The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 10-15-87 . Centr... . Contra Costa Sanlta" District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF October 15, 1987 NO. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 5 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE QUITCLAIM OF A SEWER EASEMENT, JOB 264 MISCELLANEOUS PARCEL, LAFAYETTE AREA DATE ctober 9, 1987 TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE QUITCLAIM OF EASEMENT SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall Associate Engineer IflIlTIAJING DEpT./DI~. ~nglneerlng uepartment/ Construction Division ISSUE: Arthur D. Jimenez, et ux, owners of Lot 49 of Lafayette Valley Estates - Unit 2, have requested this District to quitclaim the subject easement. BACKGROUND: The subject easement was created in 1951 as a "5' Reserve for Sanitary Sewer." District records indicate that this easement was never used for sewer purposes. All of the parcels of land in the vicinity of the subject easement are served by publ1c sewers located in publ ic roadways. The subject easement is not needed for District purposes. The owner has paid the District's processing fee. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Quitclaim Deed to Arthur D. Jimenez, et ux, Job No. 264. Authorize the Presi dent. of the Di strict Board of Di rectors and the Secretary of the District to execute said Quitclaim Deed, and authorize the Quitclaim Deed to be recorded. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION ~ INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. 130:!A.9/8S DH >-~ . iCI''>.L >'" ~~..,.. QUITCLAIM EASEMENT LAFAYETTE AREA JOB 264 - MISC. . Centrlktf Contra Costa Sanlta~ ~ District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF NO. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 6 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE QUITClAIM OF A SEWER EASEMENT, JOB 4142, SUBDIVISION 5305, LAFAYETTE AREA DATE October 9 1987 TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE QUITClAIM OF EASEMENT SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall Associate En ineer INITIA TING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: Kenneth J. Dekker, et ux, has requested the District to quitclaim a sewer easement which lies within Lot 3 of Subdivision 5305. BACKGROUND: The subject easement was granted to the District in October, 1986. Subsequently, the line between Lots 3 and 4 was adjusted to provide for better use of the building site on Lot 4. The sewer plans were changed to realign the public sewer to keep it clear of the building site. New easements have been granted to the Di strict for the real igned publ ic sewer. The off-site developer (Don Young) has paid the District's processing fee. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Quitclaim Deed to K. J. Dekker, et ux, Job 4142. Authorize the President of the Di.strict Board of Di rectors and the Secretary of the District to execute said Quitclaim Deed, and authorize the Quitclaim Deed to be recorded. ~ jJfJ1 1302A..9/85 DH JSM RAB INITIATING DEPT./DIV. 5/7 / / / / ,/ / ~ -N- ~ ~ ....-:;.,.. . C-::i(....-:.:.... <...;.. ~/, .....r c.- >. '0("\' ~./ ..'.... '':>' ..f:~.;,-'t'l a '~i' '~c." G..,"; .' ReVISEt:> sew~ ALIGNMeNt , tf 4,Pp,.eOXI/J1A~ t lee'tAGeMt:AJr CAS6M6/JT QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENT JOB 4142 LAFAYETTE AREA . Centr&.1I Contra Costa Sanltat"l District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF October 15, 1987 NO. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 7 SUBJECT APPROVE AGREEMENT RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY WITH ALISTER H. ROBB, JOB 3201 - PARCEL 2, WALNUT CREEK AREA DATE October 9, 1987 TYPE OF ACTIQN APPROVE REAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT SU~MITTE.o BY. uenn1s Hall Associate Engineer l~hlgfl~2jffhWI'bepa rtment/ Construction Division ISSUE: The property owner has proposed the construction of a reinforced concrete retaining wall over a District easement. BACKGROUND: The proposed wall will cross the easement area at right angles, with a minimum clearance of 18 inches fran the sewer main. The property owner has cooperated with District staff by providing construction drawings of the retaining wall, has agreed to modify the wall footing at the point it crosses our sewer main to provide the minimum 18 inches of clearance, and has paid the District's fee for processing the subject agreement. Staff has determined that the improvements will not interfere with the present use of our sewer; however, if the need should arise, the agreement requires the property owner to move the wall at their expense within thirty days of notice to do so. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Agreement relating to Real Property with Al ister H. Robb, et al, Job 3201. Authorize the President of the Board of Directors and the Secretary of the District to execute said agreement, and authorize the agreement to be recorded. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. fjdlJ( JSM VA/" ~ 1302A.9/85 DH RAB JL .- ~, ~'i ~ .. .. ~ ~ .. ~ -i. :~'~:-i ~ ' J, '~..,4.:~' ;.... ~ I ( ? 1tf!t~~ A~ ~ ~f ~ Ii!; :4;;&~ pt~p.1 's.~ r1'; 4.s:<f I ! 0',.." v~ \AIel ~ .$l.lr~c.CiL , 1'-6" r . /6 ( /)K.,JVE WA Y (!, ~NCR.E. re (, R,"'r4""ING- Pl<.ope~TY LINE ~o "t.J <V -..- t: '/ r .' . .~ - .". 18"MinJmllm sew~1t WAL.L REAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT JOB 3201 WALNUT CREEK AREA . Centr~ _ Contra Costa Sanitatl District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 POSITION PAPER 'f:fC'rgbM€FT1tg ~F1987 NO. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 8 SUBJECT DATE AUTHORIZE 83 HOURS MEDICAL LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR FELIX ESPINOSA, UTILITY WORKER Se tember 28 1987 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE LEAVE SUBMITTED BY Charles W. Batts Plant 0 erations De artment Mana er INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Plant Operations De artment ISSUE: Board Authorization is required for a medical leave of absence. BACKGROUND: Felix Espinosa was off work from September 11, 1987 through September 25, 1987, due to a medical condition. He has exhausted his accumulated sick, vacation, and earned overtime leave. He returned to work on September 28, 1987. A medical leave of absence is requested for 83 hours effective September 11, 1987. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize 83 hours medical leave of absence for Felix Espinosa, Utility Worker, effective September 11, 1987. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302,A.9/85 CF . Centr&... Contra Costa Sanitar 1 District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 42 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF October 15, 1987 NO. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 9 SUBJECT DATE October 13, 1987 ESTABLISH DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 1987-1988 SCHEDULE OF FEES TYPE OF ACTION SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE SUBMITTED BY INITIA TING DEPT./DIV. Barton L. Brandenburg, Assoc. Engineer Engineering Dept./Planning Division ISSUE: A public hearing is required prior to the adoption of a new schedule of fees. BACKGROUND: The current District schedule of fees has been in effect for one year. Fees were established last year after an in-depth study by District staff and a public hearing which was held on August 21, 1986. It was noted during the fee setting process last year that District staff would review the basis of these fees before the next fee adjustment. As part of the annual Rates and Charges review, District staff has analyzed the available data for the cost of providing the services for which the fees are assessed. An updated fee schedule has been developed and is recommended for adoption by the Board. This Position Paper is transmitted at this time for Board information. At the publ ic hearing, staff will present the basis for the fees and be available to respond to Board and public comments. A reduction in mainline inspection and TV inspection fees are proposed. These fees have been reduced because of recent actual cost experience and improved efficiency in the use of labor and equipment. Septage disposal and industrial permit fees are proposed to be increased to reflect the increased environmental emphasis by the District in 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 compari son of fees charged by other agencies, and Attachment C provides a detailed basis of the proposed 1987-1988 fees. District staff is in the process of schedul ing meetings and notifying representatives from the Building Industry Association of Northern California, the Underground Contractors' Association, and the Association of General Contractors to respond to preliminary questions and to provide copies of all appropriate background information. RECOMMENDATION: Establish October 29,1987, as the date for the public hearing on the proposed new schedule of fees and authorize District staff to publish a notice of the publ ic hearing. 1J l-13 INITIATING DEPT./DIV. 1302A..9/85 Page' f 42 ATTACHP-ENT A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND SCHEDULE OF FEES The fees coll ected by the Di stri ct 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. The findings 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 inc1 ude subdivision development review at the initial study stages as well as review of sewer p1 ans and specifications for new developments to ensure the design meets the criteria established in the District's Standard Specifications. The P1 an Review Fee is recommended to be adjusted to SO.85/ft. (an increase from SO.76/ft. last year). B. Construction Inspection Fees 1. For main1 ine projects, the District collects a Main1 ine Inspection Fee and a lateral Inspection Fee. A review of 88 mainline projects, which had been initiated and completed under the exi st i ng rate structure, showed that Di stri ct costs wou1 d be recovered by collecting the Mainline Inspection Fee alone. Therefore, it is recommended that a separate lateral Inspection Fee for mainline projects not be charged. Mainline projects have a median of about 7 laterals per job. If the S48 lateral Inspection Fee is not charged for a median size project, a contractor wou1 d pay S336 1 ess in fees to the Di stri ct. For larger projects (several projects each year have more than 100 laterals), the fee reduction would be much -more substantial. 2. It was a1 so 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 the Mainline Inspection Fee, the mainline fee could be reduced by 19 percent. Therefore, it is recommended that this fee be reduced by 19 percent. * labor rates used to determine District costs for plan review and other rates refl ect a 43 percent employee benefit overhead rate. At Boa rd direction, administrative overhead has not been included in any fee ca1 cu1 ati ons. PagE:: .J of 42 c. Collection System Fees 1. TV inspection fees are recommended to be reduced to refl ect increased efficiency and reduced 1 abor and equipment costs. These fees are for overtime, overtime credit, TV rerun, and non-cancellation. 2. Sewer taps and dye tests are recommended to be increased to reflect the three percent wage rate increase. 3. A new TV inspection fee is proposed to recover the cost of inspecting a mainline when the contractor chooses to split a proj ect into sma 11 er segments. A su rcha rge for proj ects segmented by the contractor woul d be assessed. The amount of the surcharge woul d be determi ned by CSO at the campl eti on of the project and would be based on the actual cost of inspecting each segment of the proj ect. A credit woul d be given the contractor for TV inspection fees already paid. (: 4. In order to reduce infiltration and inflow from private 1 ateral s, District specifications require that abandoned laterals be plugged at the mainline. It is proposed that a new fee be establ ished 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. The recommended fee woul d be $1,300 and woul d recover District costs for an encroachment permit, excavation, plugging, backfill, and surface repairs. Typically, this will require a crew of three eight hours to complete the work. D. Riaht-of-Wav and Miscellaneous Fees 1. Fees for surveying, segregation of LID assessments, and processing quit claim deeds are recommended to be increased to reflect the three percent wage rate increase. 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 recommended fee would be $800 . E. Industrial Permit Fee 1. The Industri al Permit Fee recovers the portion of the costs allocable to individual industries for the administration of the Industrial Pretreatment Program. A new fee is recommended to recover the cost of investigati ng and processing speci al discharge requests. These requests range from clean water discharge for swimming pools to wastewater from industrial Pa~ of 42 hol ding tanks. Thi s permit fee will enabl e the Oi strict to control these discharges 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 fee amount would depend on whether or not an on-site inspection would be required. F. Septaae 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. The greatest percentage increase is for the annual permit which is recommended to be increased from $100 to $350. 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 fixed cost per truck load is recommended to be increased from $1.00 to $1.50 for trucks less than 2,000 ga 11 ons' capaci ty and from $21.35 to $31. 00 for trucks greater than 2,000 gallons' capacity. 2. The volume charge for trucked-in waste (excluding grease interceptor wastes) is recommended to remain unchanged at $0.05 per gallon. The volume charge for grease interceptor waste is recommended to remain unchanged at $0.01 per gallon. Previous Board policy and staff recommendation was to keep the vol ume charge low for grease interceptor waste to help encourage restaurant owners to pump their grease interceptors more frequently. <. -.--.----~--~-.,.^'-.-----~,_."_._.,._"_~_.._>__~__..,._._,_"..o..,.__._._.____~~.______.____,~_..~_____.___._._"_"_._,.___...___._________,..,_._~..______ Page If 42 SCHEDULE OF FEES Activity (A) DEVELOPMENT AND PLAN REVIEW: Current 1986-87 Fees Recommended 1987-88 Fees (A-l) Development Review and 2 Preliminary + 1 Final Plan Reviews SO. 761 ft. (S304 minimum) SO. 851 ft. - (S304 mi nimum) (A-2) 3rd & Subsequent Preliminary Pl an Reviews (A-3) 2nd & Subsequent Final Plan Reviews S38 each -<< * .,0 .. ....':<B S57-each *-......."".... "'-"': (B) CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION: (8-1) Mainline Inspection See Table A-l * ,(8-2) Lateral Inspection S48 each S52 each (B-3 ) Side Sewer Repair Inspection SlO each No Change (B-4) Inspection of Manhole Connection S48 each S52 each ( B-5 ) Overtime Inspecti on S41/hour S42/hour Weekends & Holidays (4-hour min.) S164 S168 Overtime Inspecti on Credit See Table A-2 No Change ( 8-6 ) Inspection of Structures SlOO each S150 each (MH or RI> (C) COLLECTION SYSTEM: (C-l) TV Inspection: - TV Overtime - Initi al - Weekends & Holidays (4-hr. min.) Sl,044/day Sl16/hour S464 * *- - TV Overtime - Initial - Credit SO.41/ft. *- - TV Rerun (2.S-hr. mi n. ) S170 + S99/hr. ($418 min.) * TV Overtime Rerun S170 + Sl16/hr. * Weekends & Holidays (4-hr. min.) S634 *_: ~1 *NOTE: Activities indicated in bold type are proposed new or revised fee categories, and fees indicated in a box are proposed to be reduced for 1987-88. --.-.-----.-"....."'---~..-.----,-~-.---.~,---__.__._.____'___"_M._,._. "__'_"'~__"____""__'__""__"""__'''_'_~~__'''_'' Activitv (C-2) Sewer Tap (C-3) Dye Test (C-4) Collection System Repair (C-S) TV Inspection Cancellation (Initial and Rerun) (C-6) Sewer Tap Cancellation (0-7) Lateral Plug (D) RIGHT-OF-WAY: (0-1) Segregation of LID Assessment (0-2) Processing of Quitclaim Deeds (D-3) Preparation and Pnocessing of Agreements Relating to Real Property (E) MISCELLANEOUS: (E-l) Engineering for Private Sewer Projects (E-2) Soils Evaluation for Private Sewer Proj ects (E-3) Surveying (F) INDUSTRIAL PERMIT FEE: (F-l) Annual Permit Fee Page ,f 42 Current Recommended 1986-87 1987-88 Fees Fees $171 each $176 $56/ each $58 Based on actual No Change cost $198 *- ,~:;, $54 $56 * $1300 $32/Parcel $33/Parcel $29/hour ($87 min.> * $800 $28/hour ($84 min.> Estimated Hourly Rate Estimate required No Change Based on actual No Change cost $100/hour $103/hour Fee based on actual cost of service for prior fiscal year. Annual permit fee for 1986-87 varies from $1108 to $2049. Fee based on actual cost of service for prior fiscal year. Annual permit fee for 1987-88 varies from $1212 to $2419. Page f 42 Current 1986-87 Activity Fees (F-2) Concord Industries Annual Permit Fee (F-3) New Industrial Permit Fee Fee based on actual District cost prior to connection (SSOO mi nimum) CF-4) Special Discharge Pennit Fee - No On-site Inspection - On-site Inspection (G) SEPTAGE DISPOSAL:* (G-l) Annual Permit Fee S100 (G-2) Disposal Charge - Domestic Waste <2,000 gallons/truck >2,000 gallons/truck $7.00 + SO.OS/gal. S20.3S + SO.OS/gal. Non-Domestic Waste Recommended 1987-88 Fees First year fees based on average cost for simi- 1 ar Di stri ct industries. Subsequent years based on actual cost of serv ice. Annual permit fee for 1987-88 varies from Sl401 to S2367 No Change * $30 * $175 S3S0 S7.S0 + SO.OS/gal. S31.00 + SO.OS/gal. S31.00 + SO.OS/gal. *Grease interceptor waste will be charged the same fixed cost depending upon truck capacity, but the volume charge is SO.Ol/gal. PROJ ECT LENGTH (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 + $3.00/ft. $350 + $2.501 ft. $450 + $2.00/ft. $525 + $1.751 ft. $625 + $I.50/ft. $750 + $1.25/ft. $810 + $1.15/ft. TABLE A-2 Page )f 42 1987-88 MAINLINE INSPECTION FEE 1987-88 OVERTIME MAINLINE INSPECTION CREOIT* Total Project Overtime Overtime Hours Credit Hours < 4 1 4 < < 8 2 8 < < 16 4 - 16 < < 32 6 32 < 8 *Credit to contractors when Oi strict inspectors are requi red to work overtime. en III ~ I I < ~ "'t t:_ 81.. t: l1li- 1..0 .... C 8l1li .... t:'C Gl '" .en - o e5 VI .!: B -- :a~ .5~ ,.. "g 0 -8 en iCXl~ i,? .... 15 r-.. VI ~~ I a::,.... lL. C l1li en I - > . :r . t: o ..... ,&j '" - o . l1li .... ! - ~ &IlOO ""&IlO .....~ ............ Gl VII.. ~~i ..... I.. 08:0 N'O ......0 &IlN..... "g GlUl Ul.... IIIIUl ,&jB !';;I ::1_ .....'tl> ~lIIIf ~c.... coo ~ ~ 'C i - e - . c .... - ........e ....- OVlO "l &. ~ OGl.... ...."g .... i +.... N &Il..... ~ . ....0 ~ I - > /i. o ~ .... ! e - . c ....- ....e .... &Il"" CI00 .~ 0.... ........ * .0 C l1li NIi: "g c..... l1li'" c Ii:: - >.... Gl a:: + ....>. c I.. I:!! Q._ Ul ~.!I Gl.....- > Gl > !tl- ~ ..... > It:! ~ rr o i ~ z ~ o ..J 10.1 [U o ,.. ..... J: .... < .... ~..... u '" IIIIC GlO - 0.... &Il - .... "g "g < ~ U l1li Gl .... ~ >. I.. l1li C - e - ..... Gl I.. D.. .... C Gl ::I iUl Ul I ,&j - ::I > enGl a:: 0<1 C "gllll ~Ei: ,.. N J: ..... ..... l1li ::I t l1li C o "g :t: l1li 0 a:lU ~ U l1li Gl ~ .... C '" Ii: ..... l1li C - "- .... C CD ::I i Ul ,&j ::I enUl 0<11 - "g> If.1- ~ J: 00 ~ ..... 6 ~ en z ..... ,... a:l .... "g :l &Il CD :!~~ 'i ';;i~ ~ ~ ~ ........X-ClCl. ~ "gSl i&lliii~~~ ~ -8 "g+ j,&j CD ::I....Ul _ I......c .....0.... Ul&llCD 0'" &Il U Ul /i.N~ &Il'Q. ~ ~ Ul CD 01.. Cl . UUl.... 0 ~ Oi~ .!: 6,.I."g ~ - VI C.... ....c"g,&j 8cc3f::l~Glo"g 'C::I:a.... ~ _= ~~f~ :::II+"tn ... -:...- .c.u....u ;:;~8.; oC"'2" ....Cl.!l::lCD &Il-......... t:~$t.af"'Ull~ ~....~1.. tllll........C I.. 8;8$ B::I.!_~!lg-VlCl. ~~~~ ~~iii~i~!~ Page -"f 42 . - .... Ul 10.1 Oit: JiB ...."g OCD .... ~~ ,.. ~ .a :E CD ~ ~ i e .- ....c ....- ....e o &IlO ...,. 0.... ........ ..... '" I.. Gl GlUl ....::1 "'0 r-~ ~ U '" CD .... ~ .... ~~ ........ ~ U '" CD ~ .... ~ .... ..... J: CD ..... ,&j {! ~ U l1li CD N &Il .... ~ ~ U U l1li l1li Gl CD o N ..... &Il .... .... I en C o t CD Cl. Ul C ..... C o 1..- Ot c!l o Ul _c t..... CDC co c_ 8f CD$ Ul..... ::1< ~1.. CD .. . .....Gl l1li en I.. CD CD ...."g l1li- ..J en C o t CD Cl. Ul C ..... I.. - '" Cl. l- I.. CD I en CD "g - en CD c: - ..... C - I ,.. r- cb ,.. N cb ~ cb ~ U l1li Gl .... ~ .... . I.. ~ .... &Il ~ .... ~+ ~ ....0 &Il..,.. ~..... ........ ~ U '" Gl .... o &Il .... I . . N J: CD I.. ..... ::I ,&j ~ {! ....CIO ~~I .... .... en ~ u I o &Il ..... .... C o t CD C C 8 ,.. . C - e I.. ::I.... 0_ ~"g . CD ..,.1.. .....0 CVlC o >.0 -l1li- t~t !lo !l Ul:X: Ul C C ..... 0<1..... C o CD -I.. 'tl:l CDt Q.::I Ull.. c.... ... en I .... o C o - t;:; ::I a:: I.. ....1.. VI 0 C 8i Gl ..... o ~ C l1li ::E .... o C o t CD Q. VI C ..... CDUlGl E~ E _ c_ ....CD.... I.. ~ I.. CDICD ~.~ ,.. ..,. cb &Il cb ,.. \0 cb to ,... 'g 0 ~ en ia)~ !.".... 8 ,.... UI ~a): a:~u. Clt t:_ 8~ Ill- 1-0 +> C 81- .ti t:~ ~ CI .en . C CI en I - > i ~ - o e5U1 ~8 -- r-> 001- c3~ o r- oO CI - o .b +> ~ - > - ~ z ~ en >- en ~ .... t> ILl ...l ...l 8 C3 .... M +> II'lUlUl C L. 8 -~ ~'g 'gC~ ~-+> 'g Cllll :JCE r-ILI- g~t: ....O~ ~ CDI- .&::J g t;,g ~ I- Cl o C ~- ~ I- of I- ~ :JO :J , O. 0 1I'l""'&: .&: ,... ., C , .CII'lCl 0 o_,....&: II'l ... E'" +> ... UI L.CD CD+> ~!~ 0-- M g>t: II'lILlCD ~ I- :J o .&: , II'l ,... ... ~ /-_..-..,~ ~ ~ , . ~~ . 00 +~ 01- ~CD ...~ >.1- CI :J 'gO ,.&: N' ""f! ~... 10 C\"l C\"l ... r- CI - +> - C .... UI >. CI 'g - ~,... e6C - UI E 'g C . CD I- "ll: .&: :~ ..... .. C o t CD ~ UI C .... I CD E - +> I- CD ~ ~ ~ ,... Z ~ ~ , ,... ..... . o ... r- CI - +> - C .... I CD E - t CD+> ~:; CD ~t3 . l- .&: , ,...,... ~C - + E o CIO ION r- C\"l ... ... .... . l- .&: , f! ... + o 10 r- ... C :J L. a. ~ C :J l- I CD E t CD ~ ~ 10 0\ ~ ... UI >. CI 'g ~ r- o :E:,... . e6C - UI E 'g C . CDL. "ll: .&: :~ ..... l- t! 1lI I- UI +>CD C"ll: i 8;~ C o t CD ~ UI C - .....,... >. ~C "'0 .&: U CI CD , 10 ,... r- ... ~ t! I- CD . CD en ,... N 6 o C I ~ i t: .:l i .&: U CI CD , CIO II'l ... t: ~ CD >. o r- B ~ ,... ~ 6 pag J of 42 . I- Cl C ILl ~ ot: ~8 r- 1lI :J t CI C o 'gUl It: .;g8 r- CI :J ~ C o 'g 8lt: CI 0 IDU ~ ~ r- ... L. - CI ~ CD a: C o - +> CI r- r- CD,... uc C :J ~I- I 5'g _c till CDr- ~CI 1Il- c+> ....- C ~::: l5 t: >. en C o ~ i ~ ( ...... -,;, Q lD U) iex)8 Ii or .... !,.... UI U ex) lD lD en lD a:.....u.. .:It UI_ 8Lo t: 0Il_ LoQ .... e 8Lo ~ ....- UI e lD OIl :aU) . e OIl U) . lD - > . ~ . t: - Q e5U1 ~ 21 -- A~ ::I lD QU) o .... &j OIl - Q 1 OIl .... :! 10 U'l ... ~ U OIl lD o o Cf'l . .... ... 1 - t:UI lDt: ga -,;, -,;, lD lD UI.... OIl OIl ICE &J. Lo 0 OIl 1 ~.... U~.lIl: O>Lo ....-0 OLo. e ot~ Q..... ~ >> Lo> &j 0- . t~~-g ~UI~I.... ....lD--.... eLoO>>OIl 8:Cift: Pas . 1 of 42 "tJ lD e.... _OIllD EE.... _OIl lQt:~1 ... lD Lo.... Q.UI U 'S.... ~ .... 0 _~ Lo E~""lD c;:Cf'lUl. cft88l !~ .... OIl ::I t OIl 8 Lo ::I o ~ ...... a .... ... UI II) .g 0> Lo e !'In o UI .....lD ~ g 8~ >>-,;, lD lD e,.... lDLo,.... LoO_ 0Il....&j .... fOlliLo lD,s.... Q) t: Lo 8- 0Il-';'1I),.... E II)~ II) Lo.... > ,....LoOII) 0IlII) -,;, 0>.... -,;, ~fi.a .. .... Lo.... UI II) OIl f~t: -- ~ 0>>> e&j Loll) II) -,;, Q.II)II) ~~I 11)>- >- > II)LoII) QQ.Lo -,;, 8lt: OIl 0 ICU .... UI .... Lo e -,;, 0 II) II) ~ ,.... I II) E 0> OIl ~ UI ~Il U) UI > e II) E UI II) - 0 UI - UI,a ~ Lo - UI OIl 0. ~ < ,.... ~O> > U - Lo ,.... Q .... Lo e Lo 0 ,.... .... - 0.- 0. .... lD ..J a .... U -,;,0Il Lo a e .... e.... 0 ~ 0 .... OIl II) .... -UI 0> 0 c:: ........ ::I g e 0> ~~ Q. ,.... 0> o UI e t!- o. - e -.... - ,....~ .... - ....e>> Lo UI ClO 0> ,.... OIl UI OIl 11)"" I~ > Lo e Lo OIl .;:. 0> UI ;I~ U) LUo. - Lo II) B 8 ~ II) :1 < Lo Q.II)Q. -..... UlLo . :a 0> 0 II)LoO LU 0>0 ,....11) > ~ OIl 1 G) Lo Lo 0> Lo Z C Lo -. Lo ..J ~ en 0. 0.<0. < ILl 0. ~~ ::I ..J U) ~ ..J ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ~ ...... ~ ~ ,.... ~ :! ,.... ...... (.!l 6 U) I N '? .... .... w &1 - c:: 2: .... w > .... .... - ~ ...... ...... Q ILl .... .... Q .... ..J ~ (--~ -,;, f B Lo OIl 0. ...... Cf'l ~ - ::I f ...... Lo C ::1- o E ~ ......,... 0 ~~ 2 ... .... ... :1 OIl E - .... UI LU .... U c:sL. 1;; ..,- L.O .... C 8; .... ....- UlC CD III :s:en - o a::: enUl .!:B -- :c~ .sJl o lj o I III .... 8 ,... og 0 CD en iCX)~ lor.... !5...... Ul ~g;:i a:::.-u.. o C III en t - > f 1! - > ~ CD.a U c_.... _~Ul ogCD8>. CD UI L. og CD .... ~L.OlUl ,...CDL.~ Ultlllog '!:;lll'fi~ ,... III - L. 1;; ~ og C -lll ~: 01 C - ,... a- S :g .. gg- CD og~ !l al~ ~N~O \ON~N . . . . ""mO\~ ""~18~ m ~~~~ I I I I ,...,... >. >. ta"',...,... ~~.c~ ~ ~~ i <:'i:S: i en L. o - ~L. oa- g....L.L. UlOIll ogO~CD lllUCD>' to..-U,... ,g 11I- III ~ > U CD....L.Ul CDUCD- I&:.IIlUl~ o. W ~ .... .... :z: a:: ~ i u.. .... - E 3? ,... III ~ C C < ;! .... ~ B z .... ,... ,... ,...ogN I C I u.. III u.. .... .... ,... u.. .... ogCD CD.... ....11I =~ ~ :;:; ~1;; lB ~ ~ o ~ L. 0.... CD Ul It ~8111 t ,... g~.a ! 1;; L. c.!! og_ooc 10....... Ill.... ~t E ,gill CDO ~....co it~s~ u..lIluu.... * i u.. .... E 3? >. L. .... Ul ~ og c .... I "i' u.. ~ .... E 3? CD 01 L. III .c U Ul - o .... III - U CD a- en ,... "i' u.. o m ~ C o 1:: CD a- Ul c - $ - Ul I C o i &n ,... .... ~ C o ti CD a- Ul C - $ - Ul I 8 .. ..J < ~ en .... o w (!J t w en ,... (!J .... CD ~ :l.... .., .... g& Ill.... Ul .... c i a-III cslll'Q. ~ CD ~ :l.... III .... g& Ill.... Ul.... C 8 a-III CD,... Ula- CD ~ .:l .... g CD Ul UlIII 8~ ('-1'-\ o &n ~ i u.. .... E 3? CD 01 L. .., fj .... III Ul &. Ul - o .... III ~ C C < ,... ;1 ,... N J, CD 1;; .., :s: U - 1;; CD ~ o 0 ........ 11I11I 0101 ........ &n &n 00 co ~~ ++ 00 &no . . ,....... ~m ~ .JtC.JtC U U ~~ L.L. ........ ........ . 0 .... ,... 11I11I 0101 00 00 00 .. .. NN V^ Pa-~2 of 42 og CD ! .c Ul Ul ~ > L. ~ Ul L. CD .c g . I - > f .... c I a- o .... CD > -8 CD og ~ .... U C - .... g -8 t - L. 1;; - o o ~ III 01 .... &n o o o ~ + o o . .... ~ ~ III .... - C III en Ii -- >~ . 8l i -~Ul'" og-.... c~- III E L. CD .. 0 a- Ul~ Bog ~ "> &1;; L.L.~ Jl~-g u- ; D ) ;) CD 1;; III :s: u - .... Ul CD g og I C i C ~!! a:: CD ~III ;;L. enalOL. .!:og"'''' _co ,...11I0 ,g &n ~ ..~ omUl .. 0 CD 0.,01 ....c; ,g ..,.c :!enu o .. C 1lI~ ~ ....I.:!! ....L.~ CD (.) en o .... L.....og o~.... h C CD -,...- III~ Ul:S: L. I....'; u..lllu.. .. .c * ....* .:t# i~:.~ Page of 42 ATIACHMENT 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 plans to ensure the desi gn meets the criteri a established in the Di stri ct' s Standard Specifications. Comments on designs are made with the intent that when the plans 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 minimum) Third and subsequent preliminary plan reviews Second and subsequent final plan reviews $38.00 each $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 totalling 112,000 feet. Therefore, the cost per foot was $69,300/112,100 ft. = $0.62 ft. It is proposed that for 1987-88 District 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 information is 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 plan reviews are closely related, the development review is recommended to be incorporated with the a1 ready established Plan Review Fee. PaS' 4 of 42 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 S26,300/112,100 ft. = SO.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. D. RECOMMENDATION Incl ude development review in the initial Pl an Review Fee. Revi se the other Pl an Review Fees to refl ect actual costs to the District. The new fees are as follows: Development review and two preliminary and one final plan reviews SO.85/ft. (S304 mi nimum) Third and subsequent preliminary plan reviews S31.00 each Second and subsequent final plan reviews S47.00 each l Pa~ 5 of 42 PART II CONSTRUCTION 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 installation of a private lateral or house connection into a mainline or a side sewer alteration (e.g. installation of restaurant grease interceptor, etc.). (- 3. Side Sewer Repair Inspection Fee required to compensate the District for the costs involved in inspecting a side sewer repair. Of more than ten feet of lateral is replaced, a side sewer alteration permit is requi red.) 4. 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 hol idays). Overtime inspection may be requested if a contractor is attempting to finish an install ation 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. Pa~, '6 of 42 B. MAINL INE AND LATERAL INSPECTION The mainline and 1 atera1 inspection for subdivisions are discussed together because the time inspecting each is not recorded separately. A comparison of fees charged vs. actual cost is only valid when all fees are considered. 1. 1986-87 Fee The 1986-87 mainline inspection fee is as follows: TABLE C-1 1986-87 Mainline Inspection Fees PROJ ECT LENGTH eFT) 0-100 101-200 201-300 301-400 401-500 501-600 600- FEE $300 + $3.00/ft. $350 + $2.50/ft. $450 + $2.00/ft. $525 + $1.751 ft. $625 + Sl.50/ft. S750 + Sl.25/ft. S810 + Sl.15/ft. ( The above fee structure was first approved on September 1, 1985 and remai ned unchanged 1 ast year. The fee was not adj usted 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 S6.20/hour. d. A SO.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 corre1 ation 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 I g. Costs for television inspection included direct salary and a 43 percent employee benefit overhead rate for a supervisor (one hour/day) and a crew of three ($60S/day). h. Other television inspection costs included the capitalized and operati on and mai ntenance expenses for the TV van (S174/day) and other equipment such as a pickup truck and water truck ($105/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 last 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 proj ects had been completed. 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 C-2 shows 88 mainline projects which were completed prior to July 1, 1987, and where fees were .co11ected under the current rate structure (starting September 1, 1985). The table shows the accrued cost per the criteria discussed previously and the total fees co11 ected at the permit counter. 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 corre1 ation 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 formu1 a for mainline inspection fees developed in 1985 and impl emented on September 1, 1985, i ncl uded Di stri ct costs for mai nline inspection and 1 ateral inspection. The reason for thi s 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 v LLl ... << "- l l!!!i en CiC ; B is ~ LLl WI ... ",!!; 1- .... .... .... WI WI lilll; "'. - - .... "" I ~ ... rn I ... ~ WI .... ~ ... ~ LLl . ~ C :Ie '- I.... ... WI WI ....~ "'<< "'3 ... ncg~=c8~~ .. I I . I I , II UC:~"""'.a U.l~~~&-~ If I I I . I t II N...." NN,.... II ----_N :~H ..... LI.I II L&.. 0:: II __ L&J .. .- ..... " en LI.. II Boll ... ... WI WI WI .... ... .... WI ~~ ~s Q .... .... II II..:::Z fl.,...;cDcD"';_ IIc;i:!;~~~~ II ",........._.... II II II II ~ :Ii.... .... .... -... ~ Ii...... lI.meDea_cD n::::=:: II ... ... II II II .... .... W: -Q .~ i~ ! ...Z:. ..o"';_.O:N t::;~U!;~~ .....-.-... ;.... f3:g ~.... :!Il~~:;::!;!~ "";0="';"';":"'; .1I!:l!;:f::O~ ------ ...lI! is. .... - - ".. .... .... '" .. II 1I~!211=~::1I n _~"';.n~"':~: 1l00Q....,...........,....,...... IINNNNNNfI 11-_-_-...11 " H II II .... . iHii -.... ;l!j II 1ll'3;~~~1}; U.nO:ai.._ai U~~~~~M 11-._...... II II II II en w ""~ gw "" .... -- .... II 1l.=:~.=1I U."';aiN.n",; n~:;:~~~ II _ II II II II . Q 6ii ~8: ... => ;!!ien II :1 =:..:~II Um...;..o"';..o"'; U-;;:;;; II II II II II II =:; .. .. .. ,... ~qe Cl!i: en!ji lill IIlliii~~.g:1I1lll Ii ~rzi:::!~~~ II ~ IlIni_NNNNU...... n------::; II II II n II II II .. II I''''' _ __,..,_ II II II II II II II II Nan_.....". It .....oCDI>>CDCD II II II II II II ~... :Ii!!: I:!!gj "'- ~ IS w .... ... w - w.... ... II II II II II II II :1 ~ g llli! ""~ lit; LLlWC;<< ~II_W=:.~'" .1Ic~l!5~gt; nE c:CI:~w ; II ~lllU:31~l!l _E II I~""''''-'= .. --c.....o en. aU'JmCl:s =-U;~~inlR!;,l ... "N____N H.......... - II " = II = II .. II _ II II II II II II · " N U ~ II ,..; H .... II II II .. II .. = N = g; II ... II _ II II II II :l! II iCj. II II II II ..:; U - II II II ~ II a:- II ~ II _ II II II II II II II n ..0 II "" II _ II II II II II II I",.. c -' ~ Pag ... - cD ~~=~~~=~=~~~~~~~=~~~~ t I I , , I I I , . I , I I , I I I I I I ~--O~~~~c~~~~~~~>~c~. ~~~&~&~&~~~&~~~~~~~&~ , t I It. I . I I , I . I I I I I , I I .~N~~~_.~~~.m=~~_~_~~ NNNNNNN_N___-N_NNN_N_ II :: :I :: N II "" II It'> U M II _ II II II ..~ZZ:!IlZ~=~~.:l!~=:!Il~~..~Il:!ll ~~d~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"~ ~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~u~ ---~~---~---~-~--~~-~=~ - - - ~- .U_ II ....Z.:::.:Z..Z...... ~#~~~~~~=~~~~~~~~m~~~ ---N-___.___._N__~M_M . .- .-- --... ..~..~.~:~~::!Il:l!:I~~~Z.:!Il ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~-_~ ~~~~~~-=~~5~~~~!_:iii ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~5S~~E~5~~i~==~~~~~ -:----:-----~~----~-- - ... -- - .. .... on !a - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~m---~.~.~~~_.~~~m-__ ~~~~~~~~~~~~MMMMMM~~~ --------------------- N~~~~~~~~N~~~$~~~~~~~ .~~N~~_~~~.~_~~~M.~m~ ~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~ ...~----~-----~-------- - ... - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -_~_-Nm~~M__~_____~_. ~~~~~~~~:~:=~~~=:~==~ - - -- ----. - ~..~~.~=:.Z~..~~~:=:=:= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~-~~~;~N~~~~~~~~~~~n~ ~~~:~~~=~~~~~~=~~~~~~E~ M--N-NmM_~M~~~.M-M~RN"_ -~-.-...--------------...U~ - n- Il II II NN-~-__.~NNN~~~--~~-~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~==~~~~ --------------------- CI! .... ~ "" => en ... ,... ~ ~ ... g ~ ~CiC w~... gc"" ~ ....... w ~ g ""~> _wE ~~... =I~~"" w ~E~ ~~~~w~~ Q ~~ ~~W~ ~ ~...i:gg~eng~~ aCl!~...CiC.~=~g ;~ EC~~~; ~>=g~~~~~1 "'1'" cl ....2 "..Q """,,"'wI'" z~~ ~c 2<< _~ _ z ~ m_;~~ -~5~1:!!=~~i~~~ - a~z_~=5~~~~~m~w.~~~~~ Aw~o~wu~u~uo~umE%oE~~ ~1t'>~N=:~~-m....-~~....~~Il.......- 5;!a~~;~~e;;~;;;;;~5; "-' f3 of 42 - '" N .. ... n - U -' ,-,. ...... ... "" N I Si:;o~S;~cgcgcgCl8~ I I I I I I I I I I c:........~~>........_... ~~~..JE~~.:!:~~ . I I . I I , I I , CD_~.MV")___CD N-NN_NM_NN ...Z::ZZ.Z !i";'~-N-m_...o~ r.::~g!=l(l~~~=~ _...._~.:.:~.:..:~ ---............. E : u .; II ~ .......::: . ~oOrD";_"'r:O_rDoO cD :::;=~=~~:;~n~ ---..- ...... & ;: - It'> ,..: I:; ~ - :Z:..:::.: .;.~...o..oN..o__r:OcD ~::?~--~~~~ .....--..:....:..::.:.: - -...... -- ~ '" ~ .. eO ;; g~~Iil~~~~~= _"O~cD,...;N-=N,...;"'O ~S;~.::I~~~~~ - - -- -- -- - - ,..., _ _ _N - - ... -- ~ e:: .. ...; - f:~!aJi!er:::i~::;:~i:!;i:!; !a .nNNoOaio:c;:a:.",,;"";:I....; ~~::r;~~~~~~~:: ;.:; ----------11...; 1I - II '" I ~ ,..: .... .... ~~~~~~~~g::n .,;,"";O:.n"';~N~N ~~I?~!=~~~~~ - - -- -- - ... - - '" - - - ~ ~.==Z.Z=~=' 0: M m..o":...;. 0:"';-= _o-.~CD_~N"'.'" __~_N____"'" ... - - -- ;;; ~ ..:; - ===~~=..== ~=1~;;;~~~~~~ ~~!::l:;;~~g!~g;r::: :;;,..:=~~.~~~ -.i')~o--""''''Nr--.. ... - -- - - - ... - - '" - N-_""'''''''''..a~_-o ~~~~;;~:g~:::: NNNNNrolNNNrol ~ '" - Q .... ID => ... ~ICI ~ :5g~ w:;~ w lQQQ:a ~lC:Ia~:: g8~t:i:E",,~gCiCll5 ""~~~a~>!c... gjal~=:al;1*-~~ e~~=!I!:!ce~ll;ul i:i~:c:z:m~Q:"".cz~ ~~~E;;~~e=rJ ........................ -' ~ ci : ... =<> - - - ..0 "" .... .; - It'> ... ~ ... ;; ;; '" - cD .. CD .; - - ~ ,..: II ;; II It _ II ... 1I cD II :;:: n - II II ~ N ~ ;; .... - ~ '"' - Q ~ en (- N ~ C .... :z Ct U> i l!5 ... i ~ ... ... ... Nl! 1_ ... - ... ~* c. -- ...... ... , ;!;i I ...... - .... ~ ... - cz: .... i la1 ;1 c z: Ct ~~ :!Ii! ... ;s ... "" -... -... U> ... B:=: l3e:l ...- ... ... ... .... .... c:c .... _ Cl Ct ... - .... c:c "" ... ... ... -... c:c .... ... II ... II ... II ~ _ II -c:. II ..... _ It z: t- .. i~!l ! II II II II II II II jl !;- !51S 31'" ... U> :z: -- U> _ Ct_ ...- ... :> -- cz: ... :z ;jijg c'" z: wlH ~e.'J "" .... -- ... ,. Ct -- til!S ... .... !~ ... .... .... ,..... I!~ ~;;: ~ .... "" ~!!!l ... U> _ U> cz: _ .... IS ......~ I. ""'_ It .....~ " ... II II i8i8i8~i8i8~i8~ I I . . I I I I I ;f,iJi.i-Jii.!.i:.! . , I I I I r I I :ilrs==~N~iiiii:i; l!3 l!3 l!! IIUQ l!! llUUl'l cDN...:N,...;,..:......;...: .f ~~I!t~~~~~~ .. --------- 11....-..._...---.... II II II ::========. UNcD.n';'.._..oai_ n~~~=-=~:= ,. ---- -- - II II II II ~~~~~~~~~ ~:~~~~:;:!r;!N ~~~~~~~~~ --------- =:~tR~~:!;~~ "':"";';'ai...:,..;atiai...: ~l!!iI=~~=~~ ----..-...... _ ___ _N .... --- -- ~;::::~~2:;?~~~ Nai"':"':N.nO:...o ::;~~:;~~~=~ --------- ....,....,....,M__N"".. 0-0-""'-11'10-."..0.- ai";''';''''':ai'''':''';ai.,.; c:;:f:::~~~~~== -------- .. _ N ... - ~~l!ll=~~=~~ ",;O:"":";'NcD"";ai~ N.._N.._o-W1.- N______-.... ... --- -- =:!!!:~~=~=~= ...;"'O_N...;...;,..;,,;. .....,,....,.....--,...,....,.....,.... -a,....,....,..,-_N....,... ...._,...,..........._0-.... N.oi_N....;...;O: :;.!~~~~~;:;r;:;~ ----- --.: - ..=It'),..,_~,....-~ ~~~~~~&::gg! ,..,MMM,..,,..,,.,,,..,,.., II II II II II II II II II II II II i" II II II II iti ii l! II U> " i "" i:;....!i"" liili;"" ~8"":!Ii...155:!1i"" =-'~ca::=:uua:g .......lii!Wl!i!a!~t::"" ::li!!lm15""eCtill! -~~j!:l~q;pi!~~ Ig~li;;iIlHi _ I' .._...,...o_N~N ~..u_~_~::.~-= ..........,...,.......... ~ ..; I.... N ..: - ... - ~ , c:li8~ I I I .. ,.. ~ '::::i~ I I I ....N_ N__ - In ...; m d' - --- In In In _..oN --0-0 ~~~ - -- = m ... ... ... m";. ...... ... __N -- ;; - In 6 ~ - --- In In In NNN ........ ..... ~~~ --- --- In In m In .... ~ - on_...... ... ... - ~......: "'... ..~-:.. N__ - -- N ... ..; N In ,.; - l!3!2!2 ,..:,...;...; -........ .. ... .. - -- _ on '" .... N on ....;,..:,...: ~~~ -- - N - - .... ,.; ...... .... ~~~ --- ......-- ...-- --- ;; - .. ...:; on -0 - === vi";"; ... ... ... .... ... m lI!!l on - ~!2f;:! "":NN l;:~ll'l ..,.:-- - _.... on on on In "'-0-0 .. ... .. .... c:c - Cl - ~ U> "" cz: Ct "" "'40 ~"" -40 Z:;:!,... U> c:c ,. U> ,. ... cz: __cz: :> - _~l!i U> __ l!:!111S a...... ii!i! ...... .... II II II II ...... II ... ,m '" ... ,.; - I II II II :I: II II II !::i ,- ~ ~ ,..... ..0 ..a ro- CD CD CD a:a I I I I ...c:_c: CL " " " c... ... ... f I I , .......a..o. 1'1___ - on 0: .... .... .;- - ""_U"'III') ......U"'I,....N 0-"'_= ;:::;;::~ .. ... .. ... ___N ...--- = ...:; .... ... - .==11 ..oNcDN ..., ...., CD ...... ....,.. N..o ........ .. - In ,..: ~ ,.; - an _.,., U'1 ,.... W') ...... N "';N"";"'; ...-........ ....,...... ... ... ... ... ---- ........ .... N - ~ - on - ...,...oa...., NN_1n ";0:0:. ~~~~ .:--- ... -- IR ..; ~ ,...._0-0- CD ,..., 0- ... .;-,...;. ~~::~ --.... ... ~::~: :; _cO"';"'; ..; """"'0-0- N ......... NO'). ... --;i-ilt;i II II - .. ..; ... -0 - ~=~= __N.n 0: f::l=~!:: - -- :=== ..:...;,..:,..: ~~~:: ...... - ..; -0 ... .... - clC::~:Ut') N_Nain~ :r ~ I! IJi 'II N ---- N II _ il II r-~N~ ,...._0--0- _...., M CD &n It"J ...,. II") .... c:c - Ct - ~ U> ~... cz: ... ~5 .... "" w .... !it::l~~ ""!5<;;!i l3ili~Ct B-~!Q ~u..uQ.. 1n....."O to") ~iI== .......... ... Pas ~9 of 42 ... ...... .. .. I ... .... ..; I l(3 ..; !;i! ..: - II II on II .... II II II ~ II m- Il ~ II m N ...... - - .. N ...... ..0 - ;; on N ...; - 0- on - on .... ~ .... ,,; I: II ... - ..; ~ on - II II ... II ... II ...; II II:: II ..0 II on II _ !2 0: on ... - - ...... ,..: .... N ~ - ~ 0: ... on ,,; .... - II .~ ,..: ... .... - 'llIl ...:; ~ ..: - == ,.; .... .. - - - == -0 .... - ... II .... !! ~ II -0 II,,; II N II _ II II II II .... 40 - Ct - ~ U> ~ - - -0 .. .. ... .... .. .. ~ 2 - Ct - ( .... ll!J cz; 0.. i!!i "" i 0.. E B is ... iii ... ....i!!i 1_ ... t- ...fil s5; cz; .. t-_ .... ... I ~ o ... - .... cz; m c .... i !&! ;! i Par ~o of 42 "" I!:!~ 2i! ... U~~~~=~~~~~~~~~~=~~=~~~~=~~~~~==~=~~ II I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , IIG>O~A~G~~~U~~~~~~>_~~A~>GGCCG~~G~~~ U~~&~~~~~~~&~~~~&~~~~~~~~~~~~~&~~~~~ U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~.~~..~ II-NN--N--_N______N_~_N__-___-N_N__MN II II II II II ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ~fl5 t- ... "" ... co_ ... "" ~fl ... t- ... ... ....~ ~;5 co ... t- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~=~~~~==~~.~~~~~~~:~.~m~~.~~~~ci~~~~ ~-~~=--~-~~N~-~_~._~~-~~N~.N_~M~N~_ ~NN~~NNM.NNM~~._~~~M.~~~~~_~m~_N_~~ ----------------------_______---~NN .. ------ .... cz; "" ... ... ... 5'" =================================== Nm__~_.~_~.NNm.~.~_m.._m.~__NNN_~N~ ~~=-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~=:~:~~=~_~N --- -... -..-...-..- --..-..- ......-----......-...... -- M N-_._ _N.~MNnMN_N~__~ -... ... ----- --------------- ... ... ... ... !&!: -co ....- .. t- i~ ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ M-~~~-~~-~-~.~~_m~~~_~m~tm~~~~__~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ;;;;;;=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:::~~~~=:~~~ ....... liS :a!'" II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~" ~-~~__NmM~_~~~MN__=~M~_~~nMMN~NN~~~U "=;~~R~~~~;~~~~:~~~_=~~~~~~~~~~~s~~~n "~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ " " "" "" :0:: iii ...- ... ::> t- t- cz; II ii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 11~~mNM.~~-~~~_~N~~_~_~_~_~~_~MM_~M_M II~~~~~~~~~~~.~~;~=~~~~~~~=~~~~~~~~~~ II _........_.....___.____ ...... _ _... _.. _ _ _... _... _..... _... II -------_____NNM~~~ " ------------------ II !&! ii1iS c'" E II u~:~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~~~~~~=.~~~~:~u~~~ r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~:~~~~~~S~~~~~:~:~;~~~~~~~~~~~=~:~N -- ...-.. .. .. ..- .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... N - M__ ---------NNN-NM_~__MM~Mm~~ ..... --- .------------------------- "" ... :..: "" ~~ "" 0.. t- _ ... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~NNm~__M_NM~_-__~_MM~~M.Mm..~~~_N.~ :=~=~~~~~~~MN~~~~N=:~~~~~~~~S~~~~~~ -------- ---------------------~-~~~ - ...-... .. co -t- t- "" ... co ~ll: !~ 1I=====:~~=:~ll!l=:= 11.......:.,:...0..0...:,,;..;,,;..:..: fI""""""'&n~&nNM~""'''''' I. ------_NNNNN II II II II II II =~~====:=:~~=====ll!l===:~~=:=: = ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.;~~~~~~u~ -_-NN....,U",,;- II .... II ... II ... II .... II ... II .. II >>... !.i~ ;a!;;: ""!&! III ~.~M~~~~~~~~~~S~~~~.~~==5~~~~==~~~~U~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~:~Z~~~~~~~~~II~ ~----~~~-......~-~~~~-~~~-~~-~..-~~~~~~~n~ - --.. ... ---- --- -- _ ----___II~ II ... II II .... "" :i!!l I!:!:g cz;_ .... ~=~-N~m~=,....m~~=~~~=~~~~~=~~=.~::~~~~ IS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~ ~~~~~,....~==~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:s~~~=5~ ... t- 0.. ... - ... 0.. ... ~ ;I f w :i! II > Q "~ ~"" ...W ~ ~ >>~~ ......i ~:"" ... 5~ ~~Q d5~~~ ~~~ ~~~Qa~d~~g~g~~ ...~ ~~g ;~",,~~5 ...9...~_""""Qgg~~::l:a!~~""~l!ii ~B ~~""~~"'~""60.. ~...~""~....~~~~""~cz;...~~~:gi!!iQ... ::l ~cco....=...-cz;:O::.........--""8-....cz;cz;cz;...:O::.....:O:: mcz;>>:..:m Q U_~Q W~~ ~_ C~ >-~~~-u~ouw~ ~_~~ g~~~~zu.;Q*~~5~~~~zio-z~~~~~~I~=3~~ ~~A"9~~*~s~~~wa~~we-~~e~z~~B=w~~a~~ ~~SE~~...~~~~>-~~~~.E1I""51111~R=~=~~...~25~ ~...m.t-""~5""Qw~....""E....mm...5;~......"".""...~~....~...Cm"" t- ~ = "" - N~-~_M_._._~~~_-~~N.~~~MN_M._.~.__,.... ~-H;;;i;5;;;~;i555;!;;5;5S;;5;;i;!;;;; ... - ..... ... o ... .... ..; It'll o It'll .... ai .... .... .; .... .... ... - - . .... .... m ;;; ... = ..: ~ ,.: .... ... - - ..: r. ~ II,..; n ~ II . It'll .... ..: ~ Ii II ... II II = n r-: n !;? II " N ... ... .... ..: ~ - .,., ;; It'll .... ~ m - .... ... - - ...: It'll .,., "Ii ... - .... ..: .... ... .- .... ... .... .... ...: ... .... .- .... . II It'll II .... II ..0 II .... II .... II ..; II ~ II . ~ ai It'll .... .n- ;; II II _ I .... . .... - ,..; .... ... - - ..: ~ ..0- .... ... ~ II N II .... II .... II .r n :: II II ~ ... - - .... c: .. :5 ... :l .. .. ~ "" ... = ... .... .... cz; a! t- co t- .... cz; t- co t- Pa9' "'3 of 42 separate lateral fee was retained. It was suggested that once a suffi ci ent data base was developed, a maximum per proj ect lateral charge may be supported. The data in Table C-2 shows that the Mainline Inspection Fee tracks very closely with the accrued cost. For all projects, the accrued cost was 1.6 percent less than the fees coll ected for mainline inspection only. This would support not charging a separate lateral fee for mainline projects. The effect of this action would be substantial in many cases. For example, for project 4163 (see Table C-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 1 atera1 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 formu1 a shown in the 1986-87 fees presented previously. Several factors have led to an increase in productivity since these costs were developed. 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. L, 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 C-2 shows that the best fit corre1 ation is represented by the foll owing formula: Hours = 2.44 + 0.0021 x project length eft). 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 mai ntenance and trai ning. Thi s formula only includes 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 proj ects over 2,000 feet wou1 d be 0.0005 x project length eft). 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. Par ~4 of 42 ~ N C'.j &D . - "0 .! z u 0 . N 0. i= ,.....rJ , I 0 rJ.!: :J -g. U Q 0 C'.jo.9- Q:: . rJ 0.. 0.. -::2 W 0... z .co 0:: 0 C.c (;. :::> i= +- 0 0) 1&.1 C '" 0.. ~ en - z lJ.... CD ~ . 0 ~ . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O'l CD ...... &D It) ~ .", C'.j - 0 - (18ADJ.l 6UIPnl;)UI) 8JnOH ID.f.OJ. Pag '5 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 accompli shed with one 1 ess crew member and one 1 ess 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: TV Van* Operating Consumables Cable light bulbs and headers $ 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 c 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 hou r per day. The total daily labor and equipment cost is as follows: labor TV 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 01 der TV van. Page of 42 3. Recommendation 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 ~o 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 ateral inspections where contractors have not paid a mainline fee. An adjustment of the Lateral Inspection Fee to $52 is recommended and incl udes sal ary increases since the fee was first established in 1985. c. Mai nl i ne Inspecti on 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 mainl ine 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 Sa-tEDULE PROJ ECT 1986-87 1987-88 LENGTH (FT.) FEE FEE 0-100 $300 + $3.00/ft. $245 + $2.40/ft. 101-200 $350 + $2.50 $285 + $2.00 201-300 $450 + $2.00 $365 + $1.60 301-400 $525 + $1.75 $425 + $1.40 401-500 $625 + $1 .50 $505 + $1 .20 501-600 $750 + $1.25 $605 + $1.00 601- $810 + $1 . 15 $665 + $0.90 Pa~ ;7 of 42 C. SIDE SEWER REPAIR INSPECTION The 1986-87 fee is S10. recommended. A fee adjustment for 1987-88 is not D. OVERTIME INSPECTION 1. 1986-87 Fees Overtime Inspection S41/hour Weekends & Holidays (4 hour mi nimum) $164 Overtime Inspection Credit (See Table 4, below) TABLE C-4 OVERTIME CREDIT T ota 1 Proj ect Overtime Hours Overtime Credit Hours < 4 1 - 4 < < 8 2 ( - 8 < ~ 16 4 16 < ~ 32 6 32 < 8 2. Discussion The overtime inspection credit policy was established in September 1985 as a response to contractors who stated they were being billed twice when overtime was charged. The credit pol icy has worked well over the last 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 recommended: Overtime Inspection $42/hr Weekends & Holidays (4 hour minimum) $168 Pagp --"8 of 42 E. INSPECT CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STRUCTURE (MH OR RI) The 1986-87 fee for new structure inspection is $100. 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 i nspecti on cost was $494. Al though costs for the 1 imited data show a decrease from 1 ast year, it is apparent the Oi strict is not recoveri ng all the costs for these proj ects. It is recommended that the fee be increased to $150 and continue monitoring cost to broaden the data base. F. INSPECTION OF MANHOLE CONNECTION The 1987-88 fee is $48. It is recommended that this be increased to $52 because it is similar to a lateral inspection. ( Paw ~9 of 42 ...... ... ii CD CD CD CD -.... N__ e: liiil ... .. ... ... ... tl ::: ... !!! !Ii! ~ i en --. -- - ~; .GaO~ l . '"' !:~- 2'" ...::1 :=13 :z c en en - - 8 a::: ...-... <E: t- W -...- Q.. u ~N..r :II: L.r..I -... C ~~ N... Q.. ... - u en t- :IE . en - c u - - a::: 0 In LU I I L.r..I a::: u Lt.. C I ~-- LU 8 :Z: il I -- -' !!:: 9iM": """ I .... .... <E: t- t- LJ ~ ... I L.r..I I Q.. I 0 en t- o ;!; LJ ~ I ...... a::: '" I t- !:=: I z: en I - ... . ...-... W'" 0 .......- 5! =- I ~sC~ L.r..I ltil~ I :;z z: .... I .......- >- .. I z:: :i I a! I en I fa N-_ ~!i ... en .. - ... ... ; ~ "" - ... .. ...~i! ... ~~~ tl -"" I!!: a!"" jg'"''''' en :z:1! co...~ Sia! .... - CD ~....- ;::; ... N_ co .. .... .... ... .. ... ... ~ en _ I :II: .. :II: ... . ... Ji - - N .... ... ... CD I 0:. ... ~ - N N 2:; ... .... ,.: ... ... ~ . ~ c . I . ... c 51 c " I " Co " .. u .. ~ Pa(1"~O of 42 PART III COLLECTION SYSTEM FEES A. DEFINITIONS 1. TV Inspecti on The District's Collection System Operations (CSO) Department conducts a TV inspection of all new sewer lines 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 compensate the District for the costs of televising any new sewer main installation during non-normal work hours (after 4:30 p.m. or weekends). b. TV 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 ma in. l. c. Overtime Credit - When a contractor pays the mainline inspection fee, he is actually paying for a certain number of hours of TV inspection. The contractor can elect to have this inspection occur on overtime hours. For this overtime work, the full overtime fee is paid 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 confirm a property is connected to the public sewer or served by a private septic tank system. CSO personnel add dye tablets to interior plumbing fixtures and observe evidence of the dye color in the downstream public sewer mai n. Pagp'" of 42 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. Initi a1 TV - Overtime Sl,044/day S116/ hr. S464 - Weekends & Holidays (4-hr. min.) - Overtime Credit SO.41/L. F. b. TV Rerun - Regu1 ar (2.5 hour minimum) S170 + S99/hr. S418 ( - Overtime S170 + S116/ hr. Weekends & Holidays (4-hr. min.) S634 2. Discussion a. T.V. Overtime Television inspection costs were discussed in Part II of this attachment where the basis for a S67/hr. charge was presented. The labor portion of the S67/hr. charge is S53.50/hr., while the remaining S13.50/hr. reflects equipment costs. The new overtime rate wou1 d be S53.50/hr. x 1.5 = S80.S0/hr. plus S13.50/hr. = S84.00/hr. b. Overtime Credit A1 so di scussed in Part II of thi s attachment was the formula for TV inspection productivity CHrs. = 2.44 + 0.0026 x project length (ft.)). The new overtime credit rate is determi ned by the base production rate of 0.0026 hrs./ft. Therefore, the new credit rate is as follows: Overtime Credit = 0.0026 hrs./ft. x S67/hr. = SO.17/ft. Pa9 12 of 42 c. T.V. Rerun The TV rerun cost incurred is determined as follows: Additional CSO 0.5 hrs. x $67/hr. = $ 33.50 Crew Time Video Tape 2 hrs. x $32.23/hr. = $ 64.46 Review Supervision and 2 hrs. x $30.79/hr. = $ 61.58 Rescheduling $159.54 Use $160.00 CSO crew time, video tape review, supervision, and rescheduling costs reflect current production and wage rates. d. Multiple T.V. Inspections l A new TV inspection fee is proposed to recover the cost of inspecting a mainline when the contractor chooses to split the proj ect into small er segments. When the contractor pays the mainl ine 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 compl eted. For example, a 2,800-foot project which could 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 mainl ine inspection fee, which the contractor paid is as follows: (2.44 hrs. + 0.0026 hrs./ft. x 2,800 ft.> (S67/hr.) = $651 However, because the contractor sp1 it the proj ect 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.> (S67/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 mainl ine project. CSO would not incl ude in the surcharge any project segmenting which was caused by their actions or delay. For example, 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 ca1cul ation. Par 13 of 42 3. Recommendation a. Reduce the lV overtime and lV rerun fees to refl ect CSO's increased efficiency to the following rates: Initi al lV Overtime $672/ day $84/hr. $336 Weekends & Holidays (4-hr. min.) Overtime Credit $O.17/ft. TV Rerun Regul ar (2.5-hour min.) $160 + $67/hr. Overtime $160 + S84/hr. $496 Weekends & Holidays (4-hr. mi n. ) ( 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 woul d be based on the actual cost of inspect i ng each segment of the project. A credit woul d 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 1ncl udes two hours' labor for a two-member crew, the expense for truck operation, a pipe saddl e, and tap machi ne depreciation. A three percent increase in labor and expenses is required. Therefore, the new fee woul 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 The 1986-87 non-cancellation fees for TV inspection and sewer tap should be adjusted to reflect the 1987-88 costs as follows: TV Inspection - Initial and Rerun (2 hrs. charged) Sewer Tap (l hr. charged) $144 $ 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 demo1 ition 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. Eq u i pment Paving labor $ 420.00 270.00 640.00 $1,330.00 $1,300 l Tota 1 Use It is recommended that a 1 atera1 p1 ug permit fee of $1,300 be established to recover the District's cost to abandon the lateral. Pa~ ;'5 of 42 PART IV RIGHT-Of-WAY FEES A. DEFINITIONS 1. SeQreQation 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. ProcessinQ of Quitclaim Deeds This fee recovers the cost of preparing a legal description and Right-of-Way map for public sewer easements no long required by the District. 3. ProcessinQ Real Property AQreements 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. l B. 1986-87 FEES The 1986-87 Right-of-Way fees are as follows: Segregation of lID Assessment $32/Parce1 Processing Quitclaim Deeds S28/hr. (3-hr. min.) ( $84 ) Processing Real Property Agreements Surveying as Required c. DISaJSSION 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. Pag'-~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 S~ (4 hours) Total Fee $784 Use $800 D. RECOMMENDATIONS The following fees are recommended to recover the costs expected in 1987-88: Segregation of LID Assessment Processing Quitclaim Deeds (3-hr. min.) $33/Parcel $29/hr. ($87 mi n. ) Processing Real Property Agreements $800 l Par jl7 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: Engineering for Private Sewer Projects Soil Evaluation for Private Sewer Projects Estimate Requi red Actual Cost Surveying $lOO/hour C. DISCUSSION (" The only factor affecting these fees is the 3 percent wage rate increase. Only surveying costs would be affected by the published rate. D. RECOMMENDATIONS The following fees are recommended to recover the costs expected in 1986-87. Engineering for Private Sewer Projects Estimate Requi red Actual Cost Soil Evaluation for Private Sewer Projects 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 admi ni strati on. 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. DISClISSION 1. Industrial Permit Fee l. 1986-87 industrial permit fees which were billed to each industry are as follows: TABLE ~ 7 PERMIT FEES FOR DISTRICT INDUSTRIES 1986-87 Permit Fee' RecOlmlended 1987-88 Permi t 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 stipulated that the District would take over Concord's Industrial Pretreatment Program. Details for assuming Concord's pretreatment program were to be agreed upon at a later date. Earlier this year, the District and the City of Concord developed and approved a fourth Pagr .~9 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 simil ar manner as the District's industries. Tabl 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 simil ar 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 Industrv Permit Fee Starting in 1986. the District initiated a fee mechanism to recover costs associated with the review of potential new industrial 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 International Technology <I.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 final iz ing thei r pretreatment faci1 ity desi gn and connection to the District is expected this year. The I.T. app1 ication 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 l Pag' 10 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 wou1 d be issued before the owner is allowed to discharge the wastewater into the sewer or it is trucked to the treatment p1 ant. Source Control staff effort depends on the nature of the waste. For examp1 e, a wastewater from a ho1 ding tank reported1 y contai ns domestic sewage, but the business that discharges to the holding tank uses toxic chemicals which may also have been discharged to the tank. In thi s 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 wou1 d be six hours or $175, including labor and benefits. 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. RECO~ENDATION 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 $30 $175 On-site inspection pagr "J of 42 PART V II SEPTAGE DISPOSAL FEES A. DEFINITION The septage disposal fee allows the District to recover the cost 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 $100 Disposal Charges - Grease Interceptor within the District Septage < 2,000 gal ~ 2,000 gal DISCUSSION $O.OI/gal $7.00 + SO.OS/gal S20.3S + SO.OS/gal C. l The septage disposal fees were last evaluated two years ago. Recently, the District has revised the septage disposal procedures to i ncl ude more admi ni strati ve and enforcement i nvol vement. There are three components to the septage disposal fees: the annual permit, fixed cost per truck, and volume charge. The annual permit fee is recommended to be revised to reflect additional administrative effort. The cost includes the following components: monthly billing, periodic verification of reported waste sources, and verification and proces~ing of the annual permit. The annual permit fee allocation of costs is as follows: Accounting Source Control Permit Dept. $192.00 146.00 12.00 $350.00 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 gallons and contains waste from a domestic origin, the fixed cost segment incl udes the gate guard time in checking manifests, special discharge, and recei pt forms to hel p ensure accuracy and compl eteness. It al so includes the plant operator time in taking a sample to be held in case there is a pl ant upset. Therefore, the fixed portion of the disposal fee is $7.50. Pagr-'~ of 42 If a truck contains more than 2,000 gallons of domestic waste or if the truck contains nondomestic 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 i s all owed to di spose of the waste. Therefore, the fixed portion of the disposal fee is $31. The volume charge is primarily based on the estimated cost of treatment and refl ects average vol ume and strength characteri st1cs for a typical waste load. The other component of this charge is for 1 aboratory costs. The 1 aboratory will se1 ect a number of trucks each month to perform additional analyses for heavy metals, BOO, Oil and Grease, and TSS. Additionally, one sample each month will be analyzed for toxic organics. This data, although collected 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 vol ume charge is reco","ended to be $0.05/ga110n. ( Although the cost for the treatment of trucked-in waste is $0.05/ga110n, it is recOlllllended that the charge for restaurant grease interceptor waste remai n at the $O.Ol/gall on 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 $0.01/ga110n 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 $7.50 + $0.05/ga1* $31.00 + $0.05/ga1* $31.00 + $0.05/ga1 - Non-domestic Waste *Grease interceptor waste will be charged the same fixed cost as domestic wastes, but the volume charge is $0.01/ga1. . Centra~ ~ontra Costa Sanitary LJistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 3 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF Octobe r 15, 1987 NO. V. ADMINISTRATION 1 SUBJECT DATE Octobe r 9, 1987 AUTHORIZE A $68,000 PREMIUM PAYMENT FROM THE SELF-INSURANCE FUND FOR A CATASTROPHIC LOSS PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY FROM THE ALLENDALE INSURANCE COMPANY TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE PAYMENT SU~~tkE~.Y Campbell Administrative Operations Manager INITIAT1N13 QEPiT.lQIV. t' / I\Oml n s"tra we Risk Management-Safety ISSUE: The District currently provides for property loss coverage by its Sel f-Insurance Fund. A proposal has been obtai ned through the Di strict's insurance broker for a commercial pol icy which would provide excess coverage for catastrophic property losses at a reasonable cost. Board approval is sought for this addition to the District's insurance program. BACKGROUND: The District has self-insured its property loss risks, except for Boiler and Machinery coverage, since July 1, 1986. The decision to do this was based on the fact that the premiums for District insurance had risen to over $700,000 per year with $370,000 of this going for a property insurance policy with a maximum loss limit of $20 minion for facilities with a replacement value exceeding $150 million, and severe coverage restrictions for earthquake and flood losses. Continuing with this type of property insurance was not cost effective as the February 1986 David Warren Risk Management Study pointed out. However, it was recognized at that time that the District was vulnerable should a catastrophic property loss occur. The Sel f-Insurance Fund reserves woul d take several years to reach the $6 million target level, and, unlike liability losses where a significant lag time exists between an occurrence and payment, a property loss requires immediate District expenditures in order to continue operating. With this in mind, the District's insurance broker was requested to search the market for catastrophic property insurance. Preconditions established were that such coverage would have a large deductible, broad property loss coverage, a high maximum 1 imit, be with a qual ity and stable carrier, and have a reasonable premium cost. It has taken over a year to obtain a proposal meeting these criteria, but with the softening of the insurance market in the past few months, one of the factory mutual insurance carriers, Allendale Mutual Insurance Company, has agreed to provide coverage which would meet the District's terms. Their proposal is outlined in Exhibit "A." The broker contacted other carriers (Home Insurance, Chubb, Fireman's Fund, Insurance Company of the West, and 1. N. A.) in the attempt to obtai n catastroph ic property coverage for the Di strict, but they were unabl e to provide equival ent proposal s. David Warren has reviewed the Allendale proposal and recommends acceptance. Earthquake coverage is not included at this time because it is still not cost competitive ($45,000 additional premium for a $5 million maximum limit with a 20 percent deductible). However, the proposed policy does include fire and water damage losses occurri ng after an earthquake as well as losses from expl osi ons, 1 eaks, ai rcraft REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION JEC PM INITIA TING DEPT.lDIV. Le, 1302A- SUBJECT AUTHORIZE A $68,000 PREMIUM PAYMENT FROM THE SELF-INSURANCE FUND FOR A CATASTROPHIC LOSS PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY FROM THE ALLENDALE INSURANCE COMPANY POSITION PAPER PAGE? OF 3 DATE :lctobe r 9, 1987 impact, and terrorism. Loss payments would be calculated on a replacement cost basis if the replacement is done within two years of the loss; otherwise, actual cash value less depreciation would be used. The maximum insured limits provided are realistic in tenns of expected repl acement costs and range to a maximum of $101 mill ion for the District's standard risk facilities. The District would provide for the first $1 million dollars of loss payments per occurrence from the Self-Insurance Fund. The Allendale Company is a factory mutual system company which provides property coverage exclusively; liability insurance is not one of their lines. They are selective in the risks they will insure and currently cover approximately 30 sanitary districts in the United States. Allendale maintains an extensive loss prevention program which, through research, fiel d engi neeri ng, and facll ity i nspecti on activities, assists their insureds in controlling property losses. This service is included in the premium. Their engineers have conducted surveys of the District's Treatment Plant and have approved it for coverage. The premium for the Allendale pol icy woul d be $68,000 per year for a three-year policy. Premium increases could occur annually as the value of the District's facilities increase. The carrier could also increase premiums if the District's risk potential rises significantly. If the Allendale proposal is approved, the premium would be paid from the Sel f-Insurance Fund which has an account for property insurance premiums. However, this account is currently budgeted only at a $6,000 level to cover the boiler and machinery insurance policy which the District has been carrying. The $68,000 expenditure would cause an account deficit in 1987-88 which could have the net effect of reduci ng the overall end of year fund bal ance transferabl e to the Sel f-Insurance Fund reserve. This may delay achieving the $6 million reserve balance target for the fund, but the staff believes that this is justifiable because of providing property coverage during this initial period of fund reserve growth and thereby protecting the fund should a major loss occur. The status of the fund reserve and property insurance coverage woul d be rev iewed in three years to detenni ne if the pol icy shoul d be renewed. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize a $68,000 premium payment from the Self-Insurance Fund for a catastrophic loss property insurance pol icy from the Allendale Insurance Company. --------. 13028-9/85 Page 3 of 3 EXH IBH "A" Summary of Property Insurance Policy Terms Proposed for Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by Allendale Mutual Insurance Company Property Loss Pe r il s Insured: Maximum Limits: Fire, "lightning, explosion, damage from leaking tanks or pi pes, ri ots and terrori sm, smoke, aircraft impact, and volcanic eruption. Earthquake and flood damage are not covered, but fire after an earthquake is. $101 million - Treatment Plant facilities classified as standard risks (low hazard, sprinkler systems installed, fire-resistant construction). $47.3 mill ion - Treatment Pl ant facil ities cl assified as non-standard risks (fuel oil storage facility, Inlet Building, Plant Operations Building, Primary Control Building, Influent Pump Building, old warehouse). 110 percent of current facility values for off-site facil ities (pump stations and Springbrook Road buil di ng). Additional $10 million - Loss Coverage Limits: Deductible: Premi urn: Difference in conditions (All Risk) for property losses resulting from perils not named above (i.e., roof collapse from drainage failure). $ 4 million - Extra expense for costs associated with recovery from a loss (i.e., equipment rental, staff overtime, etc.). $ 1 million - Expediting expense associated with recovery from a loss (i.e., obtaining special equipment, parts, people). $ 500,000 - Recovery from data loss resulting from electronic data processing equipment damage or loss of data storage facilities. $ 1 million per occurrence - The deductible applies to the losses from one occurrence, but includes all locations (fires after an earthquake occurri ng at several 1 ocati ons woul d fall under the same $1 million deductible). $ 68,000 per year . Centra~ ~ontra Costa Sanitary .Jistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 3 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF October 15, 1987 NO. VII. BUDGET AND FINANCE 1 SUBJECT DATE Octobe r 7, 1987 RECEIVE THE DISTRICT'S AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND TYPE OF ACTION SINGLE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1987 RECEIVE AUDIT REPORTS SUBMITTED BY Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Administrative/Finance and Accounting ISSUE: The District's audited financial statements and auditors' opinion thereon, management letter report, and Single Audit Act report are being submitted to the Board of Directors. BAa<GROOND: Hood and Strong, Certified Publ ic Accountants, have compl eted thei r examination of the District's financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1987, and prepared their auditors' opinion thereon. The related management letter report which provides recommendations, if any, to improve the system of internal accounting controls based on observations during the examination of the financial statements is submitted as Attachment 1. The financial statements and accompanying auditors' opinion were submitted in draft form to the Board's Budget and Finance Committee for review. All state and local governments receiving federal financial assistance of $100,000 or more annually became subject to the requirements of the Single Audit Act of 1984 for fi scal years begi nni ng after December 31, 1984. Accordi ngl y, the Di strict's 5B Project for which Clean Water Grant proceeds received in the fiscal year ended June 30, 1987 exceeded $100,000 was subject to the Act's requirements. The Act requires recipients of federal assistance to arrange for annual independent audits to include an audit of the financial statements, and a compliance audit to determine compliance with funding program requirements. Federal agencies are required to rely upon the audits, and any additional audit work considered necessary by any agency is to build upon the work previously completed. In addition to the custanary examination of the District's financial statements, Hood and Strong's scope of audit included the requi rements of the Si ngl e Audit Act. Consequently, separate reports which compri se the Single Audit report are also being submitted at this time. The District's Single Audit report is required to be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board has followed the practice of rotating the District's auditors after three or four years. With the completion of the 1986-1987 audit, Hood and Strong will have been the District's auditors for five years. The additional year was provided in order that the District could obtain the benefit of Hood and Strong's extensive process of familiarization with the unique requirements of the Single Audit Act as they relate to the District's 5B Project for two successive years. It is now appropriate to begin the process for the selection of the successor independent auditors to perform the 1987-1988 audit. The selection process will comprise issuing Requests For Proposals REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. PM 1302A-9/85 SUBJECT POSITION PAPER RECEIVE THE DISTRICT'S AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SINGLE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1987 2 OF 3 PAGE DATE Octobe r 7. 1 qR7 to eight to ten regional auditing firms with publ ic agency expertise, interviews of two or three finalists by the Board Budget and Finance Committee and District staff, and a recommendation by the Committee to the Board on the appointment of a successor auditing firm. Requests for Proposals will be issued in mid-November 1987. responses reviewed during the last two weeks of December, and interviews conducted during the second week of January 1988 in time for appointment at the January 21, 1988 Board Meeting. RECOtIENDATION: Receive the audited financial statements. accompanying auditors' opinion, the management letter report, and the Single Audit report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1987. and authorize staff to proceed with the selection of a successor auditing firm to perform the audit of the 1987-1988 financial statements and prepare the related Single Audit report. '--------. 13028-9/85 Attachment 1 Hood and Strong certified public accountants Telephone (415) 781-0793 101 California Street. Suite 1500 . San Francisco, CA 94111 October 7, 1987 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND MR. WALTER FUNASAKI, FINANCE OFFICER CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Sirs: We have examined the financial statements of CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT for the year ended June 30, 1987, and have issued our report thereon dated August 31, 1987. As part of our examination, we made a study and eva- luation of the District's system of internal accounting control to the extent we considered necessary solely to determine the nature, timing, and extent of our auditing procedures. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion in the system of internal accounting control taken as a whole. However, during our examination, we did not become aware of any conditions that we believe to be a material weakness. This report is intended solely for the use of management and should not be used for any other purpose. Our examination, as described above, did not disclose any suggestions or recommendations for improvements concerning the District's accounting system or procedures. We would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to Mr. Funasaki, Mr. Elsberry, and the other District personnel with whom we dealt, for the cooperation and courtesies extended to us during the course of our involve- ment. Very truly yours, I-ftuC t!L LiLP )lU"f':J JPM:laa