HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 10-01-81
,....ft~
.:.,.:..... .&'
.. !'~ ,'.
"~ Ii~ '\.
_. ,''J ii .~
'~~~u~
~
Cea"Qtral Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO. IV.
~~d& ~ ~~71%1
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
September 25, 1981
SUBJECT
TYPE OF ACTION
APPROVAL OF TIMEC COMPANY AS THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER
FOR BID REQUEST TP-3-8l82, ASBESTOS REMOVAL
AWARD OF CONTRACT
SUBMITTED BY
Robert A. Baker
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Plant Operations Department
Issue: The District has advertised and requested bids for asbestos removal, Bid
Request TP-3-8l82.
Background: Removal and disposal of asbestos insulation was approved by the Board
of Directors on July 2, 1981 for a cost not to exceed $49,000. The bids were
solicited from four separate companies. The bid was also formally advertised.
There were four respones to the bid; one from Timec Company for a cost of $25,700;
one from Austin Salvage Company for $44,500; one from o. Erickson, Inc. for $43,750;
and one from Li-Co, Ltd. for $62,000. Analysis reveals that Timec Company is lowest
responsible bidder.
Additional funds beyond the Timec contract amount will be expended on this
project for force account work and for asbestos monitoring. However, it is not
anticipated that the $49,000 Board authorization will be exceeded.
The Timec Company bid meets all of the technical requirements of the bid package
for a cost of $25,700 plus a contingency of $2,600.
Recommendation: Acceptance of the Timec Company bid as the lowest responsible bidder
and award contract.
'"
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
RAB
,
T'
~l
Y:J
...I W ~
~ v
i
..
0- W
~ u
i
IL.
J :'(\
-
j -, ~ w J
, U .~
-- '~ it
, -'
+ ~ -' IL.
, .- ., "
'- "
::-...: , .. - -'-.
... ;:;- ~ .....""" -
0 .L
I( 'J c.: ,~ '\' w
, 0- U
, I '- , ~ Z ii: -- >
- ;)
i".- :j .. " ,
l5 I- f
CD
~ i)
;) :
Z t; .. , -I w \i
~ " , ~ U
w .- i:
:t .j " ~ ~
... c....... -' IL.
, " c'
;\ .. i \
,01 -r" '::1
- - .' .,
J \,j .." -
..; '--' ,\\ W
- l: V
c.J.. '.,., ~ ii: .f\
.~ -':1 L
" -~ .J
)
.~
~.
~ ~ W .-
, '" u '..r
.' S it \-\'
.) '. f-,':: 0- IL.
- ":j-
'e :j- I
.' .~ ,
I' I ."i", I
" I..' w
-- i
.- r' U
'. -- ~ i: ..~ "
) 5 ... ,.
,)
---' ',\
.
~ -';, r ~ W ..J
'"" u
,:> - J J ~ i: ~
. ... V'
) .- - ~ -::
S~ u " ..\
; ,: -: ,
.~ .,
. IJ, , J \, ;
(~j .. ) ('(' ,,-
ry -.:J .J 0- W
, "J Z V '" .-
\ 2-t -r- ::>> ii:
) .. .. -.
z .> ) -'
f ~
a: '-t~
~ -
II: ~ ,
Q , w 0 " .-1 ./
~ --' ~ g :i ~ w 0: I. ,~ .. ::. )
a:: El i Q -"
II: D 8 w ... ~ 0 5 ,c, '-' .) .. ,
i -<t a:: g 0- m ... !i u 2 '. .- .'" ~ /\
Z 0 g 0 d a: 0( . : '.., 'J
w 0 << M .. ., -t,
.> 0( a a .: 0 s: ... . ~
t- " , ~ i oJ)
.. 'J
!( t -- . .' > ~
- . ~ -.-'
, Q < .,' ~._- .. .J-=
'J . '....'
- ) - ..;..
-::, ~ - .>
, ~ ,I -
, , Ii
en C' :::: .- -- ~
Q ~ ~ .'
Cii ,.~ '..... -
z " ..)
, ~ .- ~ - ..1..0
110 .. '\.,
0 " I ~ ','
.... 0: .:0 -, ;.J .J
Z j . ~ "'.-'- ,
<, .. I "'- oJ
0 '0 I '.. .~ ',I .. 1- , -r
.. Q - --
- Q " " ~ .J (, '"
... ~ _. ~ .. .. , IJ
c( ) '---.[ I -
"J " ;~ .'; ~ C, \ ..
.... r ~
~ <J - .. , .
r -.U ,
f.: ", .. I'''~ I'~
CQ - . .J
:! ':0 ~ .. ~ ;-..!
\- '. ~ ., ,J v'
-- .---~ ~ { '"
I" ..J ...:>
I- I i ,\
\ u \~
c f
\1 , ~ ..
Q ~ .. 0(
z .. ... , ::>> ~
- "
.. 0 0: " a
:I Z .. "
:I 0 c Z
0 i .. ~ :-
l:l :.
. c c II: ~ g
& ~ W "-," 1'1 c~
!::
-
Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO.V. Consent Caldendar
2 10/1 81
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
September 25, 1981
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 81-25 (WALNUT CREEK AREA) TO BE
INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT
TYPE OF ACTION
ANNEXATION
Jay McCoy
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
CO 11 ec t i on S
SUBMITTED BY
Parcel
No.
Area
Owner
Address
Parcel No. & Acreage
Rema rks
Lead
Agenc
81-25
W.C.
The FRC Company
1078 Ca ro 1 Lane
Lafayette, CA 94549
139-071-003
0.78 Acres
Two existing homes both
on failing septic systems,
District to prepare "Notice
ofl Exemption"
CCCSD
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 81-25 to be included in a future formal
annexation to the District.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
e~ CLW
F ENG.
~~11 ~;~"'_~" ~ \ ~~TR \5 \ "'3 ,n:..~.$~ - - ~~jY~~: :~I" '0 "'''~~ ~~
;0 1 ~ ,\ "Ol'/. '27 C 1':< 30 +V./ ~'5"'- ~~ 64 \ 45 ~O" \'2' I _ ~" '"
,\ S'" Ie Q '28 2 ,,~\ [ '" \ 101 \ / _ ..:::. ~ ~
15 ~ al' /~ '_ 36;" 31 W/'I / 30 ~9 ..~8 7~ 16' 30 31
1 {. _f, r-~~\~4 '~o 3332 b~ '-'. 40..fi'r~1l 105 ';;'~'3 ~ ~ 36" 16 ......~~~ '
o ",\~",,1Q~l; \!A~ \\s! ~ 1~41\ "; 9 '33\ ;1 - C ~~5 l\~40 ~~ t __ ~/"~
~~~ .t.;~~ 7 148~' E" 43 8 109 i!.~~ 29'" ~ -.>- ~I 1 \ cT ~1 t'--..J....J.. 0
M': ~.1~6 431~",:;: '344 3435~~~\' Ot.~~6'f~~ 16 "'~ ~ i ~ ",-,,12~
..\'t./".J}......~_, ~ 0\"'AI&9 ,;0.. 7 ~ ~ ~ ~J" :a ~ .. 1.. 40 ~~30 ~,:~o \9
~ ...:::' ~i'l n 0 '48~",\" ~ --- ...........,..,.;. 45 ~26 J' 1~14"" .54! ~ 1_ 111 'U If
~<t '..,t'o i ~... 158 ", \......:- ;.;-~ E 5 .. ~~l 3. r:>~~~.. \----' 27",-" I ESS\'i...\.,'
~~ \ ~.f ,<> 2 _/ ~O\'," ,,~:.\; '" "M ~
\~~ ~_ ~ ~"\~I!>..f>,,"l //~ MT. DIABLO ~,~'J'ED ~-l~~:~~\~51 <;2 ~; i~~" ~2
-::;;.." .::; ~~~,a\II~~dl:-<""_<~ SCHOOL~ ~9 <3 ~V ~\ 2~ W'II \\~y.q( 46 ~ \ l _ IW
~ '" \-:.r~_,~ 6iJ ~ ~~:s ~Z4 1931 AC 41 \ 9 ( 'I>H 6 l ~
\.-.-l;. ~ ,\-<t-"'-16' II.."'~ \''-'''''23 1,88? 3 t:}~~0 .~,. ~ ~
1flJ>C' 6 \ _~~~9\~":~ ...\E.SL.. , 8~lh14 . ':::...0 \ ' 14 \ -.. ~4 __ Yla)-.q I'D ,', 1 ~ , '; .~
\0 ~ / '~G.'f>~ ~ '/.'/. - . \,.M r~ \ 35 _-' ~""~ 19>-"8~2.-;' _I
& ~.., / . ~ l\. C~ ..- \ '" - ~\'\'1 145\ 15 "~I f-- \ ~ u.~.... ~ I
~. i-;....../~ \~.~~orn;~o \~ CEl)I\O 1~.i1IZ""" ~148\ ~ ~_ r30' ~21 ~ ~ ;~~~ \3 ~18~1~11
~ 9 ~ l8~ rl'i \\1 ~ t~;3~}- I js ~...----- 0 4 I(),["'a.~,hl" ,
I ~ ~ ~\ lJ\ ~l(.~ ..J ~~f"14 C ~ I==w83 92 I'" t- f-' v-..... , ~ ~ 5 - \L ci--'
'" p.- 61' ... H t.RI 28~\..... \------ X /' ~ \ \: 2.6 1\ \
~_'~36 -.;; /S-/1/2 \ , Ifll:>;;j, '::!: '; ":00 \-. '22 6 S'-' 8 9 zz - -
. 43 c~ 0\ \~O 9:" \.-. _ 18 _. 20 gI~ '.f--..- 3 27
66 OJ> ~5 _ ,( ~ \ 75 80 85 \.--- ["AN"
~\~..l!'ill~O 37 \.~ ~ MOUNT DIABLO 65~ ~ 70 J ~ft ; \ II -t---~ _\40/~~ 42 43 c' 'l ~ _ .4130~AC ~ ~7
tl":" . B-1 2. . .,. UNIFIED P ~~) ~< .. - r \ 98 L ~ 'Q-ZA.1 45
~45 \29 ;01 ~< \35~'" SCHOOL DISTIlICr 0 xl~1 7\ 78\87 ,\~ \%-1 \ 122 ~I '-~~-IO~il~~\U~ ~\.\.E I
441 r 'T 1.._ ...u:!.,\ 2<. . 748AC ~ .\ '~ ,,", 34\ ~~3~3~~O ,'" co \.-d ~
)Qj81iR-,Q.VliiI'~,. ~ -r 4540"39----1 20 ~~1..,zr\6., _ J Ci
;;;;;;:;.{'~'---" 7~ D~~ t\ ~\ \. 548,,,'4: 5':- ~- ~I~- 35 I _ -\--~~ 'f,9 1,8 1.17 1 -l ,~ 6: 6~_.
'4 3 ',"'\J' _------ '21 .'':..'Lu~ "\~\ 59 ~ ~ \j) \-'-.0 24 '"I" / ~
T- 15 -r=-- I~~ 61 ) \.. . -~O\l 50 51 \ 31 ... 3u-, 25 ~ I .,. + '-.c::; .
), ." _~ 20'~ ~.....,;;.;~ _....- ~9~..... a:; 3 42 ~. 37 36 ~ OR \ I ~ :-?f" ~ "R~O\.
. 12 ',' ',SlJe . ,\' 'OBICE:IlZ0j :::;:==-r:" 60, 1,,46..;. \1 \ 5 ,~-' G' ~6'~7 -I 7!1- /7' 7
-Jb,..IO I 7 ~9\ 103 \ 48'J I ~~\ ~ ~ t"' ~ ="
o 7, ~\ ' -' 105j ,,~1I5 /~\ _ ~.BO\."'OO 10 _-'" r;- 9 \ O(o<l'~ 2. i!:lze;~",
tp~2~ I 2 6\ 4 ~091110r-- I \""--, ...-- "~I~I,\5A ~ 't, \ 6\ \' Z T ~~. ~ _ I,,'}
, .l.. It", 6~. 2' "''1 "~~~~. ----'A/ 116 ~~:I16111.B~:TDWI....- \0 d>~ 'Il I'TH ~~\.
~ .\ ~ \ 140 '\l131 132 0 P ~C:'8'1~ J!- If> SuB 5 ~CT_ 37 .
30 - .A /142 ~- .. 176AC 34 [( 36' 5811 ~~115~\"V\40 \ ~ 2. z!> -~ S,.,..-c \ R.L~I"'<
,35 11\ ~ T--- 1= \ ~,~130 \)) 'I 57~ ';. 'S:~l~ -;;,"" ~~.~.,\ ~i ~~~ ~~8~ ~c
~3 _ ~!2 \~;;.~\:iL.. .b . \\\ .>>---J "'-5 II \~O -.J." j ~3\ 3-\' <!'- o$" ~ \ ~~ 10""\ 'II ~~
~_ ~JYJI.. F",\'''''' 7\~137 144) 28 '~5 120 3~c~ _ -1.3 5)~ ~~.....J-- A \' ,_......\
r--~ ~,~ ~ .~- \ ~ x-v<€ ti -:"".--- V40! \ ~ \~!> \'I~}iTTER7- I" \>-.31
3 ~ r ~ .A".. 127 '-/~~"flO --r-= . A ~ !>~~ ~."-.... ~ FE: __ 45 \\\... \ .ITO.! Ie r/ 60 ~.Q)I'l.!;?"V
\ ! -r-- /s /125; lOll! lJ.-r".. .......0 0 0" \~ ...-\.IIUR\.STO ~~
SJ~ ~ ~ ~or--jif'_ ~_ I \""Yt~y 110 16 '\45 ~~ ~ ~ - rn~')-
c ~ f!~ t- :t~ '~II - : /~.iI"D COli ~... ..... II' ir:t ." ~2 .... ~~ ~ 6;,.\ 57 - ~"" ':.~ I
~ == N28127~ DR __"'0-- ::- C4S 40E ests:. {nR i~~'; /. 1~6~~d;: Tl;, ~"~~<ll~r~:U. t.1.8 '
~ ~ ,~...J.-.---- ~ S II ' C ~t i.11< i.1S/iOA 59 I~ ~515 ';"l~l 'I' ;r,"':-"lI!'>"
I ~ = ~:; 25 ~;~ ~47 / .... t '~'5 ....... .~ : $- 60 ST( NE AVEN ~/~~~
c- 3 4 b..A. l-- ---.J ~P4~"'EtD~[S ~ ~ 200 AC 13: ~:::...;;. I~ 12 14 ..18~~ I
, ~I--- 36 b-~"or.~~ 5 1'-- r I-'L V- :$. W ~ 41'
~ ~,: ~~:~: ~~ ~: ~~ ~~C~d.:.:i'_.~~...... 1... ",: . ..' 3"" ~:. ~t :~:~,j~
8 11 \j'5X '\ - S~p~\~~ .3..... 31',\1~440' ~ 'tl'~7~ f)::il/jB.~: .. . 8 ~ I;;;- 72 ; ..~
:; . V'~ ~I 0 -fJ.l.iOS:
c ~\o ".:a u 0111 E
t QUI 5 '---=. !.'/ ~ 10/ " ~'.. CO,R1E~"lt5.' . r-liH I
~ --: zd ~~ 55 - ~ ,; ~J/'~ '.'/. ;;.-" ~ 4 ",:l. I S ~. :X,::,W:;;' 984 AC ~I '.'k")Lg96 ~ E Et ~
! ~ J ~ -J.g '\ f-- ~;, 0 1_" ~ c~<r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (I, ,~j .:.:.:....:.:-:.::: ~j:L~ ~/"'Z''' 2 to ~ ~-'. --;t :~~.;, ^
I-- S'P,?/ aI', 9 ~ 44 -~ 38) !.~ ~ 25/'. 4!.. ,,:::::,.r~r'~ ';;I 78 ~ ::::: ~,
- g 11 (0/52 ~,46 ~~ ~~<P NAir~1 :ut.t'4tJ l..J~~ ,./281291 ~.... ~~ .4 ~
~ :13c6C1 ,1, e\:~ -;;- ~~~ 4~ ~~:~~ ~ SNYDEII CT 19 18 ::i t " 10. .IE....~' ~42 AC ~~"37 L:
I 'f< S~. 58 ,.... <'l --:, ,A tb.~r.lIo ~~l'--I-!;( ... ~86 8
.. ~C'~,J , 20 " ~ ..........32 ..c-- ~\L"lI< 21 " ~ I ' ~
!:= " ~ - -:i - -' :ft \~ ~.~ ; .~
S '-'5 36~ :5 60~ 59:5 6~,_ - ~ 18,"~~";:; -~ ~6 I~ ~StJB>- 1418 l~ I I~
~ Cl ~ ~ ~ ~::--......'(/ ~':;,:;.. ~ gll' 2to, 26.\~7 z ~ 8-/.985 ~? 6
1 g 0 - 4.L g ;:) w 4.~ 4l?~'.. 5 16 14 ,~ b..4 2S -..~\ C DR gz ~ ,0- - -0- -f-
~- ... "'" II( 'I ~:;-r' S MT DIA81.0 UNIFIED " I_~
il~ .; ','A:: ~i:~;~:~~,"';""'::o~::~:~~:~;i .~..~ B",:::~""dj~~
f? A~~; 8/~25
c((SD
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO. VI. Engineering
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
September 18, 1981
SUBJECT
TYPE OF ACTION
ACCEPTANCE OF DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 3474, NORTH PARKING LOT
ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT
Edwin J. Anderson
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering/Construction
SUBMITTED BY
ISSUE: The Contractor, Gallagher & Burk, Inc., has satisfactorily completed
construction of the Project. The Project is ready for acceptance by the District
Board of Directors.
BACKGROUND: On March 30, 1981, District entered into an agreement with Gallagher
and Burk, Inc., for the modifications to the North Parking Lot at the Treatment
Plant. The Contractor satisfactorily completed all construction work on
September 16, 1981, including all change order and punch list items.
RECOMMENDATION: The following Board actions are recommended:
1. Accept Contract Work for Project No. 3474.
2. Authorize filing the Notice of Completion with the Contra Costa
County Recorder.
3. Authorize final payment to the Contractor 35 days after the Notice
is filed provided no claims are received.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO. VI. Engineering
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
September 28, 1981
TYPE OF ACTION
SUBJECT
POSITION PAPER
REVIEW OF PROPOSED, NEW SCHEDULE OF PLAN REVIEW AND
INSPECTION FEES AND MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES FOR SEWER
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
DISCUSSION
SUBMITTED BYJ S M C
ay . c oy
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Collection System/Engineering
BACKGROUND: Revised plan review and inspection fees for mainline sewer
construction projects were presented to the Board for comment at the
July 16, 1981 Board meeting as part of the staff's current overall
review of the District's rates and charges.
At that time, the Board emphasized its intent to insure that the basic
sewer service fee (EQC) annually assessed to all dischargers is not
used to subsidize the District for costs associated with reviewing
plans and inspecting sewers for new private developments. In other
words, all fees should be set commensurate with the District's cost
for providing the required services.
In addition, the Board directed staff to review the inspection fee
calculations to determine whether any changes could be made in the
level of inspection which would thereby reduce the costs and conse-
quently the magnitude of the proposed fee increase. The Board also
expressed an interest in seeing a comparison of the District's pro-
posed rates with those rates currently charged by other Districts.
District staff has completed a detailed review of the proposed plan
review fee and inspection fee calculations and has incorporated
several changes in the analysis resulting in revised fee increase
recommendations. In addition, several other related fees were
evaluated and new, proposed rates have been developed for these
miscellaneous charges.
APPROACH: Refer to Table A for respective proposed rates for the
following District services:
(a) Plan Review and Inspection Fees -
The approach selected for reviewing the current plan review
and inspection fees was based on analyzing the fees collected and the
actual District costs of performing the services over a representative
two year period of time (1978-1980). Once the District costs were
"inflated" to account for applicable wage increases in 1981 and 1982,
the IIcurrent" costs were compared with the quantity of sewer pipe in-
stalled over the two year period to develop the proposed new fees.
Prior to making this calculation for the new inspection fee, the salary
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
P;7~SM
r:~~ CLW
Sheet 1 of 7
costs were reduced to account for the reduction in inspection staff
from 11 to 9 individuals that has occurred subsequent to the two year
study period. This permanent staff reduction is reflected in a lower
inspection fee ($1.55/L.F.) than originally proposed to the Board on
July 16 ($1.90/L.F.).
Two alternative approaches were also investigated for the proposed new
inspection fee. The first alternative approach was based on the premise
that new sewer mains which are installed in new subdivisions normally
require comparatively less inspection effort than sewer main installa-
tions which are located in existing roads or easement areas. Since
traffic control and existing utilities would not normally affect a new
subdivision sewer installation, less inspection effort is required there-
by justifying a lower inspection fee. Using detailed cost information
developed in 1977 for a number of sewer projects, an alternative two-
tier inspection fee was developed with 400 feet being the transition
point above which a lower inspection fee would apply. Those projects
greater than 400 feet in length would be charged $1.23/L.F., whereas
those projects less than 400 feet in length would be charged $3.37/L.F.
The second alternative approach developed was based on charging every
development a fixed charge of $278 plus a uniform $1.33/foot regardless
of the length of main involved. This approach has the effect of
creating a reduced cost per foot inspection fee since the base fee
($278) in effect is spread over the total length of sewer to be in-
spected.
Table B shows representative inspection fees that would be charged for
each of the three approach~outlined above for various project lengths.
(b) Later~l, House Connettion or Sewer Alterations Inspection Fee -
Essentially the same procedure was followed to develop a re-
vIsed tnspection fee for laterals or house connections, as that pre-
sented above for the mainline inspection fee. This procedure includes
the use of data for the period 1978-1980 as well as the permanent
reductton in inspection staff.
tn addition to the generation of a proposed new inspection fee for
laterals and house connections, it is proposed that an additional, re-
lated category of inspection work entitled "sewer alterations" be
charged the same inspection fee as that for laterals or house connect-
tians. Sewer alterations would include inspection work associated with
the Installation of restaurant grease interceptors or additions to
commercial or residential structures where an additional length of
lateral must be installed.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG.
Sheet 2 of 7
(c) Overtime Inspection Charge -
Contractors occasionally request to have an inspector work
overtime for which the contractor agrees to reimburse the District for
all expenses involved. The District's hourly inspection cost was
calculated using one and one half times the average hourly rate as
well as appropriate vehicle and accounting time.
(d) Multiple Final Plan Reviews -
It is common for the larger developers to submit final sewer
construction plans in phases for District approval in order to mini-
mize the loss of construction staking. These multiple submittals to
the District generate additional District costs which are not covered
by normal revenue from the plan review fee. Consequently, the District
has been charging an additional fee for each final plan review after
the first submittal based on the District cost to process the additional
submittals.
(e) Structure Design Fee -
Ocasionally, homeowners or small developers may request that
the District prepare plans for the construction of a new manhole or
rodding inlet and/or a short length of sewer main where required for
connection of a new building to the public sewer. In these situations,
a fee is charged based on the District's cost to both design the project
and provide field location surveying.
(f) Inspection Fee for Side Sewer Repair -
A fee is charged by the District for inspection costs in-
volved in the repair of private side sewers. There are relatively
few side sewer repairs which occur over a period of one year. In
addition, minimal inspection time is normally required for this type
of work.
(g) Permit Processing Fee -
The District charges a small fee to cover the cost of pro-
cessing the permit required for any work on the sewer system.
SUMMARY:
As stated in the July 16, 1981 position paper, the current rate structure
was last updated in February of 1977. Consequently, the existing fees
will have been in effect for approximately 5 years, assuming adoption
of a new rate structure in early 1982.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT./DIV,
GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG.
Sheet 3 of 7
Table A presents the current and proposed fees for the District
charges itemized above~
The proposed fee for mainline inspection has been calculated using
three different approaches. All three approaches are based on the
current inspection staff which, as mentioned earlier, has been per-
manently reduced by two inspectors. No other reductions in inspection
effort are recommended in order to maintain the Districts high standards
of installation which are reflected in reduced future maintenance costs
as well as reduced infiltration and consequent plant flow.
Table C presents a comparison of some of the Districts proposed fees
with those charged by other Districts. It is important to note that
the other Districts included in the comparison are smaller than CCCSD
and they may not perform the same level of inspection as that routinely
conducted by CCCSD (e.g. TV inspection). The comparison was restricted
to Bay Area Districts to somewhat include areas with similar economic
conditions as well as field installation conditions (terrain).
All of the proposed rate increases have been discussed with Mr. Dean
La Field, Executive Vice President of the Building Industry Association
of Northern California. We are currently awaiting his response to the
proposed new rates once he has discussed the increases with his member
contractors.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review and comment on the staff approach used to analyze the increases
required in the plan review fee, inspection fee and miscellaneous
charges associated with sewer construction projects.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR SOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG.
Sheet 4 of 7
ITEM
TABLE A
CURRENT RATE
PROPOSED RATE
Mainline Inspection Fee
Plan Review Fee
$l/L.F., $100 min
Option (a):
$1.55/L.F., $278 min
Option (b):
(Jobs,4001) $3.37/L.F., $278 min
(JobsZ 4001) $1.23/L.F.,
Option (c):
$278 base fee + $1.33/L.F.
$0.20/L.F., $100 min $0.66/L.F.
$265min (2 prelim + 1 final review)
$33 ea. (3rd and subseq pre1 im rev)
Lateral, House Connection $20 each
(or Side Sewer Alteration) ($10 each)
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
$20/hour
$50/review after
1st submittal
$100 - Structure
only
Estimate - New
Sewer Extension
$2
$10
$30 each
$35/hour
No Change
$340 - Structure only
No Change
No Change
No Change
Sheet 5 of 7
TABLE B
AL TE RNI TIVE INSPECTION FEE APPROACHES
Al t #1 Alt #2 Alt #3
Length $1.55/L.F. $3.37/L.F.'--400' $278 Base Fee + $1.33/L.F.
L. F. ($278 Min) 1.23/L.F. ~400'
100 $278 (M in) $337 $411 - ($4.11/L.F.)
200 $310 $674 $544 - ($2. 72/L. F.)
300 $465 $1011 $677 - ($2. 26/L. F. )
400 $620 $492 $810 - ($2.03/L.F.)
1000 $1550 $1230 $1608 - ($1.61/L.F.)
5000 $7750 $6150 $6928 - ($1 . 39/L. F. )
Sheet 6 of 7
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
No.VI. Engineenng
3 10/1/81
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN DATE
General Manager-Chief Engineer Se mb 2
AUTHOR I ZE $1000 FOR THE PREPARAT ION OF PLANS AND SPEC I_TYPE OF ACTION
FICATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF YARD IMPROVEMENTS AT
THE MATERIALS CONTROL CENTER AT THE TREATMENT PLANT
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZATION
SUBMITTED BY
Jay S. McCoy
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Collection System/Engineering
ISSUE: It is necessary to eliminate a drainage problem and provide
yard improvements at the Treatment Plant.
BACKGROUND: The north side of the Materials Control Center is un-
paved and collects water. Vehicles drive over this area and create
ruts and further aggravate the problem. It is proposed to grade
and improve this area to eliminate the ponding of water, eliminate
dust, provide a permanent driving area and expand the area for
storage of materials.
Since the estimated construction cost is over $15,000, it is
necessary to follow a formal bidding procedure including preparation
of contract documents.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize $1000 for preparation of plans and
specifications for the installation of yard improvements at the
Materials Control Center.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
'"'' T':)~ JSM ~ CLW
~.')
v
Cerllrai ~\l.)nira Costa San3tar~ c.lis'trict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO. VII. Water
1
Pol Cant.
10/1/81
1981
1.
POSITION PAPER
VIA:
ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
September 24,
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZATION OF $2,500 FOR THE PURCHASE OF A 1,000 GALLON
FUEL STORAGE TANK AND MAGNETIC CARD SYSTEM FOR A GASOLINE
STORAGE AND SERVICE FACILITY
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE FUNDS
SUBMITTED BY
Robert A. Baker
INITIATING DEPT.!DIV.
Plant Operations Department
Issue: A need exists for an unleaded gasoline station at the treatment plant.
Background: Most of the vehicles at the treatment plant require unleaded fuel.
Presently vehicles are driven to the District office or to Martinez for refueling.
This actually takes about three hours per day of Utility Person time. Locating
a gas station at the treatment plant site would save personnel time for the refuel-
ing activity.
It is proposed to install a simple gas station consisting of a 1,000 gallon
fuel storage tank, a gasoline pump (which has previously been purchased at a cost
of $620) and a magnetic card security system. The gasoline pump will be located
on a concrete pad with no roof. The cost of this installation should not exceed
$2,500. Considering the savings in Utility Person refueling time, the project
should have a payback period of less than one year.
Recommendation: Authorization of $2,500 for the purchase of a 1,000 gallon gasoline
fuel storage tank and magnetic card security system.
.,
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT ./DIV.
RAB
""'D."""
-, ~ .
h
Central Contra Costa Sanitar:v Oistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO.VII. Water Po1.Cntr1 It.
2 10 1 81
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
September 25, 1981
TYPE OF ACTION
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE
OF COMPLETION ON DISTRICT PROJECT NO. TP-1-8182
AUTHORIZE - FILE
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
SUBMITTED BY
Robert A. Baker
INITIATING DEPT.!DIV.
De art ent
Issue: District Project No. TP-1-8182 has been completed.
Background: On March 13, 1981 the Board authorized the expenditure of $75,000 to
upgrade the environmental conditions of the trte~ment plant field microprocessors.
In order to expedite the project, the five most critical microprocessors were split
out into a "fast-track" subproject. (There are a total of 20 microprocessors in the
plant) Air conditioners were installed in August on the five critical microprocessors
by a contractor~ The air conditioners are working well. Work on the non-critical
microprocessors is proceeding under a different project number, and the overall
project is under budget at this time.
Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to file a Notice of
Completion on District Project No. TP-1-8182.
R.EVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
c((SD
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO.VIII. Budget & Finane
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
September 28, 1981
SUBJECT
PROPOSITION 4 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
TYPE OF ACTION
ADOPT APPROPRIATIONS
LIMIT
Walter N. Funasaki
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Accounting Dept.
SUBMITTED BY
ISSUE: The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District is required to establish its
appropriations limit in accordance with Article X111B of the California Constitution.
BACKGROUND: At the September 3, 1981 Board Meeting, the Board of Directors
authorized posting a public notice of the availability of documentation in support
of the District's appropriations limits. As required by statute, the public notice
was made at least fifteen days prior to the October 1, 1981 Board Meeting at which
adoption of the appropriations limits is recommended.
The Capital Fund appropriations limits are $6,062,800 for 1980-1981 and
$6,746,978 for 1981-1982.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution establishing the Capital Fund appropriations
limits in the amount of $6,062,800 for the 1980-1981 fiscal year and $6,746,078
for the 1981-1982 fiscal year.
EVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
\m F: dw
((sD
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO. VII!.
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
Sept. 29, 1981
SUBJECT
TYPE OF ACTION
REVIEW AND ACCEPT THE FIVE YEAR CAPITAL
EXPENDITURE PLAN (1981-86)
FINANCIAL PLANNING
SUBMITTED BY
John Larson
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Special Projects Engineering Division
BACKGROUND
At this time, the District has significant capital reserves ($35,685,000
as of 6/30/81) and it has identified $111,300,000 of projects and
expenditures through 6/30/86. The purpose of the Capital Expenditure
Plan is to provide a project and expenditure planning tool that will
provide input into the management of the District's Sewer Construction
Fund.
The preliminary Capital Expenditure Plan, based on the preliminary
project identification phase, was discussed at the August 1, 1981
Board Meeting. Since that time the District staff has completed the
project/expenditure identification, placed the projects/expenditures
into priority groups, and evaluated the impact of various project/
expenditure scheduling and funding decisions.
The recommended Five Year Capital Expenditure Plan was developed to
provide a balance between the need for high priority project scheduling
requirements and a poor outlook for near term clean water grant program
funding while maintaining the sewer construction fund reserves at an
acceptable level. The recommended plan is not intended to be a static
document. It will be updated periodically to meet the need of changing
project/expenditure priorities and financial outlook.
The Five Year Capital Expenditure Plan will not alter the current
procedure of obtaining project/expenditure authorizations on a case by
case basis. A summary of the plan is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Five Year Capital Expenditure Plan for the period 6/30/81
through 6/30/86 as the basis for future project and expenditure decisions.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
ENG.
JA f/AJMC ~OCW CLW
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO.
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
September 28, 1981
SUBJECT
TYPE OF ACT ION
NOTIFICATION TO CUSTOMERS OF GARBAGE COLLECTORS OF RATE
INCREASE APPLICATIONS
CONSIDER HOMEOWNER
REQUEST
SUBMITTED BY
Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Accounting Division
ISSUE: Direct notification to customers of garbage rate increase applications
has been requested by a homeowner.
BACKGROUND: A letter sent to the Board of Directors by Virginia Mills, 549 Garden
Creek Place, Danville, California, requested that the Board require notices of
rate increase applications be sent to all customers with the garbage collector's
quarterly bill ing statements. V. Mills asserted that the publ ic notices placed
in newspapers of general circulation by the District of the rate increase appl ied
for and the date of the public hearing to consider the application are insufficient.
Sanford Skaggs, attorney for Valley Disposal Services, Inc., the affected collector,
advised that the collector's new computerized billing system will enable printing
a general notification of a rate increase application on the bill ing statement
without additional cost.
The Board directed District staff to obtain the suggested wording of the notifica-
tion to be printed on the billing statement and to also obtain an estimate of the
additional expense to the collector in notifying customers directly by a separate
mailing as is presently required by the City of Walnut Creek.
By letter dated September 17, 1981, Sanford Skaggs advised that the notification
on the billing statement would be restricted to 100 characters because of space
limitations and that the additional expense of a separate mailing is $5,255. A
copy of Mr. Skagg1s letter is attached.
The largest expense component of a separate mailing is postage. This major
expense can be avoided by requiring all collectors to imprint an abbreviated notifi-
cation on the quarterly statement, or by inserting such notification in the billing
envelope. As the rate increase percentage would not be known at that time, continua-
tion of the present District practice of placing publ ic notices in newspapers of
general circulation would be required.
RECOMMENDATION: Require all garbage collectors operating under District franchise
agreements to include a brief notice with their billing statement of their intent
to file a rate increase application, and continue the current District practice of
placing public notices of the rate increase applied for and the date of the publ ic
hearing to consider such application.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
M~'
~
("") VI c: 0 0 ("")
0 OJ 2 c: ~ ("")
::J ::J OJ ):> ("")
rt rt 0 , VI
., OJ 2 , 0 ):>
OJ 2 0 C">
("") VI I 3: I'T1
("") ):> VI ):> 2
0 OJ 2 ):> ("")
VI ., 2 VI -<
rt OJ 0 ):>
OJ ~ 2
VI VI ):>
("") OJ -l 3: 0
0 :J 0
2 VI
0 -l
VI VI
VI
0 rt 0
"l:l:: "l:l:: "l:l:: "l:l::
~ ....... \J1
1..0 \J1 ):>
2
VI C"> ""0 20
::J C ro o 0 W 1..0 VI
VI C'" ::J -1:10 ""0 0
"0 Cl. ."
0 OJ :E: ):> ""0 W ......... \J1 N 0
ro :J 0 0 c: 2 \J1 0 '"
VI rt rt ., ::J ro 0 '" VI
n ::r ""0 rt VI -.~ VI VI -l
0 ro -'0 .0 0 OJ 3 .0 .0 VI ~
< rtn ("") :J ., .0
ro rt ::r O. ^ ("")
., VI ~ VI 3: ("")~ ro 3: 3: -l
-< VI rt VI :3:
""0 OJ rt ." VI
OJ OJ -< ., 3
OJ :J rt -ro OJ N
-< Cl. rt 3 I'T1
VI 0 :J
:J
rt
):>
.. C">
I'T1
2
("")
-<
N N.........c:W N ., -'""00 ("")("")W ..I:- VI -'""00 ......... ..................
0 OV>rtiW 0 OJ ::J ., ro 0 0 "'1- \J1 OJ :J ., ro n C"'OJ ("")
on. on. \J1 -. on. rtVl 0"0 :J VI iW on. ~ VI 0"0 - 0
........ ................~O ........ ro "0 L. 0 :J rt ........ OJ "0 L. 0 2 3: -l
, ,,-. -1:1 , ro ro VI ro I'T1 ." ., ro ro VI .........V>......... .~V> VI ""0 ):>
." ."OJ rt ." n n -. n :J -l -< n n -. @,Nc:....V>c:....~ ""0 ):> OJ
rt-< ""0 rtrtrt rt to rt rt rt OJ .......0 NO I'T1 ~ ,
......... ......... ro ., 0 -....-......, ......... ., 0 V> rt OOC"'.......C"'\J1 ("") I'T1
("")V>("")V>., -0 (",,)V> ., ("") \J1 OV> - V> OJ ., ("")~ wro VI OOVl\J1 -l VI
OwO WOJ :J L. 0....... -0 iW ::JWVI ..I:- rt -0 \J1 0., C'" IV3 ,,:;, 0 ("")
:J O:J O~VI ro ::J ........ VI VI -0 0 ro VI VI iW -OJ OJ 0 2
:J ........:J ........ "0 n ::J , rt I'T1 ........ I'T1 rt VI ..I:- -. ..I:- -l 2
-,-,0 rt -OJ rt ~. ::J ,VI 3 rt ~. I'T1 VI ro O:J 0 VI
OJ OJ ., rt to OJ rt :J 0-0......... ." c:
rt rt ("") ro 3 OJ., rt :J 3 OJ to 0 -1:1 ." ." V> I'T1 3:
ro ro :I: 0 ., ro ro 0 ro -.., ., ro -l -IN I'T1 3:
., ., 0 VI OJ VI ., -1:1 ~ VI ro - -....... ):>
OJ OJ C rt X OJ X :I: 00 ~
~ VI I'T1 ""0 I'T1 0 + V> V> -<
ro ." 0 NOJ VI ., OJ VI c w3
0 0 0 ., n rt 0 0 n rt VI V> .
., ., ("") ., VI rt ., <:... '" rt ro ~N W::J
0 :I: OJ C 0 ro c 0 W .......-
:I: :I::J ):> 0 ~OJ -1:1 :I:n OJ -1:1 ("")W........ ........
0 0 :J C OJ o rt 0 W ." ."
C C VI ., C ::J ........ -l -l
VI VI ro -< VI ::J ."
ro ro ro -l
V> V> V> V> N '" ""0
'" iW "'I- N '" ,
........ ........ ........ ........ iW on. on. ):>
, , , , I'T1 ........ ........ 2
0 0 0 0 :J I'T1 ." ,
rt rt rt rt to :J -l ." ~
., to I'T1
......... ......... ......... ., ......... I ......... <
V> V> I'T1 V> VI V> 0 V>
\J1 \J1 :J \J1 VI W I N I'T1
0 0 rt 0 I'T1 \J1 '" :e::
VI I'T1 \J1
3: 3: ., 3: rt VI 3 ."
ro rt 3 I'T1
:J :J :J 0 :J I'T1
VI -1:1 0 :J
C -1:1 -
C'" ""0
Cl. ., ""0
0 .,
""0 L. 0
ro L.
OJ n ro
:J rt n
rt
~ ("")
ro 0 ("")
< VI 0
-. rt VI
ro rt
en ~
::r' -
(1)
(1)
rt
....., ....... \J1 N \J1 00 iW ~
iW iW iW I'T1 2
0 W 00 0< VI
Hl ......... ......... iW ......... iW ."
I'T1 I'T1 I'T1 I'T1 c;v>
....., VI VI VI ......... ""0 :e::
rt rt @ rt @ ~ ""0
- - - 0 ." ,
V> V> c:.... I'T1 ):>
N N I'T1 2
\J1 \J1
........ ........ ("")
." ." 0
-l rt VI
- - -l