No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 04-09-81 <C<SD Central Cont San BOARD OF DIRECTORS District NO.V. Eng. 2 4/9/81 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE April 6, 1981 REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE NEW OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT FOR CONSTRUCTION (DSP 3000) AND AUTHORIZE $63,000 IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZATION TO ADVER- TISE FOR BIDS AND AUTH. FUNDING SUBJECT SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Jay McCoy Engineering/Collection System ISSUE: The new office building project is ready for advertising. BACKGROUND: The architect anticipates completion of plans and specifications for the new office building project within the next several days with exception of recent changes to the project. Rather than delaying the starting date of the bidding period until the plans are 100% complete, it would be desirable to proceed with advertising for bids and incorporate any changes in the plans and specifications by addendum mechanism during the bidding period. This procedure will result in earlier bid and construction dates and should avoid some of the ongoing inflation markup (estimated at $40,OOO/month), that may result if advertising is delayed until plans and specs are completely finished. It is also anticipated that the printing of the plans and specifications would occur in mid-April, with bid opening set for June 2, 1981. Several changes have been made to the project since the design development drawings were approved which have resulted in additional Architectural/Consultant expenses. When money was last requested in November, 1980, the Board authorized funds to cover costs through March, 1981. Due to these changes in the project concept and overruns on the amount of anticipated staff time, it is necessary to increase the project design budget. The maximum fees set for MWM have not been exceeded. It is estimated that $63,000 will be sufficient to cover expenses through the proposed bid opening date, June 2, at which time funds will be requested for construction and construction management. A tentative schedule is attached for your information. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize advertising for bids for the new office building project and $63,000 in additional funds for project design budget. Attachment REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INIT TINj ~;YDIV. , /I'M.?, ~~ April 6, 1981 MEMO TO: Roger Dolan FROM: Clark L. Weddle SUBJECT: OFFICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE On several occasions the Board of Directors have requested information on the schedule for construction of the District's new office building. Our schedule at this time, subject to changes beyond our control, is as follows: . Board approval to advertise for bids . April 9, 1981 . Bid preparation period . Six weeks . Open bids June 2, 1981 . Award Contract . June 4, 1981 . Commence Construction June 18, 1981 . Complete construction of renovation work for plant operations building . . . . . . February, 1982 . Complete construction of the office building September, 1982 Please let me know if you to pass this information on to wish additional information. the Board. ~~'lt~' ~~ Clark L. Weddle You may wish Isf cc: Jay McCoy Ken Barker John Larson Bob Baker Dave Niles <((sD Central Cont BOARD OF DIRECTORS District NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE April 6, 1981 SUBJECT ACCEPT GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM LARRY P. LAVINE, ET UX, DSP 1544 PARCEL 12 - LAFAYETTE AREA, AT A COST OF $1,500 TO THE DISTRICT TYPE OF ACTION RIGHT OF WAY SUBMITTED BY Jay S. McCoy INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineer/Collection System ISSUE: The subject easement is required for the 27-inch trunk sewer which was installed in 1964 as part of D.S.P. 1544. BACKGROUND: District staff has successfully negotiated with the Lavines for their granting of the subject easement. The Board authorized the $1,500 payment at the March 19, 1981 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Approval, accept easement, authorize its recording. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. OS 10 ftA E I VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN P IT N r~P R General Manager-Chief Engineer SUBJECT ACCEPT GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM ALBERTA C. WRIGHT, D.S.P. 2695, PARCEL 7 - WALNUT CREEK AREA, AT A COST OF $5,500 TO THE DISTRICT DATE April 6, 1981 TYPE OF ACTION RIGHT OF WAY SUBMITTED BY Jay McCoy INITIATING DEPT.!DIV. Engineering/Collection System ISSUE: The subject easement is one of fourteen easements required for Job 2695. (The granting of this easement leaves 5 easements outstanding) BACKGROUND: The easement value includes the amount of $2,400 for 12 full-grown Honey Locust trees which are directly on line and will be destroyed because of the new construction and $3100 for the easement itself . RECOMMENDATION: Accept easement, authorize payment of $5,500 to grantor and authorize its recording. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION };27t?:-'VJMC GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. _.._._--,.,...._---~-".._...,-....._--,._--,_._...--,--,.--._._...~._._.~_._~----....,',-_. BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE April 6, 1981 SUBJECT QUITCLAIM EASEMENT - WALNUT CREEK AREA - JOB 3555 PARCEL 3 TYPE DF ACTION RIGHT OF WAY SUBMITTED BY Jay S. McCoy INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering/Collection System ISSUE: The District has been requested to quitclaim the subject easement by the owners of the encumbered property. BACKGROUND: The sewer to be installed within the subject easement has been re-aligned. An easement for the new location is being granted to this District. RECOM}lliNDATION: Approval, execute Quitclaim Deed and authorize its recording. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION '?o//~JMC I San BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE April 6, 1981 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION QUITCLAIM EASEMENT - WALNUT CREEK AREA - JOB 3555 PARCEL 4 RIGHT OF WAY SUBMITTED BY Jay S. McCoy INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering/Collection System ISSUE: The District has been requested to quitclaim the subject easement by the owners of the encumbered property. BACKGROUND: The sewer to be installed within the subject easement has been re-aligned. An easement for the new location is being granted to this District. RECOMMENDATION: Approval, execute Quitclaim Deed and authorize its recording. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION ((sD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. VI. Col. ~797s~ - POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE Apri 1 2, 1981 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER OF AN ADDITIONAL $16,041.00 FROM SEWER CONSTRUCTION TO ACCOUNT 1379 FOR SLIP LINING 1,8671 OF 12'1 A.C. PIPE IN THE CLYDE AREA TYPE OF ACT ION Capitol Expense SUBMITTED BY Robert H. Hinkson INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Collection System Operations ISSUE: In 1976, the District authorized and appropriated funds for slip 1 ining 4001 of A.C. sewer pipel iiH~ se1v'e,rely damaged by hydrogen sulfide corrosion in the Clyde area. This request is to slip line the rest of that system because it is now critically corroded. BACKGROUND: C.S.O. has been monitoring this system by CCTV and core sampling since 1976. Our most recent samples indicate that prompt correcti1v'e action is needed. The most critical portion of this pipel ine is the 10781 paralelling the Port Chicago Highway and the Marine Base. The remaining 789' would be an exteri.sion of the pre1v'ious lining on Bates Avenue. This section is not as .. cr i fica r as. the other at thi s moment but wi I I be in a short time. I be I i eve it would be economically prudent to do it now. My estimate of the expense is: $11,000 5,000 1,000 $17,000 + 1 , 700 $ 18,700 -2,659 $16,041 Pipe La bo r Special Equipment Con t i ngency Less balance in account Amount Requested RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the transfer of $16,041.00 from sewer construction to Account 1379. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Q, RHH ------,._..,---,.~-,~---,-_.~---,,--"--,._,-_._-,.._--_.---...._..__.~ <((sD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE A ril 8 1981 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION PUB LI C HE A R I N G REG A R DIN G R E QUE ST ED RAT E INCREASES FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION PUBLIC HEARING ON RATE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ISSUE: The garbage collection rate increase applications of Valley Disposal Service, Diablo Disposal Service, Inc., Lafayette Disposal Service, Inc. and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. were presented and reviewed at the Aprl1 2, 1981 Board Meeting. Supple m entary inform ation is provided in the following sections. A Public Hearing was set for April 9, 1981. BACKGROUND: Valley Disposal Service, Diablo Disposal Service, Inc., and Lafayette Disposal Service, Inc. Clarification regarding the following matters was requested at the April 2, 1981 Board Meeting: F & F Leasing Company - This leasing company is wholly-owned by A. Fiorentino, President and owner of Valley Disposal Services and its subsidiaries. The com pany was organized in 1980 to lease trucks to the Valley Disposal companies for the purpose of providing income tax benefits to A. Fiorentino. During 1980, four trucks were leased to the Valley Disposal companies at a total lease rental of $31,750. F or purposes of the rate applications, these trucks were considered to be capitalized and the projected expenses for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1982 excluded lease rent expense and included depreciation expense of $26,952. The company's paid-in capital is $15,000 and the loss for the six months ended December 31,1980 was $49,477; total assets were $249,915. It is District staff's conclusion that no adverse effect on rate setting would occur fro m the related-party leasing activities as long as the leased trucks are converted to a capitalized basis in the rate applications, and the Valley Disposal companies are reim bursed for any expenses, if any, incurred in maintaining the leasing operations. A copy of a letter from F. A. Hoyt dated April 2, 1981 has been provided by the Valley Disposal companies in support of the competitive terms under which trucks are leased from F & F Leasing Company (Attachment A). Increased Volu me Truck Expenses - Expenses projected for three new trucks provided for increased customer volume have been removed from the projected expenses for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1982. Each affected schedule within the Fox & Company report has been revised and the pages noted with the revision date. The effect of the adjustm ents was to reduce the percentage increase in operating expenses for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1982 REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION ENG. NG DEPT./DIV. , compared to the calendar year 1980 from 15.8% to 15.2% for Valley Disposal Service, from 14.8% to 13.8% for Diablo Disposal Service and from 12.6% to 11.3 % for Lafayette Disposal Service. The reduction in operating expenses for each co m pany produced decreased garbage collection rate adjustm ents as detalled in the revised report schedules. During the April 2, 1981 Board Meeting, the relevance of the following issues to the rate setting process was discussed: Executive com pensation - The projected salaries for the president and vice president which are included in the operating expenses for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1982 are $121,000, 70.6 %, or $85,426, is allocated to the companies' operations within the District. Acme Fill dividend - A dividend of $72,000 was received in 1980; total dumping charges of $366,000 were paid in 1980. In view of the significant increase in the dividends received in recent years, the propriety of including the dividends as an offset to du m ping charges should be considered. 95% Operating Ratio - The Valley Disposal Companies have requested that the operating ratio be lowered, particularly because of the exceptionally high prevailing interest rates which have been used to project $112,004 of interest expenses in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1982. In the District staff's opinion, the 95 % operating ratio should be continued, with consider- ation given to a procedure of excluding interest expenses based on "norm al" rates which existed in a particular base year. The following table summarizes the effect on the computed percentage rate increases and the basic residential rates if executive salaries were reduced by $17,650 ($25,000 x 70.6 %) and the Ac m e Fill dividend allocable to the co m panies' operations within the District were included in the rate setting. Residential Rate As Computed in Fox Report Com pany Current % Increase V alley/Diablo Lafayette $6.80 6.85 $7.45 7.45 9.5 8.7 Effect of excluding $17,650 of executive salaries in com puting operating expenses Valley/Diablo Lafayette (.03) (.03) (.4 ) (.5) Effect of including Ac me Fill dividend allocable to operations within the District as a reduction in operating expenses, $42,552 ($72,000 x 59.1%) Valley / Diablo Lafayette (.07) (.06) (1.1 ) (.9) Orinda-M oraga Disposal Service, Inc. Two revisions to the report prepared by Fox & Company which was distributed for the April 2, 1981 Board Meeting were required: 1) Adjustm ent 4 to the projected fiscal year ended March 31, 1982 Depreciation Expense on Page 19 for leased vehicles which are capitalized for rate-setting purposes was understated by $7,814 because of an incomplete list of leased vehicles which was used. 2) The projected revenue, without increase, for fiscal year ended March 31, 1982 on Page 21 was overstated by $14,655 due to misinterpretation of a caption used in the franchisee's rate application. The revisions have been incorporated in the attached report and affected pages have been noted with the revision date. The major effect of the revisions was to change the percentage rate increase computed from 7.7% to 10.1 %. A report prepared by a representative of the Moraga Town Council dated April 6, 1981 (Attachment B) raises a number of questions regarding projected expenses and proposes a reduction of $28,758. A brief review of the questions raised has been made within the time constraints for submission of this Position Paper to the Board of Directors. A copy of the report has been forwarded to the applicant who will be prepared to discuss them at the Public Hearing, as required. District staff believes that the questions raised will be responded to satisfactorily and that the expense reductions proposed will be determined to be unnecessary. Comparative Rates For Neighboring Communities. A su m m ary of garbage collection rates for residential service in Bay Area and adjOining com munities is provided as Attachment C. R E COM MEN D A no N: Conduct a Public Hearing on the garbage rate increase applications on April 9, 1981, and determine appropriate garbage rate schedules and their i m ple m entation dates. LEASING ALL OVER ThE WORLD F. A. HOY1' Ll]) ATTACHMENT A CABLE: MINERAL Telephone: 369-6271 Area Code 415 1041 EL CAMINO REAL REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 Apri I 2, 1981 Page 1 of 2 Peter T. Saputo, Esq. Van Voorhis & Skaggs 1855 Olympic Blvd., #111 P. O. Drawer 'V' Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Re: F & F Leasing Dear Mr. Saputo, Please accept my regrets in being long overdue in responding. As you know from messages from my office, I have been unavailable due to business demands elsewhere. I have at your request, reviewed the four leases your office prepared for F & F Leasing. You had, in particular, requested that I evaluate the lease terms to determine whether the rates charged are competitive with the rates that F. A. Hoyt, Ltd. and other lessors would have charged to the lessees. Although we have discussed this matter in the past, you have now requested a formal written analysis. My conclusion is that leases are very competitive and wet I within the range of rates "Hoyt" and other I essors I am aware of, wou I d have chargee. I n fact, and to be more explicit, I know of no one who would have done the lease as cheaply. You literally gave the money away. Lease rates tradional Iy are dependent upon the cost of money at the time the lease is entered into. A lessor attempts to achieve a yield return greater than the cost of money. The prime rate on May 6, 1980 {when the two remaining leases were exectuted>, was 11%. With prime as these were, yields of 2t% above prime at the time the "take down" occurs. Thus, yei Ids of 21% and 13t% re- spectively are fair, reasonable, and competitive. The yields to be received by F & F Leasing, as discussed below, wit I be less than that. The yields were calculated for example: 1. Truck #32 - cost of $65,555.01 plus DMV fees of $1428.00 plus insurance costs of $6422.00 total ing $73,405.00. The $1615.00 monthly rental is based upon the outlay of $73,405.00 for a 48 month lease. 48 rentals x $1615.00 = Lessor cost (truck & insurance) = Money cost to lessee = $77,520.00 73.405.00 P = Principle $ 4, 115.00 $4,115.00 divided by 4 year divided by (P) $73,405.00 = 1.40147% add OG interest = 2.69% APR approximately based on above. LEASINv All OVER THE WORLD F. A. HOYT Lrp CABLE: MINERAL Telephone: 369.6271 Area Code 415 1041 EL CAMINO REAL REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 Page 2 of 2 Re: F & F Leasing The other consideration is that you did have a security deposit from the lessee in the amount of $9833.25 which you have to return at the end of the lease term (upon satisfactory termination>. This would equate to probably a total yield of 3.773%. The leases were calculated without using a marked up equipment cost. (A mark up is often calculated and charged by lessors>. In the leases I have exumined, based on above simi larities, the charges of $1754.00 on truck #38646, $1814.00 on truck #38643, and $lb48.00 on truck #1025 and #1026, would be fair beyond question. They are in my estimation, "give away". Had you not received the Investment Tax Credit, you really would have had no advantage as I can see. I doubt you can gain any ITC advantage especially since on a 4-year lease you earn on 1/3 of the avai lable ITC. On the equipment cost of $66,983.00, the 1/3 ITC equals to $2233.00. know of no bank lease company, or any source whatsoever that wi I I lend money this cheaply. Even cities with AAA bond ratings pay, say 6*% below prime. Kindest regards, I / F. ~~_..~~YT,' LTD. I \ ,,'. ..----, .1' _.___",- j ';.. : L y'(/ i #' J;~: ---..- ,/../1-././1 jJ / //'(/I-tl/'\..' Del McClain / I Manager / OMC:tb --~:---~...... . 1 ATTACHMENT B '.' f.>': To: From: Subject: Date: Moraga Town Council Bill Jasper Disposal Service Rate Increase April 6, 1981 cr.; .:;! " ., '::".'.',' ';:",::':".' :~,,:',~,~..",> " :., -,~.',:;, ,- ., ..:'~ , : --. , '. : ..~.'~. ..:..,' . ~.-~:.:' ;,~ ~~ \ {: -,. . '.'l (' .--, ", ,~ :::;:._ ~~L -:~'; l;,=: ~.:,..-~ !.; .:~ :::' ~~"~ ";~:,' 7'. v- '~':l r.:;, r,.; .'_" ;,:- \ 0 L.' t ~L ::,\~,1'~:";':1 : ~~:: ;:1 .,':j ~:lr t,::: " . , l'- C) (.... : ,"\ . L.;.:~ o or'; . . . . . . -.... . 0 :, ,~.:,~.' -~: : . . . : : : : : : : 4 . . I waS asked 'by Gary Chase to review the documentation submitted by Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. ("OMD") to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ("Central SanTI) in support of a rate increase. I have verbally presented my conclusions to Gary, with this memorandum to summarize what he and I discussed. You should have in your hands copies of the following (copies also attached for easy reference): 1. Review Report of the financial statements of OMD for the 1980 calendar year; 2. OMD's submission to Central San; 3. Pages 19 to 23 of a report prepared by Fox & Co., CP As, for Central San which serves as Central San's staff report on proposed rate increases by disposal companies over which it has jurisdiction. The first 18 pages, I am told, deal with the other companies, and I was not provided a copy of these when I attended the Central San Board of Directors' meeting on April 2. In addition, you will find attached a pag~ which summarizes OMD's projected operating expenses of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982. The Fox & Co. analysis takes OMD's projected costs and backs out some of the expenses which are not valid for rate making purposes (see p. 19). However, there are a number of other items which require additional support if they are to be accepted as submitted. The points that follow question some of the submitted figures and, where indicated, propose additional deductions from OMD's proposed operating exp~nses in order to arrive at a valid number to be used for rate-making purposes. >' (1) OMD shows total vacation weeks as increasing from 82 in 1980 to 87 in 1981 and 90 in 1982. Presumably with more seniority some employees will receive more vacation. However, if there is turnover new employees would receive less vacation than terminating employees. Thus the assumption of increased vacation weeks might not be valid. If the 82 weeks is held constant, then vacation expense should be $2,887 less than that shown. (2) Vacation pay is calculated as 110% (not 1.10% as indicated in OMD's SUbmission) of base - presumably because it is stipulated as such in the labor contract, but nowhere is this explained. (3) Holidays go from 11 in 1980 to 12 in 1981 - presumably by contract, but again no explanation. Also, holiday pay is shown as 150% (not 1.50%) of base - also probably due to contract. (4) Actual sick days per man in 1980 were 8.61 (OMD shows 9) and are projected to be 10 in 1981 and 1982. If the sick days are held constant, then sick leave expense should be $2,896 less than that shown. (5) Health and welfare expenses show a 19.5% increase from 1980 to 1981 without any explanation. - 2 - (6) Pension expense shows a 27.0% increase without any explanation. (7) Workman's compensation insurance shows a 29.1 % increase, which is overstated by $16,613 as shown by the following: Insurance Rate on Payroll Published Modification Adjusted Rate Factor Rate Jan. 1, '79 July 1, '79 Jan. 1, '80 Jan. 1, '81 $14.80 15.14 15.57 15.95 80% 80% 79% Unknown $11. 84 12.11 12.30 For 1981, OMD is assuming a 100% modification factor, i.e., the published rate will be the adjusted rate. However, as of March 31, a modification factor for 1981 had yet to be published, although it is possible that OMD's broker could have run a test modification factor through. It would appear that a 79% modification factor should be used to estimate 1981, unless 0 MD knows of a major claim which would cause their factor to go back up. Using 79% results in the $16,613 adjustment. . (8) FICA payroll taxes (Social Security) are too high by at least $6,362. If we take total operating wages of $628,571 times 6.65% ('81 tax rate), we only get $41,800 versus OMD's $48,844. This also ignores the question as to whether or not the sick leave should be subject to FICA taxes, in which case the adjustment might be low. (9) Truck related expenses (ignoring capital costs) in 1980 exceeded $20,000 per truck (assuming the 13 trucks referred to in Notes 2 and 3 of the 1980 financial statements represent the entire fleet). How does this compare with industry averages? Are any of the repairs being performed by, or supplies (including fuel) being purchased from, companies/people that are related to any of the officers/owners of OMD? (10) Depreciation (before Fox & Co.'s capital adjustment) shows an increase from 1980 to 1981. Yet depreciation is calculated by the declining balance method, which presumably would lead to a decrease. If the additional amount is due to the truck addition for the Clean-up service, then the question needs to be asked of Fox & Co. as to whether their adjustment is net of an adjustment to exclude this additional truck. (11) These dumping charges are not on an arm's length basis since officers in OMD have an equity interest in Acme fill (where dumping takes place) and, as such, receive dividends from Acme which are not reflected anywhere in the analysis. (12) Is any of this rent paid to a company/individual who is related to any officer/owner of OMD? (13) Is any of the clerical staff related to any officer/owner of OMD? (14) Are company cars used by employees/officers for personal business during evenings/weekends? If so, is the company reimbursed for this use? If yes, is this expense number a net figure? If not, there should be reimbursement to comply with IRS requirements. ~.-..- -.....- - .'--'--'--'--'~-=--~=""""""";-~--'-';'.- .. -3- (15) Why did dues and subscriptions expense double between 1979 and 1980 ($2,219 to $4,527)? (16) Does the employee benefits number contain the same errors indicated in the benefits amount for operating employees? (17) Why did legal and accounting expenses go from $4,977 in 1979 to $7,755 in 1980? Were any of these fees paid to related parties? (18) Why did postage and stationery expense increase by 51 % between 1979 and 1980 ($6,672 to $10,076)? The total of the identifiable adjustments is $28,758 and could easily be more depending on answers to the above points. In determining what an appropriate rate increase should be, Fox &. Co. was not aware that the projected 1981 revenue figure included the clean-up service. Thus, it needs to be excluded from any analysis as follows (the assumption is that the revenue to be excluded is $27,000): (1) (2) (3) Page 21 of Fox &. Co.'s Fox &. Co.'s (2) Adjusted Report Adjusted Report for $28,758 of for Mathematical' Adjusted for Adjustments Error Clean-up Service Noted Above 1980 Actual $1,'408,299 $1,408,299 $1,408,299 1981 Projected 1,445,500 1,418,500 1,418,500 Adjusted Operating 1,488,712 1,488,712 1,459,954 Expenses Revenue required for 1,567,065 1,567,065 1,536,794 95% ratio Increase in revenue required 121,565 148,565 118,294 Net income 78,353 78,353 76,84_0 % Revenue increase 8.4% 10.5% 8.3% % Increase required 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% L'1vestment base: AIR $ 84,878 $ 84,878 0 Fixed Assets 252,120 252,120 252,120 $ 336,998 $ 336,998 $ 252,120 Rate of Return 23.2% 23.2% 30.5% Accounts receivable should be excluded from the investment base, since the balance is almost entirely for January and February 1981 service, billed in advance at December 31, 1980. Conclusion: The maximum rate increase which would be appropriate would be 8.3~ V Projected Year End Item Number in 3-31-83.- Memorandum Wages $ 643,174 (1) . 2,887 (2) (3) (4) 2,896 Employee benefits 168,834 (7) 16,613 (5) (6) P /R Tax 56,933 (8) 6,362 Truck repairs 183,000 (9) Truck rent 49,150 Truck fuel, etc. 146,381 (9) Depreciation 70,000 (10) Insurance 37,800 Dumping 68,200 (11) Yard rent 7,400 (12) Franchise costs 5,600 Operating supplies 8,000 Subtotal $1,444,472 Officer's salaries 40,000 Clerical salaries 21,700 (13) Amort. franchise cost 8,750 Advertising & promotion 3,600 Auto expenses 4,300 (14) Bad debts 4,700 Deprecia tion 300 Dues & subscriptions 4,600 (15) Employee benefits 12,800 (16) General expenses 2,000 Interest 13,710 Legal & accounting 8,000 (17) Office rent 5,000 (12) Office supplies 2,200 Postage & stationery 10,400 (18) Taxes 1,600 Telephone 4,000 Subtotal $ 147,660 TOTAL $1,592,132 $28,758 , ", Q) Q) Q) .., .., .., ^^^ Ul Ul Ul U-oU c c c .., .., .., < (1) .., 3 o .., (1) ---.. ---..---" ::r::r::r -. -.-. - -- - -- -<-<-< '-" '-" '-" NNN 000 :J :J :J ro ro ro WN o 0'\ ......... o ......... 00 o o V1 ......... o ......... 00 o V1 00 V1 (j'\ 0'\ V1 . . \..0 0 0'\ V1 00 W ~~ . . . OW~ o 0V1 '-" '-" ~ V1 :J o :J :J:J :J 000 0 '--' '-'" ""-" '-'" '--' :J o :J (1) n 0- Q) <.C '-" '-" '--' '-'" '-'" ......... -< .., :J o 3 rt Q) rt n c .., 0- W N o :J<.C n Q) (1) Q) U 3 o Q) :J Ul rt rt ::r :J o :J (1) , Q) .., ^ Ul U C .., -n Q) rt '-" o V1 ......... o ......... 00 o V1 V1 W "N V1 , Q) -n Q) -< (1) rt rt (1) G) Q) .., 0- Q) <.C (1) o Ul U o Ul w c.n (1) .., < ("l (1) o ~ ......... o ......... 00 o 0'\ 00 V1 W V1 V1 :J o I W o <.C Q) n Q) :J Q) rt n c .., 0- W ......... -< .., 3 Q) X N -< 0.. Q) rt ('l c .., 0- ::I: Ul 0- o .., o C <.C ::r o "-J ......... o ......... 00 o 0'\ o V1 ~ \..0 :J o :J o :J (1) :J o :J (1) ::I: Q) -< ~ Q) .., 0.. o ~ ......... o ......... 00 o V1 00 V1 W co V1 :J o :J o :J (1) :J o :J (1) ." .., (1) 3 o :J rt o +:- ......... o ......... 00 o V1 W o W V1 :J o :J o :J (1) :J o :J (1) o 0'\ ......... o ......... 00 V1 V1 o W 0'\ o :J o N I W N <.C Q) ~ (1) (1) ^ -< :J o :J (1) ." Q) .., -n Q) X o 0'\ ......... o ......... 00 \n o o W 0'\ o :J o N I W N <.C Q) ~ (1) (1) ^ -< o Q) :J < (1) o Q) 0- o o Ul -0 o Ul Q) c.n (1) .., < ('l (1) o +:- ......... o ......... Q;) o 0'\ 00 o W o :J o N I W o <.C Q) rtUl -.3 (1) Q) 0.. - :J (1) 0- ~ 0 Ul X U Q) 0 U -n (1) .., rt .., 0- C 3 :J 3 0.. -:J (1) to Ul Ul ('l Q) :J Ul Q) rt ("l c .., 0- W ......... -< .., 3 Q) X :J o :J (1) N -< 0.. Q) rt ('l C .., 0- o Q) -< n rt -< N ......... o ......... "-J \..0 V1 00 N 0'\ 0'\ -< (1) Ul o .., o ......... o ......... 00 o "-J 00 V1 +:- 0'\ o :J o :J o :J (1) ~ ......... -< .., W -< 0.. Q) rt ('l C .., 0- o ......... o ......... 00 o 0'\ o V1 ~ V1 :J o :J o :J (1) +:- ......... -< .., W -< 0.. Q) rt ('l c .., 0- n o .., rt (1) 3: Q) 0.. (1) .., Q) o ......... o ......... co o V1 0'\ o .1:- N V1 :J o :J o :J (1) +:- ......... -< .., W -< 0.. Q) rt ('l C .., 0- n o :J n o .., 0.. o "-J ......... o ...... ......... co o "-J V1 N o o -< (1) Ul N- I ~ o to Q) ('l Q) :J Ul :J o :J (1) n Q) 3 U 0- (1) o W ......... o ......... 00 W W W N W "-J :J o :J o :J (1) N ......... -< .., Ul 3 Q) rt (1) 3 Ul Q) rt ('l C .., 0- OJ .., Ul 0- Q) :J (1) o V1 ......... o ......... 00 o ~ N o W \..0 V1 :J o :J o :J (1) :J o :J (1) l> rt ::r (1) .., rt o :J n rt -< o .., ." .., Q) :J ('l ::r Ul (1) o \..0 ......... o ......... 00 o 0'\ o V1 ~ \..0 n OJ rt ITI :J Q) o ("l :J ::r Q) :J o c.n (1) n .., c < .., 0- ("l (1) :J o :J (1) ~ (1) (1) ^ -< -l .., 3 3 :J to Ul :J o :J (1) ." .., (1) .0 C (1) :J ('l c.n -< (1) Q) Ul o :J Q) n (1) rQ) -. :J 3 I -.c rt"O ." ITI o -n "'O-n Q) (1) ;;ortn Q) (1) rt rt (1) < (1) W ~ON (1) :J (1) (1) ^ n -< Q) :J 0 n :J ITI l> ;:t; o..ONl> 0....,:J-l o..lTI U'l n Q) ." :J 0 ;;0 c.n G) ITI Q) ;;0 < :z ITI G) ::I: OJ o ;;0 :z G) n o 3: 3: C :z -l ITI c.n VI (1) .., < ('l (1) Ul :J ("l C 0.. (1) 0.. :J rt ::r (1) n o Ul rt ::t> >-3 >-3 ::t> n ::r:: ?' m Z >-3 n o -n o :J (1) n Q) :J c: III U Q) c: o a. +-I :J.- I E c:.- Ill-l Q) u 4- o III c: o (f) III Q) >- V') U c: Q) :J CT Q) I... l.L. +-I (f) o u Q) ..c: +-I c: "0 Q) "0 :J U c: (f) Q) U > I... Q) V') V') LiJ I- Z :::> ~ ~ o u ~ z ~ o CO ::I: (.!l ..c I... > :J I... U Q) V') LiJ Z ~ III Oc:..c:c: l.L. III U 0 U Ill'- c: LiJ+-I1ll U V') LiJ "0 1-c:I..."O c:(NO"O ~ c:( LiJ c: U 0 >~ ~ III LiJ Cl V') c: III >- U .:,t. Q) Q) c: Q) NO:;: CV'\ Q) > Q) +-I +-I Q) III U+-I~ Q) III 4-01... 4- 0 LiJ l.L. (f) OJ c: E E I... I- >- .:,t. Q) Q) :;: Q) U Q) (f) ..c: U C III I... l.L. I... o >- +-I U Q) c: o c: Q) Q) c: c: o 0 c: c: Q) c: o c: Q) Q) c: c: o 0 c: c: o c: o 0 c: c: I..l\ CO ..:::t Ol..l\ 0"\ 0"\ NN I..l\ 00 ..:::t .... ..:::t \.0 r--.. o 00 ........ o ........ .... o CO CO ................ .... .... 00 ................ CV'\ CV'\ 00 (f) (f) o +-I ::I: (f) o +-I c::( c:( (f) o -l (f) o -l ..c I... :J U +-I III +-I E o c: I... >- ........ N Q) c: o c: o c: r--.. CV'\ N CV'\ CV'\ CV'\ CO ........ .... o ........ CV'\ o (f) o +-I III (.!l (f) o -l I... >- ........ N ..c I... :J U +-I III ..c: (f) :J I... ..c o CO ........ o ........ r--.. o +-I E o c: +-I E c: :J o c: o o I..l\ o I..l\ r--.. N Q) c: +-I I... III L Q) c: o c: Q) c: o c: (f) Q) >- I..l\ 0"\ CV'\ o CO ........ .... o ........ N (f) III +-I a. L ..c I... :J U ..c ..c I... I... :J :J U U +-I III "0 >- N +-I +-I III III (f) (f) E E Q) Q) +-I +-I X III E III III E E (f) (f) I... >- ........ CV'\ I... I... >->- ................ NN ..c I... :J U +-I III c: III U III OJ N CV'\ I Q) Q) c: c: o 0 c: c: o c: (f) (f) Q) Q) >->- o N CV'\ o o r--.. 00 Ol..l\ ..:::t ..:::t o CO ........ .... o ........ ..:::t o Q) U > I... Q) V') III (f) o a. (f) o III OJ III I... o L I III "0 C I... o '-" ::I: c: III OJ I... o L III OJ III I... o L Q) c: o c: >- c: o E Q) L U o (f) (f) c:( Q) E o ::I: Q) I... o ..c: V') Q) .:,t. III -l o c: I..l\ 0"\ CV'\ I..l\ CO I..l\ o CO ........ o ........ ..:::t o "0 c: III .:,t. III o (f) Q) "0 c: :J ..c CV'\ I... o c: III U III OJ N CV'\ I CV'\ Q) c: o c: Q) c: o c: o c: I..l\ I..l\ CV'\ o I..l\ \.0 o CO ........ o ........ ..:::t o Q) U > I... Q) V') III (f) o 0- (f) o III OJ III I... o ~ I III "0 c: I... o '-" III "0 c: I... o ..c I... :J U "0 >- N Q) c: o c: I... >- ........ N Q) c: o c: o c: o ..:::t I..l\ CO I..l\ o CO ........ o ........ ..:::t o +-I c: o E "0 Q) 0.... +-I III X III E Q) Q) c: c: o 0 c: c: ..c I... :J U +-I III (f) c: III U III OJ o CV'\ , N Q) Q) c: c: o 0 c: c: (f) Q) >- o 0 c: c: o o N 1..l\0 ..:::t ..:::t NN o o r--.. Ol..l\ N CX) I..l\ I..l\ CO ........ o ........ ~ o 0"\ 0"\ r--.. r--.. ................ .... .... 00 ................ NN >- Q) ::I: +-I c: III (f) III Q) 0.... III > III o +-I I... o 0.... Q) c: o c: o 0 E E ........ ........ OJ OJ III III ..c ..c ..c: U+-IU c:.- +-10+-1 (f) E (f) III III I...~ a.Q)a. a. III III OJ OJ N N CV'\ CV'\ o c: I..l\ \.0 ..:::t I..l\ I..l\ \.0 I..l\ \.0 o CX) ........ .... o ........ I..l\ o (f) (f) o ~ Q) c: o c: o c: o N ..:::t Q) c: o c: Q) c: o c: Q) c: o c: Q) c: o c: o c: o c: ..:::t \.0 CV'\ I..l\ CX) N ..:::t o ..:::t o ..:::t I..l\ o CX) ........ o ........ r--.. o o CO ........ .... o ........ r--.. o o u (f) (f) o U c: III I... l.L. c: III V') I... III U c: III V') .0 .0 Q) I.. I.. > C :J :J 0 CO U U 4-1 U l/l .0 4-1 4-1 0.4-1 ......... CO I.. CO CO :Jo- I.. :J I E E4-I u eo- Q) >< -U -U C CO...J 4-1 Q) 4-1 >- >- CO Q) CO U N N U Q) Q) Q) en I.. Q) Q) -U Q) Q) e e e ~O e c >- e >< >< e 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO 0 e e e e e (V"\ e E E e 4- 0 0 l/l 4- CO Q) 4-1 Q) >- I.. l/l (/) U 0 e u Q) I.. I.. I.. I.. :J >- >- >- >- Q) c:r ........ ........ ........ ........ .c Q) (V"\ (V"\ ..::t 4-1 I.. U LL. e 4-1 0 l/l E CO -u .0 Q) 0 0 CO I.. 0. -u I.. E E :J :J Q) ........ ........ Q) U N .0 C en en u u I.. CO CO e 4-1 I.. .0 C l/l :J CO .0 .0 0 CO 0 I.. en U 4-1 .c :J e e u 4-1 U l/l l/l l/l U l/l 4-1 0 eo- e e e Q) E CO U 4-1 04-1 CO CO CO 4-1 U E l/l E l/l U U U CO Q) Q) Q) I.. CO CO Q) Q) > I.. e e -U e Q) Q) I..~ e l/l e I.. I- 0 0 >-0 o.~ 0. Q) 0. 0 en 0 Q) e e e -U 0. e CO CO CO CO e (/) >- :J 4-1 e en en en.o u 0- :J ~ .....~ (/) ..::L E.o CO CO 0 0 N I..LJ Q) en en (V"\ (V"\ ('!"\ Q) I.. I I I I- 3 >- 0 N N N N N Z ..::L .0 :::l 3: ~ I ~ 0 0 co U'\ U ~ Z Q) 0::: U 0 .0 l/l co I.. > Q) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :J: :J I.. >- e c c c c c c c ~ u Q) (/) I..LJ Z 0::: CO 0 e.c e LL. CO U 0 U'\ ..::t U'\ U'\ U'\ 0 U'\ U'\ooo u CO 0- e 00 '" N '" " " ..::t en..::t..::t ..::t (/) 1..LJ4-I CO I..LJ -u u (V"\ (V"\ (V"\ (V"\ (V"\ ..::t (V"\ N .....NNN l- e I.. -U <( NO -U 0::: <( I..LJ C U 0 e CO >- > U ~ en U'\ ..::t U'\ 0 0 U'\ 0 U'\ U'\OOO 0::: CO ..::L ..::t 00 0 0 00 0 ..... '" 0 U'\ I..LJ ~ Q) Q) (/) e Q) U'\ U'\ ..::t U'\ '" U'\ U'\ '" '" ..::t U'\ '" '" N03 (V"\ Q) > Q) ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 en en en en 4-1 co co 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 " " " " 4-1 Q) CO ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........................ ........ U 4-1 0::: ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... or--___ Q) CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 4- Cl I.. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........................ ........ 4- 0 (V"\ ..::t 0". " 0 ..::t ..::t NNNN I..LJ LL. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---- I.. Q) (/) --- Q) U CO l/l > 0 I.. 0. Q) l/l (/) Cl CO >- l/l Q) 0 0. l/l CO > Cl >- ..::L 0 Q) Q) U Q) Q) l/l I.. l/l CO U U > .c e --- 4-1 U CO :J e I.. ..::L e CO 0 LL. Q) I.. I.. Q) CO LL. -U 0 Q) 0 e I.. 3 Q) e Q) co 4-1 CO U Q) I.. l/l CO 4-1 4- (/) 4- -u 0 0 Q) CO CO 4-1 0 ..., ...J ~ 0::: CO .c :J l/l >- l/l 4-1 e >- -u 4-1 e e e e :J :J 4-1 0 CO CO CO CO CO 0 CO 0 U (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) 3 u 3 <((sD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO~IIJ.Ag~~a~Sb~ij;9/89r I VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN POSITION PAPER General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE April 9, 1981 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR DISTRICT PROJECT 3330, SOLIDS CONDITIONING BUILDING REPAIRS, PHASE I AWARD OF CONTRACT K. BARKER INITIATING DEPT.!DIV. ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION SUBMITTED BY ISSUE: Award of District Project 3330 to Ric Mar Construction Company in the amount of $170,100 and approval of $19,900 for contingencies and construction inspection, for a total budget amount of $190,000. BACKGROUND: The Solids Conditioning Building exterior was damaged by a gas explosion in September, 1979. Repairs to the building exterior are required, and a contract has been prepared for these repairs by FMC Associates. Firm price bids were solicited, and the low bidder was Ric Mar Construction Company at $170,100. This price is considerably in excess of the FMC Associates' original estimate of $85,000. Re-evaluation by FMC Associates of its estimate, however, revealed that it had omitted some of the scope of work from its original estimate. FMC Associates' revised estimate is $145,000 (attached); and, therefore, the Ric Mar bid of $170,100 is considered reasonable. A copy of the bids received is also attached. District's insurance company (Fireman's Fund) has indicated its approval of this bid; and, therefore, District's costs for this work will be reimbursed by Fireman's Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Award District Project No. 3330 to Ric Mar Construction Company at the bid price of $170,100 and include $19,900 for contingencies and construction inspection for a total budget amount of $190,000. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT.!DIV. .c2~ GEN. MGR'/CHIEF ENG. EQUIPMENT AND FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS Item Mixing and storage tank (25,000 gal) Lime slurry feed pumps (2) Mixing pump (1) M I xe r (1) Force Account (Engineering, procurement and construction management) Subtotal Subtotal Contingency 10% Total NOTE: These costs do not Include the cost for installation of the equipment. ATTACHMENT 2 $ 25,000 11 ,000 5,000 15,000 $56,000 $19,000 $75,000 7,500 $82,500 DISTRICT PROJECT 3330 BID OPENING - 2:00 p.m., March 31, 1981 SOLIDS CONDITIONING BUILDING REPAIR, PHASE I 1. Kirkham, Chaon, Kirkham $196,241.00 $170,800.00 $170,100.00 2. Wilson Pacific Construction *3. Ric Mar Construction Company 4. Dalzell Corporation $172,400.00 * Subcontractors: H&H Robertson $64,000.00 Gibbs Painting Schlermont Sheet Metal Enterprises Roofing Aaron Iron Central Sanitary BOARD OF DIRECTORS NoYIII. I tems Tate Tor Agenda - a. OSITIO n T VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN P N r'APER General Manager-Chief Engineer SUBJECT AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUNDS TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT FOR PLANT AND LANDFILL ODOR CONTROL. DATE Ap r i I 9, 1981 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF SEWER CONST. FUNDS SUBMITTED BY STEVE McDONALD, ASSISTANT ENGINEER INITIATING DEPT./DIV. SPECIAL PROJECTS ENGINEERING DESCRIPTION: Odors at the treatment plant, particularly in the summer season, can be significantly reduced by adding lime to the sludge to control hydrogen sulfide gas. Equipment to accomplish this objective has been identified. Its installation wi 11 allow Operations to mix 1 ime slurry directly with primary sludge prior to dewatering and landfill disposal. Thissignificantly reduces the amount of lime required compared to current operations. PURPOSE: Over the next several years, this project will result in the following: o Reduce lime usage. o Improve and reduce the cost of odor control at the treatment plant. o Reduce sludge odor problems at the Acme Landfill. o Provide lime stabilization of the sludge. o Improve centrifuge dewatering performance and reduce polymer use. Once the furnaces are operating, the project will continue to be needed for odor control at the treatment plant, and will serve as a backup for sludge disposal. It is estimated that approximately $375.00 per day in operating expenses can be realized resulting in a payback period of 3.4 years. To control odors this summer season, it is necessary to prepurchase major pieceS of equipment to reduce lead time. This equipment as well as Force Account work has been estimated to cost $82,500 as shown on Attachment 2. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize expenditure of $82,500 from the Sewer Construction Funds for prepurchase of equipment for sludge odor control. Attachments (2) REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG. ':'\ CLW ~~~.%.~...lT(\ Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 SLUDGE pH ADJUSTMENT *CHEMICAL & HAULING COST COMPARISON Apri 1 9, 1981 SUMMARY: Basis: 4 mo. operation/yr. $ Net Savings/yr ------------ 129,000 84,000 45,000 o Full lime to primary --------------------- o Lime to sludge line ---------------------- Project Cost (estlmated)--- 153,000 3.4 yrs. Pay back ------------------ *NOTE: This does not Include sludge dewatering benefit and polymer savings. Nor does It include improved odor control and lime stabilization benefits. (See backup calculation, pages 2 & 3) LIME ADDITION TO PRIMARY FLOW (CURRENT OPERATION) Est. $/Day Lime Cost (CaO): 10 ton @ 75 $ = day ton 750 Hauling Cost: 10 ton CaO (1.79 #CaC03) (12.5 ~) = day #CaO ton 225 Odor Control Chemical Cost (NaOC1): (a) (3,300 ACFM) (60)(24)(8.59 x 10-8)(145)(2.4)(0.7)= 100 TOTAL = $1,075 $129,000 for 4 mo. Operation (a) Assumes: o Thickener pH = 9 o Input H2S = 145 ppm o Output H2S = 2.2 ppm Page 2 of 3 Page 3 of 3 LIME ADDITION DIRECTLY TO SLUDGE (PROPOSED OPERATION) Lime Cost (Ca(OH)2): (a) Est. $/ day (360 gpm) (0.003# CaO )(12.0-5.5)(24)(60) = 5.05 ton gal Sludge-pH (2,000) day 5.05 ton @ 117 -1- = day ton 588 Haul ing Cost: 5.05 ton CaO (1.79 #CaC03) (12.5 -1-) = day #CaO ton 119 (b) Odor Control Chemical Cost (NaOC1): (3300)(60)(24)(8.59 x 10-8)(1.5)(2.4)(0.7) = --------- 2 TOTAL = $700 $84,000 for 4 mo. Operation (a) As s ume s : o Sludge Flow = 360 gpm o Thickener pH = 12 (b) Assumes: o Thickener pH = 11 o Input H2S = 1.5 ppm o Output H2S = 0.2 ppm <((sD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS No.VIA~end!t~~s h'97syor Oft I VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN POSITI N r'APER General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE Apri 1 9, 1981 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION TEMPORARY OFFICE SPACE AT TREATMENT PLANT AUTHORIZATION FOR LEASE SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. K. Barker Engineering/Construction ISSUE: Temporary office space is required at the Treatment Plant. BACKGROUND: Because of the rehabilitation of the existing Plant Administration Building and the plan to move the Construction Divisionis Management back to the Treatment Plant, six additional office trailers are required which, in additionto the four presently at the Plant site, will give an overall total of ten office trailers. Leasing is phased as follows: (1) Three office trailers will be leased for nine months (until the the Administration Building rehabilitation is completed). (2) Three office trailers will be leased for twenty months (until the new Administration Building is completed). (3) Use of the remaining four office trailers will be discontinued when the new Administration Building is completed. Six trailer leasing companies have been contacted by District, and the most advantageous leasing arrangement for District has been submitted by Mobile Modular Management Corporation in the amount of $40,000 (see attached estimate and proposal summary sheet). Note that this amount does not include utilities hook up, paving, walkways, and mobilization and demobilization. These cost items will be covered by a future authorization request. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize District to proceed with negotiations to finalize the lease of six 121 x 561 office trailers and approve a budget of $40,000 for this item. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION "'?n GEN. MGR'/CHIEF ENG. In ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ _ ~ 5: ~ TI ~ ~ == ~ 1-- ~ " fT... ~ '- " ~ =i U\ -4 n :i:l 2:> I ~ ~ ~ f- to.. --. J (J:) t..; ::'1 ---.. ---t-- -- ~ = 5' ~ P' :\ ~ " UI '" l;k W -....I ~ W .' ~'\ i-- ~ _t'I ~ r ~ ~ )l ~ ~ ~ ~ )(:l ~ ~ ~ !l -l ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;:- '- 6''=> ~ ; V' ~ C, ~ I~I ~ b g --~+-- - \:1'0____ ---------t--+- - =1------ --;. ~ r'.:l-- ~- -- w- --- ----- e------ ~ ~ ~ i k C\ L>J --- 10 !,) 17 ~ ~ ;::: ~ ~ pt , - .... l"l ..) c).} :) ClCI - :----1- ::\ ~ ~\.} -- "" ~"'I I'..) In OC\ ,..:> W .A.. f...l ~ i:Bo - "-, .to.. .t... Lt, JI ~ '" , -- ~ , '-I .... "\. --~-- ~ I I t' ----ll-- fr. --11 I----+---+-_ --- ~ I i ~ ::JL I ~ ~ ~I ; ~~- ~ f ~rf r<J i'1 ~ ~ ~ :0 P .: II [I l ~ -t ~ 'y. + ~ f+ ,~!, i rr ~ j ~ ~;\ ~ ~ ~ Ii I I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~J' ~, r---[I'I i I ~ ~) n~::.l .:\;'~ Q1 ~ I i ~--1P -.tl ~ ~ ~ :! o~ 0 ~ r I I ~;~ :t p ~~ ~ G ~ ,. Pel I [I P n ~ ~3 :". ~. I, f" ; .~ ~ / - 'j Lj. ;;~' 8 I-- ~ N :-::: h- I- . ~cc-t-=*,~~ll-'==JI --" ~ ~ ~~ ~ );f--;---t-- ---~--;-----~-><"'.. .--. '~I I ' ~ ~ [1! :.' ~-- -- - L ~L,---- -- :- ~~- -- ---;1 -. ""-:-~: : \ ~z: (:.:> ( \ : .Ii I 1" ~ i-I ~- - --- ~.+I04r ~ U ' ~:~~ >:= - ft',==~ I~I ..;~ ! ~ :-: -- ~l 1\'1 G" 1:'\ . \.J\ I ,~ ;n i --1 I If'iq ~ ~---~ ~~__n__ ;: - ~[--ji r --k i ~~ ---~ ~r--"- --~- - ~~---- -- ~-- ~-t=jl i ~ wi;\ ri~ i - }L. .::.-~.::.- -- ___ N-: ~~+-:-:-=-li I r-t>.. l\ ~ I'... '" ' -ti i In \ - I~-' ~ ~ -L.=kJ---t~~c, ~ l;? ~ --- -:=t------ L-J-~~!~l B ~ rx, e --~':::-J~ r=t~P:~.I.I~ I ~ ^ f " :'I - '> t--~i-=I,~ i r -\ ~ ~+-~~-~- -~~~J\~I+ : ~ ยท - ~ .. I bf ~ ~ . ~LJLJ ~..J ~.. -~_._.... t_L=~~1 =~:~~10dlrl n r -- -t1=--I.: !z: ~~~+--- I I! R ~ - :,:=~=l! i' ~) - ----n-- rj. - __ - _--+--=-t.:_--E~I~ I ;-\ ~ c------- ~'- ~ t- .iJIr- 1 en ':; ~ -- -- ~ --l----l!s: i ~ ~ +:__ _ L ~m_ -=~~ t--]C-~-C J -P'; ~ !- -- -~~ -I~- )x.. ~-j -.:jl I y--- --~. L_ --l"j. l' I " -- -i-- "- ---- _[).l~__-j\ (!\ ,\ ~ -1. _ ~ -"- ~- -~ =- 141t- ,~ ~.- -. - ~ -- ~ - -- ,- ':\~ ::=!i~ i'-'l ..(\ _ L_ --- - -1--~-+-~4 - -1:~~ " '- .-- - -~~ ~.- ~JP-rt~~~-l' t Y ,.. -- ~-I--= .::=+.::-::: - -~ -1-- - -:::-=-uf---=+--:-=_::::-::: - - - - ir---I [):L ___ _ _ __ _ _ __ .....__ _ __ .... ---- ---~ - ~- -----, --. -- - -ji- 1 - 1 t1 IT__ . .. -,--~=t!=--cc~~cc-b=-JLc=J. :: +-- . ~----l-- -.. -- u---~---,l.L-___1ic;-\ ! = ilL ::J~ ~'::~t~==-t:.~ ::-:= ~ 3jtl--U~ --- -~ f-----..-- --1-r tn!1~ H-t+f CO -Tn! -=4- j. L<: --- -..:t:-- -:::t-j- 1:::11 ~ -\~ j) ~ = r -\ \:1 Cl ~ .., ~ ~ " IX b. I~ ;:-. 1\0.. \\. ,[:: :1 ~ _\ '- ~, ~ i:-. t-.. !...i 1'3 .,. - ~ - "'" <"- ~,.. N ~ ~ N -..} "- ....... ~ ~ :'l j, ~ --i--- I I r -==-- --1---- --- --f-- ---t-- ~--- -- f-+-== .=--=-1. -i- =:=:.=:. ~ -- } - ---L----t.____ ---t------- -==t=- --1-- --- ---t-- [-= c---- __ __ n -~-:::: ___ ::.::::: :=-t-= -::.-:-==t_ .:::::'__:-:=-=-t----- - --- -+- -~-- --- .. tlC'\ ~ .'1 --- f--- ---. I J :lC) ;:-.-- 0\. i -::::~- ~ .---. -- .to.. ['\ [~ ~- t-- -- -~~:-:- o " '-" Q o:::i ~ 1') ---~ It. .~:.- --, -- 1 ::.::::--=-.::- ::=u_- -__ ~_ _:_~-- 1>--.__ ~ ---- N' -- ~i~-- ~ i , I +=1-- --- .---1 lJl :'l ~ --- """> ~_. ~I-- -.Ill ~ :'\ ----.j .,. ~ ~ '" ~ - in ~j ~ )C\ ~ -- ::> 0. _ !t:... ~.. .-- \<r- ..,. ~- \.. -L. ... 1- l\-- V'I ~ 0cI -r- f---n _ - -- --- -- - -- --!----- +------ .. J- ___n:::- --- "==:--l---= -:-_-= - -- - _m._._ ___ _m_ --- -.- -- ---t-- .-j----r-- --- --- f--- -- -- f.-e.- .:-~= ~t=--f::'== --- ~=:'=-~= --:':~t=:=~=- -~~~;.--=: =:::~_ 1 , 1 i- -"1-- . -- ---. --.- --. --J-' .n =- ::...--=- -~ ----- -- - -- -..:: ___ _n _ ._._ ... ._ .n -\i? ~l;: h ~~ ;g :5 f'\ ; 'Q 1") - :-. .. L't-.. N l'\ ~ ~ \"" - -:- ~ ..'l t\ ..... ~ ~ .... \1\ --- Q.. ~ >CI I' r--- -f-l~ ~ 7V~M Ii' P 1;) ~ f+ -l ~ ~,~ ~ r} ~~ ~ t! 3: t ::> ~ 0: J' -. !1 i\. r\. .... "" - ~- ". Iff ~ - .... \ ..... ~ - .J:l ~ ~ l)'} r- '" ~ - 'l J\ .' -" ; \:)' .\ " ~ V I'" '" ::.! ,. , }o<. - ---:~- :1 :..." :'\ ~ J\ ... ~ i,.. I"" .... ~ 8 ~ ().l '----' ~ N -.>3 () c-.. -. .;) ~ IN -- ~- ----- D< '" [t;-~-- -- ..:... i'~ . ( ( r\ .~ ~ , :r" ?: I I I I I ts: b 15 c 1-- f'-~: r 0 ~ " It=:. I \-\ r: :-\ ~ . I ~ Jl', '--1 ~I ..j t 1 ~ ~ it. ::: i I iCJ ~ '1> !::) .\ rtl" .tt:n tJI [- it" ::sJi :Ai r~1 'T) t... I ill n 1-\-0.. lJ ~ tl ~)) -r- L_( (X, 1- !"' '7 .-'- \~ - I