The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 02-18-82 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE February 16, 1982 SUBAt3fHORIZE GENERAL MGR.-CHIEF ENGR. TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH W. A. GOLOMSKI & ASSOCIATES AS QUALITY CIRCLE CONSULTANT WITH EXPENSE TO BE CHARGED TO TYPE OF ACTION PERSONNEL INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Administrative SUBMITTED BY Gail B. Koff, Personnel Officer BACKGROUN): In December 1981 staff presented the idea of Quality Circles to the Board and received support to explore the possibility of implementing such a program at the District. As a means to evaluate this concept, a committee was formed of District personnel representing each District department and each employee representation unit. The use of this participative problem solving technique has been used in several District work groups. The interest and enthusiasm of the employees involved suggested that a formalized District-wide program would be beneficial. A determination was made that an outside consultant was necessary to help assure program success and to expedite the necessary training. The committee received proposals from and interviewed five consultants, and based upon their evaluation, the firm of W. A. Golomski & Associates was chosen. This consulting firm will establish the basic program within the District and provide training materials for present and future growth, and will be available to aid in any problems that arise during inception of this program. The fee includes 20-25 days of consulting service by two professionals in the human resources and Quality Circle fields. The program, which will be introduced at the managers/supervisors' dinner, will be implemented by mid April and conducted in four phases (1) District-wide orientation; (2) facilitator(s), group leader(s) and steering committee training; (3) Circle tr'aining; and (4) overall evaluation. The requested expenditure of $14,000 includes actual consultant fee plus travel and expense, as well as, anticipated associated expense relating to implementation of the Quality Circle program. Although the expense was not budgeted in the Administrative Department for fiscal year 1981-82, it is still anticipated that the department will be under budget at the end of this year. RECOMMENJATION: Authorize General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute an agreement with W. A. Golomski & Associates as Quality Circle Consultant with expense to be charged to Administrative Department. IEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION itary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO.V. Adm. 1 2/18/82 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE January 16,1982 TYPE OF ACTION Personnel SUBJECT APPROVE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY DINNER PROGRAMS ON A SEMI- ANNUAL BASIS SUBMITTED BY Gail B. Koff Personnel Officer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Personnel Division ISSUE: The District requests to have the Management/Supervisory Dinners held on a semi-annual basis. BACKGROUND: Last year the District addressed a need for Managers and Supervisors to meet together informally to discuss mutual topics of concern and interest by arranging a Management/Supervisory Dinner. The success of that dinner led to a second dinner in November 1981. The District believes that the dinner provides an essential communicative channel between management and its supervisors and recommends that these dinners be held on a semi-annual basis, in March and October of each year. We intend to provide more formal ized programs at future meetings which all participants should find both interesting and informative and intend to provide funds for this item in next year's budget. It is our intent to use the March 1982 Dinner Program as the initial "Kickoff" for our Quality Circle Program. It would also be our recommendation that staff through a rotational system, invites two Board Members to each dinner. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Management/Supervisory Dinner programs on a semi-annual basis. EVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION , (((sD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. IV. Consent Cal. 2 2 18 82 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE February 16, 1982 SUBJECT ADOPT A RESOLUT ION CONCURR I NG WITH CCC BOARD SUPERV I SORS TYPE OF ACTION RESOLUTION NO. 82/134 ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES & FORMULAS TO BE ANNEXATION USED IN DETERMINING TAX INCR\EMHNT/EXCHANGES.rIN 'ANMEXJ\liliON SUBMITTED BY ,JAY S. MCCOY, MANAGER INITIATING DEPT./DIV. CONSTRUCTION & SERVICES DIVISION ISSUE: The County requires concurrence with their resolution setting forth formuli and procedures to be followed in determining tax increment exchanges in annexation situations where Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99.1 is applicable. BACKGROUND: The County of Contra Costa negotiated a formula for exchange of property tax revenue with the East Bay Municipal Util ity District and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, the concept of which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 7, 1981 to be in effect through October 31, 1981 which date has been extended to April 30, 1982 by the above Resolution No. 82/134. In order to implement the tax exchange as negotiated, the County Auditor-Controller has developed specific formulas as set forth in Exhibit A and as illustrated in Exhibit B, both attached. The formulas illustrated are in keeping with the verbal agreement previously reached. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution concurring with County Resolution No. 82/134. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION c~ JSMcM:dw EXHIBIT A (/ FORMULAS FOR PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGES Section 99.l~ Revenue and Taxation Code NOTE: "ATIAF" stands for Annual Tax Increment Allocation Factor (Revenue and Taxation Code sec. 98e) FACTORS: A = The annexing agency's ATIAF in the newly annexed territory. B = The factor by which each affected local agency's ATIAF is multiplied to determine the portion of each local agency's ATIAF to be transferred to the annexing agency. (.. .' C = The annexing agency's ATIAF in a tax rate area presently served by that agency having a similar combination of agencies to that in the proposed annexation ("representative tax rate area"). Ll' L2' L3 etc. = The ATIAF's of the local agencies in the tax rate area being annexed whose ATIAF's are subject to transfer to the annexing agency. LT = The combined ATIAF's of those local agencies. 51' S2' S3 etc. = The ATIAF's of the jurisdictions whose ATIAF's are not suoject to transfer (i.e. Schools) per R & T 99.1. I. ST = The combined ATIAF's of those agencies not subject to transfer. I NL1, NL2, NL3 etc. = The ATIAF' of each local agency in the new tax rate area created,by the annexation~ FORMULAS: First, determine the annexing agency's ATIAF for the new tax rate area: C.'.: ,. A = C x (Lr + .5 x ST) Second, calculate the factor for reducing each local agency (excluding schools): B = A :- LT Third, determine each local agency's ATIAF for the new tax rate area: NL! = Ll - (B xL!) NL2 = L2 - (B x L2) etc. EXHIBIT B (, Example of application of tax exchange formulas for R. & T. sec. 99.1 annexations. ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Sanitation District Z is annexing territory. Its ATIAF in a tax rate area served by a similar combination of agencies is 5%. 2. The ATIAFS in the tax rate area, a portion of which is being annexed, is: (Ll) (L2) .(L3) (L4) (Sl) (S2) County City A Special District B Special District C School District D Community College District 25%} .15% 6% 9% 35% } 10% Lr = 55% ST = 45% (..... . .. Total 100% 100% Step 1 A = C x (LT + .5 x ST) A = .05 x (.55 + .5 x .45) = .05 x .775 = .03875 Step 2 B=A;Lr , B = .03875 x (1 t .55) = .03875 x 1.81818 = .07045 " 1'.; :".. ~~ Step 3 County: NL1 = L1 - (B x L1) = .25 - (.07045 x .25) = .23239 = City A: NL2 = L2 - (B x L2) = .15 - (.07045 x .15) = .13943 = . 23.239% 13.943% Spec. Bist. B: NL3 = L3 - (B x L3) = .06 Spec. Dist. C: NL4 = L4 - (B x L4) = .09 (.07045 x .06) = .05577 = 5.577% (.07045 x .09) = .08366 = 8.366% Sanitation District Z .(the annexing district, factor A, above) 3.875% School District D (unchanged) Community Co11egeDistrict (unchanged) 35.000% 10.000% TOTAL 100.000% ATIAF's in new tax rate area r Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE February 16, 1982 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION RE-INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORMALLY ANNEX PROPERTIES CONTAINED IN DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 73 PREVIOUSLY RE-INITIATE ANNEXATION BY THE DISTRICT ON AUGUST 6, 1981 SUBMITTED BY Jay S. McCoy, Manager INITIATING DEPT.!DIV. CONSTRUCTION & SERVICES DIVISION ISSUE: The Local Agency Formation Commission is requiring this District to re-initiate our original appi ication for annexation of District Annexation No. 73. BACKGROUND: Recent State laws require that whenever properties are proposed for annexation into a Special District which will provide a service not previously provided, all affected agencies must negotiate to determine a tax sharing plan. If they canlt agree on a plan the Board of Supervisors has the authority to determine the exchange of property tax revenue. The required negotiations have been completed and an agreement has been reached between the County and this District. The District Board previously re-initiated the application for annexation of District Annexation No. 73 on August 6, 1981. The Executive Officer of LAFCO has now requested this District to again re-initiate our application for annexation of District Annexation 73. RECOMMENDATION: Pass a Resolution Re-initiating application for annexation of properties to CCCSD under District Annexation No. 73. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. JSM ~~ CLW San BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. Consent Calendar 4 2 18 82 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE February 11, 1982 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION RE-rNrTIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORMALLY ANNEX PROPERTIES CONTAINED IN DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO.s 75,76,77,78 ANNEXATION SUBMITTED BY Jay S. McCoy INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Construction and Services ISSUE: The Local Agency Formation Commission is requiring this District to re-initiate our original application for annexation of District Annexation No.s 75,76,77,78. BACKROUND: Recent State laws require that whenever properties are proposed for annexation into a Special District which will provide a service not previously provided, all affected agencies must negotiate to determine a tax sharfng plan. If they can't agree on a plan the Board of Supervisors has the authority to de~ermine the exchange of property tax revenue. The required negotiations have been completed and an agreement has been reached between the County and this District. The Executive Officer of L.A.F.Co. has now requested this District to re-initiate our application for annexation, RECOMMENDATION: Pass a Resolution Re-initiating application for annexation of properties to CCCSD under District Annexation No.s 75,76,77,78. . REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/ON I NITIATI NG DA; /I~. '1/0v7JSM ~~ CLW BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOConsent Calendar 5 2/18/82 SUBJECT POSITION ftAPER I VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN r"'.... General Manager-Chief Engineer AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A, 82-3 (DANVILLE AREA) AND P.A. 82-4 (CLYDE AREA) TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT. DATE February 11, 1982 TYPE OF ACTION ANNEXATION SUBMITTED BY Jay S. McCoy INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Construction and Services Par-cel No. Area Owner Address Parcel No. & Acreage Remarks Lead Agency 82-3 Danv. John Bissett 634 El Pintado Rd. Danvil1e, CA 94526 197-161-038 0.96 AC. Existing house - Septic tank has failed. District to prepare "Not i ce of Exempt i onll . :CCSD 82-4 Clyde \n 11 i am C. Venc ill Forni I.R.C. 1153 Trust 1010 Oak Grove Road Concord, CA 94518 159-040-049(Ptn) 7.60 AC. Property is portion of proposed Subd. 5882, which is zoned light in- dustrial - "Negative Declaration" by C.C. Co. County RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 82-3 and 82-4 to be included in a future formal annexation to the District. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 7?~ JSM ~~ CLW ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. ng. 1 2/18/82 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE February 10, 1982 SUBJECT ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL EIR AND FACILITIES PLAN FOR THE STAGE 5B PROJECT TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE EIR SUBMITTED BY Curtis Swanson, Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Division POLICY ISSUE: Should the Final EIR for the Stage 5B Project be approved and certified in accordance with state and local requirements? Should the Stage 5B Project as recommended in Final Facilities Plan be approved? BACKGROUND: The District completed a Draft EIR and Facilities Plan for the Stage 5B Project in early December, 1981. The recommended project provides conventional secondary treatment for wastewater flows up to 45 MGD (average dry weather flow). Also included in the recommended project are new facilities for separate secondary sludge thickening and dewatering of combined primary and secondary sludges. The estimated design and construction cost for the recommended project is $13.3 million. The Draft EIR was made available in all libraries within the District service area. The Draft EIR was distributed to federal, state, and local agencies for review as well as to certain local organizations and citizens. A public hearing for the Draft EIR was conducted on January 27, 1982. The District received several written comments on the Draft EIR in addition to the verbal comments at the public hearing. These comments have been addressed in the Final EIR. There are no comments which will alter the project recommended in the Draft EIR. Most of the comments received are expressions of support for the Stage 5B Project. The Final Stage 5B EIR must be approved and certified by the Board of Directors as being in compliance with CEQA and District regulations. The Board must also approve the Final Stage 5B Facilities Plan to be able to proceed with design of the project. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution which approves the Final Stage 5B Facilities Plan and certifies the adequacy of the Final Stage 5B EIR. Attachment REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION ENG. IN{J;oYT'/DIV.CWS '-~ JL ~;CLW Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer NO. VI. Engineering 2 2 18 82 DATE February 16, 1982 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF $255,000 IN SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUNDS FOR DESIGN OF THE TYPE OF ACTION SUBMITTED BY Curtis Swanson, Associate Engineer AUTHORIZE FUNDS AND CONTRACT EXECUTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Division POLICY ISSUE Should the agreement between the District and John Carollo Engineers for preliminary design of the Stage 5B Project be approved? Should the expenditures of sewer construction funds for design of the Stage 5B Project be authorized? BACKGROUND The District has completed facilities planning for the Stage 5B Project and is ready to proceed with design. The Stage 5B Project will provide conventional secondary treatment and sol ids processing for wastewater flows up to 45 MGD. The District staff requested proposals for design of the Stage 5B Project from nine consulting engineering firms. Five proposals were received. After interviewing each firm, the District staff selected John Carollo Engineers to provide the necessary design services. The District engineering staff has negotiated an agreement with Carollo for the preliminary design phase. This agreement is a cost-plus-fixed fee type of contract. The total cost for the preliminary design phase is $255,000. The staff intends to negotiate a contract amendment for final design of the Stage 5B Project near the end of the preliminary design phase. At that point, the scope of work for the final design phase should be sufficiently defined to allow the use of a lump-sum type of contract. It appears that the cost for design of the Stage 58 Project must be financed solely by the District. The staff is still attempting to obtain Clean Water Grant funding for construction of the Stage 58 Project. If construction grant funding is obtained, there is a possibility that the Di~trict could be reimbursed for a portion of the design costs. This relmbursement depends on the regulations being prepared by EPA now. The Stage 58 Project is included in the District's Five-Year Capital Expenditure Plan. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION W INITI~ME17'/DIV. C- I ~ CWS v/J JL RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute the agreement with John Carollo Engineers. Authorize the expenditure of up to $255,000 in sewer construction funds for this work. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION '.'T'^{!JVg"'V'CWS GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. JL CLW <(J Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO'VI. Engineering 3 2 2 VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN DATE POSITION PAPER General Manager-Chief Engineer February '1, 1982 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT 9 TO THE TASK AGREEMENT TYPE OF ACTION ~ WITH METCALF & EDDY FOR INVESTIGATION OF SEISMIC STABILITiyAPPROVE CONTRACI AMEND- OF MAJOR STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT OF THE STAGE 5A PLANT MENT & AUTHORIZE FUNDS AND AUTHORIZE $63,800 IN SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUNDS J INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Division SUBMITTED BY BACKGROUND Metcalf & Eddy (M&E) is currently under contract to provide engineering services for the Stage 5A Project completion work. During their evalua- tion of the precast concrete wall panels, M&Els subconsultant (H.J. Degenkolb, Associates) noted that the seismic restraint systems in the primary chemical feed building and the influent diversion structure were missing. Work is in progress to correct these deficiencies at no cost to the District. Based on a preliminary review of the Brown & Caldwell design drawings and a tour of the treatment plant, H. J, Degenkolb personnel felt that there may be further deficiencies with the seismic design of the remaining structures constructed under Stage 5A Phase I as well as deficiencies in seismic restraint of the equipment. Under this proposed contract amend- ment, M&E and their subconsultant will review the original design calcu- lations and details and they will perform an independent analysis of the structures and the equipment. While this information will pertain mainly to the Stage 5A project completion work, the output will also be used in the design of the Stage 5B solids handling facilities. The proposed contract amendment is for $63,800. This cost will be considered for eligibility by the State Water Resources Control Board under the Clean Water Grant Program; however, grant funding cannot be guaranteed at this time. This work was not anticipated in the five-year capital expenditure plan. RECOMMENDA TI ON Authorize GM-CE to execute Amendment No. 9 to the Metcalf & Eddy Task A Agreement. Authorize $63,800 in Sewer Construction Funds to cover this work. INITIATING DEPT./DIV. f . r::::d) J K ....::/{,(J i";;fC. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION V/../ JL 111M CLW rfU' I f,,~ GN <<:<SD Cen'trai Centra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. VII. Wtr. Pol Contra Plt POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE February 16, 1982 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION BOARD ACCEPTANCE OF 1981 ANNUAL SELF-MONITORING REPORT Acceptance of Report Robert A. Baker INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Plant Operations Department SUBMITTED BY Issue: The Central Contra Costa Sanitary Districtls Self-Monitoring Program1s Annual Report for 1981 has been prepared for submission to the California State Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. 3ackground: All effluent requirements were met through the year with the exception of seven nonzero chlorine residual tests out of 3,784 hourly readings recorded. These nonzero chlorine residual events were caused by various chlorination/dechlorination control problems. The seven nonzero chlorine residual tests represent an 0.08 percent error rate, which is about half of last yearls rate and probably as low as is practicably achievable. Chlorine decay studies by the laboratory indicate that two of the seven nonzero chlorine residual events would not have resulted in a violation in the receiving water. Despite the handicap of the many mechanical and construction problems which have not yet been remedied by the Plant Completion Project, the staff succeeded in producing a superior quali.ty effluent. The effluent biochemical oxygen demandand total suspended solids averaged 7 mg/l and 6 mg/l respectively, considerably better than the 30 mg/l Regional Board requirements. Most other effluent quality parameters were similarly better than the requirements. The average dry weather flow was 32.1 MGD; the yearly average flow was 36.5 MGD. Upon acceptance of the Self-Monitoring Program's Annual Report by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District1s Board 6f Directors, the report will be submitted to t~e Regional Water Quality Control Board. Recommendation: Acceptance of the 1930 Self-Monitoring Program's Annual Report. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. fAB R.A.B. c(~D Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. V II 1. Budget & Fi nan I-e 1 2/18/82 POSITION ftAPER I VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN r"""" General Manager-Chief Engineer SUBJECT 1981-1982 SIX MONTH 0 & M BUDGET REVIEW DATE February 8, 1982 TYPE OF ACTION Comparative Budget Review SUBMITTED BY Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer INITIATING DEPT,/DIV. Accounting Division ISSUE: A comparative review of actual and budgeted Operations and Maintenance revenues and expenditures for the first six months of the current fiscal year has been performed. BACKGROUND: The results of the review of the actual and budgeted Opera- tions and Maintenance revenues and expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1981 are summarized in the following sections. District Revenues $13,236,000 was recorded from all revenue sources through the six months ended December 31,1981, representing 85.3% of the $15,511,000 of total revenues budgeted. The principal revenues budgeted are $12,671,000 of Environmental Quality Charges and $2,200,000 of Service Charge Revenue from the City of Concord. $12,708,000 of Environmental Quality Charges were recorded as revenue through December 31, 1981; $12,330,000 of which has been credited to the Dis- trict's account through the Contra Costa County's property tax rolls. $530,000 has been paid by the City of Concord as an advance payment of one-half of the service charges for the first six months of the current fiscal year. The balance of the budgeted service charge revenue of $1,669,000 is considered to be a reasonable approximation of the remainder of the billing to the City of Concord for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1982. As the two principal revenue accounts budgeted are considered to be fully achievable, the total budgeted revenues of $15,511,000 is projected to be realized in the 1981-1982 fiscal year. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT,/DIV. GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. District Expenditures A comparison of actual expenditures and budgeted expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1981 is shown for each department in the following summary: YR-TO-DATE ANNUAL YR-TO-DATE EXPENDED DEPARTMENT BUDGET EXPENDED UNEXPENDED PERCENT Administration $1,569,161 $ 719,040 $ 850,121 45.8 Engineering 1,748,666 835,939 912,727 47.8 Collection Sys- tems Operation 2,070,435 1,008,626 1,061,809 48.7 Plant Operations 9,202,529 3,984,036 5,218,493 43.3 Pump Stas-North 647,555 239,531 408,024 37.0 Pump Stas-West 408,330 169,468 238,862 41.5 - $15,646,676 $6,956,640 $8,690,036 44.5 - As shown, the total District expenditures of $6,956,640 represented 44.5% of the total budgeted expenditures of $15,646,676. All departmental expenditures were less than 50% of their budgeted expenditures as of this mid-year juncture. Explanation for major causes of underexpended or overexpended conditions within departmental expenditure accounts for the six months ended December 31, 1981, and a general projection of expenditures for the twelve months ended June 30, 1982 are provided in the following sections. Administration Department: Expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1981 totaled $719,040, representing 45.8% of the annual budgeted expenditures of $1,569,161. The underexpenditure of 4.2%, or $65,540, is primarily the result of: lower than anticipated property insurance premiums having a $13,733 effect; legal fees being less than budget by $34,896; a $20,000 savings in election expense as Board Members were unopposed in the November 1981 election; a $38,856 under- expenditure for Deferred Compensation Plan contributions, which merely reflects the inherent lower contributions during the first half of the fiscal year caused by the FICA wage ceiling being determined on a calendar year basis; and an overexpenditure of $23,211 for data processing consulting services which were not budgeted. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. Based on the expenditures for the fi rst si x months of the fi sca 1 year and available information, the Administration Department is projected to be $79,000 underexpended for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1982, $25,000 of which is in Legal Services, $14,000 in Property Insurance and $40,000 in Election Expense. Engineering Department: Expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1981 totaled $835,939, representing 47.8% of the annual budgeted expenditures of $1,748,666. The 2.2% underexpenditure of $38,394 is primarily the result of less than budgeted salaries and wages and related employee benefit expenditures due to unfilled staff positions, offset by capitalized salaries and wages and related employee benefits being less than budgeted. It is projected that while salaries and wages and employee benefits will be less than budgeted for the fiscal year, capitalized salaries and wages and employee benefits will reflect a commensurate decrease and the department's net expendi- tures for the fiscal year will be substantially equivalent to budgeted expenditures. Collection System Operations Department: Expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1981 totaled $1,008,626, representing 48.7% of the annual budgeted expenditures of $2,070,435. The 1.3% underexpenditure of $26,591 is primarily the result of non-management salaries and wages and related employee benefits bei ng underexpended due to unfi 11 ed staff positions, offset by an $18,532 overexpenditure in Claims Expense caused by a higher incidence and larger average claim settlement for sewer overflow claims. The potential underexpenditure in non-management salaries and wages and related employee benefits for the fiscal year is likely to be offset by overexpenditures in claims settlements, as has occurred in the first six months; therefore, the department's total projected expenditures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1982 are anticipated to be substantially equivalent to budgeted expenditures. Plant Operations Department: Expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1981 totaled $3,984,036, representing 43.3% of the annual budgeted expenditures of $9,202,529. The 6.7% underexpenditure of $617,228 is primarily the result of the following causes: Non-management Salaries and Wages and related Employee Benefits are under- expended by $93,000 as a result of unfilled staff positions and reductions in overtime pay in the Maintenance Division. However, it is anticipated that the expenditures for the fiscal year will be substantially equivalent to budgeted expenditures as a result of staff positions being filled and the effect of budgeted salary increase rates being less than rates of increase granted. . REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. GEN, MGR./CHIEF ENG. . Natural Gas expenditures were $88,800 less than budget for the first six months because rate increases were lower than anticipated and because of energy conservation efforts. A projected underexpenditure of $202,000 for the fiscal year is expected based on current gas rate and usage assump- tions. . Lime expenditures are underexpended by $71,355 for the first six months due to reduced usage resulting from lower odor problems because of the absence of hot spells 1 ast summer and improved plant process controls. As a result, it is projected that 1 ime expenditures wi 11 be $119,000 under- expended for the fiscal year. Polymer expenditures are underexpended by $64,155 for the first six months reflecting a large purchase for stockpiling at the end of the prior fiscal year to take advantage of a favorable price. It is projected that Polymer expenditures will be at budgeted levels by the end of the fiscal year. Electrical expenditures are less than budget by $61,613 for the first six months because the timing of rate increases did not correspond to budget assumptions; however, it is projected that Electrical expenditures will exceed budget by $28,000 for the fiscal year. General Repairs expenditures are underexpended by $51,542 primarily because of the deferral of centrifuge repairs totaling $45,000. It is projected that this account will remain underexpended by the same amount at the end of the fiscal year. Sludge and Ash Removal expenditures are underexpended by $41,912 because of decreased sludge production resulting from lower lime usage and improved process control. A sludge hauling rate increase effective November 1981 will offset the effect of decreased sludge production and cause projected expenditures for the fiscal year to be substantially equivalent to budgeted expenditures. . . . . . Other Chemicals expenditure were underexpended by $34,212 for the first six months due to decreased odor control requirements. It is projected that this account will be underexpended by $40,000 for the fiscal year. The balance of the underexpenditures was within accounts in which the variances were less than $10,000 during the first six months of the fiscal year. These accounts are projected to be substantially equivalent to budgeted expenditures for the fiscal year. The Plant Operations Department is projected to be approximately $400,000 underexpended for the fiscal year because of a $174,000 favorable variance in Utili- ties expenditures, a $119,000 favorable variance in Lime expenditures and a $107,000 favorable variance in Chemical and Repair expenditures. . REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION INITIATING OEPT./OIV. GEN. MGR.lCHIEF ENG. Pump Stations - North Expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1981 totaled $239,531, representing 37.0% of annual budgeted expenditures of $647,555. The 13.0% underexpenditure of $84,246 is primarily the result of lower chemical expense for odor control made possible by a changeover to a less expensive chemical and a concerted odor control program as well as lower electrical requirements due to equipment modifications and revised operational procedures. Pump Stations - North's projected expenditures are estimated to be $130,000 underexpended in Other Chemical expenditures for the fiscal year. Pump Stations - West: Expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1981 totaled $169,468, representing 41.5% of annual budgeted expenditures of $408,330. The 8.5% under- expenditure of $34,697 is primarily the result of $14,710 underexpended for Other Chemicals due to improvements in odor and sulfide control, and $10,476 underexpended for Electrical usage caused by use of auxilliary diesel pumps during the winter. Pump Stations - West's projected expenditures are estimated to be $29,000 under- expended in Other Chemicals expenditures for the fiscal year. Conclusion: Recognizing the limitations inherent in projecting expenditures which are largely dependent on operational requirements, particularly in the Plant Operations Department, the following summarizes the projected 0 & M revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1982: Budgeted revenues are projected to be realized. . . Departmental expenditure variance projections: Administration Engineering Collection System Operations Plant Operations Pump Stations - North Pump Stations - West $79,000 underexpended 400,000 130,000 29,000 underexpended under expended underexpended $638,000 underexpended ,EVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION