Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 08-02-84 <c(sD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. IV. BIDS & AWARDS 1 8 2 84 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE July 25, 1984 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PROJECT 3836, REMODEL OFFICE BUILDING AT 1250 SPRINGBROOK ROAD, WALNUT CREEK. AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF $268,476 FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND. SUBMITTED BY JAY McCOY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ROBERT HINKSON COLL TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT, AUTHORIZE FUNDS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT N N ISSUE: On July 23, 1984, sealed bids for District Project No. 3836, Remodel Office Building at 1250 Springbrook Road, Walnut Creek, California, were received and opened. The Board of Directors must award the contract or reject bids within forty-five (45) days of the public opening. BACKGROUND: During January, 1983, District's general offices were relocated from the Springbrook Road office building in Walnut Creek to 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, California. District's Collection System Operations Department (CSO) remained at the Springbrook Road location. After considerable evaluation it was decided to remodel the lower portion of the Springbrook Road Building for use of the CSO Department and eventually lease the upper portion of the Springbrook Road Building. When this issue was discussed with the Board in November, 1983, the construction cost of the remodeling work, not including design and incidentals, was estimated to be $200,000. $25,000 was authorized for design work by an architect, District force account expenses, and lease preparation. The architectual firm of Perry Haviland Associates, Oakland, California, was selected to prepare plans and technical specifications for the remodeling work necessary to accommodate the CSO Department. Upon completion of the plans and technical specifications by Haviland and review by the District, the Notice to Contractors inviting bids was published on June 18, 1984. Proposals were opened on July 23. A tabulation of all bids received appears on Attachment A. The architect's estimate for the work is $220,000. Seville Investment Corporation submitted a bid which was nonresponsive because a bid bond was not included and there was a discrepancy in the lump sum bid amount. The bid by Seville should be rejected by the Board of Directors as being nonresponsive. The apparent lowest bidder is Malpass Construction of Pleasant Hill at a lump sum amount of $215,000. The apparent low bid has been reviewed and has been determined to be responsive. Malpass' references have been checked, and Malpass has been determined to be a responsible contractor. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION //1 fil fIlE INITIATING DEPT./DIV. JMc RH RAB RJD POSITION PAPER Page 2 A summary of the funds required for the project is shown on Attachment B, the "Post Bid-Preconstruction Estimate of Costs" for District Project No. 3836. Funds are included for the construction costs, construction management, moving expenses, and relocation of utilities. The total additional funds estimated to be required to complete Project No. 3836 is $268,476. This project is included in the District's five-year Capital Expense Plan. In the near future, the existing roof on the Springbrook office building will be replaced under separate contract. The cost of the replacement is estimated to be between $25,000 and $35,000. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of the contract for construction of District Project No. 3836 to Malpass Construction in the amount of $215,000 and authorize $268,476 in sewer construction funds for project completion. Reject the nonresponsive bid by Seville Investment Corporation. en ! ;: c .... i c I- Q ii ~ ... QI a QI QI I- ~ > ... u QI QI ::) Ii 0 ~ c: a: U'\ l/I l/I l/I l/I 0 I- 'el ~ QI QI QI QI .r: I: 0 </'I I- > > > > l/I 0 Z N .. ~ ... 0 M ..... QI III 0 U N <0 ... - N a> ~ - N Z ... .". :I: j U'\ j ~ < .lJ ~ .r: I Q l/I .... 0 ... .- u - ~ 0 .... i ... :5;E - - !;( .- N !:" ...... =- 0.. .". ..... :z: co ;: ~ l/I III ~ </'I - 0 QI I: .... G 0 '- l/I III j ~ </'I ::) ~ - a> ... >- - a: ,;;f" l/I l/I l/I l/I .- ~ ... l- I- ,;;f" QI QI QI QI ..... ..... U </'I 0 I- > > > > .- .... z 1,/ 0"\ I: I: ..... I- 0 l/I N - u .- N .. .. '? :I: 1,/ U Z I: 1,/ .~ ... a: - III .- ~ < .... ... ... . ... ... I: l- I>.. .- U a. a. j </'I c: ._ .r: z I: ::let ~ ~ -u III QI QI GI ~z </'I ~ ~ I: .- ... ~ -c: ..... I: ClO GI GI ~ l- I: Z Ii 0 ... ... III .... LI'\ GI GI l/I en :z: .2 0"\ l/I l/I l/I ~ ~ j II: I- 0 GI GI GI ~ ~ 0 VI <T\ Z > > > .- .- .r: '" ... - CD CD ... Q :> N ... Z .... Q - - ... ~ CD ..... ... - .. ..... 0 .- u - 1,/ :SeE :> I: ... 0 VI U Z 0 ~ 0 l- e; 0 u 0 ::) '0 0 l/I l/I l/I l/I a: I- GI GI GI GI I- - U'\ > > > > </'I - - z .- N 0 :I: U ... VI> I: </'I Z III - .. << l/I - 1,/ c _ 0.. 0.. III ::let .....:z: GI <0 - :Z:U 0.. 0 Z ~ 0 - e; LI'\ l- e; u '0 l/I l/I l/I ::) I- .; GI GI GI 0 a: > > > % I- .>I. 0"\ </'I GI N 7- GI 0 ... u u a> > I: </'1% ... -. a:< j .c .~ ~ ... 0.. I: - "':Z: - ::let .- 0..0 III j </'I U =- CD GI i 1,/ . .- 0.: I ..... ..... 0 0 I- M ~ ." - .. GI GI N ~ .r: ii ~ GI l/I ~ .r: .- Q .; l/I I: GI ,;;f" .- ... a: 0 ~ c: ~ I: j M .~ GI ... I>.. 0 8 .9- ~ a> j >.D u . GI ~ I>.. GI M M ~ ... GI 1,/ ClO 0 N !:: ... ... I: M Z Ql .- :J 0 GI >- Q Q e 0 ... .- ... .lJ I: 1,/ ... 0 l/I j ii j .>I. III GI % Ql .., VI 1,/ ... a. j 'i <C ... )( ... CT .-. C ... 1,/ GI H ...... 0 Ql a: > 0 1,/ ..... ...., ; - - .lJ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ j ... .- l/I VI ... 0- CD ~ e I: :s !! I: j ..... ~ III 0 ~ 0 -. Q CD I: Ql GI ... ... i ~ ~ l/I III ~ .- ... CD < ..... VI I! ... I I < I- % ... :z: :I: u < I- !;( I- U ail I- .en Q ~ I- ~ C I- en o U C a: I- ~ U ~ I- ~ U ATTACHMENT B POST BID - PRECONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE OF COSTS FOR DISTRICT PROJECT 3836 ITEM DESCRIPTION 10. 1. Construction Contract (As Bid) 2. Estimated Construction Contingencies (@15%) 3. Estimated Construction Incidentals to Project Completion Inspection Contract Administration Total Estimated Construction Incidentals 4. 5. Moving and Relocation Expenses Total Estimate Required to Complete Project 6. Pre Bid Expenditures Engineering, Printing, Advertising Architect Costs 7. Total Preconstruct ion Incidentals (as of 7/23/84) 8. Total Estimated Project Cost (Items 5 & 7) 9. Funds Previously Authorized Total Additional Funds Required to Complete Project (Item 8 minus Item 9) ITEM AMOUNT $ 7,840 8,160 $ 3,320 $15,606 TOTAL $215,000 32,250 $ 16,000 $ 11,300 $274,550 $ 18,926 $293,476 $ 25,000 $268,476 <((sD Central Cont Costa San BOARD OF DIRECTORS District NO. v. CONSENT CALENDAR POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE SUBJECT J u I y 29, I 984 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE $4,785 TO AFFIRt1 THE SEWER INSTALLATION ON WARNER COURT, WALNUT CREEK CAPITAL PROJECT SUBMITTED BY Robert H. Hinkson, Manager INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Collection System Operations ISSUE: The Board of Directors must affirm projects which have been initiated by the General Manager-Chief Engineer. BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors, in December 1981, gave the General Manager-Chief Engineer (GM-CE) the authority to initiate capital project accounts and expend up to $5,000 from each of these accounts. In granting this authority, the Board also required that the initiation by the GM-CE be affirmed by the board. This request was to install 130' of pipeline on Warner Court in order to correct property damage overflows at 1217 Warner Court. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize $4,785 to affirm the sewer installation on Warner Court, Walnut Creek. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT ./DIV. RiD. \ RHH RJD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. VI. ENGINEERING 1 8 2 84 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE July 25, 1984 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 84-13 (Concord) and 84-14 (Danville) TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT ACCEPT FOR PROCESSING SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. DENNIS HALL ENGINEERING DEPT./CONSTRUCTION DIVISION OWNER PARCEL ADDRESS LEAD NO. AREA PARCEL NO. & ACREAGE REMARKS AGENCY 84-13 Concord Peter B. Bedford Area to be developed in Contra Costa 3470 Mt. Diablo Blvd. phases as an industrial County Suite 200 park. Tentative Lafayette, CA approval by Contra 159-120-28 & 29 Costa County. (60.43 AC.) 84-14 Danville T. A. Croix Co. Existing structure, CCCSD 2205 Canyon Oak Lane Danvi lIe, CA 94526 illegal connection. 216-090-04 (0.39 AC.) Parcel must annex to continue to receive sewer service. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 84-13 and 84-14 to be included in a future formal annexation. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION d~ I/It fI$ INITIATING DEPT./DIV. DH JMc RAB RJD / LION OIL CO. 111E''1101Etl1 80LLIoI"tl r .~~ PL"tl 6Afr:;;.7 I Z-)f.1?l7iI eA1~ S LION OIL CO, OIL CO PROPOSED ANNEXATION F!A. 84 - /3 LNj ~I L 3. 39A C "s" ~.__ ~i5<.. f---.,. ~ . ~,\l.'\ .ur~ - ~~. ~'"':\I\-T- '\ 139 ~~ ;;f---.,. -;o;~J.:A :.t'~ ~;;:jf",,.5- ~~I ~ -2- I-Z\\ Ill) ~ Q'- if' i-~ -~ r- ~oo_ 1901 '9~~~30 ~~ 130 Z . - CI ---, 67 I 92 0 8- g3 3 2. OJ ,IL~ rli - =I (ri8)~~~BI '~~, ['B6 l.e, 1 R'35~ 35 4 I CHAIlUS DI.'~/'''' ~ - - __6 . ~"I \ Ji'5'- _'. ~cr-" " ~ --.;;v 'BO --, 4 '7''l.l. '36 ~ ... 24 :a - ~ 14~~47~' .,....~K~, I ....Aj~.,/ . ~ ~ vISTA GRANDE SCHOOL M" ,';" ,. 160 -.., ~ V/~-trl.._ .. ~ ... 1-. I ! ,23 ~ ""I ~SA~ i~ :>NCl _/;'~65AC ,........., 103 ~ /741 175'1 I 'A5 I '47. DI~ABi.ECT)- ~, ~.,~ G 10~ F SU:;AVISf;' EL SOBRANTE OR '~l8 I;;-T1/30 -----SI '4'8 r1JJ:. 5' . S ~';7lP' B ~.., '4B- 'I" 13' ~..---\ '0 __ ~ 1731 '. ..re ._ ..;.;; r= !T ~8-~ B~?3/b -L g, j ._..... .... 125 Nd 2'2~ '~5 ,._,' ~ ~ SUB- 169r '52 '55, 7 'i:RD .... ~2 ~;:t""';;4 ~ ~ .; ,;)At ~ ~. ~ ~~!!: ~A;~ ~ A""~~ ~~6' I ,-f"~ ~~,,,,c (L ~-;- ,',37 ., '\~ ':'il tT~ ~ ~ 16B 16. 16,., " Ii,"" ,11 ) Q ~ ~ ~ " N 11\' e- 8RE II" 26 23 G' R' N2[ ~ \r J....., J~ ;; ..II "n 1-1'5H '57'~ ~HAR!~ VI T ~ tif. ~ I""" I \ ~ I ~)~'5 ~K .. olAbLb.. lHI::/., r -/~rilABO _h M ~'\ "~96 .RO' ~ - '5" :SKI ......' X IS ~7 _. ,~30 32 ~ \ \ A I'SXI'?tJO~ / ". -". .' , ). 24~'i71 ~~:::::::::;:::..':..'.:;:::::.':.' I ~. ~~~7/'H\-~ \,(' ',1'1 3 L 75 74 73 72 ~~~~/ I __~6)5"'a- 'l- ~~"~~, il( ,.,..,........,... I" 1 II I~.- ~~~~ \. ..fr!~.:=}~r: ~ '" 1 \~\ :1 P d 71 ~ 127 ~~ ?r~ ?~ -~' ~i~~i - --/'~___n \\:(~-1&' \ .." .. \" j"" -i ~ ;;' ~ ~,% <: ':~'1 ,=~;;;,'.OO" n~/BL (, ,,;.~~'~ ~: ~1 ~~J~~ ~, "" ", l ..,"~ . I t:--j ~ 'c i''' ~ "" t ~<e;_ ' , :-' g ~',",,.:_ 4!~" · "\ :'" \ :, ~ '" ~ I~~ ! H~s,!0~'" ~ (:::~w'::!' ".1 _~ ~," t -. ~.\'::-:~ <",",- . 52 t 49 . ::_tNI (:.'. >1 18 , 57 I3B U 4lli /"1'i\ ./'J. _\~ "./. 53 4B ." ^ ~ I 56 ! 139 CL J~I M"'/.'. - , , ~ .:-r ,1 ,\ ~"" 54 - 47 ~ .1 V" "-.': ~ 59 I, ~ ~A 43~ '44 --- i:": R '" BI 1---":",\1 ..:~li>:'-4le GOA CT A 46 :.~ ,'i; : 37 38 .: .': .' ....... *s5i'" ~J 'l> ,'. .:: B2 ~ ~ I~ 6 ;,'," \" !,v0'.,;~,~~L~ ~. "~fI~~~':. ,,/ ~'t;:~ ~,:,:;_.~::~ ~ ..."::,:,,, : ::. :{;... .::' ':I:"I1>>::: ~o "",;:",,:::: DR /<' I v iJ........., jj.\'...", "'::: :1,::' 67 68 i 88\187 '6 85 1 26 147/148,149 ~~O ~:I A, I~: " 23 ~ '"~. 2 ~ ,~" ---,,,,,,'to' 41' '04 IA. l' 35 ~: v "'~ ~ ~ ( ~',\'OO""lo ~" \'~~;;' '1't:'~\:IY~~;~:~", .".:' 1 \ r " \\.\. 13.',~ NC T~1I1 ~~21 SU~3 ~ '-...:... 38 "" i- ,,~ .\ n : \~ IZ"',III ~/S 4 " " 15~ I," 10 . ~ ~ /-: ~", ~\~i HOWl \ ~"J~l{ 'f..'f: ~~ ~\'~ . '_ \(J" '~:.:;~ r;~ . \A~D :L ~I SUB 543 .... :'L ,/ , ~9 :.::,~ 59 'I] ~ 40 PROPOSED ANNEXATION F!A.81-14 BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. VI. ENGINEERING 2 8/2/84 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE July 25, 1984 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE $208,000 FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR GRANT ADMINISTRATION ON THE STAGE 5A AND 5B PROJECTS TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE FUNDS SUBMITTED BY Curtis Swanson Senior Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Planning Division ISSUE: Additional funds are required to enable District staff to continue grant administration efforts on the Stage 5A and 5B Projects. BACKGROUND: Funding for grant administration efforts associated with the Stage 5A and 5B Projects has been requested on an annual basis. The District has seven grants for the Stage 5A Phase I, Phase II; 5B Phase I, Phase II Projects. The total amount of the seven grants is approximately $72.9 Million. The Engineering Department plans to increase its effort on grant administration during the next year to prepare for federal audits of the Stage 5A Phase I and II Projects and for construction of the Stage 5B Project. The increased effort is due to the outcome of audits of other sanitation agencies' projects that are similar to the Stage 5A and 5B Projects. These agencies have had substantial portions of project costs disallowed by auditors for various reasons. Recovering these costs involves a costly and time consuming appeal process. Staff hopes to avoid the appeal process by anticipating and addressing potential problems before the audit. A summary of the work planned for the major grants is as follows: Stage5A Phase I The Engineering Department will continue to lend support towards the termination and close-out of this grant. Audit preparation involving force account and consultant costs will be performed. Reconciliation of previous grant progress payments is nearing completion which will lead to a payment request up to the 95% limit of the grant. Before termination of this grant, staff will attempt to obtain funding for the seismic structural improvements and cathodic protection system elements of the Stage 5A Completion Project. A pre-audit review of the Stage 5A-I grant is planned for January 1985. Funds for this review which will be performed by a consultant will be requested at a later date. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION jjNV Me RJD cws JMK RAB Stage- 5 A Pha-se- H This project has been completed but has not yet been audited. A pre-audit review has just been completed and staff will be implementing the recommendations of this review to mitigate potential audit problems. One of the recommendations of the pre-audit review is that the District prepare an indirect cost rate proposal as part of the District force account costs claimed for this project. Staff intends to retain a consul tant to prepare part of the indirect cost proposal. Funds for this consultant will be requested at a later date. Stage 5B- Phase-I The District recently received grants for construction of the Stage 5B Project. Staff will implement changes to the current grant administration system before construction begins to minimize audit ~ preparation efforts at the end of the project. St~ge --5B Pha~ - II Over $1.2 Million was expended for solid waste resource recovery pilot studies, the biological phosphorus removal pilot study, and other planning studies under this grant. Efforts will be made to prepare this project for audit and close-out. Funding of $208,000 is required for grant administration activities during the next year. This amount includes a District overhead allowance and employee fringe benefits. The requested level of funding represents 2-1/2 man-years of effort and constitutes approximately 70 percent of the total effort to prepare the grants for audit and close-out. A summary of the funds requested is attached. District staff will be assisted with the planned activities by Mr. Tom Kawaguchi. Mr. Kawaguchi is a financial management consultant with extensive experience with federal grant programs including the audit process. The estimated cost for these services is $37,340 and is included in the $208,000 authorization requested. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize $208,000 from the Sewer Construction Fund for grant administration on the Stage 5A and 5B Projects. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. ATTACHMENT 1984-85 GRANT ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION STAGE 5A & 58 PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION PROJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION REQUESTED Stage 5A-I 3760.20110 Grants Admin.-Ine1igib1e $ 9,~580 .20121 Grants Admin.-Eligible 22~300 .20141 Grants-Clerical 2~000 .20200 Audit Review 25~250 .20220 T. Kawaguchi 15~690 $ 74~820 Stage 5A- II 3761 .201 00 Grants Admin.-Ineligible $ 7~650 .201 01 Grants Admin.-Eligible 15~300 .20141 Grants-Clerical 2~000 .20200 Audit Review 26~700 .20220 T. Kawaguchi 10~500 $ 62~150 Stage 58-1 3762.20100 Grants Admin.-Ineligible $ 1 ~750 .20101 Grants Admin.-Eligible 16~900 .20141 Grants-Clerical 800 .20220 T. Kawaguchi 3~550 $ 23~000 3816.20111 Grant Admin.-Eligible $ 17~450 .20120 Grant Admin.-Ineligible 5~250 .20301 Grants-Clerical 1~600 $ 24~300 Stage 58-II 3763.20100 Grant Admin.-Ineligible $ 3~200 .20101 Grant Admin.-E1igible 11 ~ 330 .20141 Grants-Cl eri ca 1 1 ~ 600 .20220 T. Kawaguchi 7~600 $ 23~730 TOTAL AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED $208~000 I BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO.VI. ENGINEERING 3 8/2/84 OS 0 PIAp I VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN P ITI N K ER General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE July 23, 1984 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE $1,500,000 FROM SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE INCINERATOR REPAIR AND MODIFICATIONS PROJECT TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE FUNDS SUBMITTED BY Steve McDonald, Project Manager INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Division ISSUE: Funds must be authorized to complete repairs and modifications required to make the incinerator system operational. BACKGROUND: Beginning on September 30, 1982, the District Board of Directors authorized an initial $1.9 Million towards an estimated $4.6 Million effort to complete the existing incinerator facility. The initial authorization provided funding for the correction of known problems and for a two-month test to identify the suitability of the incinerators for long-term operation. The efforts of an integrated project team composed of District forces, contractors, and outside consultants culminated 12 months later in the successful start-up, operation, and test of the incinerator system. This was a very complex undertaking which met all start-up and test goals. The testing identified additional work in the process, equipment, and control areas which needed to be completed to assure reliable long-term incinerator operation. The project team developed a priority list, schedule, and budget to identify, design, and implement solutions. The Board approved two subsequent authorizations bringing the project budget to $3.1 Million. A summary of major project accomplishments is: o All original mechanical and electrical equipment has been tested and repaired or modified as required. o Some of the required additional mechanical and electrical equipment has been installed. o Air pollution District permits have been issued for both incinerators. o Ash from the incinerator operation has been classified as a non-hazardous waste by the California Department of Health Services. o District personnel have been trained and are competent at incinerator operation and maintenance. o All major process, equipment, and control problems have been identified. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIA~T'/DIV. v.{., PIW> , GE~:i//Ji/CrIEF ENG. -ITJ'J~ HSM JAL RAB RJD o District project management has kept the project on schedule and on budget. As of July 15, 1984, the project budget was 97% expended. Start-up for long-term operation is targeted for October 1984. At this time the authorization to complete the incinerator repair and modification project can be accurately determined. The authorization required is $1,500,000 bringing the total project authorization to $4,606,400. A detailed breakdown of the costs is included in the attachment to this position paper. A brief summary of the major cost elements follows. Incinerator System Control Room Controls and instruments for the incinerator system are scattered throughout the four floors of the solids conditioning building. When the incinerators are in operation, the environment will consist of high temperatures and high noise levels. The control room will provide a centralized instrumentation and control package including an integrated graphical alarm panel in a controlled environment. This facility is required for effective and efficient incinerator operation. Fuel Gas System Modification The incinerators can be operated using less expensive landfill gas; however, there will be times when the demand for landfill will exceed the supply. The existing facilities do not provide the ability to supplement landfill gas with natural gas during high demand periods, and in the event of a failure in the landfill gas supply, air pollutant emissions would occur. The fuel gas system modifications would provide the hardware necessary to supplement landfill gas with natural gas and in the event of an interruption in the landfill gas supply, to automatically transfer to natural gas without causing excessive air pollutant emissions. Emergency Power Provisions The plant experiences occasional unplanned electrical power interruptions. Certain critical and expensive parts of the incinerator would be damaged by high temperatures that would result from loss of cooling air during a power failure. The addition of an engine-driven generator would provide uninterrupted operation of the incinerator cooling air fans. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. Process Modifications Modifications to seven incinerator subsystems are required to provide stable and reliable incinerator operation. The modifications range from providing a boiler feedwater system with adequate capacity to meet all operatinp; conditions to installing adequate seats in the natural draft dampers. Upon completion of the work included in this authorization, the incinerators will be fully operational; however, there are two possible future activities associated with the Incinerator Repair and Modifications Project that are not included in this final authorization. They are 1) the waste heat recovery boiler bypass and 2) the incinerator process optimization project. Work on both of these activities must await the results of our long-term operating experience. The waste heat recovery boiler bypass has been deferred because of its hip;h cost (approximately $600,000) and lack of operational experience. Based on the operational experience to date, it does not appear that a bypass will be required. The process optimization project is intended to reduce the cost of incinerator operation. Treatment plant process modifications that will occur as the result of the Stage 5B Project, will have a significant impact on the character and quantity of sludp;e produced. The optimization project will be undertaken in 1986. The Incinerator Repair and Modification Project is included in the 5-Year Capital Expenditure Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize $1,500,000 from Sewer Construction Funds to complete the incinerator repairs and modifications project. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING OEPT./OIV. GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. Incinerator Repairs and Modifications Au~st 2, 1984 Authorization Estimated Cost Breakdown 7/10/84 Item 1. Incinerator System Control Room o Structural o Instrumentation/Electrical o Relocation of Controls $ 75.0 260.0 125.0 2. Fuel Gas System Modification 3. Emergency Power for Furnace System 4. Process Modifications o Boiler Feedwater Controls o Stack Opacity Meter o Sludge Feed Pump Controls o Draft Controller o Feed Sludge Density Meter o Stack Oxygen Sensor o Natural Draft Damper Seat $35.0 30.0 15.0 6.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 5. Site-Work Alterations 6. Ash Disposal Permit Consulting Services 7. As-Built Drawings and O&M Information 8. Emission Testing and Equipment Adjustment 9. Scum System Modification 10. Ash Disposal (Ash Generated During Testing) 11. Noise Control Subtotal 12. District Forces o Project Management o Design o Construction Management o Operation & Maintenance Subtotal 13. Contingency (10%) TOTAL $ In Thousands $460.0 300.0 150.0 95.0 50.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 $1 ,190.0 170.0 $1,360.0 140.0 $1,500.0 BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. 4 8/2/84 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE SUBJECT Jul TYPE OF ACTION 4 AUTHORIZE $20,000 FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR UNDERTAKING A WATER RECLAMATION STUDY AUTHORIZE FUNDS SUBMITTED BY Curtis Swanson, Senior En~ineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Planning Division ISSUE: Funds are needed to initiate a water reclamation study. BACKGROUND: The Sta~e 5A Project was originally planned and designed as a water reclamation facility, because of a State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirement to implement reclamation. Although reclamation facilities were constructed, a relaxation of waste discharge requirements, in addition to numerous treatment plant defects, made reclamation impractical as originally envisioned. During the past several months, the District has been negotiating a termination a~reement for the Sta~e 5A Grant with EPA and SWRCB. One of the conditions of this a~reement will likely be that the District study and promote the cost-effective use of reclaimed water and, if possible, make use of the reclamation facilities funded under the Stage 5A Grant. In a related matter, the District has proposed to Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) that a joint project be undertaken to study water reclamation within each a~ency's service area as a step toward resolvin~ problems with the 1972 Reclaimed Water Supply Agreement between CCWD and the District. Plannin~ Division staff will begin planning for a water reclamation study that will satisfy both the grant termination condition and the requirements for a joint project with CCWD. Planning for the study includes defining the scope of the study, reviewin~ past local and regional reclamation studies, making contact with State water officials and potential users, defining water quality criteria by type of use, preliminary identification of potential markets for reclaimed water, and investi~atin~ possible funding sources for a reclamation study and a possible reclamation project. An authorization of $20,000 is requested to cover staff and other costs during the study planning phase of the reclamation project. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize $20,000 from the Sewer Construction Fund for undertaking a water reclamation study. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION cws JMK RAB IEF ENG. INI~~~/DIV' .-:- J ;t1/C- ~ CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT o & M REVENUES, EXPENSES AND RESERVES / 1983-1984 Projected Favorable 1983-1984 Ac t ua 1 Actual (Unf avo rab 1 e) Budget Revenues: EQC 13,239,284 13,230,381 8,903 13,244,344 City of Concord 2,846,114 3,000,000 (153,886) 2,400,000 Other 680,437 586,417 94,020 417,700 Total Revenues 16,765,835 16,816,798 ( 50,963) 16,062,044 Expenses: Administrative 2 , 090, 191 2,035,157 ( 55,034) 2,097,256 Engineering & Construction 1,932,932 1,901,346 ( 31,586) 1,702,316 Collection System Operations 2,311 ,886 2,308,639 ( 3,247) 2,364,237 Plant Operations 8,547,969 8,726,693 178,724 9,061 ,015 Pump Stations 984, 1 80 995,511 11 ,331 1,110,360 Total Expenses 15,867,158 15,967,346 1 00, 1 88 16,335,184 Revenues Over (Under) Expen. 898,677 849,452 49,225 273,140) Reserves--Beginning of Year 2,563,346 2,563,346 Prior Years Adjustment-- Compensated Absences ( 1,709,366) ( 1,563,000) ( 146,366) Reserves--Beginning of Year, As Adjusted 853,980 1 ,000,346 ( 146,366) Reserves, End of Year 1 ,752,657 1 ,849, 798 ( 97, 1 41 ) --..-----~------.-..---.--,__..~_~~_._,___'..,..._.._,.,' ______n_A_______.....__...__...__..,...__._m.....___..._____.......__.__...___._,...__...,.__.._.....__.._"._.._ ..~'~..__.....,__~__._'__,,____._,.___.