HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUDGET & FINANCE AGENDA 01-30-061
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7
+
~
~~ Central Contra Costa
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Chair Lucey
Member Boneysteele
Monday January 30, 2006
3:30 p.m.
CSO Conference Room
1250 Springbrook Road
Walnut Creek, California
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PUBLIC COMMENTS
OLD BUSINESS
CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
REVIEW EXPENDITURES
ADJOURNMENT
~~~ -f",~~
District
A
~, Recyded Paper
~
~
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
January 27, 2006
TO: BOARD BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM: RANDALL MUSGRAVES ~/~'~
DEBBIE RATCLIFF ~~
SUBJECT: January 23, 2006 Finance Committee Meeting
There were several outstanding questions from the last Board Budget and Finance
Committee meeting which required additional staff research. The questions and
answers are provided below:
Page 37, 28350 ATI Architects 8 Engineers What project is this and is it
related to the Clarifier project?
There is no relationship between this project and the Clarifier project. ATI
Architects is the designer for the Chemical Feed Building Renovation Project.
The Board authorized $63,000 at the May 19, 2005 Board meeting. The
Chemical Feed Building Renovation Project will restore the structural integrity of
the building as well as restore the flow diversion of primary effluent. The design
phase is 80% complete and the District will go out to bid in March.
2. Page 38, 28358 Geomatrix Consultants What is this project for?
Geomatrix is the geotechnical consultant for the Wet Weather Bypass project.
This project will allow the District to divert the overFlow directly to Walnut Creek
from Basin B(rather than via Conco and Grayson slough). This is a$24,000
project that is about 60% complete. The first draft of the geotechnical report
should be received in about a week.
" ~ ~
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
January 26, 2006
TO: BOARD FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM: ANN E. FARRELL, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERINGC^~
SUBJECT: TALAVERA AND RICHARDSON
A concern has been raised by the Board Finance Committee about our exclusive use of
Talavera and Richardson for Engineering Department data base needs. Talavera and
Richardson have been utilized almost exclusively for more than ten years due to their
low hourly rates, their knowledge of our District and their responsiveness. I have
researched the existing contracts and they are summarized below. My findings are that
three of the four contracts can likely be transitioned to other data base consultants or
replaced with off the shelf software. The forth, Collection System Flow Monitoring,
needs to be completed by Talavera and Richardson to ensure accurate calibration of
the Sewer Network model we have just recently upgraded.
Capital Program improvement Software: The software used to produce the Capital
Program document is a customized package written in Access, a data base software,
developed for the District by a consultant in approximately 1987. It has been
maintained and refined by Talavera and Richardson for approximately the last ten
years. Currently there is a$127,075 contract in place that was originally authorized in
May of 1987. The entire amount has been expended. There is an outstanding invoice
of approximately $4000 for work in January to complete some refinements to the CIB
process. These refinements are intended to reduce the staff time necessary to produce
the CIB document. If further work is needed that cannot be completed by District staff,
other data base consultants will be evaluated for this work.
Source Control Electronic Tracking: A source control tracking program, written in
Access data base software, was developed by Talavera and Richardson starting in
November of 2001 and has been updated periodically since. The contract amount is
$30,760 and approximately $24,000 has been spent since 2001. Source control is
currently investigating off the shelf source control tracking packages which would utilize
the date currently in the data base and provide additional functionality specific to
tracking of industrial user permits, inspections, monitoring and other activities particular
to source control. There are a number of packages available that could provide this
functionality. Such a package would be an alternative to continuing to hire Talavera and
Richardson to expand the customized tracking program. At this time the expectation is
that a suitable off the.shelf package will be found and that the services of Talavera and
Richardson for updating of the source control tracking program will no longer be
~ ~
needed. If there are any transitional issues with migrating the current data bases to the
new software, the remaining funds in the contract may be tapped to allow Talavera and
Richardson to assist with this effort.
Sewer Network Analysis Program (SNAP): In 1986 a DOS-based Sewer Network
Analysis Program was developed by Talavera and Richardson as employees of Camp
Dresser and McKee. This model was in productive use from 1986 through 2004. The
model was maintained by Talavera and Richardson as employees of CDM for a time,
and then, when they formed their own company, the District elected to retain them to
continue model maintenance. In 2002, District staff conducted a Request for Proposal
to replace the original SNAP with a Windows-based package that was intended to be
more user friendly. The request went to 8 firms, three submitted proposals and were
interviewed. Talavera and Richardson were selected. The basis of the selection was
their familiarity with the DOS-based SNAP (c 1986), HTE query results, and the other
Access databases used to maintain data at CCCSD. Talavera and Richardson also
brought familiarity with the flow monitoring done in winter 1987 on which the original
SNAP had been based. Their contract was authorized by the Board in May 2002 and
the initial work to upgrade the model has recently been completed. The total contract
amount of $221,183 has been expended. It is anticipated that additional data base
work will be needed to modify linkages from the new SNAP to data bases maintained by
other work groups in the District. This work should be able to be completed by other
data base consultants. Staff will research the availability and cost of other consultants
to do this work and will try a new firm unless it is found that the expertise is not
available or the cost is prohibitive.
Collection System Flow monitoring: SNAP was originally developed and calibrated
based on flow monitoring conducted in February 1986. As part of the model update
described above, it was determined by staff that it would be beneficial to update our flow
monitoring data. The SNAP model is used to size sewers based on assumptions
regarding how much inflow and infiltration is generated by rainfall events. The flow
monitoring data is key to calibrating the model such that it projects sewer flow
information accurately. The Board approved this work at their meeting of Dec 2, 2004.
E2 was competitively selected at a price of approximately $240,000 to place the flow
monitors. Talavera & Richardson, due to their unique knowledge of the model, were
selected and $70,000 authorized to provide support to locate the flow monitors and
analyze the data for calibration of the SNAP model. This represents a total budgeted
consultant cost for this effort of $310,000. Currently, the E2 contract is under spent by
approximately $80,000 and $5,000 remains of the authorization for Talavera and
Richardson. While the actual placement of the flow monitors was completed for
$80,000 less than budget, there is additional calibration work of $50,000 that needs to
be done. Part of this work is to analyze the field observations of the last several severe
storms and compare them to the model results. Staff believes that the best technical
and most cost effective approach is to have Talavera and Richardson complete this
additional calibration work using the remaining authorized $5000 plus an additional
authorization of $45,000. This additional authorization will bring the total consultant cost
of the flow monitoring effort to $275,000, $35,000 less than the original budget.
~ ~
Summary: I have analyzed our use of Talavera and Richardson and feel that they
have provided very responsive and cost effective service over the years. However, I
concur that it is in the DistricYs best interests to not rely on one consultant for most of
our Engineering Department data base work. Therefore, we agree to pursue other
consultants in the future for much of this type of work. However, due to their unique
knowledge and abilities, it is essential to maintain and increase the contract with
Talavera and Richardson on the Collection System Flow Monitoring in order to complete
calibration of our upgraded Sewer Network Analysis Model. Accurate projections of
flow are essential to the proper sizing of new pipes and processes at the treatment
plant. A position paper requesting an increase in the Talavera and Richardson contract
related to flow monitoring will be brought to the full Board in the near future. If you
would like to discuss this further, please call.
~
~
~
E
E
~
~
a~
L
~
r
~
~
~
Q.
K
W
R
~
d
J
~
Z
~
LL
W
U
Z
~
~
N
Z
LL
J
W
~
W
N
Z
W
a
X
W
~
Z
Z
Z
~
~
m
E
a`~ c°
a U
~ T
~ ~
z ~
O J
J _
E `~
'~ c
U ~
~ ~
~ J
U C.~
N
E ,,,
(D ~
U 'ca
~ U
~7 O
a ~
o Q
a
' U
a Q
9 q , fr.
La~' ~ ; 1 4 8 a
~
~~~ ~ ~~
~8.
a
E ~4 .
f
S
i
E.
{, o C E
~' ~ ~t p
b.''
~ y~ ` ~
2`"
~ ' ° a
' @„
~
e Q ~ `$ s
a ~!' j
.
,..3
~ ~
u n ~ ~ ~~
_E a
e
~°~ io - ~F.- ~ ~E
±
} ~
.
e z
i'
0 3 a.' °
^
~ a
c p .
_ E
_, ac
EO
' ~8
ua E
= €
g
~
1 .. o o
iE b C
~
E
E3E `m j ~~ E -8;1
~z~
i:E
E E E
I E
e~c o~
_ e
~ ~
O
~
~. >
am o
p o 1~ 9$
~E ~ E
lO~~
E~e
a
C o £ .
v
E~
('a E
p E
m L
~mE ° ~ ~
.
~ ED 7i `p
e ~ e E ;
~ e
~ ~- E f8 "'
i~ 0
~ ~€ F
e
o
E 4 . E~
E
u ooo o a ~.s~S aw w"'a b
~ 8 }
~3 n e a
J~I » h« ro t '~t 1
E
V ~ ~ j
Z V
( ~~
~ j
i6
~ ~ .
p k
w ~
}.
~ ~~ 3 Sj 3 S 33 3~8~' 3
~;
~
m EE E E~ E E EE HE'
~'r E C,h
o
~ ~
W s? f° s ' s s~ s s E ~~i s
o
~
.,
~ _~ ,
~3mPEa t .~
_x s €
,~ma
e°~~a~e'F
~ u
a
e ~'
~
~
.E
~
~
"
"
'E••.
ma' a"rcu'a°z"¢~ ~. ~wrc
~rcasrcrc
rc
:a`'.a a
~
'
~ ~ ~ ''n. a ~
~
7 m ~ E ~i o ~i' r 9i'
•
ao ( 8 ~~~ ~
" s ~ g~,
0 o w ~
» wv.
a9 y '
~ t'
a = °
E`
y
a ~ g~g P
~iE ,,
O Z 8 , . ,~'. x ~~~.
J
~ °'
~ m
1~
~
~ y~.~~i
# °I
K
~ f
;
~ I
W
z r~ p
~° o o
~ a a a ° ~~ n u a `ar.= d a a~oa~
~
,. ..., ,,.,. E . ~•.,.. _ ,'.
E...
...~. `w".~!O .
~ . g.' a
c ; E-~ ~ .
~
~5.$~
{C
- ~ e,~ ~~i'.E
~ ~
t 'Y t ^_ _ E
` b r ; ~' s.._.Y
. Z
~ ~ D~
E
' ~~~ a'~~ ~
y ~,.g,..-~8 >S.e =
~ ~ ~ ~„
~ r ~ f»
e ~
'i i
~J .f
'~ 11 'P R
a
a y v
0 3: n- g~. ~ t
z, A~o-
_ 3
c° a '! ~
f ~.'i ~
c
'
m
cim '
¢' € ~
~ 3y~
y c
X ~EQ~L
15 t'
~~
R .
tR~ Z _S
~Y
a
E
T
p
~ o i~°. ; c
Y
'° la ° E
~=P a E a`
~` .
y
~~ m
~ ~
{
18
, H . m
..;3
~
i
'
~C
u
` " ~ 'kE
~
~f o
2
` Fm~ E
~
E a;
~
G Y~
(~
s
Ua z ~ .4~
' t9s
< I a
! s i ~
{ N *~ .: t
~
~
' C~~~
3~~~ a
{~ ' ~'
~ i0
c tF m !~i _
~'es '~ ~ ~~-~_
t~
uloo`3 s o,~33s` o S .3: 30 93 i 3 '~'ii
o ~ rc
~ ~
~' ~ ; ~ -` ~i
r~
C J ;J 16KZ Lp C I
~ Yl
~ ~ Cp N~r C 0.~m
I
1
0 a
E
^ U .~U'
l E .°~
- U O
Q i
~
~U. n
U
C ~ „
€1
" o
o
o
~°~H ~ -d ~~ l~
!o-t~~~
~ ~.l
°i c3-Iw
`~~
ao„~ m €$ .i e
~ e
a$
X ~
o S
$.b ° m
o
;:
I
a m ~ ~ r
3
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~.
n
8~ $
~2£~ ~ o
.a .~ ~22 :4 ~
g ~
Q8 ~ ~ .a ~~
~=~
~
01600 0 =~oo~
~ aaa a' S~~S ~
~a
.
S L
! ~
t ~t
i!I ~ n~
a ~0
~' ~ m
~
=~-.
~ m~n
~.
n-
rc»
~
E
0
9
F
~
~
e
0
oa
~ ">
mE
Ep
D ~
iE
~
~
s
E
4 °c
N } ~
O R' g `o
~ w x~
o =^
~ 'orc
a
80
~e
»~
E
O
3
E
U
~
~
., ~ ~
~
9
E
e
E
6
i
E
w
t
3
~ ~rc
Q at
J --
o ~ss
~ Esj
Q o2'c
UN>
N
O
a
N al e ap „
C`I ~
<
N
~
~~ C
~
>6
<`
3
Ve
xo
JJ
~~ a