HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 02-19-81
. ccC5D
....-.
Centr
-
Contra Costa Sani Jry District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO.
d--,q-~J
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
2/11/81
SUBJECT
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ONE MINI-PICKUP TRUCK
,
SUBMITTED BY
Bob Hinkson, Manager, Collection System Maintenance Department
BACKGROUND:
A mini-pickup truck is required to support the Biological Phosphorus Removal
Pilot Plant operation. The California State Water Resources Control Board is
expected to approve the budget for the Pilot Plant work, including $3200 for
rental of a mini-pickup truck.
The District Can purchase a mini-pickup truck for approximately $6500.
By purchasing a truck for the Pilot Plant work, the District can obtain a truck
for $3700 out-of-pocket expense ($6500-87~% of $3200)).
Upon completion of the Pilot Plant work, the mini-pickup truck would be
assigned to the vehicle pool or used as replacement for another truck.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the expenditure of $6500 for the purchase of a mini-pickup truck
for use on the Pilot Plant Project. Authorize the expenditure of $3200 from
the Pilot Plant account and $3300 from the Collection System Maintenance Depart--
ment Capital Equipment Budget for this purpose.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
~~
SHEET I OF I
IN TIATlNG DEPT./DIV.
,.
-
....
· <C<SD
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
NO'VI. Cap. Improve.
2/1 /81
DATE
Feb. 11,1981
SUBJECTAUTHORIZATION TO AWARD THE PURCHASE OF POLYMERIC
FLOCCULANTS TO ALLIED COLLOIDS, INC. FOR THE PERIOD
THROUGH JUNE, 1982
TYPE OF ACTION
Award of Purchase
SUBMITTED BY
Robert A. Baker
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Manager, Plant Operations
Issue: The large doilar amount of polymer purchases at the treatment plant requires
a bidding and award procedure.
Background: Previously, the Board had authorized the Plant Operations Department to
implement a testing and bidding procedure for the purchase of polymer flocculants.
Seven suppliers were asked on April 28, 1980, to prequalify for testing polymer
flocculants. The request was also publicly advertised in the paper on May 4 and 5,
1980. Three suppliers qual ified, based upon their laboratory and field trial tests.
Sealed bids were received on January 19, 1981.
Based upon the evaluation formula given to the bidders, Allied Colloids, Inc. is
the low bidder. The unit bid price by All ied Colloids, Inc. is $2.13 per pound
which includes all freight and taxes.
Recommendation: Authorization to award the purchase of polymeric flocculants to
Allied Colloids, Inc. for the period through June, 1982.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
ENG.
RAB
RJD
.......
February 18, 1981
MEMORANDUM TO: R. A. Baker, Manager, Plant Operations
FROM: Alan R. Grieb, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: POLYMER BID EVALUATION
The following prices were bid on January 19, 1981 for polymer to be
used for sludge dewatering for the period through June, 1982.
Allied Colloids, Inc.
American Cyanamid Co.
Hercules, Inc.
Percol 763
Magnifloc 1563C
Hercofloc 874
$2.13 per pound
$1.1788 per pound
$2.268 per pound
I have evaluated the prices according to the comparison price formula
which I stated in my memorandum to you on November 17, 1980. The formula
calculates the difference in performance cost between each test polymer
and the standard polymer at the time of each test.
The results of this evaluation are shown in the table below.
Company
Test Polymer
Performance Cost
Standard Polymer =
Performance Cost
Compa r i son
Price
Allied Colloids, Inc. $ 74.56/ton feed TS $73.32/ton feed TS $ 1.24/ton feed TS
American Cyanamid Co. $111 . 10/ ton feed TS $80.60/ton feed TS $30.50/ton feed TS
Hercules, Inc. $111.22/ton feed TS $79.10/ton feed TS $32.12/ton feed TS
Allied Colloids has the lowest comparison price and should therefore be
awarded the polymer contract.
ARG:gv
11~~~
Alan . Grieb
Assistan Engineer
January 28, 1981
MEMORANDUM TO: D. G. Niles, Manager, Plant Operations
VIA: A. C. Russell, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: BID REQUEST TP-103, POLYMERIC FLOCCULANTS
Purchasing hereby recommends that the purchase order, in the amount
not to exceed $475,000, and for the period through June 1982, be awarded
to Allied Co11ids, Inc. for the subject goods based upon the facts that
All ied Co11ids, Inc, is the lowest responsible bidder and meets all
other requirements of the bid request.
NOTE:
1. Seven (7) suppliers, on April 28, 1980, were asked to
prequa1ify for testing of polymeric f1occulants. The
request was also publicly advertised in the paper on
May 4 and 9, 1980.
Six (6) suppliers qualified for phase I laboratory
testing and for the phase II 8-hour field trial. Five
(5) suppliers completed the 8-hour field trials and
were invited to participate in phase I II, the 48-hour
full scale test; however, only four (4) suppliers
elected to start the 48-hour full scale test.
Three (3) suppliers qualified, based upon their
test performance, to submit a formal proposal for
the supply of the District's treatment plant polymer
needs.
Three (3) sealed bids were received and publicly
read aloud on January 19, 1981, at 2:30 p.m.
2. Based upon the evaluation formula given to the
bidders, Allied Colloids is $33.22 per ton feed
T.S. below the next bidder, American Cyanamid.
3. Hercules, Inc. took exception to the 5-day delivery
requirement and quoted on eight (8) days.
4. Allied Colloids was the only bidder to quote on the
firm price purchase option for 1982 through 1983.
5. Allied Colloids bid a unit price of $2.13 per
pound which includes all freight and taxes.
D. G. Niles
-2-
January 28, 1981
6. Payment terms are 2%-10 days, Net 30 days.
Please proceed to obtain the necessary approvals.
, /J
// '. /.':.... ..
;/(h1r-:?~b
Ken Laverty
Purchasing and Materials Supervisor
KL:bc
Attachments
Reviewed by:
~"
A. C. Russell
Senior Engineer
"
r,
~,
.~
..
--
u t ~
I'
I .ul (
<u
... -
oll:
...11.
-
10 w
-u
z -
::>0:
..
<") -
.JW
() " ~y
00:
........ ... ..
I
~ ...
0
loW
- U
Z -
::> rr:
~ ..
II: "'"
W
Q ~ () ~.
::t
::> t " "- ~ ~ ~ JW ~
Z ~ < u J
~ ... -
~~ , I it: Iq \J~lf
~ ~
.~ L ~ - ). , !
\ "\ it () Q ~ :~
" I~ I~ { "- ~t:1:l ~ 'I
~ ~ I( I z-
!~ llii I~ ;:,ll: , "1' ~
..
~' ~
'-" ..
~ ~ ~ () ~ ~
~ 1 .... ~~ ~ JW
~ U. ~~ '"
" ,,~lf
.:.J ~"'I , t.;~ ~ ct
~ ~ I
:J r ~ '\ \j I~ ~ <I ~ ~ I
A ~ <
<...J I ..g I ...w
, V -u C',; ~
~ J " ~ z- "'
j ;:,'" ~
ti ~ .. ~
(J 1c1 :::::
It.. .....
~ \.i ~ .() ~ JW ~
~ ~ "- ~ ~ ~ ~~ \
~ I~ 00:
t; .....
.... I ~ " I~
U U 11 ~ 'U ; ~ ('<
~ ~ ~ () "'> ~
~ ~ \;' , ~t:1:l "' ~-
~ , z- .
~ .~ " ~ ~ ;:,It bt.~
C II.
Z ~ ~ u ('t ~
0
i= >-. ~' .~ It h \ , {
... ....j. ..,
ii: ."l ~
M CJ a:0 'OJ , " I ~ ~
'Q . .~ ';: r.-..
Q ~ W :z OZ ""0 .. _! ~ -~ ~ ~ , . \)
10 0 ~ ~~ ~ . ..-
~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~
a: z 0 ... 0;:' 'U .... -:t '" <"') , ,
ii 8 t:! iii It ;1 ~ uS ,~ \'t\ . '. J ..
i II: 10 II. ,~ \! .~ ~- ~ --{
:z o 0 g 0 d · -,-- ~ \... ~ \a .\ ('
W o :> = ~ .. r.. "" -:. 0
-> '"' 0 o ..: o :> ~ OJ '. 4
"'0 .i . ~ K .' ~ ..
.. ~ t .. C'( ~ rc ~ -~ '\
.. .~
< '" "' "' J
. . CI -~ .- ~ ~ \: -~ ... ~ .... ~ ... ~
\ i I~ It ..... Q) -1 "
~ ~ ~ - -~ ~ ~ ~
"': ~ ' , " ~
~ ~ c i .... ,
.~ ~ ~ }l ~ 'ti i , 4
41) "t .J. ......
.~ " .~ ,t ri ~ ~ ,~ 4 -.~ ~
a . ~ .~ ~, 'j t
Oi }1 "'Cl z \ ( I~ \to' ~ \I ~ '-t , "
~ 0 ~ "
.... . Ii: ~ ~ ~ , ~ " ~ .. .'1 ""l:)
- ,).., ~ " ~. ~ '-r~ ': -'~
.-0 Q i ... .(J . ' ~ 1
\l .. I... .. -- . ~ ~ s
....... ~. t -I
.Z .... .~ It 'fot ..... .~ u ~
\ -.. " 1$- ~ .... .) I"'" ~ lC
0 () \l ~ 0 ~ .+ 'It
~ t ~ ~ " ~
- v ~ ,OJ .\,. ~ " ~ ... ........ C"\ .: ). ~ y
... ~ ~ , i " ~ ~
.< ~. ~ ~ .. .:..... ~ ~ :A " ~ ........ --: ~ 0
..A ~ ~ \l III
--0 ~ ~ >, ~ ~ { .
J \oj j - ~ '0 -;-. ~ "'Cl
~ .. ~ '- ~ 'CI
co " " .. " :.. ~ ~ ~ ci ~
< ~ l( ~ ~ ... ~ ~ -b It ..
, ~ ci ~:::J :,J 1I '.. \ ..
... :s .~ " III
\i' ~ :\,( - - ... ~ ~ . i - :.
~~ .." j "'" l
ii '" J
z .. 5i= ." ~ --0
.. . 'It ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ) - <S
::E
0 .. ~ - tQ ~
u ~-o( Ii. "6 ~ ~ ~ € Ie
W'
c .. ~ z
... ,""" '" I~ ,
< ~
."
(((sD
Central Contra
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
District
NO.
02--)tl-<t)
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
February 18, 1981
SUBJECT
TYPE OF ACTION
1980-1981 SIX MONTHS BUDGET REVIEW
BUDGET REV I EW
SUBMITTED BY
WALTER N. FUNASAKI, FINANCE OFFICER
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
ACCOUNTING DIVISION
ISSUE: A comparative review of actual and budgeted Operations and Maintenance revenue
and expenditures for the first six months of the 1980-1981 fiscal year was requested by
the District's Board of Directors.
BACKGROUND: The results of a review of the actual and budgeted Operations and Main-
tenance revenue and expenditures for the first six months of the fiscal year are sum-
marized in the following sections.
DISTRICT REVENUES
$10,909,000 was recorded from all revenue sources through the six months ended
December 31, 1980, representing 81.5% of the $13,379,000 of total revenues bud-
geted. The principal revenue sources budgeted are $10,479,000 of Environmental
Quality Charges and $2,100,000 of Service Charge Revenue from the City of Concord.
$10,205,283 of Environmental Quality Charges were recorded through December 31,
1980, a major portion of which was collected through the county tax rolls and
credited to the District's account. The balance of the budgeted EQC revenues of
$273,717 primarily represents amounts due from direct-billed accounts.
$508,206 has been paid by the City of Concord as an advance payment of one-half
of the service charges for the first six months of the fiscal year. The balance
of the service charge revenue budgeted, $1,591,794, is expected to be billed to
the City of Concord for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1981.
As the two principal revenue accounts budgeted are considered to be fully achiev-
able, the total revenue budget of $13,379,000 is projected to be real izable with-
in the 1980-1981 fiscal year.
DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
A comparison of actual expenditures and budgeted expenditures for the six months
ended December 31, 1980 is shown for each department or division in the following
summary:
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITI ING DEPT./DIV.
?~a~~
YTD
EXPENDED
DEPARTMENT OR DIVISION ANNUAL BUDGET YTD EXPENDED UNEXPENDED PERCENT
.
ADMINISTRATION $ 778,956 $ 439,672 $ 339,284 56.4%
COLLECTION SYSTEMS
ENGINEERING & SERVICES 1,406,529 736,840 669,689 52.4
CONSTRUCTION 60,000 32,892 27,108 54.8
SPECIAL PROJECTS 116,901 60,061 56,840 51.4
COLLECTION SYSTEMS
OPERATIONS 2,186,953 961,297 1,225,656 44.0
PLANT OPERATIONS 8,998,244 4,166,539 4,831,705 46.3
PUMP STATIONS - NORTH 384,866 322,468 62,398 83.8
PUMP STATIONS - WEST 374,387 193,849 180,538 51.8
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $14,306,836 $6,913,617 $7,393,219 48.3%
As shown, the total District expenditures of $6,913,617 represented 48.3% of the
total budgeted expenditures of $14,306,836. All departments' or divisions' ex-
penditures exceeded, or were less than, 50% of their budgeted expenditures as of
this mid-year juncture. Explanation for major causes of overexpended or under-
expended conditions for the six months ended December 31, 1980, and a projection
of the departmental or divisional expenditures for the twelve months ended June 30,
1981 are provided in the following sections. Detailed descriptions of: major ac--
count variances for each department or division are presented in attachments to
this position paper.
Administration Department:
Expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1980 totaled $439,672, rep-
resenting 56.4% of the budgeted expenditures of $778,956. This 6.4% overexpen-
diture of $50,632 is primarily the result of a write off of $5,051 of architect's
fees, legal fees in excess of budget by $32,428 and an overexpenditure of $11,690
for personnel advertising.
The Administration Department is projected to be $66,000 overexpended for the
fiscal year ended June 30,1981, $50,000 of which is for legal services and
$16,000 for personnel advertising.
- 2 -
Collection System Engineering & Services Division:
Expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1980 totaled $736,840, rep-
resenting 52.4% of the budgeted expenditures of $1,406,529. The 2.4% overex-
penditure of $33,757 is primarily the result of capitalized salaries and wages
and related employee benefits being less than budgeted.
Based on projects scheduled during the second half of the fiscal year, it is
anticipated that salaries and wages and employee benefits capitalized will ap-
proximate budgeted amounts and that the divisionis projected expenditures for
the fiscal year will be substantially equivalent to budgeted expenditures.
Construction Division:
Expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1980 totaled $32,892, rep-
resenting 54.8% of budgeted expenditures of $60,000. The budget of $60,000
was established on a preliminary basis pending development of a final budget.
The final budget of $58,020 was established in February 1981. The actual ex-
penditures through the six months ended December 31, 1980ace equivalent to
the final budgeted expenditures.
The Construction Divisionis projected expenditures for the year ended June 30,
1981 are expected to be substantially equivalent to budgeted expenditures.
Special Projects Division:
Expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1980 totaled $60,061, rep-
resenting 51.4% of budgeted expenditures of $116,901. The 1.4% overexpenditure
of $16,366 is primarily the result of salaries and wages and related employee
benefits being underexpended because of unfilled staff positions in the division,
offset by less then budgeted capitalized salaries and wages.
The Special Projects Division's projected expenditures for the year ended June 30,
1981 are expected to be substantially equivalent to budgeted expenditures.
Collection Systems Operations Department:
Expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1980 totaled $961,297, rep-
resenting 44.0% of the budgeted expenditures of $2,186,953. The 6% underexpen-
diture of $131,217 is primarily the result of non-management salaries and wages
and related employee benefits being underexpended due to unfilled staff positions,
and lower than budgeted expenditures for gasoline, oil and fuel; it is anticipated
however, that gasoline, oil and fuel expenditures will reach budgeted levels by
the end of the year because of price increases.
- 3 -
The Collection Systems Operations Department's projected expenditures for the
year ended June 30, 1981 are estimated to be $50,000 underexpended within non-
management salaries and wages and related employee benefits.
Plant Operations Department:
Expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1980 totaled $4,166,539, rep-
resenting 46.3% of budgeted expenditures of $8,998,244. The 3.7% underexpen-
diture of $332,935 is primarily the result of underexpendltures for lime,
$145,388, and polymer, $116,540, and less than budgeted expenditures for sludge
removal, $105,000. A major overexpenditure occurred In electricity expense
where a higher than anticipated rate increase produced a $53,994 variance. Lime
and polymer expenditures are expected to reach budgeted levels by the end of the
fiscal year.
Plant Operations Department's projected expenditures for the year ended June 30,
1981are estimated to be $120,000 underexpended because of a $214,000 favorable
variance for sludge removal, offset by an overexpenditure of $94,000 in elec-
tricityexpense.
Pump Stations - North:
Expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1980 totaled $322,468, rep-
resenting 83.8% of budgeted expenditures of $384,866.
The 33.8% overexpenditure of $130,085 is primarily
the result of an underestimation of chemical consumption for sulfide control and
increase in chemical prices.
Pump Stations - North's projected expenditures for the year ended June 30, 1981
are estimated to be $217,000 overexpended because of underbudgeted chemical
expenses.
Pump Stations - West:
Expenditures for the six months ended December 31, 1980 totaled $193,849, rep-
resenting 51.8% of budgeted expenditures of $374,387. The 1.8% overexpenditure
of $6,739 is primarily the result of higher chemical consumption and unanticipated
chemical price increases.
Pump Stations - West's projected expenditures for the year ended June 30, 1981 are
expected to be substantially equivalent to budgeted expenditures.
- 4 -
CONCLUSION:
The District's total revenue and expenditures for the first six months of the 1980-1981
fiscal year are within budgeted levels.
Recognizing the limitations inherent in projecting expenditures which are dependent on
operational requirements, particularly in the Plant Operations Department, the following
conclusions regarding revenue and expenditures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1981
are made:
'Budgeted revenues are projected to be realized.
.The following departmental or
expenditures are projected:
Administration Department
Collection Systems Opera-
tions Department
Plant Operations Department
Pump Stations - North
divisional over or under-
$ 66,000 OVER
50,000 UNDER
120,000 UNDER
217,000 OVER
TOTAL $113,000 OVER
.Worker's compensation insurance and state unemployment
insurance are projected to be $46,000 and $32,000 un-
derexpended, respectively.
The departmental or divisional overexpenditure of $113,000 will be offset by $78,000
of workers' compensation and state unemployment insurance, producing a $35,000 over-
expenditure for the fiscal year.
- 5 -
Page 1 of 3
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
ADMINISTRATION
EXPLANATION OF BUDGET VARIANCES
SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1980
ANNUAL
BUDGET
YTD
EXPENDED
UNEXPENDED
BALANCE
YTD
EXPENDED
PERCENT
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
778,956
439,672
339,284
56.4
o & M EXPENSES
ANALYZED:
DIRECTORS' FEES
7,250
4,272
2,977
58.9
Variance Explanation: The variance of 8.9% or $647, was caused by two
additional board meetings held in August 1980 which were not provided
for in the budget.
OFFICE EXPENSE
9,000
5,352
3,648
59.5
Variance Explanation: The variance of 9.5%, or $852, was primarily the
result of an annual purchase of IBM typewriter supplies for $648 within
the first half of the fiscal year rather than ratably throughout the year.
The balance of the variance is expected to be offset in the second half of
the fiscal year.
PROFESSIONAL'SERVICES
16,925
13,513
3;412
19.8
Variance Explanation: The variance of 29.9% or $5,051, was caused by a
charge-off of $5,065 of architect's fees for the Construction Division
building design which ultimately was not used.
Page 2 of 3
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
EXPLANATION OF BUDGET VARIANCES
ADMINISTRATION
SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1980
UNEXPENDED
BALANCE
YTD
EXPENDED
PERCENT
ANNUAL
BUDGE T
YTD
EXPENDED
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
778,956
439,672
339,284
56.4
o & M EXPENSES
ANALYZED:
LEGAL FEES
30,000
47,428
(17,428)
158.1
Variance Explanation: The variance of 108.1%, or $32,428, is the result of legal
service~ related to a higher than usual numb~r of personnel matters for which
$6,000 i~ fees were paid, and non-capitalizable legal matters involving Contra
Costa County Water District, Caltrans and Acme Fill Corporation which resulted in
$23,905 in combined legal fees. This account is projected to be over-expended
$50,000 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1981.
DATA PROCESSING
7,300
4,666
2,634
63.9
Variance Explanation: The variance of 13.9%, or $1,015, is the result of higher
than anticipated charges by the Contra Costa County for data processing services
which totaled $1,834 during the first six months of the fiscal year. This account
is projected to be within the budgeted total for the fiscal year ended June 30,
1981.
PERSONNEL ADVERTISING
18,000
20,690
(2,690)
114.9
Variance Explanation: The variance of 64.9%, or $11,690, resulted from extensive
and costly advertising for Department and Division Manager positions, including
Special Projects Engineering Division Manager and Plant Maintenance Division
Manager classifications. This account is projected to be $16,000 over-expended
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1981.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION INS.
168, 123
37,482
130,641
22.3
Variance Explanation: The favorable variance of 27.7% or $46,570, is the result
of an unanticipated $46,045 dividend for 1978-1979 which was received in October
1980. This account is projected to be $46,000 under-expended for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 1981.
" _,.__.__.H..___.__.._____._....,._____."H~'__........._____,__._...~__.._"_.._ _.___..'._'_m...____,__^.~___..__....,__.._...._...,.______.,_...____"'_,_"'_.._.,__"_.,_~.___
Page 3 of 3
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
ADMINISTRATION
EXPLANATION OF BUDGET VARIANCES
SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1980
ANNUAL
BUDGET
YTD
EXPENDED
UNEXPENDED
BALANCE
YTD
EXPENDED
PERCENT
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
778,956
439,672
339,284
56.4
o & M EXPENSES
ANALYZED:
STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INS.
52,600
9,243
43,357
17.6
Variance Explanation: The favorable variance of 32.4%, or $17,042, is primarily
the result of a decrease in the District's contribution rate f~om .8% to .4%
effective July 1980. This rate reduction accounted for $13,156 of the variance.
This account is projected to be $32,000 under expended for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 1981.
DEFERRED COMPENSATION
CONTRIBUTION
365,000
136,021
228,979
37.3
Variance Explanation: The favorable variance of 12.7%, or $46,355, is a normal
condition which results from lower contributions during the first half of the
fiscal year (last half of the calendar year) because maximum contributions for
employees whose earnings exceed the FICA ceiling would have been reached.
Increased contributions will be recorded in the second half of the fiscal year
as the FICA ceiling limitation will begin anew. This account is projected to
be equivalent to the budgeted total for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1981.
COLLECTION SYSTEM ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION AND SERVICES
EXPLANATION OF BUDGET VARIANCES
SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1980
ANNUAL
BUDGET
YTD
EXPENDED
UNEXPENDED
BALANCE
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
$1,406,529
$669,689
$736,840
o & M EXPENSES
ANALYZED:
RENTS AND LEASES
22,800
8,908
13,892
Variance Explanation: The variance of 10.9% or $2,492 was caused by a
cost savings realized through the leasing of the IBM copier (replacement
for the Xerox).
SALARIES & WAGES
213,120
83,441
129,679
Variance Explanation: The variance of 10.8% or $23,119 was caused by
projecting more capitalized salaries than actually were capitalized.
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
71,393
23,741
47,652
Variance Explanation: The variance of 16.7%or $11,955.50 was caused by
projecting more capitalized salaries than actually were capitalized.
PRINTING CHARGE OUTS
18,000
5,339
12,661
Variance Explanatio~: The variance of 20.3% or $12,661 was caused by an
overestimate of the amount of printing that would be required by other
Divisions or Departments.
YTD
EXPENDED
PERCENT
52.4
39.1
39.2
33.3
29.7
J
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION SPECIAL PROJECTS ENGINEERING
EXPLANATION OF BUDGET VARIANCES
SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1980
YTD
ANNUAL YTD UNEXPENDED EXPENDED
BUDGET EXPENDED BALANCE PERCENT
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION $116,901 $60,061 $ 56,840 51.4
o & M EXPENSES
ANALYZED:
SALARIES AND WAGES - NON
MANAGEMENT 177 ,034 63,274 113,760 35.7
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 59,275 19,;732 39,543 33.3
VARIANCE EXPLANATION: The combined variance of 14.9% or $35,210 is due to the
unexpected departure of one employee and delays in the hiring of that employee's
replacement as well as delays in hiring a new employee authorized at budget time.
SALARIES AND WAGES-CONTRA
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS-CONTRA
106,216
35,564
23,410
7,670
82,806
27,894
22.0
21.6
VARIANCE EXPLANATION: The combined variance of 28.1%, or $39,840, is due to
working at a lower than anticipated staffing level (three engineers instead of five).
Work on capital projects was slowed to allow completion of the running expense
projects associated with plant operations support.
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
c.S.o.
EXPLANATION OF BUDGET VARIANCES
SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1980
ANNUAL
BUDGET
YTD
EXPENDED
UNEXPENDED
BALANCE
YTD
EXPENDED
PERCENT
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
$2,186.953
$961 ,296
$1,225.656
44.p
o & M EXPENSES
ANALYZED:
GAS, OIL & FUEL
105,000
36,435
68,565
34.7
Variance Explanation: The variance of 15.3% or $16,065 is primarily the result
ofa decrease in District wide gas consumption of nearly 7%, and lower than
anticipated cost per gallon of gas61ine in the first 6 months of the fiscal year.
Recent price increases will bring this in line with budget estimates by the end
of fiscal year 80/81. I
GENERAL REPAIRS & MAl NT.
32,000
10,145
21,854
31.7
Variance Explanation: The variance of 18.3% or $5,856 is the result of not having
paid approximately $9,000 in bills that were not satisfactorily submitted.
EQUIP. REPAIRS & MAl NT.
18,500
6,198
12,302
33.5
Variance Explanation: The variance of 16.5% or $3,052 is the result of needing
fewer repairs on equipment through December 31, 1980.
..' -~.
Page of 3
DEPARTt.IENT /DIVISION Plant. Ooerations
EXPLANATION OF BUDGET VARIANC~S
SIX MONTHS-ENDED DECEMBER 31. 1980
ANNUAL
BUDGET
YTD
EXPENDED
UNEXPENDED.
BALANCE '
YTD"
EXPENDED
PERCENT.. ,. .
. . DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
8,998,244
4,166,539
4.,.831.705
. 46 .-~. .
.0 & M EXPENSES
: ANALYZED:
~z::ating SUpplies
50,000.
35, 775
14,225
71.5
Variance Explanation: The variance of 21.5%, or $10,775, was primarJ.ly caused
by the District. adopting a safety shoe .policy resulting in an unbudgeted cost .of
$3,700; unifonn/la\mdry cost incr~s totaling $3,500; and purchase of washdown
hose for soli~ building at a cost of $2,200. The shoes and hose were lump sum
.,.expenditures within the. first balf of the fisCal.year rather.than spread through-
.,.-'out ~e year. "Anew Uriifonn/laundrycontro1.system has been instituted.. The ,
- .' balance of the ~iance is ~ ~o be offset in the second half of the fiscal
-. year.
Operating Fuel
33,000
4,788
28,212
-14.5
. _ . V~iance. EXplanation: The variance of 35.5%, or $11,712, .of under expencllture.
was caused by. no large:. purchases ofd~.esel fuel taking place within the first. half
.: .of.the fiscal year. It had been anticipated that the'auxilcu:y boileI::s~u.ld be.
,run ondiesel while changes in the natural gas lines took place. This work has .
,been resched,uled, therefore, the balance of the variance is expected to be
offset in the second half of the fiscal year.
Lime
680,000
194,612
485,388
28.6
Variance Explanation: The variance of 21.4%, .or $145,388, of under expenditure
was caused by the plant being able to run at reduced. dosages of. lime, the price of
lime being held finn throughout the calendar year and invoicing taking place in the
nonth fo.llowing actual usage. The balance of the variance is expected to be
largely offset in the second half of the fiscal year.
Polymer
446,000
106,460
339,540
23.9
Variance Explanation: The variance of 26.1%, or $116,540, of under expenditure
was caused by coordinating polymer dosages and centrifuge operation effectively; the
co~t of p:)lymer being held finn throughout the calendar year;, ,and invoicing taking
place in the month following actual. ,usage. The. bP-lance of the variance is expected
to be largely offset iri the ..second half of the fiscal year. .
'.'
Page 2 of 3
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
Plant Operations
EXPLANATION OF BUDGET VARIANCES
SIX MONTHS ENDED DEC~IBER 31~ 1980
YTlf
EXPENDED '
PERCENT, '
ANNUAL
BUDGET
YTD
EXPENDED
UNEXPENDED,
BALANCE
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
8,998,244
4,166,539
4,831,705
, 46..3,'.
. -' -
, 0 ~ M EXPENSES
.,:."ANALYZED:
Sulphur Dioxide
25,000
16,985
8 ,01S'
-67~9
Variance Explanation': The variance of 17.9%, or $4,485. was caused by higher
, than anticipated cost increases; using 1-Ton cylinders at an increased cost while
':'bulk tank being repaired; and a higher usage rate. The balance of. the variance is
,expected to be practically offset' in the second half of the fiscal year.
'. '~::;"Labora:tory SUpplie~ '.
.26;000
5,275
20,725
20.3
'. . Variance' EXplanation: The variance of 29.7%, or $7,725, was caused by a
" .,n',reduction in laboratory supply spending and the fact that this~ ac;count is new for"
". the 1980-1981 fisCal year, therefore, an exact budget basis was not available. .
. " ',.The balance of tlle variance is expected to be Partially offset in the second half
,'. ''''of the fiscal year. .
:': -Safety SUpplies
21,200
6,787
14,413
32.0
. Variance Explanation: . The variance of 18.0%, or $3,813, of under expenditure .
. .was caused by minimum supply purchases to ensure that supplies in stock do not.
. becane obsoleted by the ever fluctuating safety' regulations by outside agencies. . _
The balance of the variance is expected to be offset in the second half of the year.
Electrical
707,111
407,549
299,562
57..6
Variance Explanation: The variance of 7.6%, or $53,994, was caused by a rate
increase higher than anticipated and that this invoicing cycle is such that the
last 'u.,U weeks in June of the previous fiscal year is paid for and charged to the
current fiscal year" therefore, June 1981 billing will be on the 1981-1982 fiscal
budget. The balance of the variance is expected to be offset in the second half of
the year.
Maintenance Supplies
21,200
12,576
8,624
59.3
Variance ExPlana:tion: The ~iance of 9.3~, or $1,976, 'was caused by p.rrchase
of paint to fulfill plants.;ifety requirements and replacement of.the large rrower.
The balance of the variance is expected to be offset in the second_ half of the
year.
, .
"._--,~"._--",_._---_.._._."' ...._~_._.--~- -~-,-'-'.'-----_._-_.._".~_._--_._.._--".._---~-._...-,-_.-.-~,.,_._--,--_.,_.,~---.,,~..
~
. r",
". .... ..
~Y:
Page 3 of 3
.:f
DEPARTl-IENT /DIVI SION
Pl.ant Operations.
~.
EXPLANATION OF BUDGET VARIANC~S
SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31>> 1980
".
UNEXPENDED
BALANCE.
YTn"
EXPEN.DED
PERCENT .'
ANNUAL
BUDGET
'YTD
EXPENDED
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
8,998,244
'4,166,539
4..831.705
46..3 .
. 0 & M EXPENSES
.,' ANALYZED: .
Progr~'MaintEmance'Supplies 39,600
34,192
5~408
86.3.
Variance Explanation: The variance of 36.3%, or $14,392, was caused by main
engine and enginator repairs which have beencanpleted.There is also a major,
variance between the plant's M.I.S.' records which show only 33% expended and
. AcCoUntings r~ords. A reconciliation will be done to correct this problem.
. The balance of the variance is expected to be 'offset in' the. second half of the
year.. .
. .
~'~~:--'<
,~
Outside .Repairs & Maintenance:
150, '000
89,677
60,323
59.8
Variance Explanation: The variance of 9. 8~, or $14,677, was caused by $7,000
being spent on .safety requirements. of siren installation and autanatic closmg of
machine shop qoorsi and $12,000. being spent on rebuilding'V'laukesha heads. The.
balance of the variance is expected to'be offset in the second half of the year.
:..: ~ ...
Rents & Leases.
34,330
20,152
14,178
58.7
Variance Explanation:. The variance of 8.7%, or $2,987 ,was caused by $16,700
being spent on rental of air canpressor to ru~ while main air canpressors. being
repaired. The balance of the variance is expected to be offset in the second half
of the year.
Salaries & Wages - Contra
217,416
1,298
216,118
.6
Variance Explanation: The variance of 49.4%, or $107,410, of under expenditure
was caused by the construction projects at the plant not starting in the first
half of the fiscal year. As these major construction projects start up, the
balance of the variance is expected to be offset in the second half of the year.
". ..~ ".to - .
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION Pump Station - North
EXPLANATION OF BUDGET VARIANCES
SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1980
ANNUAL
BUDGET
YTD
EXPENDED
UNEXPENDED
BALANCE
YTD
EXPENDED
PERCENT
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
384,866
322,468
62,398
83.8
o & M EXPENSES
ANALYZED:
Operating Supplies
14,000
4,419
9,581
31.6
Variance Explanation: The variance of 18.4 percent, or $2,581, of under expendi-
ture was caused by having a high inventory of fuel on hand at the closing of last
fiscal year, and below normal rainfall for the first half of this fiscal year has
kept usage to a minimum. The bal~nce of the variance is expected to be largely
offset in the second half of the fiscal yeqr.
Other Chemicals
100,000
192,647
(92,647)
192.6
Variance Explanation: The variance of 142.6 percent, or $142,647, was caused
by underestimation of actual chemical consumption for total sulfide control. Two
additional injection stations were added; below normal precipitation and above
normal temperatures for the first four months, and an unanticipated increase in
chemical prices. Chemical demand should be somewhat reduced as more rainfall
and lower temperatures commence.
Electrical
44,500
28,903
15,597
64.9
Variance Explanation: The variance of 14.9 percent, or $6,653, was caused by
an unanticipated rate increase, and the unusually cold and dry weather the last
two months has increased heating demands in the pumping stations. The balance of
the variance is expected to be largely offset in the second half of the fiscal
year.
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
Pump Station - West
EXPLANATION OF BUDGET VARIANCES
SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1980
ANNUAL
BUDGET
YTD
EXPENDED
UNEXPENDED
BALANCE
YTD
EXPENDED
PERCENT
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
374,387
193,849
180,538
51.8
o & M EXPENSES
ANALYZED:
Operating Supplies
16,000
4,242
11 ,758
26.5
Variance Explanation: The variance of 23.5 percent, or $3,758, of under expendi-
ture was caused by having a high inventory of fuel on hand at the closing of last
fiscal year, and below normal rainfall for the first half of this fiscal year has
kept usage to a minimum. The balance of the variance is expected to be largely
offset in the second half of the fiscal year.
Other Chemicals
33,000
43,784
(10,784)
132.7
Variance Explanation: The variance of 82.7 percent, or $26,284, was caused by
underestimation of actual chemical consumption for total sulfide control; below
normal precipitation and above normal temperatures; and an unanticipated increase
in chemical prices. Chemical demand should be somewhat reduced as more rainfall
and lower temperatures commence.
General Repairs & Maintenance 18,500
10,346
8, 1 54
55.9
Variance Explanation: The variance of 5.9 percent, or $1,096, was caused by
variable speed motor failures repair that cost $4,000. The balance of the variance
is expected to be offset in the second half of the fiscal year.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO.III. COn~7~g/~'1. 2
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
February 11, 1981
SUBJECT
EXECUTE CONSENT TO DEDICATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY - SUBD 5466 (JOB 3148)
TYPE OF ACTION
RIGHT OF WAY
SUBMITTED.faYy McCoy
INIT(ATING DEPT./DIV.
EnglneeringjCollection System
ISSUE: Claremoor Circle, a new road in proposed Subdivision 5466, runs
along a portion of an existing District sewer easement. Claremoor
Circle will be dedicated to the County for public use when the subdivision
map is filed.
BACKGROUND: The County requires a Consent to Dedication whenever a new
road is dedicated to the County for public use if said road encroaches
upon an existing easement.
This is our standard consent document, the District retains prior rights.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval, execute document and authorize its recording
by the County.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/ON
JMc
CL
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NOill Con~pnt Calendar
. 2719/81
3
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
February 11, 1981
SUBJECT
EXECUTE CONSENT TO DEDICATION TO CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY - SUBD 5465 (JOB 3148)
TYPE OF ACTION
RIGHT OF WAY
SUBMITTED BY
Jay McCoy
INITIATING DEPT.!DIV.
Engineering/Collection System
ISSUE: McKinley Circle, a new road in proposed Subdivision 5465, runs
along a portion of an existing District sewer easement. McKinley Circle
will be dedicated to the County for public use when the subdivision map
is filed.
BACKGROUND: The County requires a Consent to Dedication whenever a new
road is dedicated to the County for public use if said road encroaches
upon an existing easement.
This is our standard consent document, the District retains prior
rights.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval, execute document and authorize its
recording by the County.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
'''m;;/~MC
CLW
'~
((~P
Cent~al Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTOr<S
NO.
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
2/11/81
SUBJECT
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ONE MINI-PICKUP TRUCK
SUBMITTED BY
Bob Hinkson, Manager, Collection System Maintenance Department
BACKGROUND:
A mini-pickup truck is required to support the Biological Phosphorus Removal
Pilot Plant operation. The California State Water Resources Control Board is
expected to approve the budget for the Pilot Plant work, including $3200 for
rental of a mini-pickup truck.
The District Can purchase a mini-pickup truck for approximately $6500.
By purchasing a truck for the Pilot Plant work, the District can obtain a truck
for $3700 out-of-pocket expense ($6500-87~% of $3200)).
Upon completion of the Pilot Plant work, the mini-pickup truck would be
assigned,to the vehicle pool or used as repl~cement for another truck.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the expenditure of $6500 for the purchase of a mini-pickup truck
for use on the Pilot "Plant Project. Authorize the expenditure of $3200 from
the Pilot Plant account and $3300 from the Collection System Maintenance Depart-.
ment Capital Equipment Budget for this purpose.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
IN TIATING DEPT./DIV.
GEN. MGR./CHIEF ENG.
SHEET I OF I
c((SD
Central
District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO. IV.
A~718/S1
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
February 17, 1981
SUBJECT METHOD OF APPROACH FOR UPDATING DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF
FEES AND CHARGES
TYPE OF ACTION
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUBMITTED BY
Jay McCoy
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering/Collection System
BACKGROUND: Except for the annexation charge which was last updated
in January 1979, the fees and charges which the District
currently assess developers associated with new residential and
commercial sewer construction (installation and connection) have not
been updated for several years. Since these fees and charges are
intended to cover current District expenses and/or provide adequate
revenue for future construction, they need to be reviewed to determine
the appropriate revisions required to maintain an equitable, self-
supporting rate structure.
The attached chart lists the fees and charges which will be evaluated,
as well as the original basis for the charge and the current amount.
PROPOSED FEE STUDY APPROACH:
(A) ANNEXATION FEE -
The new fee will be based on the use of the following, historically
used formula;
ANNEX = (Total District Assessed Value
(Total District Area
X Tax Rate)
)
+ (Prior Accum Tax)
(Payments )
(Avg Acre A.V. )
Status: calculation is being finalized.
(B) FIXTURE FEE -
Currently, the District uses a complicated, detailed fee schedule
approach based on the various types and numbers of fixtures to be
installed for residential properties; as well as fixture unit
equivalents, fixture multiples and density considerations for applying
to commercial properties (see attached current fixture fee schedule).
In certain situations involving multi story commercial properties,
the current fee schedule results in inequitable fixture charges for
buildings with the same floor space and type of use. Consequently,
a major reevaluation of the fixture fee schedule is proposed to
both simplify the calculation as well as update the amount to be
collected.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
""!lJmG~
<=.~
The revised schedule that would be developed would still be based on the
existing premise that future connectors should be charged for the future
plant improvements required to serve them. The following outline represents
the recommended approach in establishing the appropriate residential and
commercial fixture fee:
Residential
1. The total number of future residential and commercial connections
will be estimated for the next ten year period using 1980 u.s.
Census figures, ABAG population projections, historical District
connection records, and trends in the number of occupants per
residence (currently 2.6 occupants/residence).
2. An estimate will be made of the additional plant flow expected
from the projected number and types of connections over the next
ten years.
3. The estimated cost of future plant improvement projects required
to serve the anticipated population increase will be calculated.
(a) Future projects included in the cost estimate will include
the hydraulic expansion to 45 mgd (5Bl), solids handling
facilities (5B2) as well as the proposed Phostrip project.
(b) An assumption will be made that no grant funds are available
for these future project costs.
(c) The historical portion of the capital improvement costs paid
by the City of Concord will be deducted from the project costs
to be paid by future connectors.
4. The balance of project costs to be paid by future connectors will
be prorated among the anticipated split of residential, commercial,
industrial and institutional type connections. The breakdown
percentage of connection categories will be based on a review of
historical connection records.
5. The portion of future project costs being assessed to future
residential connections will be generated from two categories of
connections as follows:
Category A - single family home, townhouse
Category B - apartments, condominiums, mobile homes.
Once the respective number of connections in each category has been estimated,
a calculation will be made as to the fixture fee to be collected from a
residential connection in each category.
2
Note - The approach outlined above would result in only two different
fixture fees for a residential connection. There would be no variation
in fee for the number of bathrooms or to account for future building
additions. This "fixed fee" approach is considered more equitable
since there is no definite connection between the number of bathrooms and
the number of occupants in a residence.
Commercial/Industrial
1. The estimated portion of future project costs to be collected
from non-residential connections will be determined.
2. A total estimated volume of sew~ge discharge will be calculated
for the various types of commercial/industrial property expected
in the next ten-year period.
3. Using the cost and discharge figures calculated above, a dollar
per volume of sewage rate will be generated.
(a) For restaurants, an evaluation will be made concerning the
possible use of waste strength factors to reflect the
variety of restaurant types in setting the fixture fee.
It is anticipated that the established fixture fee for both residential
and commercial properties would be periodically reviewed for possible
revision as future project costs and numbers of connections are accurately
identified. Also, possible incorporation of an annual increase in the
fixture fee based on a specific interest rate is also being considered to
provide for the effect of inflation.
Status: Method of approach is being finalized.
(C) WATERSHED FEE -
Detailed evaluation of the various watershed fees is not being performed
as part of the current study. A development analysis will be performed
for each watershed on a case by case basis at a later date.
Status: Several watersheds have been analyzed for needed trunk sewer
improvements, however, a revised watershed fee has not been
determined.
(D) INSPECTION FEE - (For sewer construction project)
The new fee recommended will be based on the actual cost to the District
of providing the inspection services. The total cost identified will be
the sum of labor, vehicle operation and the televising expense that the
District incurs.
3
As in the past, the charge for inspection services will be determined
by the length of the new public sewer to be installed ($/foot) and the
number of new lateral connections. However, one modification being
considered is the establishment of a minimum charge to insure that
relatively small sewer projects are not subsidized by larger projects.
Status: Inspection fee revenue as well as all associated District
expenses have been calculated for a two-year period (1978-1980).
These figures and other related factors are being evaluated
to determine the appropriate new fees.
(E) PLAN REVIEW FEE (For sewer construction project)
As indicated in the statement above regarding the inspection fee
analysis, the new fee recomended for plan review services will be
based on the actual cost to the District for providing this function.
The total cost identified will be the labor expense incurred by the
various District employees involved.
The ultimate fee will continue to be based on the length of public
sewer shown on the plans for review, with continuation of a minimum
charge to cover the small projects.
Status: Plan review fee revenue as well as salary costs for the
1978-1980 period have been calculated. Other factors are
being evaluated to determine the appropriate new fee.
(F) EQC (Commercial)
The review of this fee schedule is currently being performed by the
engineering firm of Metcalf & Eddy. They will propose any necessary
changes in the classes of commercial properties and/or the specific
rate structure.
(G) MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES
The current charge for the following existing activities will be
evaluated based on the expense to the District of performing the
requested service:
(1) Overtime Inspection Charge
Preliminary information suggests increase to $40/hr to cover
inspector and equipment costs.
(2) District Engineering Charge for Private Sewer Projects
Tentative proposal to increase structure design charge to $300.
(However, lesser charge may be appropriate to insure District
gets job and can therefore select location for maximum benefit
to future connectors).
Existing public sewer plan preparation charge is based on current
wages; however, minor updating of design costs is required.
4
(3) Prepare Quitclaim Deed Charge
Review and update as necessary.
(4) Rebate Account Admin Fee
Review and update as necessary. Consider use of m1n1mum charge to
cover District labor expense in setting up and disbursing account
funds.
(5) Other Fees
Review and update as necessary
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide comment as to the acceptability of the method of approach outlined
above for updating the District's schedule of fees and charges.
Attachment
5
DISTRICT RATES & CHARGES
CHARGE/FEE
REASON FOR CHARGE
CURRENT RATE
(A) ANNEXATION Equalize the investment in major
facilities between properties
which have been on the District
tax roll and those just joining
the District
(Capital Improvement Fund)
(B) FIXTURE FEE Provide funds required to pro-
gressively expand major treat-
ment plant facilities - charge is
based on the potential flow or
ability to load the system.
(Capital Improvement Fund)
(C) WATERSHED Funds used by District to
finance trunk sewer or pump
station improvements.
(D) INSPECTION FEE Compensate District for cost
of Inspection services; includ-
ing Maintenance TV inspection
costs.
(E) PLAN REVIEW FEE Compensate District for cost
of plan review effort,
including a portion of cost
of permit counter operations.
(F) EQC(Commercial)
Compensate prorata share of
District's O&M Costs
(G) MISCELLANEOUS
CHARGES:
(1) OVERTIME
INSPECTION
CHARGE
Contractor compensates
District for inspector's
overtime expense associated
with sewer construction for
private development
1
$lOOO/AC
(As of Jan '79)
Varies by type
of fixture &
land use density
(1974-last update)
Range of $300 - $1050
per residential unit
$1 per foot of new
public sewer, $22
per lateral connection
(As of Jan '78)
$0.20 per foot of
new public sewer ($100
minimum)
(Jan '78 last update)
Charge is based on
prior year water
consumption as follows:
(1) Barkeries $2.95/HCF
(2) Markets 1.40/"
(3) Mortuarys 1.17/"
(4) Restauran1s 1. 92/"
(5) Others 0.87/"
$20/hour
CHARGE/FEE
REASON FOR CHARGE
CURRENT RATE
(2) DISTRICT
ENGINEERING
CHARGE FOR
PRIVATE SEWER
PROJECTS
( 3) PREPARE QUIT-
CLAIM DEED
(4) REBATE ACCOUNT
ADMIN. FEE
(5) OTHER FEES
Developer/homeowner pays cost
of sewer design work performed
by District (Survey, Design,
Easement preparation, etc.)
2
Structure only
(e.g.MH) -$100
New public sewer
charge based on
estimate of time
req'd (Should be
equivalent to pri-
vate engineer fee,
not less).
$20/hour
$ SO/connection
Sec. 11-303. Basic Fixture Rate Schedule for ordinary plumbing fixtures connected to the sewer system.
The charges for connection of the fixtures set forth in this section are as follows:
(1) toi let. $ 22.50
(2) floor drain . 22.50
(3) lavatory. 22.50
(4) bath or shower. 67.50
(5) laundry outlet . 112.50
(6) sink and auxiliary appliances 112.50
(7) swimming pool backwash 0.225 per square foot of pool surface
Special commercial and public fixture charges.
The charges for the special commercial and publ ic use fixtures set forth
nection is permitted. (Excluded from Sec. 11-306.)
Garbage grinder and disposal
Dental chair, drinking fountain.
Automatic washing machine (under 20 lb. capacity)
Floor drain
Urinal.
Types of special fixture not listed.
Sec. 11-304.
Sec. 11-306.
SUMMARY OF FIXTURE FEES
FROM CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT SEWERING CODE
in this section are as follows, when con-
$150 plus $150 per horsepower
$ 15
$375
$ 75
$ 75
Spec i a I Study
Rate schedule for residential uses. general commercial and miscellaneous uses and multi-storied buildings.
TYPE OF USE
Residential
Living Units Per Gross Acre
0-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
31-50
Over 51.
MINIMUM CHARGE
PER UNIT
FIXTURE MULTIPLE
$375.00 1.0
$337.50 1.2
$300.00 1.5
$262.50 1.8
$225.00 2.0
use multi-storied building fixture multiples
Multi-storied buildings (over two (2) stories)
The fixture charge shall be at the rate of $40.00 per fixture unit equivalent and shall be based on the fixture unit
equivalents set forth in Chapter 4 of the Uniform Plumbing Code published by the International Association of
Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. 1976 Edition, as partially listed and modified* below:
Kind of Fixture MINIMUM TRAP SIZE
Bath Tub . 1-1/2 inch
Floor Drain 2 inch .
Laundry Outlet 1-1/2 inch
Shower, Single Stall 2 inch .
Sinks and/or Dishwasher (residential). 1-1/2 inch
*Garbage Disposal (residential) 1-1/2 inch
Wash Basin (lavatory) single 1-1/4 inch
Water Closet (toilet) tank type 3 inch .
UNITS
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
*For fixtures not listed above or in Chapter 4 of the Uniform Plumbing Code, the water supply pipe size, as listed
below, or two fixture unit equivalents for each gallon per minute of flow discharged shall be used.
PIPE SIZE
3/8 inch
1/2 inch
3/4 inch
1 inch
UNITS
2
4
6
10
General
Auditorium, Bank, Bakery, Barber or Beauty Shop,
Church, Cleaning Plant, Delicatessen, Department
Store, Drug Store, Dog Kennel, Fire House, Grocery,
Hall, Meat Market, Medical or Office Building .
Types of Uses Not Li sted Hereon .
Cocktai I Lounge, Bar, Club, Gas Station, Garage,
Restaurant, Fountain, Drive-in, Funeral Parlor
Convalescent Hospital, Rest Home, Hospital
Creamery, Food Processor
Factory, Industry
Multi-Use Bui Iding, Each Use
School.
MINIMUM CHARGE
FIXTURE MULTIPLE
$375.00
$375.00
3
3
$750.00
$150.00
$750.00
$375.00
$375.00
$165.00
5
Per Bed
Spec i a I Study
Special Study
By Use
Per Classroom
-___.+__.__...,_~.,__+..__._...___._..__._.~_,_._.,.___"'"_'__M~_.__~______~...,______....__..___,__,._______.______.__.... .._....+..___..______.._,..,_.,.._..__......____.__._
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO. I I I. Consent Ca en 4
2 19 81
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
February 17, 1981
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE AN INCREASE IN THE SPECIAL PROJECTS
ENGINEERING DIVISION EQUIPMENT BUDGET
TYPE OF ACTION
INCREASE BUDGET
SUBMITTED B.Y h L
..Jo n arson
INIT~ATING QEPT /DIV.
Eng1neer1ng/Special Projects (SPED)
BACKGROUND: The volume of paperwork required to support the Metcalf &
Eddy project as well as document the Clean Water Grant activities has
exceeded the capacity of the SPED filing cabinet. Additional capacity
is required at this time. Two filing cabinets are estimated to cost
$560 (including tax) .
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize an increase in the Special Projects
Engineering Division 1980-81 Capital Budget of $560. Authorize the
expenditure of Sewer Construction Funds for this pu~pose.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
JL
le.~
CLW
. CHIEF ENG.
T./DIV.
((sD
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO. IV. Adm. 1
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
February 17, 1981
SUBJECT
TYPE OF ACTION
ACTION ON BIDS RECEIVED AUGUST 6, 1980, FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF DECHLORINATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
DSP 3272
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUBMITTED BY
Clark Weddle
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering
BACKGROUND: Bids were received on August 6, 1980, for construction of the
Dechlorination Facility Improvements (DSP 3272), a copy of the bid tabu-
lation is attached. In accordance with Clean Water Construction Grant
Requirements, the bidders were required to make positive efforts to obtain
subcontracts and/or supplies from minority business enterprises (MBE).
The bid documents required that the bidders contact the MBE coordinator
(Homitz, Allen, and Associates) at least 12 days before the bid opening
date and that requests for subbids be advertised at least seven days prior
to the bid opening date. The goal was to obtain 16.1% MBE participation.
The required actions are necessary to obtain Clean Water Grant Funding.
A formal protest was filed by D.W. Young Construction Company on August 20,
1980, on the basis that neither C.W. Roen Construction Company nor Pacific
Mechanical Corporation (the apparent second low bidder) met the MBE require-
ments.
The Board of Directors held a hearing on October 2, 1980 and determined
that the contract should be awarded to C.W. Roen Construction Company based
on the facts presented (Resolution No. 80-210).
D.W. Young requested that the EPA Regional Administrator review the District's
determination on October 3, 1980. The EPA review was completed on January
27, 1981, with the result that the protest filed by D.W. Young was upheld and
C.W. Roen Construction Company was determined to be non-responsive.
It appears that none of the bidders on this project complied with the
requirements in the bid document to notify the MBE coordinator twelve days
in advance of the bid opening. Furthermore, none of the bidders advertised
for subbids seven days in advance of the bid opening.
RECOMMENDATION: Reject all bids and authorize the staff to revise the bid
documents and solicit bids. Authorize an increase of $5,000 in the cost
ceiling from Sewer Construction Funds for John Carollo Engineers to prepare
an addendum to the bid document covering conditions and requirements that
have changed since the original bid date.
Attachment
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
~~
CLW
,
./
JJC
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO. IV. Adm. 2
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
Feb. 17, 1981
SUBJECT
1981 FLOW STUDY
TYPE OF ACTION
Administrative
SUBMITTED BY
Jay McCoy
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering/Collection System
The attached chart shows past, present and future treatment plant
flows and capacity. The projection of average dry weather flow was
based on records of connections and the assumption that growth during
the past 10 years will continue at the approximate same rate over the
next 10 years.
You will note that flows are approaching the current 35 mgd plant
capacity limit. Plant Operations is evaluating the "real" capacity
limit for the plant. Based on past records, it is apparent that the
plant is capable of treating more than 35 mgd and still meeting
effluent limitations. For discussion purposes, if the "real" capacity
is 38 mgd, it appears from the chart that the next hydraulic expansion
project should be completed before the 38 mgd number is reached. If
this be the case, there will be no need to limit or ban connections.
If the plant capacity expansion takes longer to complete or, if
connections occur at a faster rate than projected, or if flows increase
faster than anticipated, then some limitation or ban may_. be necessary.
The purpose of this study is to advise the Board of the facts,
anticipate potential problems and discuss courses of action to be taken
should control on future connections be necessary.
Attachment
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
~~LW
-fbji.-i_'-m' --j-t- -I'-t-1++-ff'+++ --1-ili .- - I: :---H-t+W. ,- -+--+-+--:: "i : Lit.' H-++++H+-+-i.-'l-tH_l-i-!+H
H-I-- -+ H--i+-1 -T::Ct+ l, ' , , , ,-++!+H-l--h , I J I r+ -TtTrrlT::rrl-I"i-~-!+-H--,-I-t'
8?+t~;+ -1f :Jf[-ffT~+-=t- fB=4-+-I- , -+:-:0 GO S 0- r- -- - i1=f=m1=EE~FB3jfEFr ~H~~I
l-=l-I-1-._L,.-~.rt -P--LL~_---LL -l-H+l-!-I-,LJ+., '':'",-1 -,.li-'-_I-j-'LL ---'---,:'-~-;-~Li-:- --d::JLL-Li-_L~ -W'-I~-i-!T'-+-
=-FFLI'j::j=j=it~+t::1::1~ft=,~j=1-:: ttr11' 9' '8'1' ':::F. [.Q'Wt;STUDY. . ,.::~LL-i=L1_}j=;~::L -t i'l ij-J::~i:::c:
-:--r-,-+t-'-h--r'--i-,--:-;-I-r---r--r---,--t-t--, ,i ; '. ,-11-:--'1, ! .. '-j :-ri, ,1~- , ' , ." : iT;- --;-1+;--1-1-1-+-:- I ':I,t-
-1-t-t-i-L:-"--l.I_jJEi, · '-LP-H.----H+.+ -~,'-I'.--+++- ',1-'+:-'--:++++++++ _LLl-~+-t--l---:-! H-l-+j-+-I-L.-i- -- 1_1_,___'_1-")___1
I_=-tn-i-H-H-!- --i--, i-l-i+rt -H-+i-h- r- t- ,i! 1 -Lj-t-m-t-T+ -~I-r - i -'-~HI ,+~--t-b-l ,---j-- -hi- :::tb--; -:-+-t f- --~ :
tt, '1::'~OO!Ii~, '::P~E *fJ~Er~ I-rr~.=f:-I ' + - +-+-__1 ' ~FL~'~R~~-~6T;~~i~~S~b'~~'I-t*IPj=j-J11
~ i t- J- ==+=+_I_J i-+-+- r- ' J'- HIGHEST RECENT ONE YEAR -L Fi-~--H-t--~-l'
,.. - +--,_1.. =+ I I i-L -- . -1-,-- CONNECTION RATE (4'70) AND i -1- !-I-I--t-t-+
-j-+- -- +' -I ' - - L' t HIGHEST PER CAPITA FLOW.... r-H-H-t-- -lj "
,+tT r--- '- I . l---i t- RATE' r-1 I :-- -: r-; t: TI i ........ :ii-i 1 I+r-
50 : I I 'I +t-1- ---LH--- ' -j 1 -1--1- f-- '.:]__I-+_~!
~ =-::: +--- I -j- :::t~~j- - ~- -I - I i:::+-
illl+-- ! :
I - H--
tt=r=r-t::-ff -.- -] ,
; 45MGO--H--J.-J
,
~.c
1~-'
I
-H+t
,- ,_-+Fj-h---H:"I
-j++- ' ...
=IT, I I :+-I--Y-H-H-t- '
-'. H. r~-I-l- t- -U-.J +t-:----t-t---
, I I! I I Ii, I
~ _oil i_! :__J.!.-'_1. .!.!J: ! j t i L
i I.~CCCSD FLOW PROJECTION !
- I -- BASED ON HISTORICAL-j+'-
, . ". '-+-H--
iTRENDS (APPROX. 3"l.)H-t+ I
, I +-t+-1-+++;ti' ! --t--i-l-l- f+I::tt-'
FI:OW'-PROJ~. t. T, 101,i SA, S,EO: ' -T. t=U::-r:-~Jl~. -',
ONi.AB.l}G r~?WT~ ~~T~_: I, -fH-+t++++:
::1, -t- H=+ r+i- j + I +-+-+..J-j r I
-j--j- +H::::t -~ -'-+ -i--H--+--+-'--I
I I +H -~_L~-)_+-t-L-i-
j : -H+ _Lt-~_;-+-I+i~t- t
L j tit;-r p:=u' I
, , I I 'I 'I I 1
1 I L1, ltt- , ~- I
I I '-l--t~'-4-=J=" ~ L I
! 1 r T _L~_,--,_ 1 1 I-I
I I ,I I I" I
!--.--.-. '. I -L-LLJ._~+. LLJ. __ :+h--. ';_ 1_: I
Ii! Iii I ! Ii: : ! , . ' , i ;
: ;~-=Fi=L'= =h-~r4=h-;+= ;
1}1 r, =t:;j:TTTlJ=;:
, I -J-P-H+LL- ;
i- -i- +t=+j',: ~-R-=t=R--=+: I
1-- -t I I I I ! t-i-I -t-t-t-iiT""ir-'.;
-LLL L-i-:-r-W- -W---I-LLU,- ,- I
- - __ . ". _! ,i "I! '. '-~ ',--+- -H--!-i-f.-H+" :
AVE~AGEDRY_WEATHER FLOW;T m- , -j--h,-t-: '
-(3 MONTH AVERAGE);'T! - 'It-i-t-t--'
j-. J" -: - ;'-;~!-Hl~--+ ! - r-~--ri-~!
t-+H-i-i-1-1-+~ --r-jr-r-'rl~-:' I
t-tFF~EEp= ::R=JTr~:=:::: 1
, ~1:i~ J~~J~[~jT:
-- +i'--4.....j,~.-+--~H- --l~!t--f,-.~.-+--+-++ 1
I I.,. I [ I I ' . 1 I ' I . .
---+-;--r-i--r--n--rT i;--, '. ;-; -ll~1 ;--1
i ;;--j!-:;---r-r- :-T~-'-i : i - - - ,
T
45
+ ..- -_.-
I
40
t-
1
;:;1
]f;P ~(I'i
35
CI
~
:;E
\
I 'j-35MGO t-+-
;i
o
..J
1.L
1
1\
,~OMGo.
f
'll'
I
Z
,
30
L
y.
.25
,....
~
:0....
I-n
I'
}
;..-.:
,
, v!
20'...
\--H
\il
i~
'. =-
i-
1
1!i
10
1970
2 3
4
1
1975
6
7
8
9 1980
YEAR
1
2
3
4
-1,
1985
6
7
9
90
8
2-19-81
c((SD
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NO'VI. Cap Improve. 2
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
February 13, 1981
SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE SOLICITATION FOR BIDS FOR THE PREPURCHASE OF A
BLOWER AND ELECTRIC MOTOR ASSEMBLY FOR THE STAGE 5B-1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION FOR BIDS
SUBMITTED BY
Curt Swanson, Associate Engineer
IN1TIATIl'lG DE".PT./PIV.
::>peclal t-'roJects
BACKGROUND:
During reevaluation of the Stage 5B-1 Plant Expansion Project, District staff
determined that there is a critical short-term and long-term need for additional
aeration blower capacity at the District Water Reclamation Plant. An electric motor-
driven aeration blower system has been selected as the most cost-effective system.
Because of its critical need, District staff has proceeded with fast-track design of
the blower system.
Manufacture and delivery of the blower and electric motor assembly will take 10
to 11 months. Because of the long lead time, it would be advantageous to prepurchase
this item. Specifications for the blower and electric motor assembly have been com-
pleted recently by the District's consultant, Metcalf and Eddy. The estimated cost
of the assembly is $498,000.
If approved by the Board, a request for bids will be advertized for 30 days
beginning February 23, 1981. Bids will be opened March 25, 1981. The Board will be
asked to authorize purchase of the blower and electric motor assembly on April 16,
1981. This is a tentative date since the State Water Resources Control Board must
review the bids and approve award of the purchase order.
The State Water Resources Control Board has conceptually approved installation
of the aeration blower as part of the Stage 5B-1 project. However, a grant for this
project has not yet been awarded. The District has requested approval from the State
Water Resources Control Board to prepurchase the blower and electric motor assembly.
Verbal approval was received February 13, 1981. This approval will allow reimburse-
ment of the cost of the assembly if a grant is awarded for construction of the Stage
5B-1 project. The Board should be aware that State Water Resources Control Board
prepurchase approval does not guarantee funding. If State Water Resources Control
Board does not award a construction grant, the District must pay for the entire cost
of the blower and electric motor assembly.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize sol icitation for bids for prepurchase of the blower and electric motor
assembly for the Stage 5B-1 project. (DSP 3509)
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
Curt Swanson
J~
JAL
~~
CLW
ENG.
((sD
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NOVIII. Emp. Training
POSITION PAPER
VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DATE
February 13, 1981
AUTHORIZATION OF $900 FOR D. G. NILES TO ATTEND A
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS SEMINAR
SUBJECT
TYPE OF ACTION
Employee Training
SUBMITTED BY
D. G. Ni les
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Plant Operations
Issue: In order to properly interrelate and monitor to the claims/litigation process,
key District personnel must be informed as to the latest techniques and problems
encountered.
Background: The University of Baltimore is presenting a three-day seminar dealing
with construction claims directly related to water pollution control program under
the auspices of the Environmental Protection Agency's funded construction projects.
This course material will be presented by Joseph M. Coe, formerly Chief Counsel
for the Environmental Protection Agency's construction grant program and principal
drafter of the Environmental Protection Agency regulations governing grants for
the wastewater treatment projects. Its discourse deals with methods and strategies
for dealing with claims, disputes, negotiations, and litigation. The litigation
demonstrates the role that the Environmental Protection Agency may be involved in
by use of proper regulations.
The three-day course provides 18 hours of training and provides a manual of
several hundred pages. The fee for this course is $600. Approximately $300 will
be required for expenses to attend the upcoming course on March 23~25 of this
year.
Recommendation: Authorization of $900 for D. G. Niles to attend a Water Pollution
Construction Claims seminar.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
DG
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
([!!J-B
February 2, 1981
MEMORANDUM TO: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer
FROM: D. G. Niles, Manager, Plant Operations
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND A WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS SEMINAR
The University of Baltimore is presenting a three-day seminar dealing
with construction claims which may arise from the Environmental Protection
Agency's water pollution control program. This course material will
be presented by Joseph M. Coe, formerly Chief Counsel for the Environmental
Protection Agency's construction grant program and principal drafter of
the Environmental Protection Agency regulations governing grants for
wastewater treatment projects and contracting under these grants.
The three-day course format provides 18 hours of training and
provides a manual of several hundred pages. It is requested that I be
authorized $600 for registration and $300 for expenses to attend this
Water Pollution Control Construction Claims course.
I have attached a Position Paper. Since this seminar is
scheduled for March 23-25, 1981, the registration should be sent in
immediately.
<0 rJ d~
DGN:bc
Attachment
D. G. Ni les
Manager, Plant Operations