The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 10-01-87 . Centr'-.. Contra Costa Sanitall District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 3 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF October 1, 1987 NO. IV. BIDS AND AWARDS DATE eptember 11, 1987 1 SUBJECT AUlHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO QASSIC ELECTRIC AND DATA FOR lHE INSTALLATION OF THE a-iLORINE Et-ERGENCY VISUAL ANNUNCIATOR SYSTEM, PROJECT NO. 10027 TYPE OF ACTION AUlHORIZE PW ARD SUBMITTED BY Davi d J. Rei ndl INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Plant 0 erations Department ISSUE: On September 9, 1987, sealed bids for District Sewer Project 10027, Chlorine Emergency Visual Annunciator System, were received and opened. The Board of Directors must award a contract or reject proposals within 60 days of the opening of seal ed bi ds. BACKGROUND: The Treatment Plant uses liquid chlorine, which is delivered to the Plant via rail in 90-ton tank cars. A facilities evacuation plan has been developed for all personnel at the Plant in the event of a chlorine leak. The initiation of this plan begins with the signal of the "chlorine siren." The siren can be heard in most areas of the Treatment Pl ant. However, the Pl ant Operations Department Safety Committee has determined that there are numerous areas of the Pl ant where high ambient noise levels. mask the sound of the siren. Recent chlorine alarm drills have confirmed the problem. Early chlorine leak detection, clear alarm annunciation, and a rapid response are required for the safety of Plant personnel. The Chlorine Emergency Visual Annunciator System will provide a visual beacon in all of the locations of the Treatment Plant where the siren may not be heard. The blue beacons will activate when the siren is energized. Sealed bids for the installation of the annunciator So/stem were received and opened on September 9, 1987. The bid tabulation is attached.. The apparent low bidder is Classic Electric and Data with a bid of $35,869. The engineer's estimate prepared by District staff was $40,000. A post-bid/preconstruction cost estimate is attached. The total project cost is estimated at $50,000. This project is incl uded in the Ten-Year Capital Pl an, page TP-36, as a priority item. District staff has concluded that the proposed project will have no significant impact on the environment, and a categorical exemption has been filed for this project. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of contract to Cl assic El ectr1c and Data, the lowest responsible bidder for $35,869, for the installation of District Sewer Project No. 10027, the Chlorine Emergency Visual Annunciator System. &,J OMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION DR JB QoIB - . ~ Z LU :E ::z: u ~ ~ < r IIT~ /I LT T ~I I TT I I T I e ~ II _,-I I ~'- Ii I .... I ~.J :=g t;:JI-.O:"': > Is r.;:; a.. ,...~:-I-- "'l-I'" ~i ..../ ~ QI:;I~ ~ ~ g;; II ~g - . 0:: N ~ I a.. ~'- 1,1, ;;t:l ~I I.... ~,~ g"" L... I "'h a~I~:; I";; p! ls. ::. U I i.. . \ ~ ~1J -- - I ~I I I} QI > 1 I I I I II -~ > -- _"- - '1 I I I I I '- ~ ~ _~ ...J I I I I I I - a.. IX) ~ .1 ~ a ca ~ JII~~ i:ll,.;. J . . f~ l5 _ 1:C 12 . ! ~ ~Ie _ I J =--- II.. lr. ~ I~~ ~I 13 ~ I.~.' J ~ il LUO UO Q: . a.. =' ..../"" c:( IX) l;1~ ~ I LU I uO _ 0 0:: . a.. gL- ..../ \0 c:( Ll'l ~I: . Ie 'I .,~ ~l .., - c:( N I ~s I vl I " ~..;:; I ,... Ie I~ . o .... QI- a:l C ~ W ~ j... 'E 1\ I~ ~ -10 I.~~ .~ - ~ I I~'~ I Ji . I I i ,II II ~ J II j I ~ ! f ,J I j f ~ ~ .:3 I I ~II--! IG . ~ rnt, ii' I :; .~ ...., I QI-:;:~ au'" cc ii .... ~ .... c:( ~ ~ - "'+.I~ r.c,S.... o l.J ~ IG ~ zQl... ........VI 0.... III IG .... _ Lo.I C I! .... .... > ." .. 0 c '= ~ c = 0_ - QI QI .. VI III .J QI +.I C -i~ ~ ; ~~'~i5 ~ .... 1\ ~ ~ 0.... .. u VI I ;~ i: C ~ .~ J ~ .1 :II a.. IG U V'l I rill II _ s 111 -I I I I .1- ~2' D. O'l _ 10_ c:(~ b~ ....!~ ~ -, I I .~ -~> I ~ > I I -i~ .; l , ;:- " Ii ~ :: "l , 'il ~ I] ~ ~ ~ I: I I I 111 I I J I, i I I T, I -'- J QlI I 1 C 0 Z - i I 1 l - I - I 1-_ I If, I I l- I - I ~ I I ~I I l-~ I I ~ 0 z - L 1 1--_ / I I I I I -1 I- I 1- I ~ 1 I I ,- ~ ~I I I - 1 l.- I -I - I I J '- I , I C -~ /- :: I r - . fill ~; I I I IN- I - I I I -- -- / II I J DISTRICT PROJ ECT NO. 10027 Chlorine Emergency Visual Annunciation System Proj ect Budget Expenses Incurred to Date: Installation Expenses: Installation Contract Project Management and Inspection Contingency TO T AI... Previously Authorized by GM-CE Additonal Capital Funds $ 5,931 $35,869 3,200 $45,000 5,000 $50,000 (-$10,000> $40,000 Page 3 of 3 . Centra. ~ontra Costa Sanitary .Jistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE OF 3 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF October 1, 1987 NO. IV. BIDS AND AWARDS 2 SUBJECT REJECT BID FROM V&M BACKHOE AS NONRESPONSIVE AND AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO CARONE BROTHERS, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 20052, TREATMENT PLANT DRAINAGE, PHASE II DATE September 25, 1987 TYPE OF ACTION REJECT BID AUTHORIZE AWARD SUBMLTTED BY . uouglas J. Cralg Associate Engineer INITI'ig&Gi'fiifU~X:g Department Engineering Division ISSUE: On September 10, 1987, sealed bids for the construction of District Project No. 20052, Treatment Plant Drainage, Phase II, 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. BACKGROUND: Plans and specifications for the project were completed in August, and the project was advertised on August 25 and 31, 1987. A total of six bids were received. A tabulation of the bids is shown in Attachment 1. The Engin~ering Department conducted a technical and commercial evaluation of the bids and concluded that the lowest responsible bidder is Carone Brothers, Inc. of Hercules, California, with a bid price of $119,160. The Engineer's Estimate for construction is $123,300. The proposal of the apparent low bidder, V&M Backhoe, at $103,150 was determined to be nonresponsive because they do not possess the general or specialty contractor's licenses necessary to perform the concrete work in the project nor can they obtain them prior to award of the contract. The Public Contract Code requires a contractor to possess the appropriate license at the time the contract is awarded. Staff has determined that Carone Brothers has submitted a responsive bid. Carone Brothers is properly licensed to perform the required work. The Carone Brothers' bid package was complete with the exception that a construction schedule was not submitted. Staff has determined this to be a nonmaterial variance due to the modest complexity and scope of the project, the short project duration (60 days), and the project specification requirement that a detailed construction schedule be submitted after the District's issuance of a "Notice to Proceed." The budget to complete this project is $160,160. The total project cost is anticipated to be $194,760 as shown on Attachment 2. A description of this project is provided in the Capital Improvement Budget on page TP-117. This project has been funded via the Capital Improvement Budget. A Notice of Exemption has been filed to satisfy CEQA requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Reject the bid of V&M Backhoe as nonresponsive, and authorize award of a construction contract for the construction of Treatment Plant Drainage, Phase II, District Project No. 20052, to Carone Brothers, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder. 1302A-9/85 DJC BLM DRW RAB REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. iJ-rj.& BM AJM ""'''m? . J ~}I '. . , - A TT ACHt1ENT 1 Central ~ontra Costa Sanit~ 'Y District SUMMARY OF BIDS PROJECT NO. 20052 Treatment Plant Drainage. Phase 2 DATE September 10. 1987 LOCATION 5019 Imhoff Place, f1artinez ENGR-. EST~ $ 123,300 " c \i> BIDDER (Name, telephone & address) BID PRICE V & M Backhoe ( ) 432-9624 $ 1 2121 B Piedmont Way, Pittsburg, CA 94565 103.150 Carone Bros., Inc. e ) 799-2420 $ 2 1350 Bayberry Rd., Hercules, CA 94547 119,160 Winton Jones Contractor, Inc. ( ) 682-1870 $ 3 1949 Arnold Industrial Highway, 94520 119 .161 r.A J. Huizar & Sons, Inc. ( ) $ 4 112 Center Ave.. Pacheco, CA 137.500 94553 - O.C. Jones & Sons ( ) 526-3424 $ 5 Fourth & Cedar Sts., Berkeley, CA 94710 149,880 Gallagher & Burk, Inc. ( ) $ . 6 167,565 P.O. Box 7227. Oakland. CA 94601 ( ) $ ( ) $ ( ) $ ( ) $ e ) $- - - - - ( ) $ PREPARED BY DATE SHEET NO. OF Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 2 POST-BID-PRECONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE OF COSTS FOR TREATMENT PLANT DRAINAGE, PHASE II Item Description Item Amount Total % Total Constr. Cost 1. Construction contract (as bid) $119,160 2. Estimated construction contingencies* 18,000 137,160 100 3. Total construction cost 4. Estimated construction incidentals to project completion Contract Administration Contract Inspection Engineering During Construction Legal As-Built Drawings Testing Services Survey Clerical 6,000 8,000 3,000 500 1,500 2,000 1,000 1,000 Total Estimated Construction Incidentals 23.000 16.8 160,160 116.8 34.600 25.2 194,760 142.0 (34,600) $160,160 5. Total estimate required to complete project 6. Prebid Expenditures 7. Total estimated project cost 8. Less funds previously authorized** 9. Total additional funds required to complete project (Item 7 minus Item 8) "it Contingency will be used for change orders, force account, or engineering assistance as necessary. ** Total authorized funds for Phase II design was $41,100. Of this amount $6,500 will be used to design Phase III Drainage Improvements later this fiscal year. . Centr~. Contra Costa Sanltar) District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF October 1, 1987 NO. V. CONSENT CALENDAR 12 SUBJECT ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WORK FOR THE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR PROJECT (KARP SLIDE) AT 3717 HAPPY VALLEY ROAD, LAFAYETTE (DP 4209) AND AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION DATE September 18, 1987 TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK SUBMITTED BY Thomas Trice Engineering Assistant INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: Construction has been completed on the Storm Damage Repair Project at 3717 Happy Valley Road, Lafayette (DP 4209) and the work is now ready for acceptance. BACKGROUND: This Storm Damage Repair Project consisted of excavating approximately 1060 cubic yards of material from the existing slope, placing approximately 510 cubic yards of lI2-ton rock in the keyway near the existing creek, installing subdrains and placing approximately 730 cubic yards of compacted select fill material on the slope. The project area was hydroseeded and 30 trees and shrubs were pl anted to repl ace the trees removed during construction. In addition, a short section of the existing sewer main was repaired. Tyson and Sons of El Sobrante was issued a Notice to Proceed on July 29, 1987. The contract completion date was October 15, 1987. Due to favorable weather and diligent contractor efforts, all contract work was completed on September 18, 1987. It is appropriate to accept the contract work at this time. A detailed accounting of the project costs will be provided to the Board at the time of project closeout. In preparation for the above contract work by Tyson and Sons and as a part of the overall repair project, District staff monitored the retaining wall construction work performed by a private contractor (Soils Engineering Construction) under the direction of Mr. Robert Karp, the property owner. The work was inspected on a daily basis to verify critical work items such as the depth of retaining wall piling supports and the extent of subdrain installation. The wall was constructed above the repair area at the expense of the property owner. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for construction of Storm Damage Repair Project (Karp Slide) at 3717 Happy Valley Road, Lafayette (DP 4209) and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302"'.9/85 RK INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. TRI (~ . Centr~. Contra Costa Sanitar) District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF October 1, 1987 NO. V. CONSENT CALENDAR 13 DATE September 18, 1987 TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK SUBJECT ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WORK FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 56 (LID 56), LA CASA VIA/BRODIA WAY, WALNUT CREEK (DP 4144) AND AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION SU.a~ITTED By" Inomas Irice Engineering Assistant IWTIA riNG DEfT./DI)(' tm tl tng1neer ng uepar en Construction Division ISSUE: Construction has been completed on the Local Improvement District 56 (LID 56) sewer construction project on La Casa Via/Brodia Way in the area of Wal nut Creek and the work is now ready for acceptance. BACKGROUND: Property owners in the project area petitioned the District in 1986 to form a LID for the purpose of financing and constructing a public sewer system which woul d benefit thei r properti es. The sewer project consi sted of install i ng approximately 3,500 lineal feet of 8-inch sanitary sewer mains, 650 lineal feet of 4-inch sewer laterals, and 10 new standard manholes. This new sewer system provides service to 22 existing and 6 future parcels. V & M Backhoe of Pittsburg was issued a Notice to Proceed on June 4, 1987. The original contract completion date was September 2, 1987. A change order was issued which changed the completion date to September 10, 1987 because extra work was required to resolve a conflict with an existing 8-inch water line. All contract work was substantially completed by September 10, 1987. It is appropriate to accept the contract work at this time. A detailed accounting of the project costs will be provided to the Board at the time of project closeout. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for the construction of LID 56, La Casa Via/Brodia Way, Walnut Creek (DP 4144) and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION RK JSM RAB G~NG. INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. a /I~ 7fJfJ . Centrb. Contra Costa Sanltar) District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PA PE R I BOARD MEETING OF October 1, 1987 NO. v. CONSENT CALENDAR 14 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE QUITCLAIM OF SEWER EASEMENTS, JOB 1610, MISCELLANEOUS PARCEL, ORINDA AREA DATE September 22, 1987 TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE QUITCLAIM OF EASEMENT SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall Associate Engineer IWTIATING DEE'T./DI'lL tng1neer1ng uepartmentl Construction Division ISSUE: Dorothea M. Franceschi, et al, owners of Parcels A and B of Book 71 of Parcel Maps, page 19, has requested this District to quitclaim the subject easements. B.AC.KG.ROUND: The subj act easements were created in 1941 as "5' Sewer Reserve" when the map of Orinda Uplands was filed (25 maps, page 831). District records indicate that these easements were never used for sewer purposes. All of the parcels of land in the vicinity of the subject easement are served by publ ic sewers located in other public sewer easements. The subject easements are not needed for District purposes. The owner has paid the District's processing fee. RECO~~NOATION: Approve Quitclaim Deed to Dorothea M. Franceschi, et al, Job No. 1610. Authorize the President of the District Board of Directors and the Secretary of the District to execute said Quitclaim Deed, and authorize the Quitclaim to be recorded. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION RAB .A , 7~~~Z:- 7 ROGER J. DOLAN INITIA TING.,PT.lDIV. ~f/I 1302A..9/85 D H jll/l JSM fJ/iJ I I "':/Ii p~tJtJ:J~n I 383'_ 8AC-'389 DR ~~ "- \\j ~~ ~ PSSI99l ~ :: nSf98L PSSI9TL PSSPOOL PS9SS5H PS9864H PS8575H8 PS9198HB P45849H 2 9 9 66 JPOSL ~97SHB @ ~ ~ ~ Q.. - ~ BlAR ....{ ........... QUITCLAIM EASEMENT JOB 1610 ORINDA AREA I :;,oJ . Centre.... Contra Costa Sanltar ~ District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF October 1, 1987 NO. v. CONSENT CALENDAR 15 SUBJECT QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENT, JOB 4065, SUBDIVISION 6292, SANDERS RANCH, MORAGA AREA DATE September 23, 1987 TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE QUITCLAIM OF EASEMENT SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall Associate Engineer INITIA TING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: Smith and Wall ace Development Company, owner-developer of Subdivisi on 6292, has requested the District to quitclaim a sewer easement which lies within lot 35 of Subdivision 6292. aACKGROUND: The subject easement was dedicated to this District when the subdivision map was filed. The alignment of the sewer was subsequently adjusted to conform to a lot line adjustment. A new easement has been granted for the revised sewer alignment. The subject easement is no longer needed. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Quitcl aim Deed to Smith and Wall ace Development Company, Job 4065, authorize the President of the Board of Directors 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. /ill JSM lIB RAB /.P 1302A-9/85 DH ,:~\\ ~ ~ ~ R6.PLA. c::.EIv'\e.NT eA-5e.ME.N-r I ~ } ~ ~ lIj ~ ~ ~:~'J ~ ~ '" . : Ng"IJO'5Z1v' . ___- _ I?tJ.C. \ ./' -N2S'Z5Z3" n.er;, . P'?;O. W S.<:\O' '\,' - --f '-,A o().~,. .. Mf-i<RI LL 01<. . .. K.""" t..;;;' CtE ~/1 vJt/Tj/ I:i.I . .. t'- ;'c c:s"'" ' :~ ~. ~\ ~ -. / .3b 'b 'I~ , V C)rI; /" () 0' V<;; <:-) 32 ~I\~' ~ ". i . ~.9Y ~o(A~ -(' I~ql A8 . '.PI ~ .....iQ <c .. i ~~ No ; ~..., ~<.c .. ~ ~i-- I -_J QUITCLAIM EASEMENT JOB 4065 MORAGA AREA . Centr&... Contra Costa Sanital7 District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF October 1, 1987 NO. v. CONSENT CALENDAR 16 SUBJECT EXECUTE EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR SEWER CROSSING UNDER THE CONTRA COSTA CANAL - WALNUT CREEK AREA, JOB 4055 - PARCEL 5 DATE September 22, 1987 TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE AND EXECUTE EASEMENT AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall Associate En ineer INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: An 8-inch sewer system must be extended across the Contra Costa Canal to provide public sewer service to homes in the Sorrel Court area of Wal nut Creek. The subject easement will be granted by the United States of America (U.S.A.) to permit this crossing. BACKGROUND: The District has accepted and executed similar easements from the U.S.A. in the past. This document contains their usual provisions which protect the rights of the U.S.A. and hold the District responsible for maintenance and any damages which may occur as a resul t of Di strict use of the easement. The developer, Castilla Development Company, has paid the U.S.A.'s processing fee of $1,371.48 as full consideration for granting the subject easement. RECOMMENDATION: Pass a resolution authorizing the President of the District's Board of Di rectors and the Secretary of the Di strict to execute sai d "Easement Agreement" in sextuplet and authorize their return for execution by the U.S.A. and the Contra Costa County Water District. (Easement to be accepted after the fully executed document is returned to this District.) REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A ..9/85 DH RAB ENG. INITIA TINti';yT.lDIV. -~- ~ / ~ TRACT 2667 13M13 5-13-59 LOT 488 R ~ ~~5.00' . /! = 32.tliOI L.''Z.1.~1' CONTRA COSTA CANAL LOT 13 N &t..7'40.W I5Z .55lT) LOT 14 LOT 15 DRiVe EXECUTE EASEMENT AGREEMENT CANAL X-ING JOB 4055 WALNUT CREEK AREA . Centr""" Contra Costa Sanita.7 District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF 1987 NO. v. CONSENT CALENDAR 17 SUBJECT APPROVE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT REGARDING THE CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY BETWEEN GALAXY-BURNETT ASSOC., GALAXY-ORION ASSOC., GALAXY ASSOC., CITY OF CONCORD, AND CCCSD NEAR CONCORD AVE. DATE Se tember 23, 1987 TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY Joye Kurasaki, Associate Engineer INITIA TING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Dept./P1anning Division ISSUE: Board of Directors' approval is required for property agreements. Staff recommends that the Board approve an agreement to allow CCCSD to obtain a future easement, at no cost, as a future sanitary sewer route. BACKGROUND: A three-party agreement regardi ng the conveyance of property has been negotiated among CCCSD, the City of Concord, and a developer group which consists of Galaxy Burnett Associates, Galaxy-Orion Associates, and Galaxy Associates. This property is located along the east side of Highway 680 between Gal axy Way and Burnett Avenue as shown in Fi gure I. Under thi s agreement, the developer group will provide, in the future, separate easements to CCCSD and the City of Concord, at no cost, for sanitary sewer and storm drain purposes, respectively. CCCSD may need this easement if Ca1trans widens Highway 680 because the existing "A" Line is within the potential widening zone and may have to be relocated. District staff has contacted Ca1trans to determine when Highway 680 will be widened. Ca1trans' current schedule for the Highway 680 widening project is within the next five to ten years following the addition of a second Benicia Bridge span. The existing "A" line is located within a 20-foot-wide fee simple strip of land immediately adjacent to Highway 680 (see Figure n. Ca1trans would be required to compensate CCCSD if it requires relocation of the existing "A" Line interceptor. The compensation would include the cost of relocating the existing "A" line and for purchase of CCCSD's fee simple strip of land. The easement provided for in the subject agreement will be used for the relocated "A" Line. If relocation of the "A" Line is not required by Ca1trans, then this easement wou1 d be used to relocate other sewers that may be requi red by Ca1 trans or for other sanitary sewer purposes. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the agreement regarding conveyance of property between Gal axy-Burnett Associ ates, Gal axy-Ori on Associ ates, Gal axy Associ ates, City of Concord, and CCCSD. Authorize the President of the District Board of Directors to execute said document. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/ON 1302A.9/85 JK JMK RAB EF ENG. INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. 'J 'IV ~ P/JfJ >< -< :3 w w p:: ~ o CO -D >< :3 :I:: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . ~'J~' CO~CORD BURNETT AVE. GALAXY WAY . o :; '" o ~ o ~ H o ( FUTURE CCCSD & CITY OF CONCORD EASEMENTS (FORMERLY ORION WAY) CCCSD FEE SIMPLE STRIP INCLUDES THE EXISTING "A" LINE INTERCEPTOR FIGURE I 2523-1/87 . Centra... Contra Costa Sanitar. District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF October 1, 1987 PAGE 1 OF 5 NO. v. CONSENT CALENDAR 18 SUBJECT AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 87-30 (MARTINEZ), P.A. 87-31 (MARTINEZ), P.A. 87-32 (ORINDA), P.A. 87-33 (PLEASANT HILL), AND P.A. 87-34 (DANVILLE) TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT DATE September 23, 1987 TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT ANNEXATION FOR PROCESSING :'.lUBMIHEQ ~Y.ll uennl s Ha Associate Engineer Parcel No. Area 87-30 Martinez (lOB7) Martinez (l0C7) On nda (69C4) Pleasant Hi 11 (47A5) 87-3 Danville (98D3) Owner Address Parcel No. & Acreage Bruce Trenery 3026 Hampton Road Martinez, CA 94553 162-100-009 (1.16 Acres) Stanley C. Pellow 4884 ~1il den Road Martinez, CA 94553 162-081-002 (1.03 Acres) James W. Morando 580 Palo Alto Place Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 264-1CI-Cll (0.30 Acres) John T. Figoni 185 Harriet Drive Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 152-070-015 (0.94 Acres) Kouros Ansari 975 Ygnacio Valley Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 216-172-020 & 021 (0.68 Acres) INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division Remarks Lead Agency Existing house with failing septic system. Owner must connect to public sewer. District to prepare "Notice of Exempti on. II CCCSD Existing house with faillng CCCSD septic system. Owner must connect to public sewer. District to prepare "Notice of Exemption." CSD New constructlon - single family home. District to prepare "Notice of Exemption." New constructlon - One CCCSD single family home. District to prepare "Notice f Exemption." New constructlon - two omes n two existing building ites. District to prepare "Notice of Exemption." RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 87-30, P.A. 87-31, P.A. 87-32, P.A. 87-33, and P.A. 87-34 to be included in a future formal annexation. INITIATING DEPT./DIV fQV 13021'-9/85 D H REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION JSM RAB PROPOSED ANNEXATION RA. ~() ; 3/ GUARANTY SERVI ~~ ~ 4'. T4S Ae: > ~OHNSON .5. TAe: ~H / :~~ AC /:_~ /' ""0 / STIENIICK " .~ I.TIAe ' --------- ~ . lAC EN.MINeu If..' AC {:,9eJ1 PROPOSED ANNEXATION F! A. 87-3Z :-,~.' ,,~ ~.. ~'~ '~~ C,~.'~~~G:e,:::K / r-l,~,' ..~ ~~J7_~~\~ntll \~~ \' ~ ' SO. ...... -ol~, l.~ ,~, ,~ .^..r1i;.. ,__;"\ a l' AC ,..., 'l~it ~ -' po ~~ ~ =--- tiS ~ ~ z~\\=\ ~53" '~'::'~,,:\~'l~;j'"ro ~'':- ..~ \..- l-- ~,\ 8,7 fiz"L'.'!. - ' ,1,'", ..::2-, 1 -r:-::--. ~ r- ~ _ / ~" ~~ 1 ~ ~-~ 1oo8'~' <}o'"ijg~a~r>r,~"~JI" '^:~ ~ '" '1 12~ ~ -.. 68 50 \4..,1 C,TY OF , ~. ~...... e'- ~,M' ~ - , !' I~'LL ~ "~""'" gOO \'16 .. ..., , ,,~ 1:$.;~Nr~,m'jiI;f I.~" .,....." ,'''l___ ~~..~ ~ ~~~::~ ,: \,} .."" "~::~,""'II"r"1 ~ . ~.I J ~."... -,..- I~~~\~~j,~lili~~~~l A~ ::::::;:::::: .' ~ TOVLOO "". '~z.- . ~ ~~ - :::::::::::::: \ ~ \~':EiE;Y~l :".1. T ~ t. ~ .~, 1;3~":- ::!!~;!::;:;: \ 8-/%7 IS~~ ~ ~, / .~~:;C >..J) I~..) 78. ~ ~J.I ~.\ ~- ::::::::::{ \ ~ ZO 10 ,A,n 17 ~ ,;'.' 1I~~.3~:~: r- ,.~". .o::;~ ~~ \1 -J 1 :::ia A ..~e~! lNii :::E~L~II 8'~'w.1...1 ~,i 26 .GOOd.....,.,. R' 19 0 ~ ~ ... ::::::::::.: """'4 ..: ~ 1- - II': I~n~:s 12:~ ~ ra..11~N 7 }4;. ~ ~ OR :J -~ , ~-,,-:w." ^ :~"..~' ~' , ' -!i/ "1 ~ ~~:,~' ,'., ,; ~rE~~,~; ~~; "AC.':~' _ .., .....,,{j i 'j... -:-I,1taJ. 1>9" ....",. 79a'1m i ~;lie.\ l'~~ ~,~.tf{:~f,.~.:.!...:..::t.;;~,::.::.:...:..:... ~.,.,. · ... "',: :~,L, .",::",: I k 630 ~:: -]:-!rRT I rim ! 1'1 ~ ",:,:,:,::::', ......" I 'I II '! .:.:. -, ..... · l"'" !Oll 6201"' II/. "v..>, I ts~ c~NtH,l pod I ~~J~ I '.' .::. ~X~\, ::::: : lW~- !f I.c Y 10..... 111'.1 ~ \)~ I' ~~ ~ I~ ~-r . '35 r-r-~ .."'~;~~)Loo.~ .=--t..-::. .~27-r; ~~.\. ~. \!21 I ''''In.}2'fn~2~ ~.p.q O~..~, i.~ ".~rl,}J ~7 h ~." (~"'.' ., 0\ ~~~ ':. ~ h ~~ _ ,',,;~r~~~3!' "',fp ~"1.;Jti~ t:" .,.. ~ "t; ~ < J:"'~'08 ," '2 '22 IZ"'.' 140 71 'ti I lO< it. """ ~ . ....~ ~ t ~ ~. 7~ n 78 tI. 11..1 L .," ".,...- ~ ,I , L I.."'" T ....--r'" ... "'c ,lI ~z '32 "111" ,_ fIY",\' -ill..'!'J-. ..",,:<v~n 'f1l,':';23 "" I 1'8< H~;'-' 147 I47l 'R I . t..':" io ~ .. 3 ;':J!$ J4 ~ ,. l"t :!I,..' oeoi -1-. sa ~" 7 ~8, : .::: 133 j!~30I~ f\. _'2M....~ j-'~A\27~' -1.....52:; >zci ~,~ ri.-o.~ =" ~ 1 ' ~ ~ ':~ ~ ---. ,-~ 1\'-.1"" ~ 'I ~ -IS2~ .. P' "" - ~.g . 40 1_." 30 0 o~ I ,13' t r ~ H;;! ~ ~l fm;-i-/s27 ~ ~ ",7J..JI.~o ~ i ,.. 55 48.. 8,,' pL,V 'm< f--'I~ ..;;..';;J-' f-,.J.-.-< . I '5 .::"_y..I;e_TT" 0.. 2. - ~ 00 E. '..--8 -+-- 1--=,.203 .8., so' " . 11!'5 04 5'S 514 """^' ,_ liitiii::;:.... .". ".7045550 I-- "5 II, I~II, ..15 14M ..~,~' '11h6'i 206 '~5 "T".OT 201 ,2' ~ III 110 .11 135......J ..~ ~ ~ a ~.. ; 151; 2. 25 ~ 10 '140; :;~~3~. =I'~ . 110... 150 O;;.C:l IOSO .."I.... ~I~.!I! ilOlq I'ID 10M ,., -------;;r ~ - I Ill:: 11/:1 ., _ ...,,' 10'7 J'II06,"oo ~l r-r:;;o... ""', .... · i : '17 ;'Ik>ft!:~ i~--; 00 ~ .1 :: ~'-~ __ j' ~ r",;, :G~EG( R~'-"~Z1rARiD~,~S,,, ,~ L~~ 6 'c sr:::::.ooo 7S '0': ::.. ::: ;t:1 10: ' :: II. m '38 ~ _'55 ~I ~i~~ ~::; l,~~:)- f r I ';~ .~~ Ial 2l:j I'" +.\;;;;;1 ~~'o"r.~", ''i'',w ~ ",.. ~'i"!b9l-!Q_ H IN, ~ 737'" 10 ,. A Y,' '" IDIl'I34jI~ 160 I CAIClt!I7' d-' I"",COOlWORT" r """T' CT ... OJ '-_ \~~I\,. ~ ~LE::CA.~TAT:::;L O~::';~T ..".~ 1Bt'~ ~ "'~Z71 ~ISU8 I I .. ;!. 00 '" ~ ~ S ~.. I..~c "lliIII nt~'73 '6.. AC ,.SA SUB ~~ t .. 1",. ~ - ~. I I. ... ,. 5 2S.. I ,. ,. .~ ". j f ::. I [on ToI '<-Wit'- · ,."" ," 1..1.' _ J'~' _ 2 s u . i . ~~Uil> I , ~ 11,;n37l491 I 10 .~~It- ~ ' ; > r '. -n hOOAC ~ ],_1,,1- I 8 .. ,:-<'., 190 ... ..,..... 5 6 6 5 1-.!!5{:i41.i :-r.;r.~,p~'~1 ii': 10 If 1 z 1'51 I .. .~ t" ~__ ~..'50 4044 71 . ~ ' 7.... t<c ~"UO.Y' III" .~~~_ .~~~ ~~::~~ = '--' " ~ -.. " 1~ rJ' ~'J,j,.: r: ::-~\I~d ~~ '11. . ~~I'~ ll/*~ ~ Aiif I .~, I ~u~,~.' .i_m~ C-.:. ,~ tJ~ -L'~T~'~'OI ~L.~QJ I -l...... .'\ tfiiioo71!fjff....... 10 ~ H'~ T; ita I ~J JUNCTION ~ ~J _ ~ ~ I.....E T~. j fi,. sue 1,1...1.1 ..un ",,/6,\iillli"I' ... I. r-: ..: ~ L. ~ . 'IJ~ 9-1/JQE: c.z.u, -Z'~ ......L...1J... ' 10" ~". T.JL,' ~ 47.45".'1 ~ sT.",,' LN" IT! 'A'r\ H"r N " '^ ,~;7 - - '.' 1'0 ~u 10 01;;14", 7.lj z~~I"", 1: PROPOSED ANNEXATION #I.;; ~'..ON....~T ~LAU "-40 r T;T ,"'I T r- L....~" - F! A. 87->> .':"'.:: RAZETO 6_531 AC - :L ) .19 ~.' -1> 'c 11 r C:t.f o ..........,. ~ ~ 37it;'39,14CJ .'~~. 8(f'g1 .. : {.;:;: " "l".... . . 9/80 .' ~im(-<:" : ":i~;~; JPiA&l~ib2. ~53 152 151 ~o . ~ ~.. !i4277 II) 6 - i S-1.IOZ ~ ",0 ,.. CIR I ~~ ~ "'U~ ~'l"l~ 8-2145, \~ \~ i ~'l 0~ol~ 1 ~ 3 ,). \ n ~<z ~'\~ ~>,..,. \.%~.- 6~ 66 61 118 69.. ' ~.II~ . \ , ." .t -~!~,.....J (11-.:'. "",. .:".:'.~~::b .:: 'OWl tr..... .' ":'jff'r':::: :': , ..~: 5aAC/'~:: :'::~.' A 48 AC':/ ::::::~~~~~(".w .:,11 19 ,..., 51 40 , ------ . October 1 1987 V. CONSENT CALENDAR 19 , Page 1 of 7 Cent~ _. Contra Costa San Ita. ) 'District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE , OF 3 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF Se tember 17, 1987 NO. v. ENGINEERING 1 SUBJECT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORMALLY ANNEX THE SHADOW CREEK DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE TITLE OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION 99 DATE September 10, 1987 TYPE OF ACTION INITIATE FORMAL ANNEXATION SUBMITTED BY Jay S. McCoy Construction Division Manager INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Department, Construction Division ISSUE: Dame' Construction Company has petitioned this District for annexation of Shadow Creek (Subdivision 6737). BACKGROUND: Shadow Creek is a 425 unit subdivision located near Blackhawk as shown on the attached map. The subdivision will be served entirely by gravity sewer systems. Existing sewer mains will be paralleled as a part of the sewer installation for this subdivision at the expense of the developer, Dame' Construction Company. The final tentative map was approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 16, 1987. The final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this subdivision under the title of the Hansen Lane General Plan Amendment was approved also on that date. The developer is in the process of applying for annexation to East Bay Municipal Util ities District. A petition for annexation of this subdivision to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) was submitted in August, 1987. Since the developer has completed the planning process through Contra Costa County, it is appropriate to act on the petition. CCCSD's sphere of influence must be changed as a part of the annexing of Shadow Creek. The Resol ution of Appl ication for the annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) includes a request to change the sphere of influence. A statement of services has been prepared and is attached for information. The statement will be sent to LAFCO with the application for annexation and change in the sphere of influence. Shadow Creek 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 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 icies of the County Wide and Area General Plans." The suit by TNT challenges the approval by the county of the Shadow Creek development and the adequacy of the EIR. The developer is in the process of resolving the TNT suit. This suit does not preclude CCCSD from proceeding with the annexation of Shadow Creek. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION .I~NG. ROGER J. DOLAN SUBJECT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORMALLY ANNEX THE SHADOW CREEK DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE TITLE OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION 99 POSITION PAPER 2 OF 3 PAGE DATE September 10, 1987 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request for annexation and pass a Resol ution of Appl ication for the annexation of Shadow Creek to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District under District Annexation 99. 13026-9185 PLAN FOR SERVICES DISTRICT ANNEXATION 99 The following pl an for providing sewer service for the area within the Shadow Creek development is presented pursuant to Section 56653 of the Government Code. Publ ic sanitary sewer facilities exist in Hansen Lane and Camino Tassajara. It is the responsibility of the owners or developers of Shadow Creek to extend a public sewer main into or adjacent to each property to be served and to install a private side sewer to each existing and proposed building. It is also the responsibility of the owners or developers to establ ish and coordinate the timing of such sewer construction. The owner or developer is responsible for all costs associated with the provision of the sanitary sewer service to the annexed territory. j T.. .'AC 40. OAt , ., ". , D' "' . I I I I I I I I , I I I T4. 20 4C. =' CAlVI/NO . I I I I , I I I I l....I.Iea.: TITLI .....IlCI I I " ----- /;;f~ . . J4R~ IDIIOIlIT" IlItI 4'..2 AC. ..77 AC. . PROPOSED ANNEXATION ~ A . O.A. 99 c RESOLUTION NO. 87- 161 DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 99 A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTIES TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District desires to apply for the annexation of property under the appropriate provisions of the District Reorganization Act of 1965. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT that the following information and findings are hereby respectfully submitted in compliance with the requirements of said District Reorganization Act: A. This proposal and application is made pursuant to the aforementioned District Reorganization Act of 1965. B. This annexation consists of one "single area" (as defined by the State Board of Equalization) generally adjacent to the existing District boundary, as shown and described on the attached map and description. Said annexation totals about 196.00 acres. C. The only affected County is Contra Costa County, in the area generally known as Blackhawk. No other sanitary districts are involved. The subject area is presently outside this District's Sphere of Influence. It is hereby requested that the Sphere of Influence be amended to include the subject area. D. These properties are legally uninhabited and are planned or used for residential purposes. This Resolution of Application is for annexation with the request for approval under SECTION 56261 of the Government Code without further notice or hearinQ by the .Board of Directors and without an election, for the reason that all of the owners of land within the territory proposed to be annexed have given their written consent to such annexation, in the form of a Petition for Annexation, or are connected to and served by the District sewer system after requesting such service and paying District fees and charges. E. This annexation is undertaken by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District pursuant to the provisions of the District Code. If annexation is approved, all of the provisions of said Code would become applicable to the properties annexed. Annexation fees shall be collected at the time of connection to the public sewer system. F. The reasons for this annexation are: 1. These properties are within the ultimate service area of the District, as previously approved by appropriate County agencies, and are or will be connected in the near future to the sanitary sewer system of the District. The District is assuming responsibility, upon annexation, for the continued maintenance and operation of the public sewage facilities. 2. It is the requirement of the District that all served properties annex to the District (Code Section 8-201, Refer to Sections 6511, 6522, and 6830 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California). 3. Septic tank systems are inadequate for the area and will create a public health problem. 4. The property owners have petitioned for annexation to the District, or have requested and received sewer service subject to District regulations including annexation. 5. No other sewering agency can logically serve these areas. G. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District respectfully requests that proceedings be taken by the Local Agency Formation Commission for the proposed annexation under the terms and conditions set forth herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of September , 1987, by the District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the foll owi n9 vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MEMBERS: MEMBERS: Dalton, Carlson None MEMBERS: t~EMBERS : Boneysteele, McNulty Clausen Pres en of the District Board of the ra Contra Costa Sanitary District ntra Costa County, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: . Centre.. Contra Costa Sanitar 7 District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 15 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF Octobe r 1, 1987 NO. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE 1 SUBJECT ADOPT THE DISTRICT'S FORMAL BID STANDARD, S-013 DATE Se tember 23, 1987 TYPE OF ACTION ADOPTION SUBMITTED BY Ken F. Laverty, Purchasing Purchasing & Materials Officer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Administrative/Purchasing ISSUE: The California Public Contracts Code requires the District to follow certai n admi ni strative procedures in rega rds to competitive bi ddi ng. To that end, the District's Purchasing and Materials Standard for bidding has been revised to conform with the Code, and Board adoption is requested. BAa<GROUND: The Di strict's Purchas i ng and Materi a-I s Manual (PMM) was issued as District directives to the staff in March 1983. Subsequent to the issuance of the PMM, changes in the bidding statutes and various court cases have made it necessary to revise the PMM and in particular the bidding standard, S-013, BIDS. The attached Standard 5-013, BIDS (Attachment I) has been developed by staff and District Counse-I to comply with the bidding complexities that the District faces as a publ ic agency.. All District personnel with project management responsi- bility will be given a copy of the new standard after adoption by the Board. District Counsel has recommended to staff that this standard be adopted by the Board of Directors. This recommendation is based on the fact that this standard, once adopted, will be followed by District personnel as a guide to make such determinations as when bidding may be required and when District force labor may be used. This standard, once adopted, will become a basis for future staff recommendations to the Board as it will be contained in position papers relating to certain expenditures. Therefore, it is necessary that the Board be familiar with this standard, and it is appropriate that the Board itself approve and adopt the provisions set forth within this standard. RECOtIENDATION: Adopt Standa rd 5-013, BIDS for use by all Di strict personnel. Pp?PTro,v 1302A-9/85 KFL ~ G & MATERIAL~STANDARD NO. $-013 ~CCSD PURCHASIN I~ SUBMITTED BY: TITLE: BIDS EFFECTIVE DATE: I 10-1-87 JSUPERSEDES NO.: -0- APPROVED BY: PAGE 1 OF 14 PAGES 1.0 PurpOse To provide a Standard concerning the solicitation of competitive bids. 2.0 Scope This Standard applies to all District employees. This Standard is to set forth the basic procedures to be followed by the District in regard to competitive bidding of District expenditures. The Standard is not intended to provide an invariable approach to every District purchase or contract. Rather, the Standard must be applied on a case by case basis by use of sound judgment tempered by the letter and spirit of this document. Specific exception should be reviewed by Management and Counsel for the District as appropriate. For material and/or services with the estimated price being $10,000 or less or not defined as a District project, see Standard S-014, Quotations. 3.0 Responsibl1 ities A. The Purchasing and Materials Officer has the responsibility for maintaining a uniform set of procedures and forms to serve the bid process in accordance with all applicable Codes and Laws. Consideration should include the need for mechanisms for supplier notification, bid analysis and summary, bonds, bidder mailing list applications, competitive invitations, instructions to bidders, policy statement of bid award, power-ofoLattorney forms~ and sealed bid requirements. B. Technical specifications are the responsibility of the originating department and are provided to Purchasing by the department specifying the minimum technical criteria, including the delivery schedule, that the goods or service must meet. C. The Buyers or other authorized personnel are responsi bl e for obtaining bids on all material and/or services covered under this Standard for both estimatfng purposes and purchases. STANDARD NO.: .$-013 PAGE 2 OF 14 PAGES 4.0 General Although the precise application of the legal requirements to a sanitary district may be subject to some interpretation, the purposes of the competitive bidding statutes and this Standard are to guard against favoritism and corruption and to obtain the best economic result for the public. A. $10,000 Limit: The competitive bidding standards set forth herein apply when the expenditure for a "District Project" exceeds ten thousand doll ars ($10,000). In such cases, the expenditure shall be contracted for and let, using the formal competitive bidding procedures set forth herein, to the lowest responsible bidder. B. Bidding Required for "District Project": 1. Definition of "District Project" Section 20801 of the Public Contract Code defines District Project as "any construction, reconstruction, alteration, en1 argement, renewal or rep1 acement of sewer facilities including, but not limited to, the furnishing of supplies or materials for any such work." 2. Definition of a "Sewer Facility" For purposes of this Standard, the term "sewer facility" means any plant, building, permanent structure, ground facility, sewer 1i ne or appurtenance, pump stati on or other portion of the collection and treatment works. A sewer facility includes any portion of the above-mentioned, including in-place machinery and electronics. .- 3. Bidding Required Formal competitive bidding procedures, as set forth herein and in Procedure P-002, shall be required on all District proj ects when the expenditure will exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000). 8T ANDARD NO.: S:"013 PAGE 3 OF 14 PAGES 4. Maintenance and/or Repair The definition of "District Project" shall include repairs to District "sewer facil iti es," but shall not i ncl ude maintenance work on District "sewer facil ities." For the purposes of this Standard, a repair shall be a "District Proj ect" when the primary reason for the work undertaken constitutes an improvement to a "sewer facility," or when the work is not of a usual, routine and recurring nature associated with maintenance and would ordinarily be capitalized under the District policies on capitalization of expenditures. The definition of "maintenance work" shall inc1 ude all of the following: a. Routine, recurring, or usual work for the preservation or protection of" any District-owned or operated facility for its intended purpose; b. Minor repainting; c. Landscape maintenance including mowing, watering, trimming, pruning, planting, replacement of plants and servicing of irrigation and sprinkler systems; d. Work performed to keep, operate, and mai ntai n the District's sewage collection and treatment system. c. Unit Price Bidding: 1. Definition of "Unit Price Bidding" Unit price bidding refers to letting a contract for purchase of goods or services at a set price over a desi gnated period of time, without specify ing the exact amount of goods or services to be purchased. 2. Use of Unit Price Bidding Unit price bidding is an acceptable means of complying with the bidding requirements set forth herein, so long as the initial unit price contract is bid in compliance with the formal provisions of this Standard. STANDARD "-O~~ 5-013 PAGE 4 OF .14 PAGES. I Unit price bi ddi ng contracts shall generally _ be for a period not greater than one (1) year. Extensions and renewals of such unit price contracts shall not ordinarily be granted without undertaking a formal competitive bidding process unless the original Bid Request specifically provided for extensions or renewals. D. lease and Rental of Goods and Authorizations for Services: lease and rental of goods and authorizations for services is not excluded from the formal bidding process merely because there is no purchase. Contract or purchase authorizations for the lease or rental of goods or for services which constitute a "District Project," as defined elsewhere in this Standard, are subject to the same rules in regard to bidding as purchases or other expenditures. lease or rental costs of equipment or services to be used for a particul ar "District Project" must be included in the cost of that project when determining whether it meets the monetary limit for formal competitive bidding. In determining the estimated lease or rental cost for a "District Project," the total amount of the entire lease or service period, if fixed, shall be incl uded. In the event the contract is for an undetermined period, then the estimated cost shall be based on the reasonably anticipated length of the requi red rental or service. _ leases, rental contracts, and authorizations for services subject to formal bidding shall not be extended for periods of time for which the total estimated cost of the extension exceeds the ten thousand dollar ($10,000> limit amount, without adherence to the formal competitive bidding process. Provisions for potential extensions may be included in the initial Bid Request in order to eliminate the necessity of a formal competitive bi d for subsequent extensions or renewal s. Nothing in this section should be read to limit the exceptions provided in Provision 5.0. E. Segmenting of District Projects into Multiple Units: A District Project may not be split, divided, or separated into small work orders or projects or segmented into separate phases for the purpose of evading the competitive bidding requirements of this Standard. However, nothing herein shall prevent STANDARD NO.: 5-013 PAGE 5 OF 14 PAGES District undertakings from being divided into manageable units which are otherwise appropriate and advantageous to the carrying on of District operations. The issue of whether formal competitive bidding is required must be incidental and unrelated to the discretion used in determining the scope, phasing or segmenting of any District undertaking. The granting of extensions on District unit price bidding contracts and on rentals or leases cannot be intentionally phased so as to permit a series of extensions, which individually are ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or less and cumulatively are in excess of that amount, in order to avoid a need for formal competitive bidding of the contract or lease extensi on. F. Use of District Force Account Labor: 1. District Force Account Labor Defined District Force Account Labor shall be defined as work undertaken by District employees, rather than by an independent contractor or employees of an independent contractor. 2. District Projects Where District Force Account Labor May be Used. District Force Account Labor may be used on a District project as defined in Provision 4.0 B. of this Standard under any of the following circumstances: a. In the case where the anticipated expenditure is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or less as calculated in Provision F.4.a.; or b. In the case where the anticipated number of hours required to be expended by District employees does not exceed four hundred (400) hours as set forth in Provision F.4.b.; or c. In the case of an emergency due to the fail ure or threat of failure of any sewer collection or treatment facility or portion thereof; or STANDARD NO.: $-013 PAGE 6 OF 14 PAGES d. In the case of an emergency due to damage to a District owned building or other District owned property, for work and remedi al measures which are required immediately, when such emergency is occasioned by an act of God including, but not limited to, damage by storm, flood, fi re or earthquake; or e. In the case of "maintenance" of District property; or f. In the case where a District Project has been awarded to an independent contractor, however, portions of the work to be performed require interfacing with District personnel including, but not limited to, circumstances including: i) Safety system interties; i i ) Instrumentation, interties; elect rica 1 or control iii) Significant or sophisticated interfacing required with existing operating systems; iv) Ci rcumstances where Di strict personnel have speci alized experttSe requi red to effici entl y complete the work; or g. At any time after approval of plans, specifications and estimates of costs, under the conditions set forth in Provision F.3. of this Standard; or h. In the case of unique ci rcumstances where it is in the best interest of the Di stri ct to have Di stri ct employees undertake the work as set forth in Provision F.4. of this Standard. 3. Use of District Force Account Labor After Bid Specifications are Prepared If the General Manager-Chief Engineer or his/her designee, at any time after the approval of pl ans, specificati ons and estimates of cost, deems theadverti si ng or awardi ng STANDARD NO.: PAGE 7 OF $-013 14 PAGES of a contract, the acceptance of a bid or the ~cceptance of any further bi ds after the rej ecti on of all submitted bids, is not in the best interests of the District, District forces may be used to undertake the project. Where pl ans and specifications have been prepared for a District Project for formal bid, and subsequently, the District elects to perform the work with District Force Account Labor, the Di strict shall perform the work in accordance with the same pl ans and specifications. Revisions of the plans and specifications may only be made once a justification detail ing the specific reasons for the change or changes has been approved by the General Manager-Chief Engineer. 4. Determining El igible Projects for Which District Force Account Labor May Be Used a. For the purpose of this Standard, the 'cost of a proj ect which may be performed by Di strict Force Account Labor shall be calculated by including di rect 1 abor costs (i ncl udi ng 1 abor wages, proj ect supervisor wages, and directly attributable overhead), costs of materials and costs of equipment purchased or rented specifically for the project. General administrative overhead, use charges for District owned equipment' and materials previously purchased by competitive bi ddi ng may be excl uded from the project cost for purposes of this provision. Engineering and administration costs which woul d not have been incl uded in the construction contract if it had been let by competitive bidding may also be excluded. Alternatively, a District Project may be undertaken by District Force Account Labor whenever the total number of hours expended by Di strict employees on the project does not exceed four hundred (400) hours. This alternative may be used under ci rcumstances where the equipment to be used is District property or has otherwise been acquired in accordance with this Standard and where the material s have been previously purchased through a formal competitive bid. b. STANDARD NO.: $-013 PAGE 8 OF 14 PAGES G. Change Orders: 1. Change orders made subsequent to the execution of a contract originally subject to the competitive bidding procedures may be negotiated without complying with the formal competitive bidding process when the amount of the change order or request for extra work does not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or under any of the following ci rcumstances: a. When the change order relates to an increase in the amount of units on a unit price bid and the potenti al of such increase shoul d have been reasonably known to the prospective bidders on the original contract; b. Where the change order is due to a change of circumstances or physical conditions not specifically taken into account in the District speci f i cati ons, and the ch ange orde r work is incidental to the carrying out of the original scope of work; c. Where the change order rel ates to work reasonabl y within the general scope of work in the original contract, however, the necessity of such extra work only becomes known to the District, for whatever reason, after the execution of the original contract and the impossibility or impracticality of contracti ng with a di fferent contractor, not party to the ori gi nal contract, woul d make competitive bidding of such extra work impractical and n'ot in the public's interest; d. Where the original contract and/or the specifications therefor contain provisions for the potenti al performance of such extra work and furni sh i ng of materi al s therefor by the contractor as the District may require for the proper compl eti on or constructi on of the whol e or that which was originally contemplated. 2. Notwithstanding the Standards set forth above (G.1.), where the extra cost to the District for the change order _. _.-- STANDARD NO.: $-013 PAGE 9 OF 14 PAGES exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000) but is less than lOJ of the original. contract, and is less than fifty thousand doll ars ($50,000), such change order shall requi re approval of the General Manager-Chief Engi neer upon advice of District Counsel. 3. Notwithstanding the Standards set forth above (G.l.), where the extra cost to the District for the change order or addition of work exceeds fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), regardless of percentage, such a change order shall require Board approval. H. Preference for Materials District personnel shall not draft, or cause to be drafted, specifications for bids in connection with the construction, alteration, or repair of public works in such a manner as to limit the bidding, directly or indirectly, to anyone specific concern unless the specification lists at least two brands or trade names of comparable quality or utility and is followed by the words "or equal" so that bi dders may furni sh any equal material, product, thing or service. In those cases involving a unique or novel product appl icati on requi red to be used in the public's interest, or where only one brand or trade name is known to the District, it may 1 ist only one. The requestor that specifies a preference for a specific material shall substanti ate the need and j ustif icati on of the preference. Specifications shall provide a period of time of at least thirty-five (35) days after award of the contract for submission of data substantiating a request for a substitution of an "or equal" item. The restriction of this provision shall be subject to the exceptions as may be applicable set forth in Provisions 5.0. exceptions of this Standard. I. Prequalification, Evaluative Bidding, and other Alternative Bidding Procedures The District may devise and use a system to ease the administrative burden of determining the responsiveness of bidders to specifications on significant equipment purchases. A prequal ification procedure may be used which would provide for adverti sement of the prequal ificati on proceedi ngs simil ar to the advertising required for formal competitive bidding. The prequalification procedure shall require the preparation of STANDARD NO.: $-013 PAGE 10 OF 14 PAGES an informational qualification package which shall b~ delivered to each potenti al bi dder respondi ng to the adverti sement or otherwise known to the District. Prequalification submittals may be required from the responding potential bidders and such submittal s shall be eval uated by staff and/or Di strict consultants for the purpose of determining whether or not each of the responding potential bidders may be a responsible bidder. This initial determination shall be based on the District's specifications set forth in the District's informational qualification package. The District's initial determination during this prequalification process that a prospective bidder is a responsible bidder shall not be an irrevocable determination binding the District during subsequent procurement procedures. The District may also devise and use such other systems as may be available at law that may serve to ease the administrative burden of determining the responsiveness of bidders and/or the suitability of products for District use. These systems may include, but are not limited to, forms of evaluative bidding and bi ddi ng based on estimated 1 ife eycl e costs of the goods sought. 5.0 Exceptions Specific circumstances may make formal competitive bidding impracti cal and to the detriment of the Di strict as well as the public's interest. Accordingly, certain District expenditures do not require formal competitive bidding and the circllnstances which do not require formal competitive bidding are set forth hereunder: A. Professional and Special Services The District Board or its designated representative may contract with and employ persons for the furnishing of special services and advice in fields such as finance, economics, accounting, engineering, law, and administration, providing such persons are speci ally trai ned and experienced and competent to perform the special services required. This exception does not apply to contracts for services of a more technical nature which involve little professional judgment. . . STANDARD NO.: - $-013 PAGE 11 OF 14 PAGES B. Unique Goods or Single Source Supplier Expenditures for a unique item with a sole (single) supplier do not requi re formal competitive bi ddi ng. In order for an item to be recognized as unique goods, there must be no equivalent product available. The unique status must be based on material differences in the function and usefulness of the product. When the product or service requi red, based on its unique character, is only available through a single or sole source or manufacturer, a negotiated purchase may be made from that sole source without formal competitive bidding. Instances may occur when appropriately drawn specifications will requi re purchase from a single source or manufacturer. District specifications shall not be drawn so narrowly as to intentionally favor one manufacturer, unless a sound technica11 engineering basis exists therefor. Specifications should be drawn to provide assurance of maximum functionality for the District, without regard to preference for trade names or proprietary products or processes. Maximum functionality shall include, but not be limited to, life cycle costs, maintenance, longevity, ease of operation and reliability. Specifications shall also be drawn to provide for maximum compatibility with existing District equipment and operations and to attempt to provide superior performance in a particular application. Reasonable requirements regarding commercial terms and experience may be included in the specifications. c. Trade Name Item Matching Existing Items Formal competitive bidding is not required for an expenditure for a purchase of a brand name item avail abl e th rough a sol e source where the brand name item is necessary due to the project goods being designed to match other goods a1 ready in use or a1 ready purchased in the course of comp1 eti on of a District project. D. Purchase of Unique Component or Replacement Part Expenditures for the purchase of a component or rep1 acement part for a product which is already in use and for which there is no adequate substitute does not requi re formal competitive bidding, provided the product is only available through a sole source. STANDARD NO.: $-013 PAGE 12 OF 14 PAGES E. Purchase for Field Testing Expenditures for the purchase of a particu1 ar material or service which has been designated by the Board of Directors as a purchase for experimental purposes or for trial use of the specific product do not require application of the formal competitive bidding procedures. F. Purchase of Used Items The expenditure for purchase of a used item, which due to its used status, is unique, does not requi re formal competitive bi ddi ng. An informal purchase pol icy may be followed for acquisition of a unique used item where the cost savings of the used purchase proves advantageous or where the particular item is subject to prior sale. G. Emergency Expenditures Contracts or other expenditures for goods and services which are made under emergency circumstances where the public's interest and necessity demand immediate expenditures to safeguard 1 ife, health, or property, do not requi re formal competitive bidding. The District Board must pass a resolution by a four-fifths (4/Sth) vote decl ari ng that an emergency exists to el iminate the necessity for competitively bidding such emergency contracts or purchases under circumstances where such purchases or contracts would otherwise require competitive bidding. H. Public Utility Services Purchases of public utll ity services, such as water, gas, and electricity, do not require formal competitive bidding. I. Purchases From or In Conjunction With Another Agency Purchases made from another public agency or made in conjunction with another public agency pursuant to the laws providi ng for cooperative purchasing do not requ1 re formal competitive bidding. STANDARD NO.: $-013 PAGE 13 OF 14 PAGES J. Purchases and Leases of Real Property The 1 aw generally rega rds pa rcel s of real property as unique, and, therefore, the formal bidding procedures set forth in this Standard would normally not apply. Sales and leases of District property are controlled by specific statutory procedures which are not addressed in this Standard. Advice of District Counsel should be sought in regard to both acquisitions and sales of real property. K. Best Interest of District Under excepti onal factual ci rcumstances where the competi tive bidding process works an incongruity and is unavailing as affecting the final result, or where the competitive bidding process does not produce any advantage, or where it is practically impossible to obtain what is required by observing such formality, competitive bidding is not required. 6.0 Award The following factors will be considered in reviewing bids and awarding purchase orders and contracts: o Prices o Bidder's previous record of performance and service o Del ivery o Responsiveness of bi dder' s submittal in rega rds to specifications and terms and conditions The District Board may reject any bids presented and readvertise. If two or more bids are the same and the lowest, the District Board may accept the one it chooses. If no bids are received, the Di strict Boa rd may have the proj ect done without further compl yi ng with the public bidding procedure. The District Board reserves the right to waive any non-material irregularities in any bid. It is required that the District's terms and conditions of purchase and/or contracts, as stated in the bid request, are adhered to. Any exception, unless an alternate is specifically allowed for, is grounds for rejection of a bid as being nonresponsive. If the District staff evaluator determines that the best interests of the STANDARD NO':S-013 PAGE 14 OF 14 PAGES District are served by recommending that the lowest bid be declared nonresponsive, the staff evaluator must obtain the appropriate District Management concurrence. This concurrence will only be given after review by District Counsel. . Centr&... Contra Costa Sanitat 7 District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF October 1, 1987 NO. VII. PLANT OPERATIONS ~:ptember 16, 1987 1 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE lHE GENERAL MANJlGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXEOJTE A roNTRACT WITH REALOOIC FOR PHASE II OF THE PLANT CONTROl. SYSTEM SOFTWARE UPGRADE, PROO ECT NO. 10020 TYPE OF ACTION AUlHORIZE JlGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY Garth Will i ams s En ineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Plant Operations Department ISSUE: Board of Directors' authorization is required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a consulting agreement when it is greater than $50,000. BACKGROUND: The Plant Operations Department has initiated a project to upgrade the software for its control system computer. A description of this project is provided in the Capital Improvement Budget on page TP-63. Phase I of the project, to plan and estimate the scope and cost of the conversion, was completed by REALOOIC. This portion of the project was authorized at the July 17, 1986, Board Meeting. All of the District Treatment Plant control system software was reviewed and the conversion time estimated including a large percentage of the work which will be done by District personnel. District involvement will enable the Plant's Control System Section to gain the necessary understanding of the new ModComp operating system operation for subsequent maintenance and evolution of the new system. REALOOIC is one of the few software firms specializing in ModComp computers. Based upon their satisfactory work in Phase I and their familiarity with the District process control computer ~stem, they were selected as the consultants for Phase II. The budget for the entire conversion effort, including District force account labor, trai ni ng cl asses, hardware and software costs, and consul tant contract costs is $146,000. The consultant's portion is $96,500. The proposed budget is $62,000 more than the estimate given in the Capital Improvement Budget. Staff has evaluated the project and bel ieves that it is cost effective since it will provide for more efficient operati on of the exi sti ng control system and computer control for future pl ant processes, such as the Dew ateri ng System Improvements Proj ect and the effl uent fil tration pl ant, without the need to repl ace the system. The Capital Improvement Budget System anticipates that actual project budgets will vary, upward and downward, from the original estimates incl uded in the Capital Improvement Budget document. Staff manages the program budgets with the goal that aggregate expenditures for the projects included within the budget will not exceed the program budget total. Staff is monitoring actual versus estimated allocations within each program budget and will present a comprehensive mid-year status report for Board consideration in January or February 1988. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a contract with REALOOIC, in the amount of $96,500, for a portion of Phase II of the Pl ant Control System Software Upgrade, Project No. 10020. IN~./DIV. wa MMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A.9/85 GW WEB . Centra~ ~ontra Costa Sanitary .Jistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 31 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF Octobe r 1, 1987 NO. IX. SOLID WASTE 1 SUBJECT DATE ADOPTION OF LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS FOR SETTING OF GARBAGE COLLECTION RATES September 28, 1987 TYPE OF ACTION ADOPT FINDINGS SUBMITTED B,Y James L. Hazard Counsel for the District INITIA TING DEPT./DIV. Administrative ISSUE: On August 27, 1987 the Board set garbage coll ection rates and di rected legislative findings consistent with its determinations be prepared. Legislative findings have been prepared and are presented for Board adoption. BACKGROUND: As a result of hearings held on July 1, July 16, and August 20, 1987, the District on August 27, 1987 set rates for refuse collection by the District's franchisees, to wit: Valley Disposal Service, Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service and Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal. On August 27, 1987, proposed findings were reviewed by the Board wherein direction was given to staff to prepare final legislative findings in accord with Board comments. Such legislative findings have been prepared and are presented to the Board for review and adoption. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt legislative findings and direct said findings be filed by the Secretary of the District with the administrative record of the 1987 garbage collection rate setting process. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS SETTING OF GARBAGE COLLECTION RATES FOR ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL, VALLEY DISPOSAL AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL 198 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Public Hearings B. Franchising of Garbage Collection C. Franchise Contracts II RECORD BEFORE THE BOARD A. Evidence and Testimony Received By the Board B. Franchise Contract Agreements C. 1987 Price Waterhouse 'Study of Acme Fill D. The 1987 Rate Applications of Franchisees E. Staff Analysis, Reports and Other Documents Provided to the Board III. FINDING OF AFFILIATION A. Contract provisions B. General Law C. Franchisee's Ownership in Acme Fill Corporation D. Directorship of Acme E. Franchisee Control of Acme Fill Corporation IV. DISALLOWANCE OF UNREASONABLE COSTS A. Duty to Disallow Unreasonable Costs B. Cost of Services from Affiliated Entities C. Acme as a Monopoly D. Unreasonableness of $5.84 Member Tipping Fee V. PRICE WATERHOUSE STUDY VI. UNREASONABLE COMPONENTS OF THE MEMBER TIPPING FEE A. Accounting Adjustments B. Cost of the Transfer station and Transfer Vehicles VII. REASONABLE MEMBER TIPPING FEE VIII. OPERATING RATIOS A. Historical Use of 95% Operating Ratio B. Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service C. Valley Disposal Service D. Pleasant Hill Bay Shore IX. JUST AND REASONABLE RATES X. GOOD FAITH EXERCISE OF FIXING RATES XI. CEQA COMPLIANCE Page 1 3 4 8 10 11 13 14 18 19 19 OCTOBER 1, 1987 BEFORE THE BOARD OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT RE: FIXING OF GARBAGE COLLECTION ) RATES FOR ORINDA-MORAGA ) DISPOSAL, VALLEY DISPOSAL AND ) PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL ) ) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Public Hearings The Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sani- tary District (hereinafter "the District") has held a noticed public hearing on the issue of garbage rates1 for each of the three franchised collectors on July 1, 1987 and continu- ing to July 16, 1987. The District received additional infor- mation from staff and the three franchised collectors at noticed pUblic meetings on August 20, 1987 and August 27, 1987. (The District currently franchises for the collection of garbage with three entities, to wit: Orinda-Moraga Dispos- aI, Valley Disposal and Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal. The Franchise Agreements are part of the administrative record. ) At such hearings, the Board of Directors has re- ceived testimony and information from representatives of each of the garbage collectors as well as additional comment from the District staff, other public entities and the general public. Additionally, the Board held a workshop on June 18, 1987, where the franchisees were in attendance for discus- sions concerning the upcoming rate setting process. B. Franchisinq of Garbaqe Collection The District currently has authority under the Sanitary District Act of 1923 to collect or otherwise franchise for the collection of garbage within the District boundaries. The District Code provides in Chapter 8.05 that the District has determined that the franchising of garbage collection is in the District's best interest. The District has entered into a contract with each of the above-noted franchisees setting forth the specific conditions in regard to the collec- tion of garbage within the District. C. Franchise Contracts Each of the franchisees noted above has entered into a contract with the District regarding the respective rights of the parties relating to the exclusive franchise for garbage collection within the District boundaries. Each franchisee freely entered into a contract wi th full knowledge of the terms contained therein after substantial bargaining relating to the conditions and provisions set forth therein. Section 6 of each franchise contract provides in part that the contractor shall perform the responsibilities and duties set forth in the contract "in consideration of the reasonable rates fixed by the District from time to time". This paragraph further provides that "( i) t is the intent of - 2 - the parties that the rates fixed shall be in conformity with applicable law." II. RECORD BEFORE THE BOARD The Administrative Record before the Board includes: A. Evidence and Testimonv Received By the Board Transcripts of July 1, 1987;' July 16, 1987; August 20, 1987 and August 27, 1987. B. Franchise Contract Aqreements For Valley Disposal, Inc.; Orinda Moraga Disposal, Inc.; and Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal. C. 1987 Price Waterhouse StudY of Acme Fill Entitled "Review of the Acme Landfill July I, 1987 Rate Increase", Final Report dated June 12, 1987 . The Greene, Nakahara and Lew response to the Price Waterhouse review, entitled "Clarifications, Answers to Questions, And Responses to Adjustments Proposed in Price Waterhouse Report Dated June 12, 1987" and the letter response thereto of Price Waterhouse dated July 6, 1987 also made evidence. D. The 1987 Rate Applications of Franchisees Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Valley Disposal and Pleas- ant Hill Bay Shore Disposal Service. E. staff Analysis, Reports and Other Documents Provided to the Board 1. posi tion papers and attachments prepared for Board Meetings of June 18, 1987, July 1, 1987, July 16, 1987, Au- gust 20, 1987 and August 27, 1987. - 3 - 2. Analysis by District staff of the Refuse Collection Rate and the Garbage Rate Increase applications for each franchisee, including all attachments. 3. All letters submitted to the Board for consideration from public entities and private individuals. 4. All correspondence presented to the Board on behalf of the franchisees, including letters and attachments from Sanford Skaggs dated July 1, 1987 (two separate letters), July 14, 1987, and August 25, 1987 (three separate letters) as well as other correspondence received from Ken Little, including a letter dated July 14, 1987. 5. All other documentary evidence presented to the Board hearings on July 1, 1987, July 16, 1987, August 20, 1987 and August 27, 1987, as may be reflected by reference in the transcript of those meetings, including all documents in the administrative record prepared by the Secretary of the District and made available for inspection at the October 1, 1987 Board Meeting. III. FINDING OF AFFILIATION A. Contract provisions The Board finds that Paragraph 30 of the Franchise Agree- ment with each franchisee provides that an entity is "affili- ated" with a franchisee to the extent that the franchisee owns 10% or more of the entity providing services to the franchisee. For the purposes of the Franchise Agreement, the franchisee (contractor) includes the franchisee, if an indi- vidual, and all members of his or her immediate family, or, - 4 - if a corporation, the controlling shareholder and the control- ling shareholder's immediate family members. Therefore, Acme Fill corporation2 is an affiliated entity with each franchi- see. B. General Law The Board finds in addition to the contract provisions of Paragraph 30, the facts presented establish as a matter of general law that Acme Fill Corporation is an affiliated enti- ty as to the franchisees. C. Franchisee's Ownership in Acme Fill Corporation 1. Valley Disposal Service: The Board further finds that Valley Disposal Service is a corporation and said corporation owns 34.6% of Acme Fill Corporation. 2. Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service: The Board further finds that Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service is a corporation with a stock ownership in the per- sons of Frances Navone (51%), George Navone (24.5%) and Don- aId Navone (24.5%) . Each of those stockholders in Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service also owns stock in Acme Fill to a total of 11.5% of Acme Fill Corporation. Stock owner- ship in Acme Fill by the stockholders of Orinda-Moraga Dispos- al Service is in the persons of Frances Navone (6.9%), George Navone (2.3%), and Donald Navone (2.3%). George and Donald Navone are sons of Frances Navone and are, therefore, "immedi- ate family", allowing the total family interest to be viewed under the Franchise Agreement for purposes of the determina- - 5 - tion of an affiliated entity. ACME Fill Corporation is there- fore an affiliated entity. 3. Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal: The Board further finds that Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal is a sole proprietorship owned by Boyd Olney, Jr., and further, that Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal owns 26.9% of the stock in Acme Fill Corporation and Acme Fill Corpora- tion is therefore an affiliated entity. D. Directorship of Acme Acme Fill Corporation is owned by four companies in addi- tion to individuals comprising the ownership of Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service. More specifically, the Board finds that Acme Fill Corporation is owned by the following individual enti ties in the following percentage amounts: GBF Company (19.2%), Martinez Sanitary Service (7.8%), Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal (26.9%), Valley Disposal Service (34.6%), and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service (Frances Navone {6.9%}, George Navone {2.3%}, and Donald Navone {2.3%}, - totaling 11.5%). The Board further finds that Acme Fill Corporation is con- trolled by a Board of Directors comprised of five voting Directors. Of those five voting Directors, Marshall Grodin, president of Valley Disposal service, is a Director i George Navone, vice-president of Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, is a Director; and Boyd M. Olney, Jr., owner of Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal, is a Director. The two remaining Direc- tors are not directly associated with District franchises. c. _ v Furthermore, Boyd M. Olney, Jr., is the president of Acme Fill Corporation. E. Franchisee Control of Acme Fill Corporation The Board finds that the three entities with whom the Dis- trict has Franchise Agreements for the collection of garbage hold a controlling interest in ACME Fill Corporation. The Board further finds that the three District franchisees are separate entities; however, they have been operated for years with a unity of interest. This unity of interest is reflect- ed by the fact that each has provided basically the same variety of garbage collection service for different segments of the Central Contra Costa community. Each collector has delivered said garbage collected under District franchise agreements to the same landfill, namely Acme Fill Corpora- tion. Each franchisee has an ownership interest in Acme Fill as set forth above. Each franchisee operates under a con- tract with the District which is virtually identical and which was negotiated on behalf of each franchisee by the same representative, and, on occasion in the past, each has been represented by the the same individual in matters of rate setting. Moreover, although the Board has treated each fran- chisee as an individual entity for the purposes of determin- ing rates within the zone which that franchisee collects, the District Board has set said rates as to each franchisee in a similar manner and with regard to the same principles. The Board further finds that entities regulated by the District control 73% of the stock of Acme Fill corporation and that principals within the three regulated entities hold ..., - I - three of the five directorships, thus allowing the regulated enti ties before this Board to control the policies of Acme Fill Corporation. IV. DISALLOWANCE OF UNREASONABLE COSTS A. Dutv to Disallow Unreasonable Costs The Board finds for rate setting purposes that, based on the language of the franchise contracts as well as the gener- al law concerning regulation of franchisees, the Board has a right and an obligation to the rate payers to disallow any costs or business expenses set forth by the franchisees or their "affiliates" which are determined to be unreasonable in the judgment of the District Board. B. Cost of Services from Affiliated Entities The Board does not assert that it has legal authority by virtue of the franchise contract or general law to directly regulate the operations of Acme Fill. However, the Board finds that exercising of the District's obligation to the rate payers to disallow unreasonable costs in regard to set- ting of fair rates for the District franchisees is not an unlawful attempt to regulate Acme Fill Corporation. The District Board also finds that a public entity regulating franchised services must, in the public interest, take spe- cial cognizance of the cost of services provided by related or affiliated entities when the relationship between the non-regulated entity providing services and the regulated enti ty is other than an arm's-length relationship operating in an open competi ti ve market. The Board finds that, in n .,~_ o - instances where the regulated and unregulated entity provid- ing services have interlocking ownerships, the District has a duty to closely scrutinize the reasonableness of the costs of the services being provided by the related or affiliated entity. The Board finds that the relationship between each franchisee and Acme Fill Corporation should be subject to such a greater level of scrutiny' concerning the reasonable- ness of the costs charged to the regulated entities including scrutiny of the costs and profits at each point within the garbage waste-stream controlled by related or affiliated entities. C. Acme As A Monopoly The Board finds that, during the period for which the garbage collection rates are to be set, there are no practi- cally available alternate refuse disposal sites for the Dis- trict franchisees, or its consumers and rate payers. Not- wi thstanding the District I s contractual authori ty to direct garbage to a different disposal site, there is no legally authorized site available other than the Acme Fill site. Accordingly, the Board determines that Acme Fill Corporation has a stable, assured, and captive market for its services. The Board further finds that Acme I s relationship with the franchisees effectively eliminates competition, and, there- fore, the District may look to the reasonableness of the actual costs of Acme Fill corporation in determining the reasonableness of the costs passed through to the regulated franchisees by virtue of the Acme tipping fee. Based on the monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic position of Acme Fill n :;;I Corporation for the minimum of the next rate period, the Board finds that an analysis of comparable prices of surround- ing landfills, or a marketplace analysis for available land- fill services, is not a viable method for determining the reasonableness of the tipping fee3 costs for rate-making consideration. The Board finds that the analyses provided by District staff and Price Waterhouse in reviewing the cost basis for the tipping fee charge, is a proper basis on which the Board should rely in making a determination as to the reasonable- ness of the franchisees' tipping fees costs. D. Unreasonableness of $5.84 Member TiP?inq Fee The Board finds that the cost of the tipping fee set forth in the franchisees' garbage collection rate increase applications based on $5.84 per cubic yard of solid waste (a composite figure based on $6.55 per cubic yard compacted and $4.90 per cubic yard uncompacted) 4 is an unreasonable cost and, therefore, a portion of said cost should be disallowed for purposes of rate setting. The Board finds that a reason- able cost for such member tipping fee5 is $3.69 per cubic yard, as determined below. v. PRICE WATERHOUSE STUDY The Board herein finds that the information contained in the Price Waterhouse study of 1987 relating to Acme Fill Corporation appears to accurately present a factual portrayal of the pertinent factual information related to Acme Fill's operations as its operations may impact on the reasonableness - 10 - of the cost of the tipping fee increase to the garbage collec- tors. The Board finds that the information and conclusions contained therein are more convincing in nature than the comments provided by the franchisees and/or provided by Acme accountants as part of the garbage collection rate increase application and Board hearing process. VI. UNREASONABLE COMPONENTS OF THE MEMBER TIPPING FEE A. Accounting Adjustments The Board finds that the Price Waterhouse study revealed certain accounting adjustments6 are appropriate in review- ing the information provided by Acme Fill to justify the member tipping fee in the amount of $5.84 cents per cubic yard. The Board finds that the Price Waterhouse study accu- rately analyzes the appropriate accounting figures which. should be attributable to the setting of a member tipping fee by Acme Fill, and accordingly the Board adopts the Price Waterhouse conclusions with regard to those accounting adjust- ments. The Board therefore determines for the purpose of reviewing the reasonableness of the franchisees' costs that Acme Fill's $5.84 per cubic yard member tipping fee charge should be reduced by $1. 67 to correct for those accounting adjustments. B. Cost of the Transfer Station and Transfer Vehicles The component in the Acme Fill member tipping fee charge relating to the costs for the siting and construction of a transfer station 7 are unreasonable costs to be underwritten by the garbage rate paying customer at this time. The Board - 11 - finds that the transfer station project has not completed the necessary public entity approval process, and it is, in fact, unknown at this time whether a transfer station will be built by Acme. The Board finds that it is unknown whether a perma- nent or temporary transfer station will be built at the Acme site. Further, the Board finds that it is unknown at this time whether Acme Fill will be the entity to build and oper- ate either a permanent or temporary transfer station in the event a transfer station is authorized and constructed within the central county area. The Board further finds that the component of the member tipping fee related to charges for the siting and construction of the transfer station and the purchase of transfer vehicles should be disallowed as an unreasonable cost to the franchisee due to the present specu- lative status of the size, location and ownership of a trans- fer station. The Board therefore finds for the purpose of determining the reasonableness of the franchisees' costs that Acme Fill's $5.84 per cubic yard member tipping fee charge should be further reduced by $0.48 (as set forth in the Price Waterhouse study) ,to eliminate those costs associated with providing funding for a transfer station and transfer vehicle costs. The Board finds that this reduction will not be confisca- tory because the $0.48 is for the specific purpose of provid- ing funds for capital investment by Acme, thereby directly in- creasing the equity interests of Acme Fill's owners. - 12 - VII. REASONABLE MEMBER TIPPING FEE The Board finds that a $3.69 member tipping fee is reason- able and is determined as follows: Member Tipping Fee set by Acme Fill (Composite of $6.55/cubic yard for compacted and $4.90/cubic yard for uncompacted) $5.84 Less: Accounting Adjustments Transfer stations and Vehicle $1.67 0.48 Total Eliminations 2.15 Member Tipp..ng Fee Found Reasonable by District Board $3.69 The Board further finds that the tipping fee of $3.69 per cubic yard is a reasonable tipping fee to be charged to the franchisees based on an analysis of the proj ected statement of operations provided by Acme Fill Corporation as analyzed by Price Waterhouse. The Board finds that this tipping fee includes a component to cover the projected operating expenses of Acme Fill corporation minus the applicable accounting adjustments suggested by Price Waterhouse. The operating expenses as allowed or provided for in the $3.69 tipping fee includes all normal operating expenses including a depreciation expense and a projected inflation factor of 5% over the operating expenses incurred by Acme for the year ending June 30, 1987. The Board further finds that the $3.69 tipping fee includes revenues to provide for the projected closure and post-closure costs (including the designated waste closure and post-closure costs) which were included in the Acme Fill Corporation's proj ected statement of operation, subj ect to the ... " - J...) - adjustment to the closure costs set forth by Price Waterhouse. Additionally, the $3.69 tipping fee includes a component for profit on all Acme Fill corporation operations, including operating expense and closure and post-closure costs, in an amount approximating 25% of total revenues. The Board therefore finds that the $3.69 tipping fee will provide adequate revenues for the sound operation of the subject disposal site, including providing adequate revenues to fund appropriate closure and post-closure activities as well as profits at or above industry levels. VIII. OPERATING RATIOS A. Historical Use of 95% Operatinq Ratio The Board finds that in the past the District has used the mechanism of setting an operating ratio based on projected expenses and revenues of the franchisee for the purpose of attempting to set just and reasonable rates for the District's garbage collection franchisees. The mechanism of an operating ratio evaluates the franchisee's expenses and revenues to project a pre-tax and pre-interest gross margin of profit on operating expenses. The District has, in recent history, used the operating ratio of 95%, that is, providing a measure of profit based on projected adjusted operating expenses equaling 95% of the projected operating revenues from garbage collection within the franchisees' zone of collection. This 95% operating ratio determination has occasionally been altered to accommodate particular circumstances of an individual collector. However, , ^ - .L'"% the Board finds that the use of this 95% operating ratio has historically produced revenues sufficient for franchisees to provide the services contracted for with an adequate revenue base to provide for the long-term continued operations of the franchisees. The Board finds that the 95% operating ratio has historically been adequate to assure continued soundness of the franchisees. The Board notes that the historical use of the 95% operating ratio provided sufficient incentive to the franchisees for each franchisee in 1986 to seek and receive a new franchise with its incumbent responsibilities and liabilities for a period of five to ten years. The Board concludes and finds that the 95% operating ratio presents a reasonable standard as applied to the facts presented for the franchise year of 1987-1988 for the purpose of setting reasonable garbage collection rates. B. Orinda-Moraqa Disposal Service The Board finds that the Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service operated more profitably in the year ending June 30, 1987 than anticipated by the projected 94% operating ratio. Based on the performance of the Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service in the year ending June 30, 1987 and the analysis performed by the staff in review of the rate application, the Board hereby finds that, except for the increase in disposal charges associated with an increased tipping fee, no increase in the garbage rates is required to provide Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service with a 95% operating ratio. Accordingly, the Board finds that reasonable garbage collection rates should be increased only to the extent to accommodate an increase in the reasonable disposal charges associated with an increased tipping fee, to wit: $3.69 per - 15 - cubic yard. The Board therefore finds that a fair and just schedule of garbage collection rates for Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service is as set forth in Attachment "A" of these Findings. c. Valley Disposal Service The Board finds that Valley Disposal Service operated at an operating ratio in excess of 100% within the zone of opera- tions regulated by the District for the year ending June 30, 1987. However, the Board also finds that this is the first year in many years that this disposal service or its predecessor companies operated at an operating ratio in excess of 100%. This unusual occurrence is found to be due to the erroneous estimation of the expenses associated with service to the City of San Ramon. The San Ramon area was removed from District regulation; however, it was continued to be served by Valley Disposal under the regulation by the City of San Ramon during the year of 1986-1987. The result of this overestimation of costs associated with providing service in the San Ramon area resulted in a disproportionate decrease in revenues balanced against a lesser decrease in operating costs within the District-regulated zone. The Board finds that this operating loss should not be repeated in the year ending June 30, 1988, inasmuch as the rate application of the collector, coupled with the staff analysis, has adj usted for the erroneous allocation of costs between the District zone and the San Ramon zone of operations. The Board further finds that a just and reasonable garbage collection rate will require an annualized increase of 11.88% in - 16 - revenues in order to provide a 95% operating ratio for the operating expenses exclusive of the increased disposal charges. Due to delays in the rate setting process, only 11 months remain in the fiscal year at the time of the proposed increase and accordingly an effective increase of 12.96% is required to provide a 95% operating ratio for operational expenses. The Board further finds that the 95%' operating ratio based on the 12.96% increase in the operating expenses exclusive of increased disposal charges, coupled with the increase in an allowance for disposal charges resulting from a tipping fee in an amount of $3.69 per cubic yard will result in a just and reasonable collection rate, and that the rates set forth in Attachment "B" reflect such rates. D. Pleasant Hill Bav Shore The Board finds in order to provide a 95% operating ratio for services provided by Pleasant Hill 'Bay Shore, within the zone regulated by the District, that an annualized increase in revenue in the amount of 8.0% is required relating to the operating expenses exclusive of increased disposal charges. Due to the delays in the rate setting process, only 11 months remain in the fiscal year and accordingly an effective increase of 8.73% is required to provide a 95% operating ratio for operational expenses. This 8.73% increase in revenues to provide a 95% operating ratio for operating expenses, coupled with an increase to cover the disposal charge increase resulting from a tipping fee of $3.69 per cubic yard will result in a fair and just rate, and such rates based thereon are reflected in the rate schedule, Attachment "C". - 17 - IX. JUST AND REASONABLE RATES As a resul t of the increase in operating expenses, the rates set in 1986 for the three District franchised collectors are no longer just and reasonable. The rates prescribed herein for the franchised collectors are, for the future, just and reasonable and will enable the collectors, if prudently managed, to operate efficiently and economically, to attract capital, and to maintain their financial integrity, until they are authorized to seek an adjustment of rates. The District Board further finds that, as stated elsewhere herein, the District may only pass through to the rate payers such costs incurred by the franchisees as are reasonable in the judgment of the District Board. The District Board has determined.that $3.69 per cubic yard of garbage is the maximum member tipping fee to be incurred by the franchisees which can be justified as a reasonable cost. The Board further finds that, in the event the franchisees do not exercise their control of the affiliated entity, Acme Fill Corporation, to reduce the tipping fee charges to a level commensurate with reasonable costs to the franchisees, the rates set as reflected in Attachments "A", "B" and "c" remain nonconfiscatory. The projected expense and revenue information provided and analyzed demonstrates that when the percentage share of projected profits from Acme Fill Corporation are allocated to the franchisees (less applicable income tax due) and said profits are considered to be monies accruing to each franchisee for the purpose of determining a just and reasonable rate, the rates set in - 18 - Attachment "A", "B" and "C" provide for an operating ratio which is nonconfiscatory. X. GOOD FAITH EXERCISE OF FIXING RATES The Board finds that a sanitary district is not a public entity which is statutorily created as a rate-making body, such as the Public utilities Commission, and that no specific statutory authority or binding administrative guidelines exist which provide procedures or standards applicable to a sanitary district for the purpose of setting garbage rates. The Board therefore further finds that the powers and limitations of this District to fix rates for the District's franchised garbage collectors are as provided for in the good faith execution of the applicable franchise contract provisions. The rates set forth in Attachments "A", "B" and "c" are determined by this Board to be reasonable and reflect a good fai th use of this Board's discretion and its exercise of the authority and rights contained within the franchise agreements related to rate fixing. XI. CEQA COMPLIANCE The Board finds that the setting of garbage collection rates for the District's franchised collectors does not con- stitute a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act and/or the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District CEQA Guidelines as currently adopted pursuant to section 20.29 of those Guidelines and applicable California law. The Board further finds that, to the extent its actions in - 19 - setting garbage collection rates were to be considered a "proj ect" under said Guidelines or applicable California law, the actions of the Board in setting garbage rates for the franchisees is statutorily exempt under section 17.7 of the District Guidelines and/or categorically exempt under section 18.6 of the District Guidelines. - 20 - 1 2 3 4 FOOTNOTES Garbaqe Rates (also Garbage Collection Rates) The billing rates which the franchisee garbage collection companies are allowed to charge for specific services provided for customers within the collector's zone of operation for which the District exercises franchising authority. Acme Fill Corporation - The legal entity operating the landfill, known as Acme Sanitary Landfill, into which all garbage which is collected under District's franchises is disposed. Tippinq Fee - That fee charged by the landfill operators for disposal of garbage at the landfill. Compacted and Uncompacted Garbage - The common varieties of domestic garbage trucks are equipped with pneumatic devices which compact the garbage prior to disposal at the landfill and such garbage is referred to as compacted garbage. Other garbage, such as that hauled in drop boxes, is not mechanically compacted and is therefore referred to as uncompacted. 5 Member Tipping Fee - That tipping fee charged by Acme Fill to Members rather than non-members. Acme Fill members include each entity with which has an ownership interest in Acme including the District garbage collection franchises as well as two other entities. 6 Accountinq Adiustments - Price Waterhouse, a CPA firm, analyzed the projected Statement of Operations provided by Acme Fill Corporation and made certain determinations based on its professional judgment and acceptable accounting standards as to the kind and amount of expenses which should be includable in analyzing the reasonableness of Acme Fill's tipping fee. As a result of their analysis, Price Waterhouse provided recommended accounting adjustments to include certain additional projected revenues and to exclude certain projected expenses or portions of proj ected expenses for purposes of reviewing the reasonableness of the tipping fee. Transfer station - A facility for the temporary deposit of local garbage where the deposited garbage is reloaded into larger transfer vans for transportation to the less local landfill disposal site. 7 - 21 - Attachment A Page 1 of 4 ORINDA-M)RAGA DISPOSAl SERVICE, IIIC. FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1 SDfEDUlE OF JOmI.. Y RAlES (1) EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1987 ORINDA - FUll SERVICE: REGULAR SERVICE: 1 can weekl y * 1 can weekly - Senior Citizen Each additional can weekly Extra can on route Special pick-up - 1 can Special pick-up - each add'l can MINIPACKER SERVICE: 1 can weekly Each addtional can weekly 000 SERVICE: 1 can - 45 gal. 1 can - 1/45 and 1/32 gal. cans COMt-ERCIAL SERVICE: 1 can weekly Each additional can weekly KJL TI-APARTIENT SERVICE: Per unit per week Each additional pick-up per week COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE: Per cubic yard BULK SERVICE: 1 Ya rd 1 x week 2 x week 3 x week 4 x week 5 x week 2 Yard 1 x week 2 x week 3 x week 4 x week 5 x week Special 1 yard 2 yards SSS/Rate Setti ng 1987-881o-M Sched/VI Fonner Rates New Rates $ 11.70 $ 12.20 8.70 9.20 5.40 5.65 2.45 2.55 6.95 7.25 2.45 2.55 15.90 16.60 5.40 5.65 13 . 85 14.45 19.25 20.10 12.25 12.80 5.40 5.65 8.20 8.55 1.30 1.35 15.80 16.50 46.90 49.00 82.60 86.30 118.05 123.35 153.50 160.35 189.25 197.70 82.60 86.30 153.50 160.35 224.70 234.75 295.80 309.00 367.10 383 .50 9.50 9.90 19.05 19.90 Attachment A Page 2 of 4 ORItI)A-t<<)RAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE. INC. FRANafISE ZONE NO. 1 saEDUlE OF MON1Hl.. Y RAlES (1) EFFECTIVE AOOUST 1. 1987 Fonner Rates _ New Rates DROP BOX SERVICE: 20 cubi c yards 5 yards - dirt and concrete 16 yard school box ** 143.85 118.75 115.05 159.15 131.35 127.30 ORINDA - NO BIlJSH SERVICE REGULAR SERV I~ : 1 can weekly 1 can weekly - Senior Citizen Each additional can weekly Extra can on route Special pick-up - 1 can Special pick-up - each add'l can MINIPACKER SERVICE: 1 can weekly Each additional can weekly 9.85 10.30 8.35 8.80 5.40 5.65 2.45 2.55 6.95 7.25 2.45 2.55 14.00 14.65 5.40 5.65 12.00 12.55 17.35 18.15 ODD SERVI~: 1 can - 45 gal. 1 can - 1/45 and 1/32 gal. cans (1) Rates are rounded to the nearest five cents. * Includes one 32-gallon can of garden trimmings per week and three refuse cl eanups per year. ** A charge of $19.85 per week applies for each week not serviced. Attachment A Page 3 of 4 ORIfI)A-t<<)RAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE. INC. FRANOfISE ZOtE NO. lA SCHEDUlE OF tIlNllI.. Y RAlES U) EFFECTIVE AlGJST 1. 1987 f<<)RAGA - Al..l SERVICE REGULAR SERVICE: 1 can weekly * Each additional can weekly Extra can on route Special pick-up - 1 can Special pick-up - each add'l can MINIPACKER SERVICE: 1 can weekly Each addt10nal can weekly 000 SERV ICE : 1 can - 45 gal. 1 can - 1/45 and 1/32 gal. cans 1 can - 1/45 gal. - small truck 1 can - 1/45 and 1/32 gal. small truck COMMERCIAL SERVICE: 1 can weekly Each additional can weekly MULTI-APARTMENT SERVICE: Per unit per week Each additional pick-up per week COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE: Per Cubic Yard BULK SERVICE: 1 Yard 1 x week 2 x week 3 x week 4 x week 5 x week 2 Yard 1 x week 2 x week 3 x week 4 x week 5 x week Speci a 1 1 yard 2 yards SSS/Rate Setti ng 1987-88/o-M Sched/VI Fonner Rates New Rates $10.45 $ 10.90 4.85 5.05 2.45 2.55 6.95 7.25 2.45 2.55 15.60 16.30 4.85 5.05 13.00 13.60 17.90 18.70 18.15 18.95 23.00 24.05 12.25 12.80 5.40 5.65 8.20 8.55 1.30 1.35 15.80 16.50 46.90 49.00 82.60 86.30 118.05 123 .35 153.50 160.35 189.25 197.70 82.60 86.30 153.50 160.35 224.70 234.75 295.80 309.00 367.10 383.50 9.50 9.90 19.05 19.90 Attachment A Page 4 of 4 ORINDA-MlRAGA DISPOSAl SERVICE. INC. FRANCHISE ZONE NO. lA saEDUlE OF tomLY RAlES (1) EFFECTIVE AlSJST 1. 1987 Former Rates New Rates DROP BOX SERVICE: 20 cubic yards 15 yards-dirt and concrete 16 yard school box ** $143.85 118.75 115.05 159.15 131.35 127 .30 tOW;A - NO BRJSH SERVICE REGULAR SERVICE: 1 can weekl y Each additional can weekly Extra can on route Special pick-up - 1 can Special pick-up - each add'l can 8.85 9.25 4.85 5.05 2.45 2.55 6.95 7.25 2.45 2.55 14.00 14.65 4.85 5.05 11.40 11.90 16.30 17.05 16.55 17.30 21.40 22.35 MINIPACKER SERVICE: 1 can weekly Each addtional can weekly ODD SERVICE: 1 can - 45 gal. 1 can - 1/45 and 1/32 gal. cans 1 can - 1/45 gal. - small truck 1 can - 1/45 and 1/32 gal.- small truck lAF AYETIE SERVICE REGULAR SERVICE: 1 can weekly * Each additional can weekly Extra can on route SPECIAL: - 1 can 9.25 10.65 4.15 4.80 2.25/pick-up 2.60/pick-up 11.25 13 .00 4.15 4.80 9.25 10.65 12.10 14.65 4.15 4.80 MINIPAOKER SERVICE: 1 can weekly Each additional can weekly ODD SERVICE: 1 can - 40/45 gallons Each additional can (1) Rates are rounded to the nearest five cents. · Includes one 32-gallon can of garden trimmings per week and three refuse cleanups per year. *. A charge of $19.85 per week applies for each week not serviced. Attachment B VAlLEY DISPOSAl SERVICE. INC. SOEDUlE OF tOffiL Y RATES (1) EFFECTIVE AOOUST 1. 1981 RESIDENTIAl SERVICE: 1 32-ga1. can weekly. Each additional can weekly-Zone 2 Each additional can -non-regular 1 can weekly - Special service (hilly) - Zone 2 - Zone 4 - Zone 5 MULTI-APARTMENT SERVICE: Each apartment weekly Each additional can weekly Each additional can -- non-regular COMMERCIAl SERV ICE : One can weekly Each additional can weekly Each additional can -- non-regul ar 1 Cubic Yard: 1 time per week 2 times per week 3 times per week 4 times per week 5 times per week 2 Cubic Yards: 1 time per week 2 times per week 3 times per week 4 times per week 5 times per week 4 Cubic Yards: 1 time per week 2 times per week 3 times per week 4 times per week 5 times per week COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE: Per cubi c yard DROP BOX SERV ICE : 7 cubic yards (dirt and rocks) 14 cubic yards 20 cubic yards 30 cubic yards Former Rates New Rates $9.25 4.15 2.25/pick-up areas 11.25 9.25 11.25 10.65 4.80 2.60 13.00 10.65 13 .00 7.00 8.75 4.65 5.80 2.60/pick-up 3.25 9.70 12.10 3.80 4.75 2.45 3.05 36.55 45.65 62.45 77.95 88.35 110.30 114.25 142.65 139.55 174.20 62.45 77.95 114.25 142.65 166.10 207.35 217 .95 272.10 269.75 336.75 114.25 142.65 217 .55 271.60 310.90 388.15 404.15 504.55 497.75 621.40 12.70 15.85 88.85 88.85 126.95 190.40 11 0.90 110.90 158.50 237.70 * Includes two 32-gal10n cans of garden trimmings per week and three refuse c1 eanups per year. (1) Rates are rounded to the nearest ffve cents. SSSlRate Setting/V1y Sched/VI U N +> s::: 4- QlO E ..c ...-i U <0 QI +> C'l +><0 c:(c.. ~ i_ ... Ii! Q .. lit ~ i ~~'" ~ ::I"'e ih E i m I~ i Q,; i ~!I :l~ i a:: ... I =1 .1It I~ I II: ...I I I ~ d ~ 1111 !~ :.~ i ! d I 5 I lal z. a: t VII !~ :ll. W N i ... S ! I!I ~ 1/11 !$ o. ....a: ",2 0"; .... "'0 NO . . ~'" ... ~i 0"; .... 00 00 . . 0" .... ... ~i 0"; .... 00 00 o. .... ... ~i . . 0", .... 00 ~c: 1"" ... ~ .i >.. ..... .'Ic u... -.u ~c.... ..... ",ug ....c_ ..o~ -....- ~ "U c.."O I r" 'jjj~ti &....~ ~~ I" '" '" 0 ~r: I" '" "'0 10,... . . .... '" 00 "JC! '" .. ~ I >. .... tt -. 1c .3 of c.... .. ..! CL. Uo . g- f ....~ ~~~; i~....~ '" 0 ~r-: I" '" '" '" '" '" . . 00 ........ 00 00 . . 00 ........ '" '" '" '" 00 ........ 00 00 00 ........ VI '" '" '" 00 ........ '" '" NN .;.; >. 1 . c ! 3~i -'I~ ~~~ . "0 "'c"O ....3" ~!ti ~c5~ VI '" '" '" 00 ........ 00000 00000 ..tN..;.cG IOIOON.. ............ 00 00 . . 00 ........ 00000 00000 :igci~: ............ 00000 00000 .N.";'; lOGON.. ............ 00000 00000 :igci~: ............ 00000 00000 .N".coO lOGON.. 004 004 004 00000 00000 ';N"';~G lOGON.. 004 004 004 00000 00000 .N.";'; lOGON.. 004 004 .... 00000 ~~~~f:! :~~lEl~ 004 004 .... 11111 .~~~~ ..&.1111 ~ ........ ~JJJJJ ~~..~~ u ~....N......'" :II U 004 o 000 00000 i~~~lQ 004 004 004 N 00000 00000 &i~~itQ ........ 004 N 00000 00000 i~~i~ .......oo4N 00000 00000 &i2~i~ 004........N 00000 00000 2~~ilQ 004oo4oo4N 00000 00000 i~~~~ 004....oo4N 00000 00000 i2~~v;i 004 004 004 N 00000 00000 i~~~t6 004 ... 004 N 11""'1 ... .... .~~~~ .&.1111 "U ........ :JIJ.lJ u~..~~~ ~oo4N"""'" 3 N 00000 00000 8......:.ou; ,...10....0 ....oo4N...... 00000 00000 8 .,; ..: -D .n ....~~~~ 00000 00000 8- . ..: .0 u\ 1"10....0 004....N...... 00000 00000 8.":";'" ...~~~~ 00000 00000 8..;...:~", 1"10....0 ....0041'1...... 00000 00000 8.~-caft ....~~~~ 00000 00000 8....;~.o.,; ,...10....0 004oo4N...... 00000 00000 8.....:.0'" 1"10....0 ....0041'1...... 11111 .... .~~~~ . &.1111 ~ ....... ~JJJJJ u~~....~ ~""N"""'" :II U .... 00000 00000 O..NO NNN....N 004N......'" 00000 00000 O";.NO NNN....N 0041'1......'" 00000 00000 c"';'.No NNN....N ....N......'" 00000 00000 ~ii~~ ....N......'" 00000 00000 O";';NO NNN....N ....N......'" 00000 00000 ci';.NO NNN....N 004N......'" 00000 00000 O";.NO 1'11'11'1....1'1 ....1'1......'" 00000 00000 0"';'; NO NNN""N 0041'1"""'" 411:1 I.... .~~~~ .&.1111 v....... :'11::1 )-....---- ~~..~~ U ~oo4N......'" a .. u N +> t:4- OJ 0 E .r:. N U raQ) +> C'l +>ra c:%:c.. I Ij! 00000 00000 11'I0 00000 ~0.-9~ ~ 0\ 0 ..... . . I ~:g8S18 8' ~o 0.0 ..... "'''' ... N . '" lD Nt- lOG ... N I hi doooo 00000 00 00000 00000 00 ..... i';~NO aQO i :'11 OlD8N~ . .... ... :S~.:;;lD ...."'lDG ...lQ i a: I 0'0000 00000 1/8 Iii 00000 00000 ..... ..... . . ~:g8S19 gClNNO 0\0 .N........ '" '" It! II ....N."'lD Nl"'l"'lDID ....N I . h] 00000 00000 00 I 00000 00000 00 ..... ..... . . ~lD8S18 gClNNO lQ~ :'tl .N....... ...~."'lD Nl"'l"'lDCI ... N . d i ~ 1:1 00000 00000 11'I0 00000 00000 0\0 I ..... ..... . . ~:g8S18 gIDNNO 0\0 .N....... '" '" ....N."'lD Nl"'l"'lDG ....N 6 hI 00000 00000 00 00000 00000 00 I ..... ..... aQO ~1Q8S19 IClNNO :'ll .N....... ....~."'IQ ...."'lDID ...lQ .., ~ . I~ 00000 00000 "'0 1 00000 00000 0.0 . ..... ..... . . Ia '" ~:g8S18 8IDNNO 0\0 .N....... '" '" I. ! ....N."'lD Nl"'l"'lDG ....N . at . ~ i .- 1:. S l~ 00000 00000 00 Si: 00000 00000 00 ... ! ..... ..... . . . ~:g8S18 gIDNNO lQ~ .~ Ia :'ll .N........ ;:f . ....N."'lD Nl"'l"'IQCI "'N t !t 1&01. ...:;1. . iOtA. '6 ~ :I - ;S"'~ .. . I.: 11111 11111 f! ~ g.'U ~ O_A. ....- .....:1 ",- -lalala&. -la"''''''' 0.. I l! :I .1.1.1.1.1. .1.1.1.1.1 ....- ,....vi .-1 'E ...." 'E .... .'E... III :JJJJJ :JJJJJ s.... >0.:1 - A. e.'5. .......... u.......... t~"'~ u ..."'.. ....N.....'" ....N.....'" 4tl- J~!;! a a v · .I~ .C:iH '" lD a:... ... - ... " Cl -" " . October 1, 1987 Centra. "ontra Costa Sanltal") .._Istrlct BOARD OF DIRECTORS X. REAL PROPERTY 1 Page 1 of 6 POSITION' PAPER BOARD MEETING OF e ember 3 1987 SUBJECT CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE OEQARATION AND AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO PROCEED WITH THE AOOUISITION OF THE LAGISS PROPERTY PAGE 1 OF 3 SUBMITTED BY Lynne I. Bunker Associate En ineer NO. VI. ENGINEERING 3 DATE Au ust 28, 1987 TYPE OF ACTION ADOPT NEGATIVE DEQARATION AND AUTHORIZE PURCHASE INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Departmentl Plannin Division ISSUE: A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is required in order for the Distri ct to acqui re the property owned and managed by Anthony Lagi ss for a treatment plant buffer zone. BACKGROUND: The District has identified the need to provide a buffer zone around the perimeter of the wastewater treatment plant. The treatment plant is an industrial type facility subject to changing regulatory requirements. In order to minimize environmental conflicts and to protect neighboring land uses, the District has purchased property surrounding the treatment plant to provide an adequate buffer zone. On August 20, 1987 the Board authorized $49,500 from the Sewer Construction Fund for the acqui sition costs for Parcel 42, Assessor's Map Book 159, page 14, al so known as the Lagiss property. The Lagiss property, a 48.96 acre parcel at the north end of Blum Road in Martinez, is proposed to be acquired for the purpose of providing a buffer zone between the treatment plant's wet weather holding basins and development to the west (See Exhibit A attached>. The basins are utilized during wet weather events. Odors are associated with sewage storage in the basins and are also produced when the basins are drained. The immediate public need for the acquisition of the Lagiss property is to prevent future development of the parcel that would limit the District's ability to fully utilize the wet weather capacity of the treatment plant which includes the wet weather holding basins. Since there are no alternative locations available for wet weather basins at this time, and treatment pl ant improvements to accommodate all wet weather flows are prohibitively expensive, the buffer zone is required to 1 imit the impact of potential nuisance on adjacent property owners and tenants. The District's CEQA guidelines require the Board to consider the Initial Study prepared for the acqui siti on and any publ ic comments received on the Negative Declaration prior to approving the Negative Declaration. The Initial Study for the project was prepared by Earth Metrics, Inc., and environmental and planning consulting firm. District staff has concluded that the Initial Study adequately, accurately, and objectively eval uates the envi ronmental impact of the proposed project. Based on the Initial StUdy, Earth Metrics, Inc. determined that a Negative Declaration is the appropriate document to address the environmental effects of the project. The Negative Declaration finds that the proposed acquisition will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that no mitigation measures are needed. .NITIA T1NG DEPT./DIV. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 13O:!.....9/85 LIB JMK SUBJECT CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DEa..ARATION AND AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO PROCEED WITH THE AOOUISITION OF THE lAGISS PROPERTY POSITION PAPER PAGE 2 OF 3 DATE August 28, 1987 In compliance with the CEOA requirements, District staff has arranged for a legal notice to be published which solicited comments and has provided notice of the Di strict's intent to adopt the Negative Decl aration for the proposed purchase. Any comments which are received will be given to the Board at its September 3, 1987 meeting. If the Board adopts the Negative Declaration, acqui sition of the property will be requi red to complete the CEOA requi rements and allow staff to file a Notice of Determination in the County Clerk's Office. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Negative Declaration and authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to proceed with the acquisition of the lagiss parcel. "-------. 13028-9/85 'j ::~ ~. ex: .- - e :z: >< w CI) co CI) J: co - J: >- () - t:";:: u G) U; '-= 0.._ U; e e is 0.. og .... og :g -g G) ~ CI) C ~ ; 0; ~G) ~ - 0- o >--0 - _ a;0 >- () -G)-G) .- co.... Cog ... >... ::l U; '-co oco ~iii .,\~