Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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