The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 05-20-82 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE June 1,1982 SUBJECT PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF PLAN REVIEW FEES, INSPECTION FEES AND MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES FOR PRIVATE SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS TYPE OF ACTION CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING SUBMITTED BY John Larson INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Division ISSUE A public hearing is required prior to consideration of increasing the fees for private sewer construction projects. BACKGROUND The fees for private sewer construction projects are intended to recover the District1s actual costs. The current fees were set in 1977 and do not reimburse the District for its costs. The proposed fees have been discussed at previous Board meetings. A copy of the May 20 position paper which presents these fees is attached. The Building Industry Association has received all information concerning the proposed increase. As requested by the Board, a comparison of the proposed fees with the fees charged by other entities is attached. RECOMMENDATION Hold a public hearing and receive comments on the proposed increase in fees for private sewer construction projects. Attachments REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION JL e~ CLW D COllt Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE May 18, 1982 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF PLAN REVIEW FEES, INSPECTION FEES~ AND MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES FOR PRIVATE SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS DISCUSSION SUBMITTED BY Ron Klimczak INITIATING DEPT./DIV. En Division ISSUE: A discussion of the proposed fees and charges for private sewer construction projects is appropriate prior to the June 3, 1982 public hearing. BACKGROUND: At its last meeting the Board set June 3, 1982, as the date for the public hearing on fees and charges for private sewer construction jobs and authorized District staff to publish a notice of the public hearing. Prior to the public hearing, the District staff would like to review the proposed schedule of fees and charges and to obtain any comments the Board may wish to make. Information on the proposed schedule of fees and charges is attached: Attachment A presents both current and proposed fees and charges for each of the services that the District provides for private sewer construction projects. Please note that the proposed inspection fee for mainline inspection has been presented in three options ranging from a uniform fee for all projects to a sliding scale for reduced unit cost on larger projects. Attachment B presents the basis for the unit costs for each of the proposed fees and charges. All costs have been inflated at an annual rate of 10% for 1982-1983. Attachment C presents examples showing the impact of the proposed fees and charges on various sizes of projects, The date for implementation of the proposed fees and charges is July 15, 1982 to allow a minimum 3D-day notice following the June 3, 1982, public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the proposed fees and charges for private sewer construction projects and the July 15, 1982 implementation date. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEP~'/DIV / ~ RS'1 V- " JL ~~CLW Activity INSPECTION: A. Mainline Inspection B. Lateral, House Connection (or Side Sewer Alteration) Inspection , C. Side Sewer Repair Inspection D. Overtime Inspection PLAN REVIEW E. Sewer Design Plan Review F. Incremental Review of Final Sewer Plans MISCELLANEOUS: G. Engineering for Private Sewer Projects . Structure only . New Sewer Extension H. Permit Processing ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED 1982-83 FEE SCHEDULE FOR PRIVATE SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Current Charges . (as of Feb1977) $l/L.F., $100 min $20 eac h ($10 each) $10 $20/hour $0.20/L.F., $100 min $50/reviewafter 1st submittal $100 Estimate Req'd $2 Proposed Charges incl. 10% Escalation 7/1/82 3 options: *(a) $1 .63/L.F., $287 min (b) (Jobs<400'):$3.64/L.F, $287 min (Jobs~400'):$1.31/L.F. ...*(c) $287 base fee + $1.40/L.F. *For a 11 jo bs $32 each $10 (no change) $38/hour $0.73/L.F. $292 min (2 prelim + 1 final) $37 ea (3rd & subseq. review) $55/review after 1st submittal · $370 Estimate Req'd $ 2 (no c ha ng e ) ., ~ . . ATTACHMENT B I CALCULATION SUMMARY A. Mainline Inspection 1978-1980 Summary 1978-79 79-80 $198,776 186,309 ,~. $252,528 291,536 2 Yr Total $385,085 $544,064 Revenue deficit - $158,979 (Length of pipe installed - 385,085 L. Updating Adjustments: · All original salary costs escalated each successive fiscal year · Inspection staffing permanently reduced from 11 to 9 · Vehicle r~ntal rate increased from $2/hr to $2.50/hr · TV inspection rate increase from 33~/ft to 36~/ft. (1981-1982) Actual Costs Total 1978-80 District Costs Costs Incorporating Costs Incorporatinq Assumedl Adjustments to '81-82 10% Escalation for 182-83 $ 544 , 064 $572,236 $625,810 $625,810 385,085 ft = $1.63/L.F,(Min$287) ~. Option (a): Proposed mainline inspection fee = Option (b): Develop different fee based on length of sewer main project involved (use 1977-78 study data): 1977-78 District Costs, Projected 1982-83 District Job I #Jo bs Total Length Per. L. F. Costs, Per L.F. (Assumed Cate or L. F. Salar : Vehicl e I TV i Total Labor cost Escalated 10%) L 4001 11 2,316 $1 .91 24~ 33~ $2.48 $3.64 ~ 400 6 12,575 56~ 5~ 33~ I 94~ $1 ,31 Proposed Mainline inspection fee for 1982-83 (Jobs <400 ') $3. 64/L. F, (Mi n .$287) (Jobs~4001) $1.31/L.F, ./ - 1 - ATTACHMENT B Option (c); Include minimum, base fee of $287 in fee for all projects; $287 X 300 jobs/2 yr period $625,810 - 86,100 = $539,710 =$86,100 $ 53 9 .71 0 385.085 = $1.40/L.F. Proposed Mainline Inspection Fee = $287 Base Fee + $1.40/L.F. B. Lateral, House Connection or Side Sewer Alteration Inspection 1978-80 Summary 1978-79 -$121,100 79-80 $ 96,260 $152,300 161.719 2 Yr To ta 1 $217,360 $314,01 9 Revenue deficit = $96,659 (total No. of connections for 1978-1980 10,868 ) Actual Costs Total 1978-80 District Costs Costs Incorporating Costs incorporating assumed 10% Adjustments to 181-82 Labor Escalantion for 182-83 $314.01 9 $320,703 $349,202 Proposed Lateral Inspection Fee = $349,202 = $32.13 = $32.00 each 10,868 D. Overtime Inspection 1 981 - 1 982 1982-1983 Assumed - Escalation of 10% Ave. inspector hourly = Salary rate + 40% Accounting = Truck Hourly Rental Rate = $20.77X 1 1/2 = $31.15 $34.27 $1. 00 1.10 2.50 .2.50 $37.87/hr Proposed Inspection Overtime charge = $38/hour - 2 - M1T1VmtJf1HNrr ill E. SewerJlesign Plan Revl:ew Revemre O. 20/L. F. ;Actua 1 Costs TI~78-80 SUlI11TknW 1978-791'$57,469 79...80, 49,827 I - 2 Yr I Total !.~l07,296 '$in a;rn 1 , , '1 J6.,~734 $254,845 ReveTlUE defi c it = $S1:'4'7,;m:m {Length of pi pe revT:tv.;mill.-;9ffiD"cmm lL..fF.) Acttua 1 (Em t s TfrttaTI :1 978-80 Di strict Costs CO:Sts ],ncorporating Costs i ncorpmaatilyj Cf.ffiIUII1lBtI Adjustments to 181-82 1:.01% EscalatIDlIl ffur '$2_1$3 $ZU:~ ffi4,5 Jm.Jl.R3 $I64 lml ffiro po:&ed Pl an RBv;mw Fee = $ 3 65,731 500,000 = $0..73,lL FE. Min = ~ ((22 ;:pnBliim * TI ,F i na 1 ) $ll7 ea:' OJrlI 8& 'IDitmRnUBntt: wev. ~ F. Incnm1~nttal Revi ew of minal ::sewer Pl ans ActuftlCost per' R.eV:l:eW 1981 ~82 rproj ec teld Oi:a;sj; wer fReNiiEBW 11:982 -1 900 (~inm l1Elimr EsccfMttun 11cmo Sta9ff ~at~ry Gust + 44D% ~nefit $49.26 $.'5~ Jl9J Veti1JH::€rCost at $2.50 pm' '-bwl r " 1. 25 11..225 TotaO = $$55 MW;ffi!wiiEew PPo:p.po.setfFee = $55f~view (2nd and subsequent SlWlmiitttwll::s)) G. Enginee1ilroc.Jfor Private Sewer Projects . StllUCtuYC€ only- Staff saalary Cost + 40%:.&rHefit Proj ec teld am:S:L pmr ffimU:imctt .Actual Cost iper, ,1982-19833 (~m1irr-rn l1Etlmr 'Review 1981-fB2 ' ~calatiO'r1 nD~) Vehiclg\ t~~ CEqu i pnent " ! $.3 2 9 .1m 8..!U0 1TLOtaTI = $362 3f% aOal) -,~.. $37fJ -:--,,). Vi,... -33- ;."",,--" .__. G. . Structure only (continued) Proposed Structure Engineering Fee - $370/Structure . New Sewer Extension - Extimate required for each project /"""' - 4 - ATTACHMENT B - , nn (/l (/l c ;;0 CJ 0 n J=:> 00 _ Al :::l Ale ~ n G> :::l CJ :::l -'. 30- 0 n lTl M- M- 0 0--' (/l ::z (/l~ Al :::l :::l -'. , CJ n Al :::l 0 -< CJ n (/l (/l I 3 n --' - _ (/l Al 0 Al CJ CJAl VI ~ :::l (/l M- Al - Al CJ "l:I: "l:I: "l:I: "l:I: --' --' '-l (J1 1.0 (J1 ...... (/l G> ""'C ...... ::z :::l e rooo w --' 1.0 ::z 0 VI 0- :::l --Il 0 (/l -0 0.. --' ""'Co "Tl CJ -" VI o o < ro ~ << C::J Al << C::J ro M- ::,- ro --' :EJ=:> :::l M- ""'C -" -',0 M-O M- ::,- VI .. ""'C -'. M- M- VI ""'C o ~ M- n o VI rt Al w o (/l .0 3: -" .......... (J1 C ::z (J1 :::lroo -',:E: o Al 3 :::l ~ -" ^ --' n.. ro -'. VI M- "Tl <<~3 ......... ro Al 3 -'. O:::l :::l M- o (/l .0 N '" (/l .0 --' --' '" (/l .0 3: -'. CJ ...... (/l -l ;;0 ...... n -l (/l ...... N lTl ...... VI --' Al :::l 0.. 3: -'. 3: N N..........C W N o O-o<l-rt~ 0 ~ ~ (J1 -'. ~ _ __--'0 _ , , , -" --Il , "Tl "TlAlrt "Tl M-<< ""'C .......... .......... ro ~ n-o<l-n-o<l-~......on-o<l- o WOW Al :::l C-J, 0 '-l :::lO:::lO--'Vlro:::l- :::l_:::l_ -oO:::l, .........,.........,0. rt.........Al Al Al~ rt M- M- n ro ro roI 0 ~ ~ ~o VI Al Al Al e M- --' --' --' VI ro "Tl 0 o 0 0 ~ ~ ~ n ~ o I I I :::l J=:> 0 o O:::l --' e e e......... --' VI VI VI ro ro ro ~ -,.""'C CJ Al:::l~ro rtVlO-o ro -0 C-J. 0 ro ro VI o 0 -" rt M- M- o ~n(J1 -0 ~ VI VI M- lTl M-v, :::l -" lO 3 C::J ~ ro -'. --' VI X--' lTl NAlVl OM- Vlrt Aleo --'Al--ll Al --' ~ << nnw o 0 ",\, :::l VI :::l M- lTl ro :::l o ..........lO rt -0<1- ~ -" W o 0 VI :::l_ ........., lTl AlVl rt rt ro ~ 0 Al--ll --' ""'C O~ ~ 0 C-J. Iro 00 eM- VI ro -" (J1 o ~ - "Tl rt VI -,,""'C CJ Al:::l-sro --'VI 0-0 Al -0 C-J. 0 -SroroVl << 0 0 -'. M- rt M- ~o Al~n--' M- - 0 (J1 roVlVl~ M- rtv'lTl -'. :::l 3 C::J lO ro -'.~ --' VI X--' lTl --'AlVl OM- '" rt co Al--ll --' ..................W o-Al .................0 *-g. ...... ::z (/l ""'C lTl n -l ...... o ::z "Tl lTl lTl ""'C , J=:> ::z ;;0 lTl < ...... lTl :E J=:> G> lTl ::z n -< n o 3: ""'C J=:> ;;0 ...... (/l o ::z (/l C 3: 3: J=:> ;;0 -< o ......... * J=:> * ~ --' -" :::~--'~'2-o<1-'2~g --'COO NO' VI w ro Al '-l 0- CO 0- '" o Al M- VI '-l VI W --Il g--~o-IV !\~~ AlAl+=-3+=--l --' VI 0 -'. 0 3 VI ro 02.- 0:;; ~. o --Il"Tl "Tl N :::l ~roM- M-CO ro......... .........'-lVl ro -0<1- :E: w3ro -,,~ "':::l" +=- ......... - "Tl M- ::,- 0+-0<1- e --' VI -0<1-. ro --' W --' o +=-_ 00"Tl :::l _ M- :::l "Tl rt -0<1- --' - , o M- -0<1- (J1 o 3: -'. :::l -0<1- --' - , o M- -0<1- ;;0 '" ro - <, -'.0 roM- :E: ................... lTl :::l rt -" ~ ro (/l e 0- 0.. ""'C --' Al :::l -0<1- --' - , o rt lTl :::l lO ~ VI lTl VI rt o -+, ""'C ~ o C-J, ro o M- n o VI M- N ~ --' ",\, ~ '-l W ---' ..... . -A-- :::l _ -+,0 , ..... . --' "'T1 :::le Ala. --' ro -(:A- VI N -0 1.0 --'N N Al :::l -0 3 ~ -'. ~ro :::l ro--' < -'. -,.3 ro :E:Qo "Tl lTl lTl -0<1- (J1 o 3: -" :::l ......... .......... -0<1- (J1 o 3: -'. :::l '-l ~ lTl VI M- lTl VI M- o -+, ""'C ~ o C-J, ro o rt n o VI rt --' N -0<1- - "Tl M- + -0<1- W (J1 I o I ~;;o ...... lTl ::z O<(/l "Tl ...... lTl Qo ""'C :E ;;0 ""'C O"Tl, wlTlJ=:> lTl ::z n o (/l -l :::l-l 0< M-.. 00- ::,-e Alrt ~ lO a. ro 0 "Tl ro ro VI VI M- ee o..:::l <<0.. ro ~ :::l-l 0< rt.. 00- ::,- e AlM- ~ lO a. roo lTl :::l lO ~ VI (J1 ~ N (J1 ~ .......... 1.0 e. VI+=- ...... O'-Q. :::l lO .......... <a> o -0 -0<1- rt N -'. (J1 0_ :::l "Tl rt Al ......... ......... (J1 ~ lTl VI M- ......... <a> N (J1 - "Tl M- lTl VI M- CJ o :::l o M- -l < CJ o :::l o rt -l < n o 3: 3: lTl ::z -l (/l Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer NO. X. Solid Waste 1 5/20/82 DATE May 17, 1982 TYPE OF ACTION Review Only SUBJECT CORRESPONDENCE FROM VALLEY DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. RELATED TO GARBAGE RATE INCREASE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Accounting Division ISSUE: The attached letter, dated May 13, 1982 directed to the Board of Directors by S. Skaggs, attorney for Valley Disposal Service, Inc., requests reconsideration of the rates establ ished by the Board on April 15, 1982 and April 22, 1982. BACKGROUND: S. Skaggs has submitted this letter in response to the Board's suggestion that he document the garbage collector's position which he expressed at the April 22, 1982 Board Meeting. In his letter Mr. Skaggs indicates that the Board, in establ ishing the garbage collection rates using a 100% operating ratio, has not provided sufficient revenues to cover the projected interest expenses of Valley Disposal Service. It is also contended that the rates establ ished by the Board are unlawful, unconstitutional and confiscatory. RECOMMENDATION: This letter is submitted for review by the Board in its further consideration of the Valley Disposal Service rate increase appl ication. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION ING DEPT./DIV. ., .f . - DANIEL VAN VOORHIS' SANFORD M. SKAGGS' PALMER BROWN MADDEN KEN D. LITTLE PETER T. SAPUTO BRUCE S. SINGER MARIA RIVERA \LAN VOORHIS & SKAGGS . A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW FLAGG PLAZA.. SUITE 111 1855 OL YMPIC BOULEVARD POST OFFICE DRAWER "V" WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 945&6 (415) 937-8000 r;' ~~~rs:~ t,~ ,,~'r,,-:-~~~~~ ." d.. '.. .__.~...., "CV'" _ ,JdJ.Ll:t~-"'" . L. ,:,-.E:lf."'Il<1f.I...., . .'\. _.l"'.. .....I.:r- .............:oa.__~.:.~ M,cY 1 3 '82 May 13, 1982 f1~:':~:J t.) C~} h:E:Jiti/) infa Re~d by .<;':? (i~n.1<1gr-(;:1. E;1~.~~~-?'. ...... Oel')l;:li'~3~"3~" . . . .. ... ~-cret~~:I. .. . .. -..,..:. ".!. r" !"It... . .. ... [;,..r~. ~"'J.._~l. . . . .. . . ....~...I<J ...... ~.::.~: .:/...1...... .~.~~..s.J..3.. .. . . H Ptar.t O~e(aU::ns . . .. . . . ...... ~~1. S,sto (~::A!r~t;t":-Q ... ...... [ng:nt~rirl~............. . .. . .. Coli. Sl~1. .......... .... . . SpQc. Plcj. ......... HAND DELIVERED Mr. Allen Stanley, President and Members of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 1250 Springbrook Road Walnut Creek, California 94596 Re: Valley Disposal Service ...... . .... Ccn=(uct!~a .. . . :.. . ... .. .. .. ... Accounting .. .. . .. . . .. . .. .. .. . . . ... p.tr5()n~~1 ............ :::~:::::::::: /~r.:w~::d [;~\L Dear Members: At a recent meeting, I addressed you on behalf of my client, Valley Disposal Service, and asked for a reconsideration of your decision regarding increases in Valley's rates. During that meeting you suggested that I submit this letter to docu- ment our request. First, we believe that the Board may have inadvertently established rates which will not cover Valley's expenses. In particular, the rates fail to make provision for recovery of interest expense in the amount of approximately $75,000. You directed the rates be set at a 100% operating ratio and indi- cated that this was for the purpose of generating sufficient revenue to cover Valley's expenses, but not to provide a profit to Valley. The staff calculated the rates based upon the assumption that interest expense would be excluded and therefore, under the projections of Valley and your staff, there will not be sufficient revenues to provide for interest payments. This will severely hamper Valley during the period in which these rates are in effect. We submit that this inequity could be corrected by a simple order of the Board clarifying its intent and directing staff to calculate rates which would produce revenues sufficient to cover all expen- ses, including interest payments. We believe that this could be done without the necessity for a noticed public hearing, as it would merely be a clarification of your prior order. Secondly, we submit that the rates are unlawful, unconstitu- tionali confiscatory and unfair because the rates were expressly calculated only to generate revenues sufficient to cover expenses without any return to the owner. We made this Mr. Allen Stanley May 13, 1982 Page 2 argument to you in detail at the public meeting during which the commercial rates were established. We will not repeat those arguments here, except to say that traditional rate making procedures and the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of California require that a reasonable return on investment be allowed. To do otherwise is simply to confiscate Valley's assets and to devote them to public use. We respectfully ask that you set a date for a hearing to further 60nsider Valley's rates and to increase them to allow a reasonable return on investment. While we would prefer that this action occur immediately, we recognize that it may be the desire of the Board to postpone further consideration of the rate. If so, we would suggest that you now set a date which would allow for an increase effective July 1. A hearing during your last meeting in June or your first meeting in July would allow such an increase. Additionally, by that time, we would have some tentative figures regarding Valley's revenues and expenses under the current rate struc- ture. I do not intend to appear to make this request orally. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would ask your staff to communicate with me regarding your decision. Very truly yours, t1 . Skaggs SMS:kt/6 cc: Valley Disposal Service ({SD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. IV. Hearings POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE 5/18/82 SUBJECT HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON DISTRICT ANNEXATIONS 73, 75, 76, 77, AND 78 AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TYPE OF ACTION HOLD HEARING: D.A. 's 73, 75, 76, 77, & 78 SUBMITTED BY Dennis R. Hall, Associate INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Construction & Services Division ISSUE: The L.A.F.C. has amended the boundaries of several of the parcels included within the above-referenced District Annexations. The District must hold the subject hearing and consider testimony by affected property owners before taking action on the proposed amended annexations. BACKGROUND: The above-referenced annexations were sent to L.A.F.C. as required for the formal annexation process. L.A.F.C. 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 as D.A. 73-B, 73-C, 73-D, 73-E, 73-F, and 73-G; D.A. 75-B and 75-D; D. A. 76-B, 76-C, and 76-D; D. A. 77-B, 77-C, 77-D, and 77-E; and D.A. 78-B, 78-C, and 78-D. 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. Negative Declarations were prepared by L.A.F.C. for all of the amended annexations except D.A. 77-B, 77-C, and 77-D. District staff has reviewed and concurs with these Negative Declarations. E.I.R.'s were prepared by property developers (Theissen, Lavin) for D.A. 77-B, 77-C, and 77-D and were considered by L.A.F.C. to adequately address the environmental aspects of the subject projects. The four possible actions the District may take are: 1. Overrule any protests and order annexations as amended by L.A.F.G. 2. For annexations other than 76-D, 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 annexations as proposed. 3. In the case of Proposed Annexation 76-D, if more than 25 percent of the property owners having land with more than 25 percent of the assessed value of all land in D.A. 76-D protest the annexation, disapprove the annexation. 4. Continue the hearing at a future date on any particular proposed annexation as the Board deems necessary. Dewey Mansfield, L.A.F.C. Executive Officer, will be at the hearing to comment as necessary. 1~.4- e..~ 1 of 2 REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. <C<SD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. OS 10 n I VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN P IT N r>APER General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE SUBJECT HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON DISTRICT ANNEXATIONS 73, 75, 76, 77, AND 78 AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TYPE OF ACTION HOLD HEARING: D.A. 's 73, 75, 76, 77, & 78 SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Dennis R. Hall, Associate Engineer Construction & Services Division RECO~1MENDATION : (1) Open hearing, receive and review any testimon;y~: close public hearing. (2) Adopt Resolutions Ordering Annexation of all parcels as amended which have insufficient protests. (3) Take appropriate action as outlined above for any protested annexation. DRH/ d h Attachments REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION Page 2 of 2 /PtJd- dI/l V GEN. MGR'/CHIEF ENG. INITIATING DEPT./DIV. e~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE May 20, 1982 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION ORDER COMPLETION OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 73-A ADOPT RES. D.A. 73-A DENN I SR. HALL INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Construction and Services Division SUBMITTED BY ISSUE: The District must pass a resolution to finalize the annexation of the above referenced annexation. BACKGROUND: The District previously made application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the annexation of 10 parcels of land designated as District Annexation 73. L.A.F.C. has considered this request and has amended the boundaries of Parcels 2,3,4,S,6,and 9 to include additional territory. The District is concurrently hold~ng a public hearing on these amended parcels. L.A.F.C. did not amend the boundaries of Parcels 1,7,8,and 10, and has designated these parcels to be District Annexation No. 73-A. No publ ic hearing is required and the annexation of these parcels can now proceed. L.A.F.C. has adopted a Negative Declarationfor District Annexation No. 73-A. District staff has reviewed this Negative Declaration and concurs with its findings. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution concuring with the Negative Declaration and ordering the completion of District Annexation No. 73-A. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION .elf ~~ IEF ENG. INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE May 20, 1982 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION ORDER COMPLETION OF DICTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 75-A ADOPT RES. D.A. 75-A DENNIS R. HALL INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Construction and Services Division SUBMITTED BY ISSUE: The District must pass a resolution to finalize the annexation of the above referenced annexation. BACKGROUND: The District previously made application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the annexation of 10 parcels of land designated as District Annexation 75. L.A.F.C. has considered this request and has amended the boundaries of Parcels 2, 8 and 9 to include additional territory. The District is concurrently holding a public hearing on these amended parcels. L.A.F.C. did not amend the boundaries of Parcels 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10, and has designated these parcels to be District Annexation No. 75-A. No public hearing is required and the annexation of these parcels can now proceed. L.A.F.C. has adopted a Negative Declaration for District Annexation No. 75-A. District staff has reviewed this Negative Declaration and concurs with its fi ndi ngs. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution concurring with the Negative Declaration and ordering the completion of District Annexation No. 75-A. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION ~ DRH ~~ IEF ENG. INITIATING DEPT./DIV. CLW Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE SUBJECT May 20, 1982 TYPE OF ACTION ORDER COMPLETION OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 76-A ADOPT RES. D.A. 76-A SUBMITTED BY DENNIS R. HALL INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Construction and Services Division ISSUE: The District must pass a resolution to finalize the annexation of the above referenced annexation. BACKGROUND: The District previously made application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the annexation of 10 parcels of land designated as District Annexation 76. L.A.F.C. has considered this request and has amended the boundaries of Parcels 2, 3 and 6 to include additional territory. The District is concurrently holding a public hearing on these amended parcels. L.A.F.C. did not amend the boundaries of Parcels 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, and has designated these parcels to be District Annexation No. 76-A. No public hearing is required and the annexation of these parcels can now proceed. L.A.F.C. has adopted a Negative Declaration for District Annexation No. 76-A. District staff has reviewed this Negative Declaration and concurs with its fi ndi ngs . RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution concurring with the Negative Declaration and ordering the completion of District Annexation No. 76-A. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION M4 DRH t.~ HIEF ENG. INITIATING DEPT./DIV. CLW D Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE SUBJECT POSITION PAPER TYPE OF ACTION SUBMITTED BY May 20, 1982 ORDER COMPLETION OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 76-A ADOPT RES. D.A. 76-A DENNIS R. HALL INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Construction and Services Division ISSUE: The District must pass a resolution to finalize the annexation of the above referenced annexation. BACKGROUND: The District previously made application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the annexation of 10 parcels of land designated as District Annexation 76. L.A.F.C. has considered this request and has amended!the boundaries of Parcels 2, 3 and 6 to include additional territory. The District is concurrently holding a public hearing on these amended parcels. L.A.F.C. did not amend the boundaries of Parcels 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, and has designated these parcels to be District Annexation No. 76-A. No public hearing is required and the annexation of these parcels can now proceed. L.A.F.C. has adopted a Negative Declaration for District Annexation No. 76-A. District staff has reviewed this Negative Declaration and concurs with its fi ndi ngs . RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution concurring with the Negative Declaration and ordering the completion of District Annexation No. 76-A. , INITIATING DEPT./DIV. REWEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION JJI} h DRH t.~ CLW <((sD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE May 20, 1982 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION ORDER COMPLETION OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 77-A ADOPT RES. D.A. 77-A SUBMITTED BY DENNIS R. HALL INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Construction and Services Division ISSUE: The District must pass a resolution to finalize the annexation of the above referenced annexation. BACKGROUND: The District previously made application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the annexation of 10 parcels of land designated as District Annexation 77. L.A.F.C. has considered this request and has amended the boundaries of Parcels 2, 3, 4 and 10 to include additional territory. The District is concurrently holding a hearing on these amended parcels. L.A.F.C. did not amend the boundaries of Parcels 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and has designated these parcels to be District Annexation No. 77-A. No public hearing is required and the annexation of these parcels can now proceed. L.A.F.C. has adopted a Negative Declaration for District Annexation No. 77-A. District staff has reviewed this Negative Declaration and concurs with its fi ndi ngs. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution concurring with the Negative Declaration and ordering the completion of District Annexation No. 77-A. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION ~ DRH e~ CLW INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE May 20, 1982 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION ORDER COMPLETION OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 78-A ADOPT RES. D.A. 78-A DENNIS R. HALL INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Construction and Services Division SUBMITTED BY ISSUE: The District must pass a resolution to finalize the annexation of the above referenced annexation. BACKGROUND: The District previously made application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the annexation of 10 parcels of land designated as District Annexation 78. L.A.F.C. has considerd this request and has amended the boundaries of Parcels 1, 3 and 10 to include additional territory. The District is concurrently holding a public hearing on these amended parcels. L.A.F.C. did not amend the boundaries of Parcels 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and has designated these parcels to be District Annexation No. 78-A. No public hearing is required and the annexation of these parcels can now proceed. L.A.F.C. has adopted a Negative Declaration for District Annexation No. 78-A. District staff has reviewed this Negative Declaration and concurs with its findings. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution concurring with the Negative Declaration and ordering the completion of District Annexation No. 78-A. CLW REVIEWED AND RECOMMEI'!/DED FOR SOARD ACTION ,.o1ltJ. DRH e.~ INITIATING DEPT./DIV. <c(sD Central Cont Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE SUBJECT EXECUTE GRANT OF EASEMENT TO CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT ACROSS THE BATES AVENUE PUMP STATION PROPERTY, JOB 1379, PARCEL 7, CONCORD AREA TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE EASEMENT SUBMITTED BY Jay S. McCoy INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Construction and Services Division ISSUE: The Water District has requested the District to grant a sewer easement across this District's Bates Avenue Pump Station property. BACKGROUND: The Water District has an existing easement over the south 15 feet of the subject property. They recently installed a 36-inch water pipe in this area. The pipe was installed partially outside of their existing easement. The subject easement will create the necessary rights for the pipe as installed. Contra Costa Water District paid a processing fee of $200 to this District for staff \'wrk. RECOMMENDATION: Approve and execute Grant of Easement. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ~~ c((SD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER I VIA: SUBJECT TRAVEL POLICY NO.VI. ADM. 5/20/82 ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE May 17, 1982 TYPE OF ACTION Adopt Travel Policy SUBMITTED BY Paul Morsen, Admin. Dept. Mgr. INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Administrative Department ISSUE: A review of the travel procedures followed by the District to determine whether more specific guidelines are advisable has been requested. BACKGROUND: The District's travel reimbursement policy is described on the reverse side of the reimbursement form (Expense Report attached). The description is instruc- tional and is directed toward completion of the form and does not prescribe specific limiting guidelines for reimbursable travel expenses. No other District policy directives describing reimbursable travel expenses have been located. A review of travel policies of four public agencies disclosed detailed travel policy directives which indicate limiting criteria and approval levels. The major features of these policies are described below: Public Aqency Contra Costa County Policy issued in Administrative Bulletin dated April 23, 1982 City of Oakland Policy issued in Administrati ve Instruction dated April 8, 1976 INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Major Features Covers all County employees. Travel may be authorized: At County expense; on County time, without expense reimbursement. In-state travel in excess of three nights, require air travel, and in which the registration fee exceeds $25 require County Administrator approval. Out-of-state travel is required to be approved by the County Administrator or Board of Supervisors. Reporting on the conference or meeting is expected of employees upon return. Covers City employees, except Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, City Auditor and City Manager. Overnight accommodations require City Manager approval. Settlement report required within five working days. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION GEN. MGR'/CHIEF ENG. City of Walnut Creek Policy issued in Administrative Policy dated January 8, 1980 East Bay Municipal Utility District Policy Issued by Administrative Policy Statement dated June 6, 1978 Covers all City employees City Manager approval required when estimated expenses exceed $50, destination is outside seven county area, more than one employee attends conference of two or more days. Employees may attend conference at own expense but on City time with City Manager approval. Meal reimbursement - $25 per day, except set price meals at conference. Strict budgetary control. Travel reimbursement for City Manager, City Attorney, City Treasurer and City Clerk will be approved by Mayor. Covers all EBMUD employees. General Manager approves in advance all travel in excess of 100 miles beyond District's normal area of operations; Dept./Division Managers approves for less than 100 miles. Reimbursable expenses are: Transportation fares - travel by air, rail or bus at "coach" fare, except as authorized by General Manager; if the employee has traveled by other than public conveyance, reimbursement will be only for actual expenses up to a maximum of the allowable "coach" air fare from San Francisco or Oakland to the point nearest the destination. The Treasurer/Controller will audit all Expense Reports for compliance with District Procedures. By Board direction, the District General Manager-Chief Engineer approves in advance all requests for travel and conference requests where the expense to be incurred is less than $500 and in which the destination is within the State. Travel expenses which are beyond these limitations require advance approval by the Board of Directors. Department Managers approve the Expense Reports of their employees. The General Manager-Chief Engineer approves Expense Reports of Department Managers. Expense Reports for Members of the Board of Directors are approved by the President of the Board of Directors. At the May 6, 1982 Board of Directors meeting, staff research was discussed and areas to be addressed were outlined. The Board at that time indicated a desire to have staff develop a Travel Policy based on that discussion. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt attached travel policy. - REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION Instructions for Preparing Report (*-.-:,"'. ,-,-'..:y. (j>,.'" ....-..~''l :.\;~ ..' .._......,c~... ..--. -=-- , GENERAL 1. Use ink. 2. Attach ticket stubs, unused tickets, receipts for transpo,rtation and lodging, and entertainment expenses over $25. Where possible, also attach ticket stubs a'nd receipts for local fares, telephone and telegraph or any unusual expenses. 3. Submit report at end of trip. 4. Retain copies for your personal records. MI SCELLANEOUS Deductions for normal living expenses are entered as a credit to Section 2, "Special Expenses Paid by Employee." Rental Car Usage: When rental cars are used, payor charge the rental in a manner to obtain the allowable discount. Personal Car Usage: When personal auto is authorized in lieu of common carrier, amounts reported are the product ; of mileage and prescribed rate. Computation is shown in Section 1, Column 1. Amounts are reported in Section 1, Columns 2 or 5 as appropriate. SECTION 1, ExPENSE DIARY, PAID BY EMPLm:EE '" ,Report only expenses paid in cash or by personal check or credit card. Column 1 - City & Description of Expense: Show city of stay for each day. Column 2 - Transportation: Air, train, bus, auto costs or excess baggage costs incurred while traveling from headquarters to another location and return. Column 3 - Lodging: Cost of hotel or motel rooms paid by you. Column 4 - Employee Meals: Include your meals only unless special autnorization has been given to include --- -~.- family. Column 5 - Local Fares, Telephone & Telegraph: Telephone & telegraph expenses, common carrier or personal car expenses, including br'idge tolls, parking, taxi fees and tips incurred within vicinity of destination points .J of whi Ie on trip. . ...._ ..,.' ," .r'" Column 6 - Other: Include incidental expenses. Describe entries in Column 1. ... SECTION 2, SPECIAL EXPENSES, PAID BY EMPLOYEE Report other expenses paid in cash, personal check, or by personal credit card. Attach receipts for expenditures of $25 or more. Guest Meals and Entertainment: Identify guest and company represented. Report their expenses only. Employee's meals are reported in Section 1 above. Memberships and Club Dues, Service Pin and Retirement Expenses, Business Sponsored Meeting Expense: Identify recipient or business purpose. Enter all amounts as expenses. Other Special Expenses: Conference fees, registration fees, special equipment and supplies, etc. TOTAL PAID BY EMPLOYEE: Add Section 1 and 2 subtotals to determine total expenses paid by employee. EXPENSES PAID BY DISTRICT: Report total expenses whichwill be billed directly to the District separately. <((sD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District NO, POLICY & PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE May 20, 1982 SUBJECT SECTION REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSE Accounting ESTABLISHED BY: REFERRING TO: Paul Morsen, Administrative Department Manager POLICY It shall be the Policy of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District to reimburse elected officials, appointed officials and employees for travel activities that are related to District business. This reimbursement shall not exceed actual expenses and generally cover actual mileage, transportation, lodging, meals and other necessary incidential travel expenses incurred while on official District business in accordance with the following: PROCEDURE 1. Completed Travel Reimbursement Forms shall be forwarded to the Finance and Accounting Office (directions for completion are on the reverse side of this document) for payment. The President of the Board of Directors shall approve all Board Members' travel reimbursement documents. The General Manager-Chief Engineer shall approve all Managers' travel reimbursement documents. Department managers shall approve all travel reimbursement documents of those who are in their charge. 2. Reimbursable expenses shall be limited to the actual dates of travel which shall be as near the event as practical allowing for timely arrival and departure and the Carrier's schedule. Any additional time taken prior to or after the event will be at the Employee's time and expense. 3. The class of service shall be at the most economical available class of service by the carrier. For example, jet tourist is the standard for air travel. If a privately-owned vehicle is used, prevailing mileage rates will be used in computing reimbursement but in no case will mileage reimbursement exceed air coach rate to and from the destination plus local transportation costs. 4. All travel must be approved in advance by the Board of Directors if costs will exceed $500 or the travel will be to an out-of-state destination. Other travel shall be approved in advance by the General Manager-Chief Engineer. 5. The Travel Reimbursement Form shall be accompanied by receipts where practical. Travel advances are available from the Finance and Accounting Offi~e and must be approved through the normal expenditure approval process. Travel advances are deducted from travel reimbursement. 6. Board Members, the General Manager-Chief Engineer, and Managers are authorized to travel without prior approval for compelling reasons, providing reasonable effort has been expended to obtain prior approval. I SHEET 1 OF 1 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE May 18, 1982 SUBJECT APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 12 TO METCALF & EDDY TASK A AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZATION OF $261,026 IN SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUNDS TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE CONTRACT AUTHORIZE FUNDS SUBMITTjD BY . oye Kurasakl INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Division ISSUE: Board approval is required to amend the Metcalf & Eddy Task A Agreement and to authorize sewer construction funds. BACKGROUND: Metcalf & Eddy (M&E) is under contract to provide engineering services for the Stage 5A Project Completion Project. The cost ceiling approved in late 1980 was$1,304,736. At the time that the original contract was approved, many of the details of the work were unknown. As the work progressed, the original scope of work was changed. The original contract has been modified 11 times to date. At this point in the work, the steps leading to completion are reasonably clear. Amendment A-12 addresses the required changes Tn the contract: 1. Portions of the original scope of work have been deleted. The deletions recognize that some of the original project elements are not cost effective or that the work would be more appropri- ately assigned to another contractor/District staff. Amendment 12 would reduce the original cost ceiling by $183.626 (cost plus fixed fee). 2. Portions of the original scope of work require a greater effort than originally anticipated. Amendment 12 would increase the cost ceiling by $130,145 (cost only, no increase in fixed fee). 3. Work outside of the original scope of work has been identified and M&E is in the best position to provide engineering services for this additional work. Amendment 12 would add $273,807 to the cost ceiling (cost plus fixed fee). The net effect of Amendment 12 is to increase the ~l&E cost ceiling by $231,326 (includes 5% contingencies = $11 ,000). A summary of tfle changes is shown on Attachment I. An additional $29,700 is required to cover District staff time for project management, design review, coordination with SWRCB/grants management, printing, and bidding. The force account cost estimate is shown on Attachment I I. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION JL ~CU'J Approval of thi.s Contract Amendment by the State ~Jater Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is required prior to execution of the Amendment; however, SWRCB approval does not guarantee grant funding of tbis work. This cost was included in the revised 5-year Capital Expenditure Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Amendment 12 to the Metcalf & Eddy Task A Agreement contingent upon SWRCB approval and authorize $261,026 in sewer construction funds. Attachments REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV, GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. ATTACHMENT I Summary of changes to M&E Task A Agreement per Amendment 12 $1,304,736 Original Cost Ceiling (Amendment 3 dated Dec 1980) Cost of Deleted Work Multiple Hearth Furnace Testing ~ $141,268 Construction Manage~ ment on Corrosion Protection 42,358 Subtotal - $183,626 Additional Cost to Complete reduced scope of work HVAC Design Revisions to Plans & Specifications Project Management Misc. Expenses Safety Set Meetings with SWRCB Scum Line Design Loca 1 Travel Subtotal Additional Cost For New Scope of vJork Engineering Services during bidding F.P. Corrosion Protection design Chlorine Exclusion from HVAC design Computer Room HVAC design Emergency Lighting design Main plant corrosion pro- tection design-additional cost Influent Gate operator design $67,019 31,813 16,830 4,1 24 4 ,1 00 3,531 2,118 610 $130,145 $60,000 49,855 42,611 41,174 22,316 19,378 9,692 - 1 - ATTACHMENT I Additional Cost For New Scope of Work (continued) Final Effluent flowmeter design Preaeration tank gate design Starved air Combustion analysis Repackage barscreen contract Scum gate control design Fuel oil storage area alarms Su btota 1 Net Cost Ceiling Increase Amendment 12 Cost Ceiling Contingency* @ 5% of $220,326 = M&E Increase $8,069 6,690 6,000 3,500 2,322 2,200 $273,807 $220,326 $1,525,062 11 ,000 $ 231,326 *Because the work will be accomplished on a cost plus fixed fee basis, a 5% contingency is appropriate to accommodate minor changes in the work. - 2 - ATTACHMENT II Summary of Force Account Cost Estimate Engineering Division $25,000 Project Management Design Review Grants Management Advertising Printing Bid Review Construction & Services Division 2,900 Plans & Specifications Review Bid Review Treatment Plant Oper. Department 1 ,800 Plans & Specifications Review Total Force Account Total added cost of Amendment 12 Total requested authorization $ 29,700 231 ,326 $261 ,026 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE May 12, 1 982 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZATION OF AN ADDITIONAL $5,300 FOR INSTALLATION OF WASTEWATER SAMPLER SYSTEMS AUTHORIZE FUNDS SUBMITTED BY John Larson INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Manager, Engineering Division ISSUE: Funds have been previously authorized by the Board for purchase and installa- tion of influent and primary effluent sampler systems. Additional funds are required to complete the project. BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors authorized $87,200 for engineering, purchase and installation of wastewater samplers in the primary area of the plant. On May 15, 1980, a contract was awarded for the installation work (McCrary Construc- tion - DSP 3346). The contract was accepted as complete on September 9, 1980. Upon start-up, the primary effluent sampling system worked well; however, the system for sampl ing raw sewage had several probl ems. Since operation of the raw sewage sampling system was critical to the operation of the Biological Phosphorus Removal Pilot Plant, interim improvements were made in the spring and summer of 1981. This extra effort has resulted in a budget overrun of $4,150 on the project. The system is nearly complete and has been in satisfactory operation since September 1981. However, there is a need to relocate level alarm switches from the Pilot Plant and install a screen on the sampler having larger openings. The estimated cost for these items is $1,150 (a cost breakdown is attached). With the budget overrun and the additional items required, an additional $5,300 is needed. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize an additional $5,300 from the Sewer Construction Fund for completion of wastewater sampler systems at the Treatment Plant. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION CLW INITIATING DEPT./DIV. 1- for-- JAL e~ WASTEWATER SAMPLING SYSTEMS COST BREAKDOWN May II, 1981 Alarm Design: 4 hours @ $20/hour Level Switch Cable: 200 feet @ $0.50/ft. Installation: 8 hrs. @ $20/hour Incidentals & Inspection $ 80.00 50.00 100.00 160.00 50.00 Subtotal $ 450.00 Hydrasieve New Screen (0.100" openings) Installation: 2 hrs. @ $20/hr. Incidentals & Inspection $ 600.00 40.00 60.00 Subtotal $ 700.00 TOTAL $ 1 , I 50. 00 , <((sD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. VII. Eng. 2 5 20 82 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE May 18, 1982 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH METCALF & EDDY AND AUTHORIZE $8702 FROM SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUNDS TO DESIGN A FOUNDATION FOR THE ELECTRIC AERATION BLOWER TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE FUNDS AND CONTRACT EXECUTION SUBMITTED BY Curt Swanson Associate En ineer De t. ISSUE: An additional design effort was required for the foundation under the electric aeration blower. Funds are required to pay for this change in scope of work. BACKGROUND: Metcalf & Eddy (M&E) is under contract with the District to provide professional engineering services for design of the electric motor-driven aeration blower system. Installation of this blower is part of the Stage 5B Project. When Brown and Caldwell designed the Blower Building for the Stage 5A Project, space was provided on the first floor for future aeration blowers. The space layout and structural loading of the first floor was based upon the assumption that the future blowers would be steam turbine-driven blowers like the two existing blowers. The District and M&E originally thought that the existing floor was capable of supporting an electric blower. However, as design proceeded, it became apparent that the floor could not support the heavier electric blower. In addition, two new holes will be drilled through the first floor which reduces its ability to support a load. M&E is recommending that the electric blower be installed on a separate foundation with the load transmitted through concrete columns to the basement floor. District staff concurs with this recommendation. The need for a separate foundation design was not anticipated when the scope and cost were negotiated for M&E's services. Amendment No.6 has been negotiated for the increased scope of work. Amendment No.6 is a cost plus fixed fee type of contract. The total cost of the amendment is $8,702, which includes a fixed fee of $1,035. Design of the electric blower is eligible for funding under the Clean Water Grant Program. Page 1 of 2 REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION INIT~~T'/DIV' ~~ RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute Amendment No.6 to the Task B Agreement with Metcalf and Eddy. Authorize the expenditure of $8,702 from Sewer Construction Funds for this work. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION Page 2 of 2 · CO)J1'PT./OIVo GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE May 18, 1982 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF PLAN REVIEW FEES, INSPECTION FEES, AND MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES FOR PRIVATE SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS DISCUSSION SUBMITTED BY Ron Kl imczak INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Divisi on ISSUE: A discussion of the proposed fees and charges for private sewer construction projects is appropriate prior to the June 3, 1982 publ ic hearing. BACKGROUND: At its last meeting the Board set June 3, 1982, as the date for the pUblic hearing on fees and charges for private sewer construction jobs and authorized District staff to publish a notice of the public hearing. Prior to the public hearing, the District staff would like to review the proposed schedule of fees and charges and to obtain any comments the Board may wish to make. Information on the proposed schedule of fees and charges is attached: Attachment A presents both current and proposed fees and charges for each of the services that the District provides for private sewer construction projects. Please note that the proposed inspection fee for mainl ine inspection has been presented in three options ranging from a uniform fee for all projects to a sliding scale for reduced unit cost on larger projects. Attachment B presents the basis for the unit costs for each of the proposed fees and charges. All costs have been inflated at an annual rate of 10% for 1982-1983. Attachment C presents examples showing the impact of the proposed fees and charges on various sizes of projects. The date for implementation of the proposed fees and charges is July 15, 1982 to allow a minimum 30-day notice following the June 3, 1982, public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the proposed fees and charges for private sewer construction projects and the July 15, 1982 implementation date. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT.~y./ /~RSK JL ~~CLW ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED 1982-83 FEE SCHEDULE FOR PRIVATE SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Activity Current Charges (as of Fe(1977) Proposed Charges i ncl. 10% Escalation 7/1/82 INSPECTION: A. Mainline Inspection $l/L.F., $100 min 3 options: *(a) $1 .63/L.F., $287 min (b) (Jobs<400'):$3.64/L.F, $287 min. (Jobs?4001):$1.3'1/L.F. *(c) $287 base fee + $1.40/L.F. *For a 11 jo bs $32 each B. Lateral, House Connection (or Side Sewer Alteration) Inspection $20 each ($10 each) C. Side Sewer Repair Inspection D. Overtime Inspection $10 $20/hour $10 (no change) $38/hour PLAN REVIEW E. Sewer Design Plan Review $0.20/L.F., $100 min $0.73/L.F. $292 min (2 prelim + 1 final) $37 ea (3rd & subseq. review) $55/review after 1st submittal F. Incremental Review of Final Sewer Plans $50/review after 1 st submittal MI SC ELLANEOUS: G. Engineering for Private Sewer Projects . Structure only . New Sewer Extension $100 Estimate Req'd $370 Estimate Req'd H. Permit Processing $2 $2 (no change) ATTACHMENT B CALCULATION SUMMARY A. Mainline Inspettion 1978-1980 Summary 1978-79 79-80 $198,776 186 ,309 $252,528 291 ,536 2 Yr Tota 1 $385,085 $544,064 Revenue deficit - $158,979 (Length of pipe installed - 385,085 L.F Updating Adjustments: . All original salary costs escalated each successive fiscal year . Inspection staffing permanently reduced from 11 to 9 . Vehicle rental rate increased from $2/hr to $2.50/hr . TV inspection rate increase from 33~/ft to 36~/ft. (1981-1982) Actual Costs Total 1978-80 District Costs Costs Incorporating Costs Incorporatinq Assumed Ad'ustments to '81-82 10% Escalation for 182-83 $544,064 $572,236 $625,810 $625,810 385,085 ft = $1.63/L.F.(Min$287) Option (a): Proposed mainline inspection fee = Option (b): Develop different fee based on length of sewer main project involved (use 1977-78 study data): .-- ~----_._--- 1977-78 District Costs, Projected 1982-83 Dis Job Total Length Per. L. F . Costs, Per L.F. (Assu Ca te_9or.v #Jo bs L.F. Salar.v ! Vehicle i TV Total Labor cost Escalated 1 L 400' 11 I 2,316 $1 .91 24~ 33~ $2.48 $3.64 ~ 400 6 12,575 56~ 5~ 33~ 94~ $1 .31 trict med 0%) Proposed Mainline inspection fee for 1982-83 (Jobs<400') $3.64/L.F. (Min.$287) (Jobs2400') $1.31/L.F. - 1 - ATTACHMENT B Option (c); Include minimum, base fee of $287 in fee for all projects; $287 X 300 jObs/2 yr period $625,810 - 86,100 = $539,710 = $86,100 $ 53 9 , 71 0 385,085 = $1.40/L.F. Proposed Mainline Inspection Fee = $287 Base Fee + $1.40/L.F. B. Lateral, House Connection or Side Sewer Alteration Inspection 1978-80 Summary 1978-79 -$121,100 79-80 $ 96,260 $152,300 161 ,719 2 Yr To ta 1 $217,360 $314,019 Revenue deficit = $96,659 (total No. of connections for 1978-1980 1 0,868 ) Actual Costs Total 1978-80 District Costs Costs Incorporating Costs incorporating assumed 10% Adjustments to '81-82 Labor Escalantion for '82-83 $314,01 9 $320,703 $349,202 Proposed Lateral Inspection Fee = $349,202 = $32.13 = $32.00 each 10,868 D. Overtime Inspection Ave. inspector hourly = Salary rate +40% Accounting = Truck Hourly Rental Rate = 1 981-1982 $20.77X 1 1/2 = $31.15 1982-1983 Assumed - Escalation of 10% $34.27 $1. 00 1.10 2.50 2.50 $37.87/hr Proposed Inspection Overtime charge = $38/hour - 2 - ATTACHMENT B E. Sewer Design Plan Review I Revenue @$0.20/L.F. Actual Costs 1978-80 Summary 1978-79 $57,469 79-80, 49,827 $118,111 136,734 2 Yr i Total 1$107,296 $254,845 Revenue deficit = $147,549 (Length of pipe reviewed"'" 500,000 L.F.) Ac tua 1 Co sts Total 1978-80 District Costs Costs Incorporating Costs incorporating assumed Adjustments to '81-82 10% Escalation for 182-183 $254,845 $332,483 $365,731 Proposed Plan Review Fee = $365,731 500,000 = $0.73/L.F. Min = $292 (2 prelim + 1 Final) $37 ea.(3rd & subsequent rev.) F. Incremental Review of Final Sewer Plans Ac tua 1 Co st per Review 1981-82 Projected Cost per Review 1982-1983 (Assuming Labor Esca 1 at i on 10% Staff Salary Cost + 40% Benefit $49.26 $ 54 . 1 9 Vehicle Cost at $2.50 per hour 1.25 1.25 Tota 1 = $55,44/Review Proposed Fee = $55/Review (2nd and subsequent sUbmittals) G. Engineering for Private Sewer Projects . Structure only- Actual Cost per Review 1981-82 Projected Cost per Project 1982-1983 (Assuming Labor Escalation 10%) Staff Salary Cost + 40% Benefit $329.38 8.00 Total = $362.32 8.00 $370.32 Vehicle & Equipment - 3 - G. . Structure only (continued) Proposed Structure Engineering Fee = $370/Structure . New Sewer Extension - Extimate required for each project - 4 - ATTACHMENT B :::E:U'l -0 o NO o ......3. Q.>Q.> M- ...... (1)~ ~ Q.>Vl ......(1) Vl:::E: (1) ~ ...--.....--.....--.. n c- Q.> II II II ~~~ ""-I 0'1 00 N U'l...... 00 U'l U'l ""-100 ""-""'........................ ........................... n c- Q.> II II II ~~~ ............ ...... ......ON '" .. '" U'l00+::- ""-I +::- +::- ""-100 --- ('"") ~ ...... o o o ~ W 0'1 U'l o - ~ U'l o o o ~ +::- o o ......... ~ 0'1 +::- o - ~ 0'1 +::- o o :::E:...... -0 o U'l0 r- Q.>3 M-Q.> (1) ...... ~~ Q.> ...... Vl Vl(1) :::E: (1) ~ ~ N o o ~ ""-I W o - ~ ...... o o o ....--.~r-- n c- Q.> II II II ~~~ ............ ...... 0'1 W 0'1 00 ......W ""-100 .................................... ~ ...... o o ~ ...... 0'1 o - ~ ...... W o o -.................. n c- Q.> II II II ~~~ NNN U'l N U'l ""-ION ""-100 --- ......... OJ - :::e::...... -0 o N ......3 Q.>Q.> M- ...... (1) ~ ~ Q.>Vl ......(1) Vl:::E: (1) ~ ~ ...... ......... ~ N 1.0 N ~ - ~ ...... ........................... n c- Q.> II II II ~~~ +::- W N N 0'1 00 ""-I +::- ""-I --3 ...... ~ - ........................... n c- Q.> II II II ~~~ ""-I ""-I 0'1 00 N +::- wow --- ......... ~ -c ~ o (1) n M- o o 3: ...... ~ 3 ...... o o ('"")3: CQ.> ~ ...... ~~ (1) ~ ....... M-~ Vl -0 (1) -on ~M- 0...... o ~ rr1 >< ~ 3: -0 r- rr1 <.n ~ +::- o ('"") r- CQ.> ~M- ~(1) (1)~ ~Q.> M- ...... ~ 0'1 +::- ~ N +::- o ('"") c ~ ~ (1) ~-I M-O M- Q.> ...... ~ -I -I ~ ('"") ::I: 3: rr1 :z -I ('"") -0 " ~(1) 0(1) o Vl (1) 0. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. 5 -;;"0 - ~ VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE May 6, 1982 SUBJECT POSITION PAPER TYPE OF ACTION SUBMITTED BY ESTABLISH TIME AND LOCATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED NEW SQHEDULE OF PLAN REVIEW FEES, INSPECT- ION FEES, AND MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES FOR PRIVATE SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE Ron K I i mczak INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Division ISSUE: A new schedule of fees is required to reflect the current cost of plan review, inspection, and other services for private sewer con- struction projects. A public hearing is required prior to the adoption of a new schedule of fees. BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors has previously discussed this matter at the July 16 and October I Board Meetings. Copies of the position papers discussed at those meetings are included as Attachment I. The position papers outlined the approach used in the overall fee analysis, presented a proposed fee schedule, and compared the proposed fee schedule with similar fees charged by other agencies. The fees previously proposed have been revised and are presented in Attachment I I. The revisions are: The fees have been increased to reflect the estimated 1982/83 cost of living salary increase of 10%, and The fees have been reduced to reflect the current level of staffing (9 inspectors vs. II inspectors previously). The District staff has been working closely with Mr. Dean LaField of the Building Industry Association of Northern Cal ifornia to insure that he has all appropriate background information. RECOMMENDATION: Establish June 3, 1982 as the date for the public hearing on the proposed new schedule of plan review fees, inspection fees, and miscellaneous charges for private sewer construction projects and authorize District staff to publish a notice of the public hearin9. Attachments REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION INITIATING ~T~. i t.RSK V'6 JL e ~ CL\4 JSM ATTACHMENT II PROPOSED FEES AND CHARGES FOR PRIVATE SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ITEM CURRENT RATE PROPOSED RATE Mainline Inspection Fee Plan Review Fee Lateral , House Connectio (or Side Sewer Alteration Inspection Fee Overtime Inspection Fee Incremental Review of Final Sewer Plans Engineering Charge for Private Sewer Projects Permit Processing Fee Side Sewer Repair Inspection Fee $l/L.F., $100 min $0.20/L.F., $100 min $20 each ($10 each) $20/hour $50/review after 1st submittal $100 - Structure only Estimate - New Sewer Sewer Extension $2 $10 As of 7/1/82 (add 10% 1982-1983) Option (a): $1.65/L.F., 299 min Option (b): (Jobs ~400'): $3.64/L.F. $299 min (Jobs 24001): $1.31/L.F. Option (c): $299 base fee + $1.41/L.F. O.73/L.F. $292 min (2 prelim + I final) $37 ea (3rd & subseq. review) $32/hr $38/hr $55/review $371 - Structure only No Change No Change No Change ATTACHMENT I July 16,1981 Board of Directors Meeting REVIEW OF PROPOSED, UPDATED PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION FEES FOR MAINLINE SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS October 1,1981 Board of Directors Meeting REVIEW OF PROPOSED, NEW SCHEDULE OF PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION FEES AND MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES FOR SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS -'-""---'~-----'-----'-------"-'------"------""'---------~"-----_..__.__._-"._--,-_._---~--,..._'"-_.._..-.~_.._._..._---,-_..__..--.~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. VI!. ENG. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE May 18, 1982 SUBJECT ESTABLISH A HEARING DATE OF JUNE 10, 1982 TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CHARGES (EQC) TYPE OF ACTION ESTABLISH DATE FOR HEARING SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Clark L. Weddle, Deputy Chief Engineer Engineering ISSUE: It is necessary to give the public an opportunity to comment on proposed changes to EQC. BACKGROUND: In past years, the Board conducted hearings on EQ charges for the purpose of putting these charges on the tax roll. At these hearings, the Board always allowed the public to comment on the amount of the proposed charge as well as the determination whether it should be collected on the tax roll. A law passed within the last year makes it mandatory to hold hearings on any changes to rates and charges, including EQC. June 10 will be the proper time in the budgetary cycle to hold a public hearing on any necessary change in our EQC. A separate hearing will be scheduled in July to consider placing the charges on the tax roll. RECOMMENDATION: Establish June 10, 1982, as the date for a public hearing on changes to Environmental Quality Charges. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION CLW eJ:,o:J INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. VII 1. Budget & Fi nan e 8 5/20/82 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE May 18, 1982 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION 1982 - 1983 EQUIPMENT BUDGET Budget Approval SUBMITTED BY Wa 1 ter Funasaki, Fi nance Offi ce INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Accounting ISSUE: Board approval of the District's 1982-1983 Equipment Budget will be requested at the May 20, 1982 Board Meeting. BACKGROUND: The 1982-1983 Equipment Budget was submitted to the Board of Dirctors at the May 6, 1982 Board Meeting for initial review and calendared for approval at the May 20, 1982 Board Meeting. The total Equipment Budget requested for the next fiscal year is $295,195. District staff will be prepared to respond to any questions which the Board may have regarriing the Equipment Budget. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the 1982-1983 Equi pment Eudget in tre amount of $295,195. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION