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