HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 12-06-84
<C<SD
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO. IV. HEARINGS
1 12/6/84
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
NOVEMBER 28, 1984
SUBJECT
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON DISTRICT ANNEXATION 88 AS AMENDED
BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSSION
TYPE OF ACTION
HOLD HEARING: D.A. 88
SUBMITTED BY
DENNIS HALL, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
ENGINEERING DEPARTM N
ISSUE: The LAFC has amended the boundaries of several of the parcel s incl uded
within the above-referenced Di strict Annexation. The Di strict must hol d the
subject hearing and consider testimony by affected property owners before acting
on the proposed amended annexations.
BACKGROUND: The above-referenced annexation was sent to LAFC as required for the
formal annexation process. LAFC amended the boundaries of several of the parcels
during its approval process. These amendments were made to improve the continuity
of the resulting District boundary. The amended annexations are designated as
D.A. 88-8 thru 88-1. Maps are attached showing the amended annexations.
Legal notice was published, and the affected property owners were notified of this
hearing as required by law.
A Negative Declaration has been prepared by LAFC for all of these amended
annexations. District staff has reviewed said Negative Declaration and concurs
with its findings.
There are three possible actions the District may take:
1. Overrul e protests w hen owners of 50 percent or 1 ess of assessed 1 and val ue
protest the annexation, then order the annexation of the parcels as amended by
LAFC.
2. If the owners of land having more than 50 percent of the assessed value (land
only) of the total assessed value of land proposed for annexation protest the
annexation, the District must disapprove the annexation as proposed.
3. Continue the hearing at a future date on any particular proposed annexation as
the Board deems necessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
(1) Open hearing, receive any testimony, close public hearing.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
,t
DH
(rf;J
.XG
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
JMc
RAB
Position Paper
Page 2
(2) Adopt Resolutions concurring with the Negative Declaration and ordering
annexation of all parcels as amended which have insufficient protests.
(3) Take appropriate action as outlined above for any protested annexation.
,
,
,
,
...~--......_._,....
-'......~. .:: _""C~:. ~.." ."_
, .
f . c~,!:iB4";
, 'r
i -,
,: ,',
;.;.
Cl'
lit
~
.....l
,.'"
\llUI
tl~
~~
='~
~
. ~l
~~
~~
~~
~~
"
.",0
~o",t)
IA A · 88 - ~
P,A · 88-c
DA. 88- 3
I:>. A. 88 - 4
Ul
C).
.
\)l
~
"
~
o
1+
.'. ~
~. ~
oIL. ~
Or. ~,' ~
t' ~
,J ~
'iJ.,
,4
~~~..~
..0' .....
~ :~f
.' .........
,.' ~
, ~
''1-
~
:TJ
(')
;s 0
N Z
0 (/)
0 -t
0 ::0
C
~ (')
N ::!
. 0
N Z
(')
0
::0
:u
CII
!~
~~
1::0
.-<
tI
o
.
\)l
~
~
~
~
,
~
1+
~
"<
MAUREEN uv L
nr-
!/JlA.88-0
(aA.88-6)
D. A. 8fj-t.
(,?A. 88-6)
@
--
~
V!!!)
@
7NZ
l=
Q
~
~
~
AI?EN05
(/~ 0.1<. ~)
FISH
pt;l-. oNE
(774/ O./t. /56)
~ = PREVIOUS At4t4EXA TIOt4
~
~ = EXISTlt4G CCCSO BOUt4DARY
__ = PROPOSED At4t4EXATIOt4
* = SIGt4ED PETITI0t4
~.
D.A.a8-F
(PA. 88- 7 )
~
~
Z 3 4
I;t/~I L/~ Of~~f./~-=l1E
:S"
~
"
6
<:)
~
~
t:i
WllLOWMERE
rRACT
RD.
It)
7
II
tON6
267/ aJf.332
12
@
RYOeFf
/2/2 a"'. Z50
;........
tAU UP. T
120~ a,lf. 456
OANVlLLE GI?ANGE
/848 a'f. 95
@
1976
@ :: PREVIOUS ANNEXATION
~ :: EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARY
___:: PROPOSED ANNEXATION
* :: SIGNED PETITION
1AA-. 88- (j
D.A.8B- H
(D,A,88-8)
. .... _a______l_Q_ A'-~~~
.!) /1 \
.r- /Y y//
_/r-
-.c:,
,... '"
c ..::> 7:....-1 /-
.r- ./ ,r- "-
.c~
J2 A. a8 - I
(QA. 8B-/O)
c((SD
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO. V. CONSENT CALENDAR
1 12/6 84
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
NOVEMBER 28, 1984
SUBJECT
TYPE OF ACTION
ORDER COMPLETION OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 88-A
COMPLETE ANNEXATION OF
DA 88-A
SUBMITTED BY
DENNIS HALL, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT/CONSTRUCTION DIVISION
ISSUE: The District must pass a resolution to finalize District Annexation 88-A.
BACKGROUND: The District previously made application to the Local Agency
Formation Commission CLAFC) for the annexation of ten parcels of land designated
as District Annexation 88,. LAFC has considered this request and has recommended
that Parcels 1 and 2 be processed as submitted. LAFC has designated these parcels
to be District Annexation No. 88-A. No public hearing is required and the
annexation of these parcels can be completed.
LAFC has adopted a Negative Declaration for District Annexation No. 88-A.
District staff has reviewed this Negative Decl aration and concurs with its
findings.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution concurring with the Negative Declaration and
ordering the completion of District Annexation No. 88-A.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Jlt(
/IA
DH
JMc
-16
)
~
~
~
t(
O.lVZ
@ = PREVIOUS ANNEXATION
_ = EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARY
__ = PROPOSED ANNEXATION
* = SIGNED PETITION
1/. It. 88- A
DA,88-1
D. A. 88-Z
<C<SD
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO. VI. ENGINEERING
1 12 6 84
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
NOVEMBER 29 1984
SUBJECT
TYPE OF ACTION
ADOPT A REVISION TO THE BOARD POLICY REGARDING CONNECTIONS
TO THE EXISTING SEWERS IN THE SYCAMORE VALLEY
ADOPT RESOLUTION
SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
JAY McCOY, CONSTRUCTION DIVISION MANAGER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONSTRUCTION DIVISION
ISSUE: The Board, at its November 1, 1984 meeting, instructed staff to review
the City of Danville's proposed assessment district and new pol icy regarding
one-time property divisions in the Sycamore Valley and assess their effect on the
Board's policy regarding new connections in the Sycamore Valley.
BACKGROUND: At the November 1, 1984 Board meeting~ staff recommended that the
existing pol icy be modified sl ightly. After receiving information on 1) the
proposed assessment district by the City of Danville which will include certain
trunk sewer improvements, 2) the City of Danville's policy which allows property
owners in the Sycamore Valley a one-time opportunity to divide their properties
and, 3) the remai ni ng capacity in the exi sti ng trunk sewer system, the Board
directed staff to obtain additional information on these issues and recommend to
the Board any further modifications to the existing policy. Staff has gathered
the following information relative to the three issues outlined.
Assessment District
The assessment district proposed by Danville was actually originated through
Contra Costa County before Danville was incorporated. The purpose of the
assessment district is to provide a financing mechanism for major street and
util ity improvements which are a part of the Sycamore Valley Specific Pl an,
some of which have been required for major developments in the
Sycamore/Tassajara Valley. The installation of approximately 4,000 feet of
trunk sewer in Sycamore Valley Road (the "missing 1 ink") is proposed to be a
part of the work to be done under the assessment district.
Some of the major developments in the Valley obtained planning approval while
they were still in unincorporated areas. After Danville was created, the
developments came under the jurisdiction of the City of Danville. It appears
that the developers and the City do not agree that the developments which were
approved by the County are compl etel y appropri ate for the City. It also
appears that, until agreement is reached, the assessment district will not be
formed because the developers own the major portion of the land which is
proposed to be included in the assessment district.
There has been no official action to date to form the assessment district.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
/1rJ
JSM
RAB
Position Paper
Page 2
One Time Property Division
Because the Sycamore Valley Specific Plan requirements placed an economic
hardship on owners of small parcels of land, the City of Danville amended the
Plan in January of 1984 to provide for a one-time minor subdivision of each
property within the Plan area to create one additional parcel maximum for each
existing property. Less than ten owners have taken advantage of this
amendment. Mr. Queirolo, whose annexation petition the Board recently
approved, is one of the owners who is trying to take advantage of the
amendment.
There are 33 properties within the Sycamore Valley Specific Plan area which are
also within this District's boundaries which could be subdivided. There are 55
properties within the Plan area which are currently outside the District
boundaries which could be subdivided. If all of the owners of these properties
divided their land under the one-time provision, an additional 88 parcels would
be created with the potential of 88 additional homes.
RemaininQ Capacity
The existing trunk sewer system which must be paralleled in the future is a
combination of 15-inch and 18-inch diameter pipe (see attached map). The
maximum number of residential units which can be connected to this existing
system is 3,680. There are 1,869 homes which are presently connected and 1,698
more homes which could connect in the future from properties which were annexed
to the District prior to 1978.
In addition there are 33 homes which have been annexed since 1978 and there are
55 properties (with 55 homes) which could annex in the future which would
result in an additional 88 (55+33) homes.
The capacity situation is summarized in the following table:
Total Capacity of
ExisitnQ Trunk Sewer
3,680 Homes
Total Homes
Presently Connected
1,869
Future Connections 1,698
From Land Annexed
Prior to 1978
Existing Homes Which 33
Were Annexed Since 1978
Existing Homes Which 55
Might Annex In The
Future
Future Homes Which 88
Might Be Built As A
Result Of The One-Time
Subdivision Policy
3,743 Homes
Position Paper
Page 3
The projected excess of 63 homes is equivalent to a two percent overage in
sewer capacity which is within a reasonable range of calculation error. It is
projected to take seven years to bu il d the 3,680 homes duri ng which time the
District will have the opportunity to take appropriate action to build the
required downstream sewer improvements should a capacity problem arise.
Findings
1. There is no guarantee that an assessment district will be formed to
install, among other improvements, the parallel trunk sewer in Sycamore
Valley Road (missing link).
2. There are some property owners who are trying to divide their properties in
accordance with the one-time subdivision policy of the City of Danville but
cannot because a sewer connection is not available.
3. There is some reserve capacity available in the existing trunk sewer system
for homes which were or will be annexed after 1978.
4. All homes which might be built on lands which were annexed to the District
prior to 1978 are projected to be built in seven years or by 1991 based on
current building trends in the Sycamore Valley.
5. Allowing connections from new properties which may be created through the
one-time subdivision amendment (maximum of 88 new connections) will not
have a significant impact on the long-term capacity of the District's
Sycamore Valley sewer system.
Recommendation: Authorize a revision to the existing Board policy regarding
connections in the Sycamore Valley, to wit:
All properties which will be created through the Sycamore Valley Specific
Pl an Amendment dated December 15, 1983 and adopted January 5, 1984 by
the City of Danville will be permitted to connect to the District's sewer
system provided that annexation of the properties and installation of
required sewer facilities are done in accordance with District policies,
procedures, and standards.
If at any time the Board is made aware that inadequate progress is being
made towards the installation of the "missing link," this authorization
to connect will be rescinded.
o
..
'"
'"
~
",'
0:
'"
~
II,
,
...-';'.-1-/
1C'= ~::,~_ __~
J /, I
I.
~'
~
/1
/.
WATERSHED 35 SDUTH
DEFICIENT TRUNK SE\NER SYSTEM
Scale
1"
600'
Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE A
CONTRACT WITH CULP, WESNER, CULP ENGINEERS TO CONDUCT A
RATES AND CHARGES UPDATE STUDY
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
NO. VI. ENGINEERING
2 12 6 84
DATE
NOVEMBER 30, 1984
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE CONTRACT
SUBMITTED BY JOYE L. KURASAKI
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
ENGINEERING DEPT./PLANNING DIVISION
ISSUE: District staff is conducting an update study for all District rates and
charges. Board of Directors' approval is requested for the General Manager-Chief
Engineer to execute a contract for professional services.
BACKGROUND: The District currently assesses fees for connection to District
facilities and for District services. These fees incl ude capital-rel ated items
such as fixture, annexation, and watershed fees and O&M-related items such as the
Environmental Qual ity Charge, pl an review and inspection fees, and miscellaneous
charges for private sewer construction projects. Over the years, some of these
fees have been adjusted to reflect the changes in District cost, and some have
been adjusted based upon cost of living increases. Others have not been adjusted
for several years. A comprehensive study has not been done since the fees were
initiated.
At this time District staff is conducting a comprehensive update study of all the
rates and charges to determine if the fees are adequate to cover the District's
cost and if the methodology for computing the fees is equitable and reflects the
current accepted practices and legal requirements with respect to rate setting.
The study wi 11 be conducted in two phases. Phase I wi 11 i ncl ude a rev i ew and
documentation of all the existing fees and identification of those fees which will
require updating or modification during Phase II. The Phase I effort will result
in a report which summarizes the purpose and methodology for computing the
existing fees, the review of fees for equity, adequacy and legality, the
comparison of District fees with fees of similar agencies within the Bay Area, and
the identification of alternative methodologies for fees which will require
updating or modification. Phase II will include the evaluation of various
methodologies for fee computation, selection of one fee methodology, and
establ ishment of an updated or new fee schedul e for those fees identified in
Phase I which require change.
The proposed project team will consist of District staff and the consulting firm
of Culp, Wesner, Culp (ewC) Engineers and their subcontractor Public Utility Rate
Consultants (PURC). District staff would be responsible for project management.
The consultant team of ewc and PURC was selected for their experience and
expertise in conducting and implementing rates and charges studies. They will be
involved with the evaluation of the current fees and the development of
alternative fee methodologies. The District will select the methodology for
implementation of fee schedules.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
JI1f(,
f&
J~1K
RAB
RJD
POSITION PAPER
Page 2
The cost for the consultant to perform the Phase I study is estimated at $14,750
and woul d come from the Pl anning Division O&M Technical Services account as
previously authorized. The Phase I study will take approximately three months to
campl ete.
The Phase II scope of work w 111 be developed as part of the Phase I effort and
will be covered by a Contract Amendment. A cost estimate to perform Phase II
cannot be made until Phase I is complete since Phase I will establish the scope of
work f or Phase II. The Ph ase II study w ill be comp 1 eted for Boa rd-of-D 1 rector
adoption of new fee schedules by June, 1985.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a cost
reimbursemnt contract with Culp, Wesner, Culp Engineers for Phase I of the Rates
and Charges Update Study with a not to exceed ceiling of $14,750.
-.
-
....
---
.-
December 4, 1984
FROM:
SUBJECT:
THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
WALTER FUNASAKI ~ ~~
COAST SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION
TO:
At the November 15, 1984 Board Meeting, Member P. Boneysteele requested
an assessment of the safety of the District's temporary investment in
a $2,500,000 negotiable certificate of deposit issued by Coast Savings
and Loan Association.
I have reviewed certain financial information for Coast Savings which
was extracted from a prospectus. Based upon my review, I believe
the District's investment to be secure.
Coast Savings is a California-licensed mutual savings and loan
association operating through 109 branch offices located throughout
California. As of May 31, 1984, Coast had total assets of $5.6 billion,
total deposits of $4.4 billion and retained earnings of $157.4 million.
Coast was the 13th largest savings and loan association in the United
States, based upon total deposits at December 31, 1983.
Coast is regulated by the California Commissioner, the FHLBB and the
FSLIC, and is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco.
A copy of selected consolidated financial information for Coast is
attached.
WF/ae
Attachment
cc: Roger Dol an
Paul Morsen
T
COAST SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION
SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL INFORMA nON
· (Dollars in Thousands)
1981
1981
Year
Ended
June 30.
1980(1 )
Five Months
Ended May 31,
1984 1983
(Unaudited)
Year Ended December 31,
1983
1980(1 )
Summary of Operations Statement Information:
Interest income .................................................................. $236,304 $ 179.503 $458,907 $367,053 $320,845 $268,197 $250,285
Loan fee amortization....................................................... 4,011 1,321 6,912 3,626 5,399 4,028 4,018
Interest expense ................................................................. (218,513) (169,243) (431.319) (399,265) (336.797) (249,245) (224,598)
Net interest income (expense).................................. 21,802 11,581 34,500 (28,586) (10,553) 22,980 29,705
Loan origination fees ........................................................ 5,156 6,948 10,904 6,829 3,453 7,104 6,619
Gain on sale of loans......................................................... 5,092 15,032 21,524 61,998 1,498 2,614 1,437
Real estate operations, net................................................ 7,771 1,035 9,094 (1,770) 4,155 4,849 7,653
Other non-interest income ................................................ 8,470 19,174 29,830 29,048 10,424 8,874 11,346
Dividends on preferred stock ofsubsidiary(2 )................ (4,265)
Operating and administrative expenses............................ (44,408) (41,662) (105,471) (83,658) (46.973) (36,S 17) (33,974 )
Earnings (loss) before income tax
expense (benefit) and extraordinary items .......... (382)
Income tax expense (benefit) ........................................... ( 1,000)
Extraordinary items. ..........................................................
Net earnings (loss ).................................................... $
12,108
(1,171)
(3,939)
618 $ 9,340 $
381 (16,139) (37,996)
(5,535) (26,035) (10,421)
(3.759) 2.063 603
2,157 $ 11,959 $(26,972) $
22,786
9,078
9,904
4,030
518
6,392
$ 13,708
May 31.
1984
December 31,
1983
1981
1981
June 30.
1980(1) 1980(1)
(Unaudited)
Summary of Financial Condition Information:
Total assets.......................................................................... $5,592,813
Loans receivable, net..........................................................
Deposits ..:...........................................................................
Borrowings ....:...............:.....................................................
Retained earnings ...............................................................
Other Financial and Statistical Data:
Total real estate loans originated for the period ended
on the date indicated ......................................................
Spread at end of period( 3) ................................................
Effective net spread at end of period ( 3) ...........................
Excess of retained earnings over FSLlC minimum net
worth requirements( 4) ...................................................
FSLlC regulatory net worth percentage( 4) ......................
3,953,668
4,367,098
724,655
157,423
$4,962,972 $4,628,662 $3,322,425 $2,995,946 $2,886,481
3,640,387 3,135,918 2,732,274 2,550,620 2,355,143
4,107,485 3,462,348 2,352,469 2,209,392 2,091,349
573,783 861,724 716,615 530,419 546,305
156,805 154,648 142,689 169,661 165,138
519,820 1,435,129 430,442 407,227 563,660 535,465
1.75% 1.68% 1.25% (.61)% .53% (.30)%
1.1 0% .69% .61% (.45)% .92% .11%
1.31% 1.66% 2.38% 1.63% 5.30% 5.05%
4.31% 4.66% 5.38% 5.63% 10.30% 10.05%
( I) Fiscal year-end change-see Note I to the Condensed Consolidated Summary of Operations.
(2) Reflects the consolidation of Coast Capital Corporation ("Coast Capital"), an indirect subsidiary of Coast,
which. in March 1984, publicly issued perpetual adjustable rate preferred stock. The assets of Coast Capital
as of May 31. 1984 and the assets of other subsidiaries of Coast are not available for the satisfaction of
claims creditors may have against Coast. See Note 12 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
(3) See "Business-Yields Earned and Rates Paid" (particularly footnote 8 to the "Spread Table") for a
description of the method of calculation, the extent to which consolidated and the effect of such
consolidation. .
(4) See "Regulation-Insurance of Accounts" for a description of the method of computing FSLIC minimum
net worth requirements. Generally, FSLIC minimum net worth requirements were equal to 3% of the five
year average of liabilities in the periods ended December 31, 1982 through 1984. were equal to 4% of the
five year average of liabilities in the period ended December 31. 1981 and were equal to 5% of the five year
average deposits in the periods ended December 31. and June 30. 1980.
4
I
December 6, 1984
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: WAL T,ER FUNASAKI tu r; Jfd
SUBJECT: FINANCIAL STATEMENT INQUIRES
At the November 15, 1984 Board Meeting, Member N. Carlson inquired into
the following two items which were reported in the October 1984
financial statements:
o the status of Capital Project Number 3170, TP Outfall
Improvements, which showed a negative expended to-date
amount of $1,109,842.
o District telephone charges for October 1984 which exceeded
budget by $4,035, or 97.8%.
Responses to these inquiries follow:
Capital Project No. 3170 - under the former capital project
accounting system, payments to the prime contractors
were recorded in a separate account from other
construction costs. In July 1983 when the new
accounting system was implemented, such payments to
contractors, which totaled $1,404,846, were capitalized
to a fixed asset account; the balance of the costs were
retained within the Construction In Progress account
shown in the October 1984 capital project report. After
application of the claim recovery, the incorrect negative
balance was produced; correction will be made in November
by reflecting the contractor payments. Corrected project
cost is shown below:
District forces and other
construction costs
Reported in October
$169,461
150,697
$320,158
(1,430,000)
(1,109,842)
Legal expenditures
Allocated claim recovery
Contractor Da~ents to be
refl ected' in November
1,404,846
Net Cost
$295,004
The Honorable Members of the Board of Directors
Page 2
December 6, 1984
Telephone expense - District telephone expenses approximate
$4,300 per month. In October 1984, payments of
approximately $2,000 of September bills and a retroactive
rate increase of approximately $2,100 were paid in
addition to the normal $4,300 monthly bill. The rate in-
crease will cause the annual telephone expense to be
overexpended by approximately $6,200, or 12%.
WF:dc