "Notice of Exemption"
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 by District
(152-092-12) 0.42 Ac.
(152-092-13) 0.42 Ac.
86-26 Bruce W. Bettis November 6, 1986 City 0
56 Bolero Court "Negative Pleasa
Danv ill e, CA 94526 Declaration" by Hill
152-029-011 (0.52 Ac.) City of Pleasant
Hill
86-27 K. Lee Martyn, Trustee November 6, 1986 CCCSD
584 Littl e Road "Notice of Exemption"
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 by District
152-070-004 (0.39 Ac.) I
86-28 J .G. Farrant I November 6, 1986 I City 0
I 391 Camino Las Juntas I "Notice of Exemption" I Pleasa
Pl easant Hi 11, CA 94523 I by City of Pl easant
152-092-004 (1.31 Ac.) I Hill
I Hill
I
f
nt
f
nt
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 98
Tabulation of Parcels
Parcel
P.A. No.
Owner Address
Date Approved by Board
d k
Lead
A
No. & Area Parcel No. & Acreaae an Remar s \oe ncv
3 86-30 M.K. Mehta November 6, 1986 CCCSD
(cont.) Pleasant 580 Littl e Road "N ot ice of Exem pt ion"
Hill Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 By District
152-070-24 (0.62 Ac.)
87-24 Sky Ranch Investors November 6, 1986 City of
3333 Vincent Road "Negative Declar- Pleasant
I Suite 209 ation" by City of Hill
I Pleasant HIll, CA 94523 I Pl easant Hill
152-092-012 (0.42 Ac.) I
I 152-092-011 (0.52 Ac.) I I
152-092-019 (4.70 Ac.)
4 83-6 Raman Catholic Bishop Apri 1 14, 1983 I Contra
Lafayette of Oakland Boundary Reorgan- I Costa
P.O. Box 488 ization with LAFCO County
Lafayette, CA 94549
167-360-002 and -003
(197.99 Ac. Total)
Annex. fee based on
4.53 Ac.
5 86-34 Mary E. Berkowitz December 18, 1986 City of
Concord 3361 McGraw Lane "Negative Declar- Concord
Lafayette, CA 94549 ation" by Concord
147-272-007 (1.00 Ac.)
6 84-26 Will iam Grover December 20, 1984 CCCSD
Orinda 40 Camino Del Diablo "Notice of Exemp-
Orinda, CA 94563 tion" by District
264-091-027 (0.46 Ac.)
7 86-2 Carol L. Hassl er January 16, 1986 CCCSD
Orinda 21 Camino Del Diablo "Notice of Exemp-
Orinda, CA 94563 tion" by District
264-101-009 (0.22 Ac.)
L.C. and J.F. Franklin January 16, 1986 CCCSD
19 Camino Del Diablo "Notice of Exemp-
Orinda, CA 94563 tion" by District I
264-101-010 (0.26 Ac.)
87-32 I James W. Morando October 1, 1987 CCCSD
580 Palo Alto Place "Notice of Exemp-
I Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 I tion" by District
264-101-011 (0.30 Ac.)
8 83-1 Dieter Scholz January 6, 1983 CCCSD
Orinda 227 El Toyonal "Notice of Exemp-
Ori nda, CA 94563 tion" by District
264-102-27 (Por.
0.26 Ac.)
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 98
Tabulation of Parcels
Parcel
P.A. No.
Owner Address
Date Approved by Board
Lead
No. & Area Parcel No. & Acreaae and Remarks Aaencv
9 86-4 D.R. Doll and D.J. Lenci January 28, 1986 CCCSD
Orinda 4 Mira Monte Road "Notice of Exemp-
Ori nda, CA 94563 tion" by District
264-250-014 (0.48 Ac.)
10 87-17 M.H. Robertson May 7, 1987 Tow n of
Danvill e 2016 Diablo Road I "Negative Decl ar- I Danvflle
Danv i 11 e, CA 94526 tion" by Town of
215-010-006 (6.01 Ac.) i Danvflle i
.
Centr, Contra Costa Sanlta. District
.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 4
POSITION
PAPER BOARD MEETING OF
October 29, 1987
NO.
VI.
CONSENT CALENDAR 5
SUBJECT
ESTABLISH NOVEMBER 19, 1987, AS THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING TO CONSIDER ADDING A CHAPTER TO THE DISTRICT CODE
ENTITLED "ABANDONING OF SEWERS"
DATE
October 21, 1987
TYPE OF ACTION
SET HEARING DATE
SUBMITTED BY
J ay McCoy
Construction Division Manager
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Engineering Department
Construction Division
ISSUE: District Counsel has advised that it is necessary to add certain language
to the Code to provide for the collection of a new fee which is proposed for
adoption by the Board of Directors on October 29, 1987.
BACKGROUND: A new lateral plug fee is proposed for adoption by the Board. Proper
abandoning of laterals is needed to eliminate potential infiltration from unused
sewer laterals and to protect the District's sewer system from damage. The past
procedure of having private sewer contractors pl ug the sewers has proven to be
ineffective and difficult to enforce. The new procedure includes the payment of a
fee and the completion of the abandonment work by District forces. This new
procedure and fee were created to provide a better guarantee that sewers are
properly abandoned. The new fee is based on the cost of the work by District
forces. District Counsel reviewed the new fee and determined that the Code does
not contain adequate provisions to collect the fee or to administer the new
procedure for abandoning sewers.
A new chapter of the Code has been drafted which when adopted, will provide
adequate authority. The draft is attached for information. The addition to the
Code must be the subject of a public hearing. It is necessary to set the date for
the public hearing and publish proper notice as prescribed by law. When the date
is set, the Secretary of the District will have the notice published.
RECOMMENDATION: Establish November 19, 1987, as the date for a public hearing to
consider adding a chapter to the District Code entitled "Abandoning of Sewers."
Sections:
9.20.010
9.20.020
9.20.030
9.20.040
9.20.050
CHAPTER 9.20
ABANDONING OF SEWERS
Permit required.
Payment of fee.
Construction.
Responsible parties.
Responsible parties - special circumstances.
9.20.010 Permit reauired. A permit must be obtained
before a sanitary sewer or facility which is connected to the
District collection system is abandoned, including the aban-
donment of a side sewer, lateral sewer, or house sewer.
9.20.020 Payment of fee. The District Board shall
from time to time set fees for the issuance of the abandon-
ment permit, inspections of an abandoned line, and/or the
plugging and sealing of the abandoned line or facility.
9.20.030 Construction. The abandoning of sewers
shall be done in accordance with the District's Standard
Specifications and other District procedures as may be devel-
oped.
- 1 -
9.20.040 Responsible parties. The property owner at
the time of the abandonment is primarily responsible for
paYment of the sewer abandonment fee and such other costs as
may be associated with abandoning sewers in a manner which
complies with District standard specifications and Proce-
dures. In the event a property is redeveloped and the sewer
abandonment permit has not been obtained and/or the applica-
ble sewer abandonment fees have not been paid, then the owner
proposing redevelopment shall be responsible for obtaining an
abandonment permit and paYment of applicable fees and charg-
es, at such time as the redeveloping owner first submits
plans for review by the District, or connects to a District
facility, whichever comes first. If an abandonment of a
sewer facility without a permit is first discovered by the
District at a time subsequent to the plan review process and
connection to the sewer system, then the owner of the proper-
ty at the time of abandonment and/or the owner at the time of
redevelopment will be responsible for paYment of the appropri-
ate abandonment fees and charges. Such fees and charges will
be due and payable at such time after discovery of abandon-
ment as notice of the fees and charges is provided to the
responsible owner.
For the purposes of this chapter, a property shall be defined
as being redeveloped when existing buildings or outbuildings
are removed or modified so as to abandon a sewer or lateral
which is directly or indirectly connected to the District
- 2 -
system, and thereafter new structures are constructed on the
property.
9.20.050 Responsible Parties - Special Circumstances.
When, due to development taking place, whether it be new
development or redevelopment, a public sewer or public sewage
facility is to be abandoned, the developer, person, or entity
seeking approval of the sewer plan incorporating such abandon-
ment shall be responsible for all costs and fees associated
with the abandonment authorized by this Chapter and such
fees shall be due at the time of plan review.
If any development causes or requires that an existing
side sewer, lateral sewer or house sewer, which services a
property not owned by the person or entity undertaking the
development to be abandoned, the person or entity undertaking
the development shall be responsible for the costs and fees
authorized by this Chapter associated with that abandonment.
- 3 -
.
Centra._ Contra Costa Sanitar) Oistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
October 29, 1987
NO.
VI.
CONSENT CALENDAR 6
SUBJECT
DATE
AUTHORIZE THE ATTENDANCE OF WILLIAM E. BRENNAN,
PLANT OPERATIONS DIVISION MANAGER, AT THE SPECIALTY
CONFERENCE, "STRATEGIES FOR WASTEWATER ODOR CONTROL."
October 19, 1987
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE ATTENDANCE
SUBMITTED BY
William E. Brennan
Plant 0 erations Division Mana er
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Plant 0 erations Department
ISSUE: The Board of Directors must authorize attendance at an out-of-state
conference in Richmond, Virginia.
BACKGROUND: In early fall of this year, Will iam Brennan was contacted by a
representative of the Virginia Water Pollution Control Association who asked him
to present a paper on the odor control strategies used at the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District Treatment Plant. This will be a paper entitled "Case History:
Odor Source Identification, Quantification, and Corrective Action at Central
Contra Costa Sani tary Di stri ct. "
Mr. Brennan asked to present a paper at this conference instead of attending the
Water Pollution Control Federation Conference in Philadelphia, which he was budgeted
to attend as part of the 1987 - 1988 Fiscal Year, Technical Training, Conferences,
and Meetings Budget. The Virginia Water Pollution Control Association will pay for
lodging and meals. The District is asked to pay for the air fare. The air fare was
budgeted as part of the Water Poll ution Control Federation Conference. This will
not adversely impact the Technical Training, Conferences, and Meetings Budget.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attendance of Will i am Brennan at the Vi rgi ni a Water
Pollution Control Association Specialty Conference, "Strategies for Wastewater Odor
Control. "
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
e3
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
1302A.9/85 WEB
.
Centre... Contra Costa Sanitar) District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION PAPER BOARDME~t~b~r 29, 1987
NO.
VII. ENGINEERING 1
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE, INC. (COM) FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO WATERSHED PLANNING
DATE
October 23, 1987
TYPE...Qf ACTION
AUTHORIZE
AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY
INITIA TING DEPT.lDIV.
Jack Case, Associate Engineer
Engineering Dept./P1anning Div.
ISSUE: Authorization of the Board of Directors is required for the General
Manager-Chief Engineer to execute professional services agreements greater than
$50,000.
BACKGROUND: The Watershed planning activity includes local sewer system capacity
analysis of District mains. A description of the watershed planning capital
activity is provi ded in the Capital Improvement Budget on page CS-66. As noted
in the description, there are two categories of ongoing local sewer system
capacity analyses included in the activity. The first category is local sewer
system capacity analysis in response to proposed development. The second
category is local sewer system capacity analysis to identify and define existing
deficiencies in the sewer system. Due to the heavy workload in the development
review/local capacity analysis section of the Planning Division, staff recommends
that consultants perform selected local sewer system capacity analyses to prevent
an excessive backlog of capacity analyses from developing. The current backlog
is one year. This approach was anticipated in the Capital Improvement Budget
description of the Watershed Planning Project.
COM was selected to assist the District in watershed planning based on the
qual1fications of their proposed project team, familiarity with 1 and-use data
management and sewer network analysis, as well as their satisfactory performance
during this past year on the District's local capacity studies. Staff has
negoti ated a cost reimbursement agreement. The agreement has a cost cei 1 i ng of
$75,000.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute an
agreement with COM for professional services related to the watershed planning in
the amount of $75,000.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
1302A
.
Centr&... Contra Costa Sanltar) District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 10
POSITION
P APE R BOARD MEETING OF
Oc
NO.
VII.
ENGINEERING 2
SUBJECT
ADOPT FINDINGS UNDER CEnA. AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER
OHEF ENGINEER TO EXEQJTE AN AGREEMENT WITH SHAPELL
INDUSTRIES. INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORMALLY ANNEX THE
WEST BRANCH DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE TITLE OF DISTRICT
ANNEXATION 101.
DATE
o
TYPE OF ACTION
ADOPTING FINDINGS
AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT
AUTHORIZE ANNEXATION
SUBMITTED BY
Jay S. McCoy
Construction Division Mana er
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering Department/
Construction Division
ISSUE: Shapell I ndustri es has petiti oned the Di stri ct for annexati on of thei r
West Branch development.
BACKGROUND: West Branch is a proposed development of 668 houses on 400 acres of
1 and adj acent to the intersection of Crow Canyon Road Extension and Dougherty
Road. The sewers proposed for West Branch are at an elevation which is lower than
the nearby existing District sewer system. Hence, the sewage from West Branch
must be pumped if this District is to serve the development. This pumping
requirement as well as the fact that the West Branch area must be annexed to be
served was brought to the attention of the Board of Di rectors in August, 1985.
Based upon input from the Board, the Planning Division responded to Shapell
stating that the following conditions would be required by the District for a
future West Branch annexation:
1. "In accordance with normal District procedure, the developer must design
and build to District specifications the sewers and, if required, a pump
station at the developer's cost. All plans must be reviewed and approved
by the District prior to construction. If any sew,rs are placed in a
hillside area, plans must be reviewed prior to design.
2. If a pump station is required, either a county service area, maintenance
district, or similar entity would have to be established to provide a
mechanism to pay for the annual O&M costs associated with pumping. It
would be understood that CCCSD personnel would operate and maintain the
pump station with the District being reimbursed for all associated costs.
3. The developer must pay all appropri ate District fees and connection
charges.
4. The incremental cost of providing watershed trunk capacity for the West
Branch development would be an additional cost that would be paid by the
developers of West Branch. Once the method of servi ng West Branch is
decided, the watershed fees applicable to West Branch can be determined."
_._'--_._--_._....__._-_._-----~-------~._."~-----~._---.--.-----,--.------
SUBJECT
ADOPT FINDINGS UNDER CECA. AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER
CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH SHAPELL
INDUSTRIES. INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORMALLY ANNEX
THE WEST BRANCH DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE TITLE OF DISTRICT
ANNEXATION 101
POSITION PAPER
PAGE
DATE
2
OF 10
October 21, 1987
Relative to item 4 above, since it has now been determined that West Branch will
be served by a pump station and force main, the applicable watershed fees can be
calculated during the construction plan review process.
Shapell has agreed to the above conditions. These conditions have been
formulated into an agreement which, when executed, will bind Shapell to the
conditions. The approval of the agreement must comply with the Cal ifornia
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Shapell has completed the processing of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
West Branch. Contra Costa County was the lead agency for the EIR. The EIR
identified Central Contra Costa Sanitary District as the appropriate provider of
sewer service for West Branch.
The Di strict has compl ied with CEnA with respect to the approval of the EIR as
follows:
o Section 15231 of the CEnA Guidel ines states "A final EIR prepared by a Lead
Agency" (Contra Costa County) "shall be concl usively presumed to compl y with
CEnA for purposes of use by Responsible Agencies. ." (Sanitary District).
o Section 15096f of the CEnA Guidelines states "Prior to reaching a decision on
the project, the Responsible Agency must consider the environmental effects of
the project as shown in the EIR . . ."
In this case, the District is the Responsible Agency. The decision being reached
by the Board in this position paper is whether or not to annex and to enter into
an agreement to provide sewer service to the West Branch development. The Board
must consider the environmental effects of the project (West Branch) as shown in
the EIR which has been distributed to the Board. The significant environmental
impacts which were identified in the EIR and mitigation measures therefore are
shown on Attachment A. The Board must make findings regarding each significant
impact identified in the EIR and whether each significant impact has been
eliminated, substantially lessened, or properly mitigated.
Shapell has appl ied for the annexation of West Branch to CCCSD and East Bay
Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD). EBMUD has approved the annexation of West
Branch. Since Shapell has completed the planning process through Contra Costa
County it is appropriate for this District's Board to act on the petition for
annexation. This District's sphere of influence must be changed as part of the
annexation of West Branch. The Resol ution of Appl ication for the annexation to
the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) will include a request to change the
sphere of influence.
13028-9/65
SUBJECT
ADOPT FINDINGS UNDER CEQA. AUll-IORIZE ll-IE GENERAL MANAGER
a-tIEF ENGINEER TO EXEQJTE AN AGREEtlENT WITH SHAPELL
INDUSTRIES. INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORMALLY ANNEX THE
WEST BRANa-t DEVELOPMENT UNDER ll-IE TITLE OF DISTRICT
ANNEXATION 101.
POSITION PAPER
3
OF
10
PAGE
DATE
October 21, 1987
West Branch is one of the developments in the Tassajara Valley which is the
subject of a suit by Tassajara Now and Tomorrow (TNT). TNT is an association of
residents of the San Ramon Valley area who are concerned about development in the
valley. TNT states that it is organized for the purpose of "ensuring the orderly
development of the San Ramon Valley area and particularly the Tassajara Valley in
conformance with the goal s and pol ici es of the county-wi de and area general
pl ans." The suit by TNT challenges the approval by the county of the West Branch
development and the adequacy of the EIR. The developer is attempting to resolve
the TNT suit. This suit does not preclude this District from proceeding with the
annexation of West Branch in keeping with Section 15233 of the CEQA Guidelines,
part of which follows:
If a lawsuit is filed challenging an EIR or Negative Declaration for
noncompl i ance with CEQA, Responsi bl e Agenci es shall act as if the EIR or
Negative Declaration complies with CEQA and continue to process the
appl ication for the project . .. An approval granted by a Responsible
Agency in this situation provides only permission to proceed with the
project at the applicant's risk prior to a final decision in the lawsuit.
It should be noted that TNT has not f1led suit challenging the approval of the
annexation of West Branch to EBMUD.
The following are proposed findings which staff recommends based on review of the
final EIR prepared by Contra Costa County as the lead agency, review of
Resolution No. 45-1984 of the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission, and
review of Resolution No. 84/695 of the County Board of Supervisors:
o Environmental effects of the project have been considered. Each and every
effect on the environment as shown in Attachment A has been reviewed by the
Board of Directors. The Board has used discretion in determining that all
significant effects on the environment have been eliminated or substantially
lessened where feasible. Mitigation measures as shown in Attachment A are
within the responsibil ity and jurisdiction of another publ ic agency (Contra
Costa County) and not the Sanitary District.
o Contra Costa County has required adequate mitigation of all significant
environmental impacts as identified in Attachment A.
o Filing of a Notice of Determination as a Responsible Agency stating that the
District considered the EIR as prepared by Contra Costa County is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt the findings regarding consideration of the environmental effects of the
project and direct the General Manager - Chief Engineer to file a Notice of
Determination as a Responsible Agency.
13028-9/85
SUBJECT
ADOPT FINDINGS UNDER CEOA. AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER
(}lIEF ENGINEER TO EXEaJTE AN AGREEMENT WITH SHAPELL
INDUSTRIES. INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORMALLY ANNEX THE
WEST BRANCH DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE TITLE OF DISTRICT
ANNEXATION 101.
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 4
DATE
October 21, 1987
OF
10
2. Authorize the General Manager - Chief Engineer to execute an agreement with
Shapell Industries for sewer service to West Branch.
3. Approve the request for annexation and pass a Resolution of Application
for the annexation of West Branch to Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District under District Annexation 101.
1302B-9/85
___~_"________'_"__' ___,. __._"_..~_.,,_.. ,__.^_'..m.._.'....~__..,.._._..___...~"..... .,.,_.__'., ..,~.,...w.,_._~.._,__._.__.".'".._ __._.___,_._,._~,__,.._...____.".~_'._____.,__.__~___"_--......--.,".. "" _...,...._-,---" .-.--..----.,..--.-....~....,.-----".-~.~...~--,.~.----.-----------~
5 of 10
------1:-
'!l
'---..,
."
'~
-:-----
"- - ----------
':'..."':-=~-:::-----
ROAD "
Ex. CCCSD Sewer
--
.... cc,~ i,
_--cAN'
'-',
MORGAN -1
; ! PR~P~RT> ;
1-:\ ['-/
. EXTENSION OF
~ CROW CANYON ROAD.
1111/1111111/ 1111lllli.!1
/y
SYCAMORE VALLEY
111111I111I11I11I11I1111/1 CCCSD ANNEXED BOUNDARY
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
.
WEST BRANCH
ANNEXATION
October 29, 1987
FIG. 1
2523,1/87
6 of 10
ATTAa-tMENT A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AND
MITIGATION MEASURES*
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impacts
o The project is outside the area intended for urban expansion by the
General Pl an.
o The project would conform to the General Plan's objectives of
providing a portion of the planned Crow Canyon Road extension,
providing a range of residential densities, and expanding employment
opportunities.
o The proj ect woul d resul tin the permanent loss of 400 acres of
productive grazing land.
o The project's proposed land uses along the northwestern and western
project site boundaries would be incompatible with adjacent pending
and approved development.
o The proposed pl an amendment coul d confl ict with the potenti al need
to widen Dougherty Road in the future.
o The project would extend urban services and increase economic
incentives to convert additional agricultural lands south and east
of the site to urban use.
Miti gati ons
o To resolve potential land use conflicts, proposed land uses within
the plan amendment is rearranged to correspond more closely to those
of adjacent approved development.
o Upper elevations of the site are proposed to be retained as
permanent open space.
o Approvals of development projects could be delayed until properties
to the west and northwest are developed.
o The plan amendment's allowable density considerations is reduced to
approximately 960 units.
o Open space buffer zones are incorporated into the proposed land use
pl an amendment to reduce 1 and use confl icts and pressure for urban
development to the east of the plan site.
* Attachment A is a verbatim copy of the pertinent sections of
Resolution No. 45-1984 of the San Ramon Valley Area Planning
Commission.
7 of 10
o Internal land uses proposed by the applicant are adjusted to conform
with the physical constraints of the property as well as policies of
the General Plan.
WATER SERVICE
Impact
o If the plan amendment area is annexed to EBMUD, a major supply line
and additional storage and pumping facllities would be required.
This area is adjacent to, but not within, East Bay Municipal Utility
District's (EBMUD's) sphere of influence. EBMUD is reviewing
possible extension of water service into the plan amendment area.
MitiQation
o Decision on annexation and sphere of influence modification are
those of LAFCO and EBMUD.
SANITARY SERVICE
Impacts
o The pl an area is not within the service area of any sanitary
district. The area immediately to the north of the project site is
served by Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD).
o If the pl an area is annexed to the CCCSD, a pump station woul d be
needed to lift sewage to an existing trunk sewer on Camino
Tassajara; current CCCSD policy, however, prohibits such facilities.
Miti Qati ons
o The plan area should be annexed to the CCCSD.
o Decisions on annexation and sphere of influence modification are
those of LAFCO and the sanitary district.
POLICE SERVICES
Impact
o The plan area would increase demand on the Sheriff's Department for
public safety services.
MitiQation
o The Sheriff's Department woul d need an additional substati on and
additional personnel to serve the site. Specific social or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measure for this
development alone. Area developments may participate in a
substation collectively.
8 of 10
FIRE SERVICES
Impact
o The plan area is contiguous to, but not within, the San Ramon Valley
Fi re Protecti on Di stri ct. If the pl an area was annexed to the
District and the Crow Canyon Road extension was completed through
the site, the first-due response would be from Station #4.
Mitigation
o No additional capital improvements woul d be necessary to serve the
site, so no mitigation is needed.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact
o There is a potential for prehistoric or historic deposits of
significance to be encountered during grading and excavation of the
site.
Mitigation
o Any construction would be halted if a deposit was encountered, until
the deposit could be inspected and appropriate additional measures
taken.
VISUAL AND AESTHETIC ISSUES
Impact
o The project woul d change the character of the site from rural to
urban, extendi ng urban el ements farther east and south into the
existing rural landscape.
o Development is proposed for areas designated as scenic ridges on the
General Pl an.
o The project may, depending on its design, degrade the scenic quality
of the Dougherty and Crow Canyon Roads view corridors where they
pass through the site.
o The project would be highly visible in regional vistas extending
south from Mt. Diablo.
o The cumulative effect of the project and other approved and proposed
development in southeastern Contra Costa County may confl ict with
County policy to preserve scenic open space areas for the enjoyment
of County residents.
9 of 10
MitiQation
o The visual impact of the project was partly mitigated by
redesignating the upper slopes and ridges to General Open Space in
the proposed Plan Amendment, by designating Dougherty and Crow
Canyon Roads as scenic routes. Any subsequent development would be
subjected to detailed design review.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Impact
o The project would generate about 23,400 daily vehicle trips.
Project traffic would require improvement of Dougherty Road.
o Cumulative anticipated development in the project area would
generate about 174,000 vehicle trips/day. This level of development
woul d requi re improvements to Crow Canyon Road, Sycamore Valley
Road, Bolli nger Canyon Road, Carni no Tassaj ara, and woul d requi re
construction of a new interchange with 1-680 at Bollinger Canyon
Road.
o Construction truck traffic would be expected to have a deleterious
effect on the older, two-lane roadways in the project area (e.g.,
Dougherty Road).
o The plan area's internal circulation plan lacks secondary access to
the eastern and northwestern porti ons of the si te unti 1 adj acent
properties are developed. This access may be necessary during an
emergency.
MitiQation
o Any subsequent development would be required to post bond to
repair/replace pavement on County roadways affected by project
construction traffic.
o Any subsequent development would be required to contribute a
proportionate share towards regional roadway improvements.
o Require appropriate dedication of right-of-way along Dougherty Road
through property owned by applicant.
o Require preparation of a site-specific traffic analysis.
o Density consideration allowed by the plan area is reduced to
approximately 960 units to further diminish traffic impacts.
10 of 10
OTHER IMPACTS
Impacts
o Those impacts mentioned in the Final EIR dealing with solid waste;
parks and recreation; hydrology and water quality; biotic resources;
geology, soils and seismicity; and energy can only be mitigated upon
review and decision of subsequent development applications.
M1t1Qat1on
o The appropriate mitigation measures can only be mitigated upon
review and decision of subsequent development applicants.