The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7/15/2004 AGENDA BACKUP`Central Contra Costa Sane ry District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 No.: 3.a. CONSENT CALENDAR Type of Action: APPROVE AN EASEMENT QUITCLAIM TO ALPINE /ALMA DEVELOPMENT, LLC, FOR AN ABANDONED SEWER AT 1321 ALMA AVENUE, WALNUT CREEK, DISTRICT JOB NO. 1552 subject: APPROVE AN EASEMENT QUITCLAIM submitted By: Initiating Dept/Div.: Ricardo Hernandez Engineering /Environmental Services Senior Engineering Assistant REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION: R. Hernandez C. Swanson A. Farrell Cha les tts, General Manage ISSUE: All Quitclaim Deeds need to be approved by the Board of Directors. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Quitclaim Deed to Alpine /Alma Development, LLC. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: None. BACKGROUND: As part of a redevelopment of the land at 1321 Alma Avenue, Walnut Creek, the existing sewer was abandoned and the owner has requested that the District quitclaim the existing easement. The quitclaim action being presented to the Board is for the easement associated with this sewer (map attached). RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a resolution approving the quitclaim to Alpine /Alma Development, LLC, and authorize staff to record the quitclaim with the County Recorder. Page 1 of 2 UAPosition Papers \Hernandez R\Alpine -Alma Dev Quitclaim.DOC TO CONCORD n 0 a _z v MT DIABLO m BLVD 0 y tiA 9�q ALM A J AVE BOTELHO Y Qf}L o NEWELL AVE LvD OLYMP \C B 6eO sy A Avenue venue VICHTY MAP oP� NOT TO SCALE �o CV I CIO M n 5 ft. wide esmt to be quitclaimed- ALPINE/ALMA DEVELOPMENT I I i �o I 0 N I c rn o° I n � V c d Y E SCALE 1 : 800 u O N Y Central Contra Costa Attachment s Sanitary District ALPINE /ALMA DEVELOPMENT 0 ' EASEMENT QUITCLAIM - JOB 1552 MAP N m O Page 2 of 2 ?000 '",*) Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 No.: 3.b. CONSENT CALENDAR Type of Action: ADOPT RESOLUTION Subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT THE 2004 -2005 ASSESSMENTS FOR CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS BE COLLECTED ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLL Submitted By: Initiating Dept /Div.: Molly Mullin, Engineering Assistant III Engineering /Environmental Services REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTON: v D3 yL i M. Mullin T Miyamoto -Mills C. Swanson A. Farrell harles W. Batts, General Manage ISSUE: Authorization in the form of a resolution of the Board of Directors is needed to place assessments on the County tax roll. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution directing that the 2004 -2005 assessments for contractual assessment districts (CADs) be collected on the County tax roll. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Placing CAD assessments on the County tax roll is the most economical and efficient means of collecting this revenue. ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: The Board could decline to adopt the proposed resolution. Direct billing of property owners would then be required, which is not recommended. BACKGROUND: Property owners who formed the contractual assessment districts listed below agreed to pay annual assessments for sewer improvements over a 10 -year period. Contractual Assessment Districts Gary Way CAD 97 -1 Muir Lane CAD 99 -2 Leona Court CAD 97 -2 Vine Hill Way CAD 99 -3 Alhambra Way CAD 98 -1 Laurenita Way CAD 00 -1 Charles Hill Circle CAD 98 -2 Regent Place CAD 00 -2 Haven Lane CAD 98 -3 Angelo StreeVEI Sombro CAD 00 -3 Grothman Lane CAD 98 -4 Corwin Drive CAD 00 -4 Barbee Lane CAD 98 -5 Via Cerrada CAD 00 -6 Forest Lane CAD 99 -1 Entrada Verde Place CAD 01 -1 U: \Position Papers \Mullin \Resol CAD levy 04_05.doc Page 1 of 7 e"` POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT THE 2004 -2005 ASSESSMENTS FOR CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS BE COLLECTED ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLL If the Board adopts the proposed resolution (Attachment 1), the County will place assessments on the appropriate tax bills. Exhibit A of the resolution lists each individual property and its 2004 -05 assessment amount. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a resolution directing that the 2004 -2005 assessments for contractual assessment districts be collected on the County tax roll. Page 2 of 7 WPosition Papers \Mullin \Resol CAD levy 04_05.doc e"` ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2004- COLLECTION OF 2004 -2005 ASSESSMENTS FOR CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLL WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ( CCCSD) has previously taken action to establish final assessments for Contractual Assessment Districts Nos. 97 -1, 97 -2, 98 -1, 98 -2, 98 -3, 98-4, 98 -5, 99 -1, 99 -2, 99 -3, 00 -1, 00 -2, 00 -4, 00 -6, 01 -1, and 01 -2; and WHEREAS, CCCSD has given proper notice to the affected owners of the final assessments; and WHEREAS, the affected owners have elected to pay the assessments in annual installments of principal and interest over a period of ten years; and WHEREAS, the CCCSD Code provides that the District may elect to collect current charges on the County tax roll as provided by California Health and Safety Code Section 5470 et seq.; and WHEREAS, it is economical and efficient to collect the assessments for the 2004 -2005 fiscal year on the County tax roll; NOW, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Directors of the CCCSD that the 2004 -2005 assessments for Contractual Assessment Districts Nos. 97 -1, 97 -2, 98 -1, 98 -2, 98 -3, 98-4, 98 -5, 99 -1, 99 -2, 99 -3, 00 -1, 00 -2, 00-4, 00 -6, 01 -1, and 01 -2, as listed in Exhibit A attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof, be collected on the Contra Costa County Tax Roll. UAPosition Papers \Resol -MM \CAD RESOLUTION 04_05.doc Page 3 Of 7 Passed and adopted this 15th day of July, 2004 by the CCCSD Board of Directors by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: President of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: Secretary of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa State of California Approved as to Form: Kenton L. Alm LIAPosition Papers \Resol -MM \CAD RESOLUTION 04_05.doc Page 4 Of 7 e"` A 1 EXHIBIT A - page 1 of 3 CAD 97 -1 *: Gary Way CAD 98 -3 *: Haven Lane ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT 198 - 160 -002 -4 $ 604.92 172 - 061 -003 -7 $930.02 198- 160 -003 -2 $1,491.56 172- 061 -010 -2 $930.02 198 - 160 -004 -0 $1,491.56 172 - 061 -012 -8 $930.02 198 - 160 -005 -7 $1,491.56 172- 061 -013 -6 $788.34 198- 160 -006 -5 $1,491.56 172- 061 -014 -4 $930.02 198 - 160 -007 -3 $1,491.56 172 - 061 -021 -9 $833.82 198- 160 -010 -7 $1,491.56 172- 061 -030 -0 $930.02 198 - 160 -011 -5 $1,491.56 172 - 061 -031 -8 $930.02 198- 160 -012 -3 $1,491.56 172- 061 -032 -6 $930.02 198- 160 -013 -1 $1,491.56 172- 061 -034 -2 $930.02 198 - 160 -014 -9 $1,491.56 --------------- - - -- 198- 160 -015 -6 $1,491.56 Total 10 parcels $9,062.32 ----------------- Total 12 parcels - - - - -- $17,012.08 CAD 98-4 *: Grothman Lane ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT CAD 97 -2 *: Leona Court 162- 242 -010 -5 $1,602.22 ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT 162 - 242 -012 -1 $1,602.22 201 - 010 -011 -9 $1,864.80 162- 242 -021 -2 $1,493.54 201 - 010 -014 -3 $1,864.80 162 - 242 -023 -8 $1,493.54 201 - 010 -017 -6 $1,864.80 162- 243 -002 -1 $1,602.22 210 - 010 -018 -4 $1,864.80 162- 242 -018 -8 $1,493.54 ----------------- Total 4 parcels - - - - -- $7,459.20 --------------- Total 6 parcels - - -- $9,287.28 CAD 98 -1 *: Alhambra Way CAD 98 -5 *: Barbee Lane ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT 162 - 202 -004 -6 $1,134.76 198- 120 -003 -1 $2,899.48 162 - 202 -005 -3 $1,134.76 198 - 120 -004 -9 $2,899.48 162- 202 -027 -7 $ 937.40 198 - 120 -005 -6 $2,899.48 162- 230 -001 -8 $1,134.76 198- 120 -008 -0 $2,899.48 162 - 230 -002 -6 $1,134.76 198 - 120 -009 -8 $2,899.48 162- 242 -015 -4 $1,134.76 198- 120 -011 -4 $2,899.48 ----------------- Total 6 parcels - - - - -- $6,611.20 --------------- Total 6 parcels - - -- $17,396.88 CAD 98 -2 *: Charles Hill Circle CAD 99 -1 *: Forest Lane ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT 260- 040 -005 -1 $3,708.34 201- 082 -004 -7 $1,729.30 260 - 050 -002 -5 $3,708.34 201 - 082 -006 -2 $1,729.30 260 - 050 -003 -3 $3,708.34 201 - 082 -007 -0 $1,729.30 260 - 071 -003 -8 $3,708.34 --------------- - - -- 260- 071 -004 -6 $3,708.34 Total 3 parcels $5,187.90 260 - 072 -005 -2 $3,708.34 260- 072 -006 -0 $3,708.34 Total 7 parcels $25,958.38 *AMOUNT EQUALS MAXIMUM ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO ANY PREPAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS Page 5 of 7 CAD 99 -2 *: Muir Lane ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT 198 - 160 -017 -2 $ 237.28 198 - 160 -018 -0 $1,832.66 198 - 160 -020 -6 $1,832.66 198 - 160 -021 -4 $1,832.66 198 - 160 -022 -2 $1,832.66 198 - 160 -023 -0 $1,832.66 198- 160 -024 -8 $1,832.66 198 - 160 -025 -5 $1,832.66 198 - 160 -027 -1 $1,832.66 198 - 160 -029 -7 $1,832.66 198 - 160 -030 -5 $1,832.66 198 - 160 -026 -3 $1,832.66 Total 12 parcels $20,396.54 CAD 99 -3 *: Vine Hill Way ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT 155- 060 -011 -6 $2,467.64 155 - 060 -012 -4 $2,467.64 162 - 030 -002 -8 $2,467.64 Total 3 parcels $7,402.92 CAD 00 -1 *: Laurenita Way ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT 192- 011 -013 -5 $1,778.26 192- 011 -014 -3 $1,778.26 192- 012 -003 -5 $1,778.26 192 - 012 -004 -3 $1,778.26 192 - 012 -005 -0 $1,778.26 192 - 012 -007 -6 $1,778.26 192- 012 -008 -4 $1,778.26 Total 7 parcels $12,447.82 ig EXHIBIT A — page 2 of 3 CAD 00 -02 *: Regent Place AMOUNT ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT 198- 050 -013 -4 $2,177.48 198 - 050 -014 -2 $2,177.48 198- 050 -015 -9 $2,177.48 198- 050 -016 -7 $2,177.48 198- 050 -017 -5 $2,177.48 198 - 050 -018 -3 $2,177.48 198- 050 -019 -1 $2,177.48 198- 050 -021 -7 $2,177.48 198- 050 -022 -5 $2,177.48 Total 9 parcels $19,597.32 CAD 00 -3 *: El Sombro ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT 230 - 050 -003 -6 $2,174.88 230 - 050 -004 -4 $2,174.88 230 - 050 -008 -5 $2,174.88 230 - 050 -009 -3 $2,174.88 230 - 050 -011 -9 $2,174.88 230 - 050 -013 -5 $2,174.88 230 - 060 -002 -6 $1,938.48 230 - 060 -003 -4 $1,938.48 230 - 606 -005 -9 $1,938.48 230 - 060 -006 -7 $1,938.48 230 - 060 -008 -3 $1,938.48 Total 11 parcels $22,741.68 CAD 00 -6 *: Via Cerrada ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT 191- 062 -007 -7 $3,103.86 191- 062 -025 -9 $3,103.86 191- 062 -026 -7 $3,103.86 Total 3 parcels $9,311.58 *AMOUNT EQUALS MAXIMUM ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO ANY PREPAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS Page 6 of 7 CAD 00-4: Corwin Place ASSESSORS PARCEL ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT 198 - 131 -002 -0 $1,377.36 198 - 131 -003 -8 $1,377.36 198 - 131 -005 -3 $1,377.36 198 - 131 -006 -1 $1,377.36 198 - 131 -007 -9 $1,377.36 198 - 131 -008 -7 $1,377.36 198 - 131 -010 -3 $1,399.30 198 - 131 -011 -1 $1,399.30 198 - 131 -012 -9 $1,399.30 198 - 131 -017 -8 $1,399.30 198 - 131 -018 -6 $1,399.30 198 - 131 -020 -2 $1,399.30 198 - 131 -028 -5 $1,377.36 198 - 131 -029 -3 $1,377.36 198 - 131 -030 -1 $1,377.36 198 - 140 -004 -1 $1,399.30 198- 140 -005 -2 $1,399.30 198 - 140 -006 -0 $1,377.36 198 - 140 -008 -6 $1,377.36 198 - 140 -009 -4 $1,377.36 198 - 140 -010 -2 $1,377.36 198 - 140 -011 -0 $1,377.36 198 - 140 -013 -6 $1,377.36 198 - 140 -015 -1 $1,377.36 198 - 140 -017 -7 $1,377.36 198 - 140 -018 -5 $1,377.36 198 - 140 -019 -3 $1,377.36 198 - 140 -020 -1 $1,377.36 198 - 140 -021 -9 $1,377.36 Total 29 parcels $40,118.96 EXHIBIT A — page 3 of 3 CAD 01 -1 *: Entrada Verde Place ASSESSORS PARCEL AMOUNT 192 - 020 -036 -5 $1,410.06 192- 020 -035 -7 $1,410.06 192- 020 -033 -2 $1,410.06 192 - 020 -032 -4 $1,410.06 192 - 020 -029 -0 $1,410.06 192 - 020 -045 -6 $1,410.06 192- 020 -041 -5 $1,410.06 192 - 020 -022 -5 $1,410.06 192 - 020 -039 -9 $1,410.06 192 - 020 -019 -1 $ 714.06 192 - 020 -018 -3 $1,410.06 192- 020 -016 -7 $1,410.06 192- 020 -015 -9 $1,410.06 192 - 020 -014 -2 $1,410.06 192- 020 -013 -4 $1,410.06 Total 15 parcels $20,454.90 PARCEL COUNT 141 TOTAL AMOUNT $246,097.20 Page 7 of 7 1'"k 10" Central Contra Costa Sane' ry District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 No.: 3.c. CONSENT CALENDAR Type of Action: APPROVE MERIT INCREASE subject: APPROVE REGISTRATION DIFFERENTIAL SALARY MERIT INCREASE FOR ASSISTANT ENGINEER DANA LAWSON Submitted By: Tad J. Pilecki, Principal Initiating Dept./Div.: Engineering /Capital Engineer Projects REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION. %1 W. Brennan General ISSUE: A registration differential salary merit increase requires the approval of the Board of Directors. RECOMMENDATION: Approve a one -step salary merit increase effective June 25, 2004, for Assistant Engineer Dana Lawson. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: One -step salary merit increase (approximately $300 /month). ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: None. BACKGROUND: Dana Lawson is an Assistant Engineer in the Capital Projects Division's Collection System Program. This classification does not require registration as a Professional Engineer. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the District and Management Support/Confidential Group provides for a salary merit increase for employees who achieve registration or license as Professional Engineer, Land Surveyor, or Certified Public Account while employed by the District in a position not requiring such registration or license. Dana Lawson has provided evidence that she has passed all required examinations and is now licensed as a Professional Engineer in California (see Attachment 1). Dana has consistently demonstrated the professional judgment and skill expected of a Professional Engineer in the design and construction of District facilities. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Approve a one -step salary merit increase effective June 25, 2004, for Assistant Engineer Dana Lawson, as the registration differential provided for in the MOU with the Management Support/Confidential Group. lADesign \Position Papers\ 2004 \DanaLawsonMeritincrease.doc Page 1 of 2 r A"` STATE OF CALIFORNIA -STATE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor SGa� BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS �°*R"rWtof 2535 Capitol Oaks Drive, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95833 -2944 Consumer Affairs Telephone: (916) 263 -2222 Calnet: 8-435 -2222 Fax: (916) 263 -2246 or (916) 263 -2221 Board Internet Address: http: / /www.dca.ca.gov /pels 06/25/2004 DANA L. LAWSON 5019 IMHOFF PL MARTINEZ, CA 94553 CONGRATULATIONS! ID: 39153 Branch: Civil (C(DFIY We are pleased to inform you that you have successfully passed the recent Professionai Engineer examination. This letter will serve as temporary evidence that you now hold a valid license as a Professional Engineer. A formal certificate, which will include your license number, will be prepared and mailed to you within four to six weeks. Please refer to the California Code of Regulations (Board Rules) for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (Title 16, Division 5, Sections 400 - 474.5) for information on the following subjects that are your responsibility. These Rules can be found on our website at www.dca.ca.gov /pels /laws.htm Rule 407 - Fees Rule 411 - Seal and Signature Rule 412 - Address Change Rule 415 - Practice within Area of Competence Of particular importance is that all licenses are subject to renewal, and payment of a renewal fee is required. A renewal notice will be mailed to you several weeks before the expiration date of your Professional Engineer license. If you do not receive a renewal notice, you are still responsible for renewing your license. If you wish to order a seal or stamp, you may purchase one from any stationary store or rubber stamp company. Please note that some Engineers are required to seal, stamp and sign any plans, specifications, or reports prepared by them, or under their direction. Board Rule 411 provides specific criteria on seals. Notices and newsletters from the Board Office cannot reach you unless we have your current mailing address. Board Rule 412 requires you to advise us in writing of any address changes within 30 days after the effective date of the address change. EXAMINATION AND LICENSING STAFF Page 2 of 2 Central Contra Costa San, ry District ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 No.: 3.d. CONSENT CALENDAR Type of Action: HUMAN RESOURCES Subject: AUTHORIZE EXTENSION OF MEDICAL LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT PAY FOR DERHYL HOUCK, MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN III, MECHANICAL, THROUGH NOVEMBER 1, 2004 Submitted By: James M. Kelly Initiating Dept. /Div.: Operations/ Director of Operations Plant Operations REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION: J. Kel C. Freitas har e a s General Manag ISSUE: Board of Directors' authorization is required for a medical leave of absence without pay in excess of 30 days. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize medical leave of absence without pay for Derhyl Houck, Maintenance Technician III, Mechanical. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Minimal ALTERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS: Deny medical leave of absence without pay. BACKGROUND: Derhyl Houck, Maintenance Technician III, Mechanical, has been off work since August 4, 2003, due to a serious medical condition. Mr. Houck applied for, was granted, and used 12 weeks of Family Medical Leave. At the Board meeting of January 15, 2004, the Board approved Mr. Houck to be on medical leave of absence without pay until April 17, 2004, and extended his medical leave of absence until July 30, 2004. Mr. Houck requests extending his medical leave of absence without pay because his treating physician deems it necessary for Mr. Houck to extend his recuperation time, and Mr. Houck is exploring the possibility of a disability retirement. We request extending Mr. Houck's medical leave of absence without pay until November 1. Mr. Houck's status will be reviewed at that time, or the Board will be notified of any future personnel action. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize medical leave of absence without pay for Derhyl Houck, Maintenance Technician III, Mechanical, through November 1, 2004. Page 1 of 1 SACorrespondence \Position Papers\2004 \Houck -Leave of Absence-Ext-1 1 -1.doc Central Contra Costa Sai -..ary District ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 No.: 3.e. CONSENT CAhENDAR Type of Action: CONSIDER EMERGENCY WITHDRAWAL subject: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS FROM THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN Submitted By: Initiating Dept. /Div.: Randall Musgraves, Director of Administrative /Finance & Accounting Administration REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION: l\ Rrmu aves General Pig/ ISSUE: Authorization by the Board of Directors is required for emergency withdrawal of funds from the Deferred Compensation Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request by Derhyl Houck for an emergency withdrawal of $7,000 per month for two months, effective August 1, 2004, from the Deferred Compensation Plan, as recommended by the Deferred Compensation Plan Advisory Committee. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: This request could be denied, however, this is not recommended as the request meets the requirements for emergency withdrawals as set forth by the Internal Revenue Service. BACKGROUND: Derhyl Houck, Maintenance Technician III, Mechanical, has requested an emergency withdrawal from the Deferred Compensation Plan based on extreme financial hardship caused by a sudden and unexpected illness. The Deferred Compensation Plan Advisory Committee has reviewed the request and determined that it meets the requirements for emergency withdrawal in the amount of $14,000. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Approve the request by Derhyl Houck for an emergency withdrawal of $14,000, covering the months of August and September, 2004, from the Deferred Compensation Plan, as recommended by the Deferred Compensation Plan Advisory Committee. HAExec Asst \Director of Admin \Deferred Comp withdrawal Position Paper.doc Page 1 of 1 Central Contra Costa Sar „nary District ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 No.: 5.a. BIDS AND AWARDS Type of Action: AUTHORIZE AWARD subject: AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR TELEVISION INSPECTION OF SANITARY SEWERS TO ROTO- ROOTER FOR THE SEWER TV INSPECTION PROGRAM PROJECT, PHASE 3, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. X5547 Submitted By: Tom Godsey, Associate Engineer Initiating Dept. /Div.: Engineering Department/Capital Projects Division REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION: 1 T. Godsey i ecki K - - L� I W. Brennan A. General ISSUE: On June 18, 2004, sealed bids were received and opened for a contract for the Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers Project Phase 3, District Project No. X5547. The Board of Directors must authorize award of the contract or reject bids within 50 days of bid opening. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of a television inspection contract. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total project cost for TV inspection and contract administration as bid is $758,491. Adding an additional 500,000 feet to the contract brings the total project cost to $1,083,100. ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: Reject all bids, which is not recommended. BACKGROUND: The contract before the Board today represents the third year of a multi -year program to inspect all existing sewers and develop a comprehensive assessment of the District's collection system. It will focus primarily on sewers in the City of Walnut Creek. The prior two years focused on the City of Orinda area, which was recently completed. Six sealed bids were received and publicly opened on June 18, 2004. A summary of bids received is shown in Attachment 1. Bids ranged from $693,491.12 to $2,189,937.34. Capital Projects Division staff conducted a technical and commercial review of the bids and determined that the bid submitted by Roto- Rooter is the lowest responsible bid at $693,491.12. The District will administer the television inspection contract and provide inspection and CCTV inspection data review. With the increasing scrutiny placed on collection systems by regulatory agencies and environmental watch groups, staff feels it is advisable to take advantage of the favorable bid price and increase the footage of TV work under hDesign\Position Papers\2004 \5547 Award.doc Page 1 of 4 /"'` IOWA POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 subject: AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR TELEVISION INSPECTION OF SANITARY SEWERS TO ROTO- ROOTER FOR THE SEWER TV INSPECTION PROGRAM PROJECT, PHASE 3, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. X5547 this contract by 50 percent, bringing the total footage to be TV'd under phase 3 to 1,500,000 feet. (The unit price contract allows for increasing or decreasing the actual quantities by as much as 50 percent without changes in unit cost.) The additional footage will enable the District to complete its TV inspection /assessment program more expeditiously and incorporate the findings into the capital budgeting and maintenance activities. This project is included in the fiscal year 2004 -2005 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB). The funds required to complete this project, with the additional footage as shown in Attachment 2, are $1,083,100. Staff has concluded that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines Section 15262, since it will provide information for design of sewer improvements and will not have a legally binding effect on later activities. Authorization of the award of the contract will establish the Board of Directors' independent finding that the project is exempt from CEQA. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize the award of a service contract in the amount of $1,018,100 (includes $324,609 for the additional 500,000 feet) for completion of the Sewer Television Inspection of Sanitary Sewers Project, Phase 3, D.P. X5547, to Roto- Rooter, the lowest responsible bidder. I: \Design \Position Papers\2004 \5547 Award.doc Page 2 of 4 r'` ATTACHMENT 1 ,.*� Central Contra Costa Sanitary District SUMMARY OF BIDS PROJECT NO. 5547- PHASE 3 DATE June 18, 2004 LOCATION District Service Area - Walnut Creek ENGR. EST. $ 1,000,000 BIDDER (Name, Telephone No. & Address) BID PRICE 1 Roto Rooter $ 693,491.12 925 - 939 -3100 195 Mason Circle, Concord, CA 94520 2 Downstream Services $ 864,022.80 760- 746 -2544 2855 Progress Place, Escondido, CA 92029 3 Cal Sierra Construction Inc. $1,353,326.78 916- 485 -3909 5904 Van Alstine Ave., Carmichael, CA 95608 4 Houston Harris $1,421,386.30 909 - 422 -8990 21600 Walnut Avenue, Grand Terrace, CA 92313 5 Gelco Services Inc. $1,584,769.25 503 - 364 -1199 1705 Salem Industrial Dr NE, Salem, Oregon 97303 6 National Plant Services $2,189,937.34 800 - 631 -6215 1933 Republic Ave, San Leandro, CA 94577 BIDS OPENED BY /s/ Joyce E. Murphy DATE June 18, 2004 Sheet 1 of 1 I: \Design \Position Papers\2004 \5547 Award.doc Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 TELEVISION INSPECTION OF SANITARY SEWERS DISTRICT PROJECT NO. X5547, PHASE 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL PERCENT OF ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST 1 Contract Cost (as bid) $ 693,491 Adding 500,000 feet to Contract $ 324,609 Contract Subtotal $ 1,018,100 2 Contract Administration /Inspection $ 75,000 7.4% 3 Prebid Expenditures $ 15,000 1.5% 4 Total Project Cost' $1,108,100 108.9% 5 Funds Allocated to Date $ 25,000 6 Allocation Required to Complete Project $ 1,083,100 If the Board elects to not authorize the additional 500,000 linear feet of TV inspection, then the total project cost would be $758,491. I: \Design \Position Papers\2004 \5547 Attachment 2.wpd Page 4 of 4 Central Contra Costa Sat. ary District 984RB aF BIRMT(M POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 No.: 5.b. BIDS AND AWARDS Type of Action: AUTHORIZE AWARD Subject: AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO PACIFIC GENERAL ENGINEERING FOR THE COW CREEK CROSSING RENOVATION PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5672 Submitted By: Initiating Dept. /Div.: Tom Godsey, Associate Engineer Engineering / Capital Projects REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION: / T. Godsey ilecki W. Brennan A. Farrell a tts, r General Manage ISSUE: On June 30, 2004, sealed bids were received and opened for the construction of the Cow Creek Crossing Renovation Project, District Project No. 5672. The Board of Directors must authorize award of the contract or reject bids within 50 days of the bid opening. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of a construction contract. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Approximately $80,562, including design, bid price, contingency, and construction management. ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: Reject all bids, which is not recommended. BACKGROUND: Within the Town of Danville, a sewer pipe crosses Cow Creek between St. Edward and St. Phillip Courts. The east bank has been eroded by the creek and now the manhole for this pipe is being undermined. This project will regrade the creek channel to its original configuration and install riprap protection to minimize future undermining of this manhole. District staff prepared the plans and specifications for the project. The Engineer's estimate for construction is $35,000. This project was advertised on June 10 and 16, 2004. Two (2) sealed bids ranging from $39,650 to $45,164 were received and publicly opened on June 30, 2004. The Engineering Department conducted a technical and commercial review of the bids and determined that Pacific General Engineering is the lowest responsive bidder with a bid amount of $39,650. A summary of bids received is shown in Attachment 2. The District will administer the construction contract and will provide inspection, survey, office engineering, and submittal review. The funds required to complete this project, as shown in Attachment 3, are $55,562. The total construction cost of Cow Creek Crossing Renovation Project is anticipated to be $80,562. Staff is working with the town of hDesign \Position Papers\2004 \5672 Award.DOC Page 1 of 5 to"` ^q POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 Subject. AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO PACIFIC GENERAL ENGINEERING FOR THE COW CREEK CROSSING RENOVATION PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5672 Danville to insure that the project is constructed in accordance with the town's standards. The Cow Creek Crossing Renovation Project is included in the fiscal year 2004 -2005 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) on pages CS- 10 to -13. Staff has conducted a cash flow analysis of the Sewer Construction Fund and concluded that adequate funds are available for this project. Staff has concluded that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, since it involves only alterations of existing facilities with negligible or no expansion of capacity. Authorization of the construction contract for this project will establish the Board of Directors' independent finding that the project is exempt from CEQA. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize award of a construction contract in the amount of $39,650 for the construction of the Cow Creek Crossing Renovation Project, District Project No. 5672, to Pacific General Engineering, the lowest responsive bidder. I: \Design \Position Papers\2004 \5672 Award.DOC Page 2 of 5 PROJECT AREA ►P r N J N.T.S. x Central Contra Costa Attachment Sanitary District COW CREEK CROSSING RENOVATION DISTRICT PROJECT 5672 Page 3 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 ,•y COW CREEK CROSSING RENOVATION PROJECT DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5672 SUMMARY OF BIDS Project No.: 5672 Date: June 30, 2004 Project Name: Cow Creek Crossing Renovation Project Location: St. Edward and St. Phillip Courts, Danville Engineer's Est.: $35,000 No BIDDER BID PRICE Name & address Engineered Soils Repair, Inc. 1 1267 Springbrook Road $45,164.00 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Pacific General Engineering 2 PO Box 1476 $39,665.00 Lafayette, CA 94549 3 4 5 BIDS OPENED BY /s/ Joyce Murphy DATE June 30, 2004 SHEET NO. 1 OF 1 I: \Design \Position Papers\2004 \5672 Award.DOC Page 4 of 5 ele ,.*� ATTACHMENT 3 COW CREEK CROSSING RENOVATION PROJECT DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 5672 POST -BID / PRE - CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE No. Item Descriptic 1 CONSTRUCTION a. Construction Contract b. Contingency at 25% c. Permits TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 2 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT a. District Forces - Construction Management and Inspection - Operations Department SUBTOTAL b. Consultants - Construction Support Services - Material and Construction Testing SUBTOTAL TOTAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION PHASE COST 4 TOTAL PREBID EXPENDITURES 5 TOTAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT COST 6 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 7 FUNDS AUTHORIZED TO DATE 8 ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION NEEDED TO COMPLETE PROJECT Percent of Estimated Construction Amount Cost $39,650 $9,912 $1,000 $50,562 $10,000 $500 $10,500 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $12,000 $62,562 $18,000 $30,000 $80,562 $25,000 $55,562 I: \Design \Position Papers \2004 \5672 Award.DOC Page 5 of 5 100%1 20%1 3% 24% 124% 36% 59% 159% Central Contra Costa Sar ary District ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 No.: 7.a. ENGINEERING Type of Action: AUTHORIZE CHANGE ORDER subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER GREATER THAN $50,000 TO RANGER PIPELINES, INC. ON THE PLEASANT HILL RELIEF INTERCEPTOR, PHASE 5, AND HAPPY VALLEY ROAD SEWER RENOVATION PROJECTS (DP 5659 AND 5692) Submitted By: Initiating Dept /Div,: Tad J. Pilecki, Principal Engineer Engineering /Capital Projects REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION: cki W. Brennan A. Farrell General Mans ISSUE: Authorization of the Board of Directors is required for the General Manager to execute a construction change order in an amount greater than $50,000. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager to execute a construction change order greater than $50,000 to Ranger Pipelines, Inc. on the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor, Phase 5, and Happy Valley Road Sewer Renovation Projects, District Projects 5659 and 5692. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: A major redesign and construction change order will be required, estimated costs to be approximately $100,000 to $150,000. Staff will provide more detailed costs by the August 12, 2004 Board Meeting. ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: Do not authorize the construction change order, and have staff pursue the work at a later date as part of another project. Due to the difficult traffic control and the current construction impacts on the residents, another project in the same area next year is not recommended. BACKGROUND: The plans for the Happy Valley Sewer Renovation Project required the reach of sewer line in Happy Valley Road from Happy Valley Court to Happy Valley Glen (approx. 850 feet) to be replaced by pipe bursting an existing 10 -inch line to a new 15 -inch line. See Attachment 1 for project location. On July 1, after approximately 100 feet of pipe were installed using pipe- bursting techniques, an equipment failure required digging a pit to retrieve the bursting head. This excavation revealed that an EBMUD 8- inch asbestos cement water line, a type of pipe that is very brittle and breaks easily, was located above the District's planned alignment. This type of pipe is difficult to field locate and was marked by EBMUD crews as being 5 to 6 feet away from the existing 10 -inch sewer line. Further investigation found that the pipe was located directly above the sewer line and within 2 feet vertically. Due to the proximity of the water line, any (:\Construction \Position Papers\2004 \5659 &5692 Change Order.doc Page 1 of 3 POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 Subject AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER GREATER THAN $50,000 TO RANGER PIPELINES, INC. ON THE PLEASANT HILL RELIEF INTERCEPTOR, PHASE 5, AND HAPPY VALLEY ROAD SEWER RENOVATION PROJECTS (DP 5659 AND 5692) further attempts to pipe burst the sewer line could result in catastrophic damage to the water line and roadway. In order to complete this part of the project, a proposed sewer needs to be installed in a new alignment by open cut excavation. Approximately 360 feet of pipe will be installed by open cut in Happy Valley Road between Hester Lane and Baker Lane. Ranger Pipelines is still planning to pipe burst the reach from Hester Lane to Happy Valley Court (approx. 390 feet). Pipe bursting this area will greatly reduce the traffic congestion and impacts at the intersection of Happy Valley Road and Deer Hill Road. To insure that no further conflicts exist with other utilities in this area, the contractor will be required to pothole the proposed construction site for the existing utilities. If further utility conflicts exist, an increased amount of open cut excavation may be required. Staff will negotiate a construction change order with the contractor, Ranger Pipelines, Inc.,- that is anticipated to be in the range of $100,000 to $150,000. Staff will provide the Board a more detailed cost estimate of the costs at the August 12, 2004 Board Meeting. The Board awarded the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor, Phase 5, and Happy Valley Road Sewer Renovation Projects, District Projects 5659 and 5692, to Ranger Pipelines, Inc. at its April 15, 2004 Board meeting at a cost of $4,110,061. Staff is recommending the District proceed with the construction change order for this area, since the overall construction and traffic impacts on the residents have already occurred. If a future project were pursued, additional construction impacts could be repeated during sewer line installation for that project. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize the General Manager to execute a construction change order greater than $50,000 to Ranger Pipelines, Inc. on the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor, Phase 5, and the Happy Valley Road Sewer Renovation Projects, District Projects 5659 and 5692. I:\Construction\Position Papers\2004 \5659 &5692 Change Order.doc Page 2 of 3 LAFAYETTE PROJECT AREA y Central Contra Costa Attachment Sanitary District HAPPY VALLEY RD a SEWER RENOVAT 56ION PROJECT 1 J Page 3 of 3 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 No.: 7.b. ENGINEERING Type of Action: AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH MALCOLM PIRNIE TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE SOLIDS HANDLING FACILITIES PLAN, DISTRICT PROJECT 7224 Submitted By: Initiating Dept /Div.: Ann E. Farrell, Director of Engineering Engineering /Environmental Services Division REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION., 'La- 0A - -- —(4k— 1 Schmidt C. Swanson A. Farrell harles tts, General Manager ISSUE: The Board of Directors' authorization is required for the General Manager to execute professional engineering services contracts for amounts greater than $50,000. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with Malcolm Pirnie to provide professional engineering services for the Solids Handling Facilities Plan, District Project 7224, in the amount of $270,000. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The intent of this project is to better define the solids handling improvements needed over the next 10 to 20 years to maintain our existing furnace infrastructure, accommodate increased flows, and respond to changing regulations. This project will allow us to define additional tasks and costs needed to meet our solids handling requirements for the foreseeable future. The initial Solids Handling Facilities Plan will cost $270,000. ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: Delaying this project may lead to future solids processing problems. An alternative would be to conduct this project solely with District staff. This project required specialized expertise, which is not available at the District. BACKGROUND: In May 1990, the District completed a Solids Handling Facilities Plan that evaluated future solids handling scenarios. In October 1992, the District completed the Solids Handling Staging Plan, which further defined the staging of the facilities recommended in the Facilities Plan. The recommendation of that plan was to continue with incineration but to construct a backup lime addition system for use in the event of an emergency, and /or to treat the additional solids once the capacity of one incinerator was exceeded. A very rudimentary lime addition system was constructed on the treatment plant site as a backup solids facility but has not been utilized. After 14 years, it is time to update the Facilities Plan and Staging Plan to reflect changes in the Page 1 of 3 U: \Position Papers\ Farrell \Solids Handling FacPlan.DOC [ ) POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 subject AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH MALCOLM PIRNIE TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE SOLIDS HANDLING FACILITIES PLAN, DISTRICT PROJECT 7224 regulatory climate and solids handling technology that have occurred since their completion. In addition, as flows and the amount of solids have increased, the District will reach the capacity of one incinerator on peak days within 2 to 4 years. It is critical to have a side stream treatment alternative identified and available by that time. Our initial investigation indicates that it is not economical or practical to operate two incinerators at low capacity, as this will significantly increase operational costs and decrease the useful life of the incinerators. The Solids Handling Facilities Plan effort will address the following questions: 1) What improvements to the incinerators, including air emissions equipment, will be necessary in the next 10 to 20 years to provide for continued operation? How can pollutants like mercury and cyanide be removed from the air scrubber water to minimize the impact on NPDES compliance? 2) What is the actual operational capacity of one incinerator and when will that capacity be exceeded? Investigate the practicality of operating two incinerators or using a side stream treatment process. 3) What type of side stream treatment process should be utilized for the excess solids that cannot be processed by one incinerator? What is the cost/benefit? What is the implementation plan for such side stream treatment? 4) What are the options for stabilizing and disposing of solids during an extended incinerator failure? Could the modification of the existing lime system and truck loading station be adequate for such situations? What is the implementation plan for future emergency backup treatment? 5) What is the most likely alternative to incineration should more stringent air regulations make continued operation of the incinerators untenable or uneconomical? What would the implementation plan look like? These questions are complex and interrelated making such planning difficult and broad. The development of the Solids Handling Facilities Plan is needed to prepare the District for the array of potential solids handling challenges we can expect in the future. The selection of a consultant to develop this plan followed our procedures for large projects. We contacted and received proposals from eight consultants. Many of these consultants had limited incinerator experience. We interviewed two consultants with the appropriate depth of experience, and selected Malcolm Pirnie. Malcolm Pirnie has worked with many of the large municipal multiple -hearth incinerator installations across the country. They are expanding their California operation and are anxious to bring their engineering experience to us. The District will also utilize two specialized consultants, Page a of 3 UAPosition Papers\ Farrell \SolidsHandlingFacPlan.DOC POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 subject. AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH MALCOLM PIRNIE TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE SOLIDS HANDLING FACILITIES PLAN, DISTRICT PROJECT 7224 Incinerator Rx and Industrial Furnace Company, Inc., under separate contract, to evaluate the condition and operation of the existing furnaces. These contracts will not exceed staff authority limits. Both Malcolm Pirnie and the District have worked successfully with these two specialized consultants in the past. Staff feels this will be an opportunity to gain some fresh insights into our incinerator operation and to assess our future solids handling needs. This project will be initiated over the next several months and preliminary findings will be available to share with the Board as part of the next fiscal year's Capital Improvement Plan. Funds for the planning portion of this project are budgeted in the Treatment Plant Program in the 2004 Capital Improvement Budget, TP -26. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with Malcolm Pirnie to provide professional engineering services for the Solids Handling Facilities Plan, District Project 7224, in the amount of $250,000. Page 3 of 3 UAPosition Papers\ Farrell \SolidsHandlingFacPlan.DOC Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS POST /ON PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 No.: 7.c. ENGINEERING Type of Action: AUTHORIZE PROGRAM subject: AUTHORIZE STAFF TO IMPLEMENT A DENTAL INFORMATIONAL PERMITTING PROGRAM AND CONSIDER APPROPRIATE FEES Submitted By: Ann E. Farrell, Initiating Dept/Div.: Director of Engineering Engineering /Environmental Services Division REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION: (5$— T. Potter C. Swanson A. Farrell General ISSUE: The Board of Directors has asked for input into Source Control permitting of dental offices to reduce mercury discharges to District facilities and the Bay. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to proceed with a dental informational permitting program, and approve in concept an amendment to District Code to charge appropriate fees. The fee proposal will be brought back to the Board in a position paper format at a future meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There will be a significant investment of District staff time to implement this program. The financial impacts to the District will depend on the fees, if any, charged to the dischargers to cover District costs. Total dental permitting costs are estimated at $80,000 to $100,000. ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: There are three basic alternatives: 1) move forward with a dental permitting program with fees to cover the costs; 2) move forward with the program but do not charge any fees; 3) move forward with a fee schedule to be developed that provides an incentive for cooperating with the program but does not cover all of the costs. Staff does not believe that there is the option of not initiating the program since the District has committed to dental permitting as part of the final Pollution Prevention Program submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). BACKGROUND: The RWQCB has found the San Francisco Bay is impaired for mercury. Therefore, a total maximum daily allowable load (TMDL) is being developed for the Bay to limit the amount of mercury discharged. It is likely that this allowable load will result in a reduction of the District's permit mercury limit that can be discharged to the Bay. Should this occur, the District will need to reduce the total mercury discharged to the Bay. Because dental offices represent approximately 47% of the mercury Page 1 of 12 LIAPosition Papers\ Farrell\ DentalPermittingProgramFinal.DOC POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: July 15, 2004 Subject. AUTHORIZE STAFF TO IMPLEMENT A DENTAL INFORMATIONAL PERMITTING PROGRAM AND CONSIDER APPROPRIATE FEES entering the plant, any source control program to reduce mercury must focus on the dental community. Many communities have already put dentist offices under permit and implemented mandatory amalgam separator programs. District staff has recommended that we begin slowly by developing a database of practicing dentists in our service area and then putting them under an informational permit. This approach has been discussed in our Pollution Prevention Plan submitted to the RWQCB. This informational permit will contain information on the dental facility, their potential mercury discharges, and also whatever best management practices they are currently employing or could add in the future to reduce mercury discharges. The District will then have an active, up -to -date database for use when and if it becomes necessary to go to a mandatory amalgam separator program. The dental informational permit program will initially rely on cooperation from dentists in order to efficiently obtain information on their office practices related to mercury reduction efforts. To encourage this cooperation of dentists, an informational permit fee structure is being recommended that has no or reduced charges based on the dentist's level of cooperation, and a full permit fee of up to $225 for dentists where staff intervention is required. A public hearing process and District Code amendment will be required to implement this fee proposal. Staff will bring back a position paper to conduct a public hearing and adopt an ordinance to amend the District Code Chapter 6.30, Schedule of Environmental and Development - Related Rates and Charges, at a future Board meeting. The total cost of the dental permit program is estimated to be approximately $80,000 to $100,000. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize staff to proceed with a dental informational permitting program, and approve, in concept, an amendment to the District Code to charge appropriate fees. The fee proposal will be brought back to the Board in a position paper format at a future Board meeting. Page 2 of 12 U:\Position Papers\ Farrell \Dental Permitting Program Final. DOC e011111 0011N Central Contra Costa Sanitary District July 8, 2004 TO: BOARD O4DIRTORS VIA: CHARLES FROM: ANN FARRELL r �, V,.TIM POTTER C%` CURTIS SWANSON 04 V SUBJECT: DENTAL OUTREACH TO CONTROL MERCURY INTRODUCTION Recently, the Board reviewed and provided input for a staff letter introducing our proposed dental informational permitting program to the dentists practicing in our service area. The Board expressed concern over the issues of the need for such a program and the targeting of dentists. The Board also felt that it was not appropriate to charge the dentists a fee for this informational permitting program if we were seeking their cooperation. This memo is to provide some background information on this complex issue. BACKGROUND The District's core mission is to protect the public health and the environment. While the District operates a treatment facility whose purpose it is to treat wastewater, the District is also charged to ensure that its pretreatment and pollution prevention programs ensure that the effluent is of acceptable quality to discharge to the San Francisco Bay. The District's NPDES permit specifically limits discharge of certain compounds that are known to impair the quality of the Bay. Of these listed compounds, one of the greatest concerns to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is mercury. Due to high levels of mercury in the Bay, the State has issued fish consumption advisories to limit human intake of mercury, and the RWQCB is in the final stages of a total maximum daily load (TMDL). The result of these actions is that dischargers — municipal, industrial, urban runoff, etc. — will be limited on the mass of mercury they can discharge to the Bay. It is commonly accepted that the majority of the mercury in the Bay is a legacy pollutant contributed by historical sources, primarily gold mining and the associated mercury mines. However, the regulatory authorities have chosen to focus on all sources, and UAPosition Papers\ Farrell\ Dentra lPermittingProgramMemoFinal.DOC Page 3 of 12 t^ Board of Directors Page 2 July 8, 2004 the point sources of mercury is one target for reducing the mass entering the Bay. The District and the whole discharger community have worked diligently through Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA), Tri TAC, and California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) to try and convince the regulators that this effort is misplaced and that their focus should be spent cleaning up abandoned mines and drainage sites. However, the RWQCB has chosen to continue to focus part of their efforts on the point dischargers. The District's current NPDES permit requires us to control mercury discharges to the Bay. The District achieves these requirements through pretreatment standards and the secondary treatment process. Projected permits limits for mercury in the future based on the proposed TMDL may not be achievable by these means. Also, our permit specifically states that we shall "continue existing pollution prevention and pretreatment program to maximize practicable control over influent mercury sources." In response to this requirement, the District has created a five -year plan for pollution prevention that includes the implementation of a dental informational permitting program. This plan has been presented to the RWQCB and shared with the Board Outreach Committee each year and presented to the full Board last year as part of the 2003 Pollution Prevention Annual Report. As outlined in the 2004 plan, the District has said it would "begin issuing informational permits to dental operations in our service area." District staff is now proposing such an outreach program to dentists. In the future, if the District cannot meet the new mercury limit in our permit, it will be necessary to implement reduction efforts for the sources of mercury that can be controlled. While the District will attempt to get credit from the mercury removed with our Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHWF), other programs will be necessary. The District has identified that dentists contribute almost 50% of the mercury in our influent: a mandatory amalgam separator program for all dentists discharging to our treatment facility is a planned logical step in such an event. In preparation for the likelihood that we will need to implement such a mandatory amalgam separator program in the future, and to comply with our current Pollution Prevention Plan, staff has recommended that the District begin with an informational dental permitting program this calendar year, as outlined previously. District staff has reviewed mercury reduction programs in other jurisdictions and found that many are already implementing mandatory amalgam separator programs. A recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle (attached) highlighted the fact that many other local programs are very aggressive in this area. The District is not a leader on this issue, and the expectations of the RWQCB are that the District will implement some type of a dental permitting program in 2004. The information on "best management practices" for dentist offices has been widely circulated. The dental community is well educated on this issue through their local, state, and federal dental associations and through the many mandatory amalgam separator ordinances that have been implemented in the state and throughout the country. Staff believes it is appropriate UAPosition Papers\ Farrell\ DentralPermittingProgramMemoFinal .DOC Page 4 Of 12 r Board of Directors Page 3 July 8, 2004 and necessary for our District to begin an informational permitting program for dentists at this time. INFORMATIONAL PERMITTING PROGRAM FOR DENTISTS The informational permitting program for dentists will allow us to develop a database of dentists practicing in our service area. It will also be used to encourage implementation of best management practices to minimize mercury discharges to the treatment plant. For the many dentists who already follow such practices, this program will just reinforce their current behavior. For those who have not yet adopted such practices, we are hopeful that this program will result in voluntary compliance of implementing best management practices. This information on the practice of each dental office will then be available to help us quickly implement a mandatory amalgam separator program, if and when one becomes necessary. The informational permitting program will consist of three steps. First, a brief letter will go to all dentists in our District containing a questionnaire that asks if they are still practicing and if they are a member of a group or individual practice. This information will allow us to update our database on practicing dentists to better target the mailing of the informational permit packages. Second, the informational permit package will be sent to the updated database of dentists. The informational permit is a survey of the dentist's current practices in regards to pollution prevention. The District has previously conducted two dental surveys, one in the year 2000 and one in 2003. These surveys resulted in only about a 20% response; through an improved database this percentage should improve. While the informational permit does not mandate the use of best management practices at this time, completion of the informational permit and its return to the District will be required. To answer questions that may arise about the informational permit process, workshops will be held. Based on past experience, the District expects there will be a group of dentists who will not initially complete the package. Source Control staff will contact these dentists and, if necessary, make site visits to assist in filling out the informational permit. Third, when the permit application package is complete, an informational permit will be issued. The permit would then be the vehicle to enforce "best management practices" in the future if and when a mandatory program is put in place. The issue of fees is always a difficult issue in changing the behavior of dischargers, especially because permits result in additional expenses. This discussion has previously been held with the Board Outreach Committee and with the full Board. The recommendation of staff has been based on the Board's past statements that fees for District - provided services should be paid for the actual cost of services rendered. In the case of the dental informational permits, we are anticipating a significant investment of U:\Position Papers\ Farrell\ DentralPermittingProgramMemoFinal .DOC Page 5 of 12 W Board of Directors Page 4 July 8, 2004 staff time to implement this program. Source Control is estimating that approximately 500 dental facilities will ultimately require an informational permit. The time required for each will range from an hour for preparation, mailing and data management for a dentist who responds to both the letter and the permit, to three to four hours for dentists who fail to respond and for whom a site visit is required. In addition to the time spent with individual dentists, there is a cost associated with the development of the overall program. District staff estimates that the total cost of completing informational permits for 500 dentists will be in the range of $80,000 - $100,000. The ratepayers of the District could absorb this amount or the District could attempt to recover some or all of these costs through fees. Staff's recommendation is to utilize the fee as an incentive, and to offer no cost informational permits to those dentists who fill them out and return them promptly. For dentists who require further contacts and /or a site visit, staff would recommend charging a reduced $100 application fee. For dentists who fail to respond and require staff intervention to complete the informational permit, staff recommends charging the full application fee of $225, which is the standard application fee for all industrial discharge permits. We believe this approach would be helpful in encouraging voluntary compliance. This fee proposal is a change to District Code and will require a public hearing and amendment to the Code. If this fee proposal or something like it is acceptable to the Board, staff will initiate the public hearing process through a position paper to be presented at a future Board Meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the District Board of Directors approve moving forward with a dental informational permitting program over the next six months. This program will allow us to compile a database of practicing dentists in our service area, including information on their best management practices. It will also provide an opportunity for additional outreach to dentists on best management practices in the area of dental mercury reduction. The database information will then be available, when needed, to serve as the basis of a mandatory amalgam separator program, if required. Staff also recommends that a fee structure be established for this program. As an incentive, staff recommends that no fee be charged to those dentists who respond by completing the required information and returning the forms in a timely manner. For those where additional contacts by staff are required, a reduced $100 permit application fee is recommended. For area dentists who ignore the request for an informational permit and require additional staff time and effort, the full cost of the application fee should be charged, or $225. This proposed fee structure will require a public hearing process and a District Code Amendment and will be brought back to the Board at a future meeting. AEF /CWS/TP:cn UAPosition Papers\ Farrell0 entralPermittingProgramMemoFinal .DOC Page 6 of 12 SF Gate An unlikely cause of pollution in _bay: dentists S.F. _.moves to s. tom_ UM—u- m in ollin s from heading-for sewage treatment._plants - Jane K y Chronicle Environment Writer Wednesday, June 30, 2004 14� 06130/04 11 of 4 The largest controllable source of mercury to Bay Area sewage treatment plants comes from thousands of dentists flushing the toxic metal down the drain when they fill their patients' cavities -- but San Francisco officials expect these mercury levels to fall over the coming months. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission will begin the state's first regulatory program Thursday to catch the bits of mercury released during the preparation, placement and removal of silver fillings. Other Bay Area counties will begin similar plans later. In San Francisco, the PUC is requiring about 600 dentist offices to get wastewater treatment permits -- just like other businesses that discharge toxic chemicals -- and prevent mercury from heading for sewage plants and, eventually, San Francisco Bay and the ocean. "The dentists were the last controllable source that we hadn't addressed through a permit," said Lewis Harrison, the PVC's director of water - pollution prevention. "The beautiful thing is that the mercury will be going to recyclers." Under the federal Clean Water Act of 1972, sewage treatment plants have authority to set limits on discharges from businesses. In San Francisco, where the PUC oversees sewage treatment, some of the businesses that already get wastewater treatment permits include chromium platers, auto body shops, food processors and semiconductor manufacturers. Page 7 of 12 SF Gate 06/3604 2 of 4 i To enforce the new dentist office permits, San Francisco is ready with seven inspectors and possible $10,000 fines for violations. Dental offices must install special devices costing around $1,000. The dentists must follow certain waste - cutting practices developed with dental societies, which, after early resistance, now support the regulation. "Most of our dentists have selected to install the dental amalgam separators, which we feel demonstrates a positive approach to working with the PUC and other regulatory agencies. Like any other public health professionals, we're also stewards of the environment," said Deborah Elam, executive director of the San Francisco Dental Society. The separators are simple devices that allow the heavier amalgam particles used in fillings -- about half mercury and the rest silver, tin, copper and other metals -- to settle to the bottom. Periodically, the dentists will send the metal waste to licensed disposal companies that will recycle it. Mercury, along with PCBs and dioxins, is one of the most potent pollutants contaminating fish and other aquatic life in the bay. The state advises the public to limit sport fish because of health hazards, particularly to women of child- bearing age and to children. In an attempt to reduce mercury, the state regulators in May issued a plan to cut mercury discharges into the bay by 40 percent over the next 20 years to produce fish that are safe to eat. Municipalities, in turn, are looking at every controllable source of mercury they can find -- including dental offices. Page 8 of 12 /"1 SF Gate 06130104 13 of 4 While the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board says that the 39 sewage treatment plants ringing the bay discharge only 1 percent of the new mercury that flows into the bay, the several thousand dental offices in the area are responsible for one - third to one -half of that amount. The greatest sources of mercury to the bay come from mining activities dating back to the Gold Rush era and storm runoff from cities and farms. Even small amounts of mercury can impair neurological development in the fetus and growing children. In adults, it can cause tremors, memory loss and other health problems. Scientists are still studying possible health risks from the dental amalgams. The elemental mercury in the silver fillings is poorly absorbed by the body -- but when it reaches the bay, the organic matter transforms into the potent neurotoxin methylmercury, which can contaminate some fish. It's not just mercury in effluent that the sewage plants have to worry about reducing, either. About 90 percent of the toxic metal ends up in sludge. San Francisco's two plants and the East Bay Municipal Utilities District plants send their sludge to agricultural lands; Palo Alto and Central Contra Costa plants incinerate their sludge, sending into the air mercury that falls to the ground as a pollutant. San Francisco, which decided to go for a mandatory program after seeing Seattle's success when it switched from a voluntary one, has about 1,600 dentists working in 600 dental offices. Every dental office has applied and received a permit that spells out the dentists' obligations. About 65 percent of the 540 that install or remove dental amalgams have met the deadline to install separators by Thursday. I as Page 9 of 12 SF Gate 06130104 14 of 4 The East Bay MUD will require the 300 dental offices in its service area to have separators by January. The combined plant that serves Palo Alto, Los Altos, Mountain View and Stanford will require its 200 dental offices to install the devices by April. Progress at the other treatment plants is mixed. While the city of Richmond required its eight dental offices to install separators four years ago, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District is only beginning to work with dentists. AN, Page 10 of 12 ,O. Dear Community Dentist: FAX: (925) 676 -7211 CHARLES W. BATTS General Manager KENTON L. ALM Counsel for the District (510) 808 -2000 JOYCE E. MURPHY Secretary of the District As General Manager of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ( CCCSD), I am asking for your help. Our mission is to help protect the environment, and part of that process involves eliminating pollutants at their source. This prevention effort is also part of the requirements mandated by our regulatory permit. CCCSD is in the process of implementing a new program called "Informational Permitting Program." This fall we will be asking dentists in our service area to provide information about their current operations and practices, especially those related to mercury. You have probably read about the high levels of mercury in the San Francisco Bay and Delta area waters, and the associated warnings on eating fish. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board is requiring that wastewater treatment plants like ours take steps to reduce mercury pollution. Because discharge from dental offices, even though small, is the primary source of mercury in the wastewater collected from our service area, we are asking for your assistance in developing solutions to this pollution problem. Dentists who practice within the CCCSD service area (see enclosed service area map) and who use mercury will be required to complete an Informational Permit packet. Only one Informational Permit will be required for each location where a dental group practice operates. An Informational Permit will provide CCCSD with information to assess the mercury impact of dental offices in our service area. We will be mailing out the Informational Permit application package sometime this fall. This required permit application will ask you to identify the "Best Management Practices" (BMP) currently being used to reduce mercury in your dental office. These Page 11 of 12 r"►, A"ft practices are the same ones that have already been endorsed by both the California Dental Association and the American Dental Association. For your convenience, we have enclosed a copy of our own BMPs on mercury removal from dental operations. This fall we will also be conducting workshops to explain the Informational Permitting process, provide additional information on BMPs, and answer any questions you might have about the new program. Information about these workshops will be included in the Informational Permit application packet. While your dental practice may be exempt from the Informational Permit if it is outside the CCCSD service area, or if your dental specialty does not generate mercury wastes, you still need to let us know. If you think you are exempt, please complete and return the enclosed Exemption from Informational Permit Form by August 15, 2004. Send this form to CCCSD, Attn: Source Control, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553. Once we receive your exemption form, someone from our District may call to verify your exempt status. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the program in general, please call Steve Linsley, Senior Source Control Inspector, (925) 229 -7107. thank you in advance for your timely assistance. We are hopeful that by working together we can develop effective and mutually beneficial solutions to the mercury pollution problem. Sincerely, Charles W. Batts, Jr. General Manager Enclosure Page 12 of 12 c Dental Informational Permitting Program Board Presentation July 15, 2004 What is a ""Dental Informational Permit "? Dentists required to provide information on: . # of amalgam fillings placed &removed . Amount of amalgam purchased . Best management practices utilized Dentists not required to implement best management practices at this time. Why is a Dental Permitting program necessary? . Our current NPDES permit requires us to maximize control of influent mercury sources . Our 2004 Pollution Prevention Plan commits to informational permitting of dentists . The draft San Francisco Bay TMDL permit will further reduce our mercury limit Draft San Francisco Bay TMDL Permit • Lowers monthly average mercury concentration from .087 pg /L to .041 fag /L • Current monthly average in effluent .03 pg /L • If exceedance have 60 days to submit action plan... s .Effectiveness of Pollution Prevention and Pretreatment $$$ .Technology enhancements to improve plant performance $$$$$ .Other measures to reduce mercury, such as reuse . Most cost effective strategy is to prepare for more regulation of dental community It is prudent to position the District for a future mandatory program requiring dental offices to utilize best management practices (BMPs)... . Database of practicing dentists in service area . Database - on best management practices being used voluntarily . Ability to estimate the effectiveness of a mandatory BMP program What are others doing? Richmond 10 dental offices San Francisco 600 dental offices EBMUD 330 dental offices Palo Alto 200 dental offices Mandatory Separators Mandatory Separators Mandatory Separators Mandatory Separators Year 2000 July 2004 January 2005 April 2005 What are others doing? in View SD 4 dental offices West County WD 40 dental offices Delta Diablo SD 20+ dental offices Benicia ? dental offices Dublin /San Ramon SD ? dental offices Fairfield Suisun SD 80 dental offices CCCSD 500 dental offices Inspection program and outreach on BMP's Inspection program and outreach on BMP's Inspection program and outreach on BMP's Inspection program and outreach on BMP's Inspection program and outreach on BMP's Survey and outreach on BMP's Survey and outreach on BMP's Should fees be charged for dental informational permits? • Not currently covered by District Code • Most other programs do not charge fees • Fee options • Waive fee • Charge all permittees a fee • Use fee selectively to encourage compliance • Current application fee $225 (other amounts could be considered) • Cost of program estimated at $80 - $100,r000 • Program benefits all rate payers by avoiding more costly mercury reduction alternatives Receive direction from Board . Staff recommends moving forward with dental informational permitting program • Staff can support all fee alternatives — request Board direction.