Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 01-09-86 . Centr~_ Contra Costa Sanitar.. District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 5 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF January 9, 1986 NO. v. ENGINEERING 1 SUBJECT CONSIDER THE REQUEST BY MR. DAVID DEUTSCHER CONCERNING CONDEMNATION OF A PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT IN PLEASANT HILL (JOB 4048) DATE January 7, 1986 TYPE OF ACTION CONSIDER REQUEST SUElMITTE.Q B'y . Jay MC~OY, Construction Dlvision Manager INITI~TING DEPT.lDIV. tngineering/Construction ISSUE: Mr. David Deutscher requests that the Board of Directors approve the sewer routing through the Stokes property at 319 Strand Avenue and that the Board request the City of Pleasant Hill to proceed with a condemnation action to acqui re an easement through the Stokes property. BACKGROUND: Mr. Deutscher is developing a 26 lot subdivision in Pleasant Hill at the northeast corner of Taylor Boulevard and Grayson Road. Grading operations have been proceeding at the subdivision. Mr. Deutscher submitted a sewer creek crossing design to the District in 1984. The design received preliminary approval. In Fall of 1985, Mr. Deutscher advised District staff that he was unable to purchase the easement rights for his creek crossing and requested that the District condemn the necessary property rights for him. Staff evaluated alternatives to provide sewer service to Mr. Deutscher's development and discovered a technically feasible project which consisted of the construction of an 800 foot sewer main in Linda Lane. Staff subsequently recommended that Mr. Deutscher pursue the Linda Lane alternative rather than the condemnation approach. Mr. Deutscher investigated the Linda Lane sewer alternative and rejected it because it was more expensive than the creek crossing alternative. He then appealed staff's decision and requested the Board to condemn an easement through Mr. Stokes' property. The Board heard Mr. Deutscher along with testimony from Strand Avenue homeowners on November 7, 1985 and at a follow-up meeting on December 5, 1985. Mr. Deutscher has subsequently modified his request of the Board. He no longer requests that the Board condemn an easement through the Stokes property; he now requests that the Board approve the creek crossi ng design and asks that the Board submit a request to the City of Pleasant Hill to pursue the Stokes condemnation action. Staff has investigated the technical aspects of the Deutscher development sewering needs further. The following new information has resulted: o Staff retained the firm of Camp, Dresser, and McKee (CDM) to perform a hydrological analysis of Grayson Creek. This was done in response to homeowner input at a previous Board meeting indicating that Grayson Creek runs full during winter storms. The Camp, Dresser, and McKee analysis revealed that the current creek crossing design proposed by 2fJE COMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION '" JM RAB SUBJECT POSITION PAPER CONSIDER THE REQUEST BY MR. DAVID DEUTSCHER CONCERNING CONDEMNATION OF A PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT IN PLEASANT HILL (JOB 4048) PAGE DATE 2 OF 5 January 7, 1986 Mr. Deutscher becomes immersed at the 25 year storm condition and thus does not meet County Flood Control Standards or accepted engineering practice. o Staff has had a formal engi neering estimate performed for the Linda Lane sewer alternative. The predesign level cost estimate for this alternative is $118,000. (This estimate assumes that no major resurfacing of Linda Lane will be required by Pleasant Hill). o Staff discussed the possibility of a Pleasant Hill condemnation with several city officials from Pleasant Hill including the City Manager and the City Attorney. The consensus of opinion expressed by the officials contacted was that this is a Central Contra Costa Sanitary District matter and that they would not recommend to the City Council that Pleasant Hill pursue a condemnation action for Mr. Deutscher. Staff has reviewed its original decisions concerning Mr. Deutscher and finds no reason to modify its actions. Specifically, the staff position regarding Mr. Deutscher's development remains as follows: o A creek crossing would be acceptable if Mr. Deutscher could purchase the necessary property rights and meet the appl icable design requirements. (Based on the COM analysis, Mr. Deutscher would have to widen or deepen the creek, or raise the subdivision in order to keep the sewer creek crossing high enough above the water level to meet county flood control requirements.) o Staff does not recommend that the District condemn an easement for Mr. Deutscher. o Staff feels that the Linda Lane sewer alternative is a technically acceptable and economically feasible method to sewer Mr. Deutscher's development and continues to recommend it. Staff recommends that the Board not request any other agency to condemn an easement to sewer Mr. Deutscher's development. Staff feel s that it is important that the District retain full authority to enforce acceptable sewer design practices. Condemnation by another agency and subsequent court mandated action could interfere with the District's ability to do so. Staff has investigated the financial arrangements which would be required should Mr. Deutscher choose to pursue the Linda Lane sewer alternative. Past practice and current District criteria for the financing of sewer mains dictates that Mr. Deutscher would be responsible for financing the construction of the Linda Lane sewer. The Linda Lane sewer woul d be handl ed as a "Rebate Line". Mr. Deutscher woul d receive rebates from future connectors to a new Linda Lane sewer. These --------. 13026-9/85 SUBJECT POSITION PAPER CONSIDER THE REQUEST BY MR. DAVID DEUTSCHER CONCERNING CONDEMNATION OF A PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT IN PLEASANT HILL (JOB 4048) PAGE 3 DATE OF 5 Januarv 7, 1986 future connectors would pay a proportional share of the cost of the sewer. Staff has considered the circumstances concerning the Deutscher development issues and can find no justification for direct District participation in the financing of a Linda Lane sewer, should Mr. Deutscher decide to pursue this alternative. Should Mr. Deutscher connect to the Strand Avenue sewer to serve his development via a creek crossi ng, the Di strict woul d need to expedite needed repai r work on that sewer. As would customarily be the case, this work would be at the District's expense. A map of the Deutscher development is attached for the Board's information. RECOMM:NDATION: 1. Deny Mr. Deutscher's request that the Board ask the City of Pleasant Hill to condemn an easement through the property of Mr. Stokes. 2. Deny Mr. Deutscher's request that the Board approve the creek crossing sewer alternative as currently designed and refer future design review considerations to staff for routine processing. --------. 13028-9/85 fEWER IERVlel 6 N 17 I II II I' 64 "" II 0 40. - I' 0 , , , I aJ II aJ I I '" 76SI' , . I , , 1::::_:: 809 , , I, .... .. 839 ~158~ LEGEND' : EXIST. SEWER PROPOSED SEWER APPROX. CREEK LOCATION-_ ~ ~~ 1/8/ I /87 I 2 ~ '93 'I IQQ PLEASANT HILL PARK 18~ ----- DAVID DEUTSCHER REAL ESTATE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE/LAND DEVELOPMENT December 19, 1985 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board of Directors 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Board of Directors: He wi sh to cl arify our pos iti on as it rel ates t~ the sewer access of our subdivision at the end of Linda Lane, Pleasant Rill. We wish to gain access to the sewer in Strand Avenue. ~Je have determined that the best access for us is through the Stokes property at 319 Strand Avenue. We bel ieve it is the best access for the Sanitary District because of access for maintenance. We are requesting the Board to agree to accept that access and then request,the City of ~leasant Hill proceed with condemnation to acquire the access. We want to make it perfectly clear we are not requesting the Sanitary District to condemn the property therefore there would not be a reason to call for a public hearing. Sincerely yours, ~/ . I, ~---) >t~A "a J:~ D vi d Deu sc~r .-.. DD:ys 370 CIVIC DRIVE · PLEASANT HILL. CALIFORNIA 94523 . 14151 676-6166 . Centr&. Contra Costa Sanitar ~ District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 4 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF January 9, 1986 NO. VI. BUDGET AND FINANCE 1 SUBJECT RECEIVE ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY DATE January 2, 1986 TYPE OF ACTION RECEIVE INVESTMENT POLICY SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer Administrative/Finance & Accounting ISSUE: The District's Investment Policy, which is to be rendered to the Board of Directors annually, is attached. BACKGROUND: Assembly Bill No. 1073, which was enacted in 1984, amended Cal ifornia Government Code Section 53646 to require that: a. The treasurer or chief fiscal officer is to annually render to the legislative body of the local agency a statement of investment policy. b. The treasurer or chief fiscal officer is to render a monthly report to the chief executive officer and legislative body of the local agency showing the type of investment, institution, date of maturity, amount of deposit, current market val ue of all securities with a maturity of more than 12 months, rate of interest, and such data as may be required by the local agency. c. Section 53646 shall remain in effect only until January 1, 1991, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted before January 1, 1991, deletes or extends that date. A monthly investment report is submitted with the District's monthly financial statements to the General Manager-Chief Engi neer and the Board of Di rectors which complies with all requirements of amended Section 53646. The attached investment policy is identical to the pol icy adopted in 1985, except for a change in Section IX, Controls, wherein all investment transactions of $5 million or less now requi re the countersignature of the Deputy General Manager. This change was made in response to an internal accounting controls recommendation by the District's independent auditors in conjunction with their 1984-1985 examination of the District's financial statements. RECOMMENDATION: Receive the District's Investment Policy and provide District staff with any revisions or additions the Board believes appropriate. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. PM 1302".9/85 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT INVESTMENT POLICY The investment policy of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District is embodied in the following eleven sections: I. Statement of Objectives The temporary investment portfolio of the District shall be designed to attain a market-average rate of return, taking into account the District's investment risk constraint and prudent investment principles. II. Permissible Investments Within the constraints prescribed by the Government Code of the State of California for permissible investments, the District's investment portfolio will only be invested in the following instruments: o United States Treasury Bills and Notes, and obligations of government agencies for which the full faith and credit of the United States is pledged. o Bankers Acceptances, drawn on and accepted by a commercial bank, which are eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. o Certificates of Deposit issued by a Federal or State chartered bank or a Federal or State chartered savings and loan association. o Commercial Paper of prime quality limited to corporations with assets over $500,000,000. o Repurchase agreements for a period less than 30 days. o Local Agency Investment Fund of the State of California. III. Banks and Dealers The District will use the services of the Treasurer's Office of the County of Contra Costa which will transact the District's investment decisions in compliance with the requirements described in this investment policy. The Treasurer's Office will execute the District's investments through such brokers, dealers, and financial institutions as are approved by the County Treasurer. IV. Maturities The maximum maturity for investments of the District is one year. Prior approval of the Board of Di rectors must be obtained to acquire investments with maturities beyond one year. V. Diversification To minimize the risk of loss through default, the total amount invested in a single issuer will not be greater than 15% of the District's investment portfolio value, except that the 15% limitation will not apply to United States Treasury Bills and Notes. VI. Risk Credit and market risks will be minimized through adherence to the list of permissible investments, a limit on maximum maturities and the limitation on the total investment in a single issuer. VII. Delegation and Authority The District Finance Officer will be responsible for investment transactions which should be made in accordance with this investment policy and within the internal controls described in the following section. VIII. Prudence Prudent judgment must be exercised by the District Finance Officer responsible for investment transactions undertaken in accordance with this investment policy. IX. Control s The District Finance Officer will establish subsidiary accounting records of each investment which will enable the determination of income earned monthly and through maturity, and the balancing of the principal amounts to a control account in the general ledger. Internal control procedures will be based on the requirement for the countersignature of the Deputy General Manager for all transactions which are initiated by the Finance Officer. Investment transactions which exceed the doll ar limit of the Deputy General Manager will requi re approval of the General Manager-Ghief Engineer. The dollar limit of the Deputy General Manager will be $5 million. Such internal controls are to be reviewed by the District's independent auditors annually. x. Reporting The District Finance Officer will annually render a statement of investment policy to the Board of Directors. The Finance Officer will submit a monthly report to the District's General Manager-Chief Engineer and Board of Directors showing the type of investment, issuer, dates of issue and maturity. amount of deposit. current market value of all securities with a maturity of more than 12 months. and rate of interest. XI. Performance Evaluation A performance evaluation will be completed by the District's independent auditors every four years, commencing with the 1984-1985 fiscal year. to determine whether the investment objective of achieving a market-average rate of return is being real ized. In determining the market-average rate of return. the average return of three month U.S. Treasury bills. or the average rate of Federal funds. whichever is higher, will be used. Central Contra Costa sanitary District January 14, 1986 TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: WALTER N. FUNASAKI ~ a-.d-~. SUBJECT: REVISION TO SECTION IX, CONTROLS, OF THE DISTRICT INVESTMENT POLICY The revision to Section IX of the District Investment Policy indicated by the Board of Directors on January 9, 1986 has been made. The revised Section IX is attached. A copy of the District Investment Policy, as revised, will be forwarded to the Contra Costa County Treasurer's Office for compliance. WF/hb Attachment cc: R. Dolan P. Morsen obtained to acquire investments with maturities beyond one yea r. V. Diversification To minimize the risk of loss through default, the total amount invested in a single issuer will not be greater than 15% of the District's investment portfolio value, except that the 15% limitation will not apply to United States Treasury Bills and Notes. VI. Risk Credit and market risks will be minimized through adherence to the list of permissible investments, a limit on maximum maturities and the limitation on the total investment in a single issuer. VII. Delegation and Authority The District Finance Officer will be responsible for investment transactions which should be made in accordance with this investment policy and within the internal controls described in the following section. VIII. Prudence Prudent Judgment must be exercised by the District Finance Officer responsible for investment transactions undertaken in accordance with this investment policy. IX. Controls The District Finance Officer will establish subsidiary accounting records of each investment which will enable the determination of income earned monthly and through maturity, and the balancing of the principal amounts to a control account in the general ledger. Internal control procedures will require the countersignature of the Deputy General Manager for all transactions which are initiated by the Finance Officer. The dollar limit of the Deputy General Manager will be $5 million. Investment transactions which exceed $5 million will require the additional approval of the General Manager-Chief Engineer. Such internal control s are to be reviewed by the Di strict's independent auditors annually. X. Reporting The District Finance Officer will annually render a statement of investment policy to the Board of Directors. . Centr&. Contra Costa Sanitar ~ ~istrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF January 9, 1986 NO. VII. LEGAL/LITIGATION DATE January 6, 1986 TYPE OF ACTION 1 SUBJECT DENIAL OF $100,000 CLAIM FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE FROM GERALD AND PATRICIA ORTLAND DENY CLAIM SUBMITTED BY Jack E. Campbell, Administrative Operations Manager INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Administrative/Risk Management ISSUE: The Di strict has received a cl aim for $100,000 from Geral d and Patrici a Ortland alleging damages as a result of a sewage backup. BACKGROUND: A sewage backup occurred at 62 Rheem 81 vd., Ori nda on September 19, 1985. This is a single family residence which was leased to the Ortlands by an out-of-area property owner. Collection System Operations crews cleared the line and cleaned up the overflow which had spilled into a lower level bathroom and out into the back yard. Additional cleaning was performed on September 20, 23, and 24. Since that time the District has been attempting to settle the Ortland's claim for damages to thei r personal property. An advance payment of $5,000 was made in October while negotiations to reach a final settlement have continued. The Ortlands have now retained an attorney and have filed this claim with the District for property damage expenses and legal fees of $50,000 and another $50,000 for emotional distress. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the Gerald and Patricia Ortland claim for $100,000 against the District and refer to staff for further action as necessary. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION . TlrlzPT /DIV JEC PM