HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/6/2005 AGENDA BACKUPCentral Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: October 6, 2005
Type of Action: ADOPT RESOLUTION
No.: 4.a. CONSENT CALENDAR
subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
AND AN OFFER OF DEDICATION FROM UDC HOMES, INC. FOR AN EASEMENT
SHOWN ON THE RECORDED FINAL MAP OF SUBDIVISION NO. 8061 IN THE
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK (JOB 5313)
Submitted By: Initiating Dept ✓Div.:
John Mercurio, Engineering Assistant III Engineering /Environmental Services
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
�l,J(
ercurio � �
May C A (Aharle,
General
ISSUE: A resolution of the Board of Directors is required to accept public sewer
improvements and offers of dedication, and to authorize staff to record documents.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution accepting public sewer improvements and an
offer of dedication, and authorizing staff to record the easement acceptance with the
Contra Costa County Recorder.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: None.
BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors regularly accepts easements and public
sewer improvements by resolution. The recommended resolution will accept an
easement shown on the recorded final map of Subdivision No. 8061 that is required for
a recent public sewer extension off Rossmoor Parkway in the City of Walnut Creek (as
shown on Attachment 1). Staff has reviewed the final subdivision map, inspected the
public sewer improvements and determined that they are in compliance with District
standards.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a resolution accepting Job 5313 public
sewer improvements and an offer of dedication from UDC Homes, Inc. for an easement
shown on the recorded final map of Subdivision No. 8061 in the City of Walnut Creek
and authorizing staff to record the easement acceptance with the Contra Costa County
Recorder.
Page 1 of 2
N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Mercurio \5313 UDC Homes.doc
N
D
x
z
Z
0
D
2
LEGEND:
—�— EXISTING SEWER
NEW SEWER
SUB BOUNDARY
EASEMENT AREA
ALAMO
N
I�
LOCATION MAP
N. T. S.
Central Contra costa ACCEPTANCE OF
Sanitary District
EASEMENT DEDICATION
—AvL— SUBDIVISION 8061 JOB 5313
Page 2 of 2
r
Attachment
1
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
I BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: October 6, 2005 No.: 4.b. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: ADOPT RESOLUTION
Subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
AND AN OFFER OF DEDICATION FROM RUSSELL J. BRUZZONE, INC. FOR AN
EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE RECORDED FINAL MAP OF SUBDIVISION NO.
MS 602 -96 IN THE TOWN OF MORAGA (JOB 5318)
Submitted By: Initiating Dept. /Div.:
John Mercurio, Engineering Assistant III Engineering /Environmental Services
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
V� r
J. ercurio C. Swanson A. Farr611 Charles . Ba
General Manag
ISSUE: A resolution of the Board of Directors is required to accept public sewer
improvements and offers of dedication, and to authorize staff to record documents.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution accepting public sewer improvements and an
offer of dedication, and authorizing staff to record the easement acceptances with the
Contra Costa County Recorder.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: None.
BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors regularly accepts easements and public
sewer improvements by resolution. The recommended resolution will accept an
easement shown on the recorded final map of Subdivision No. MS 602 -96 that is
required for a recent public sewer extension off Country Club Drive in the Town of
Moraga (as shown on Attachment 1). A parallel sewer has been abandoned and its
easement quitclaimed in a previous Board action. Staff has reviewed the final
subdivision map, inspected the public sewer improvements and determined that they
are acceptable.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a resolution accepting Job 5318 public
sewer improvements and an offer of dedication from Russell J. Bruzzone, Inc. for an
easement shown on the recorded final map of Subdivision No. MS 602 -96 in the Town
of Moraga and authorizing staff to record the easement acceptance with the Contra
Costa County Recorder.
Page 1 of 2
N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Mercurio \5318 Bruzzone.doc
/� 1�
i
LAFAYETTE
SITE
LOCATION MAP
N. T. S.
i
i
/.- Centerline of quitclaimed easement
Q�
�p N
Z
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District ACCEPTANCE OF
EASEMENT DEDICATION
' SUBDIVISION MS 602 -96 JOB 5318
Attachment
1
Opp ,
P/
LEGEND:
i
—
PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT
-�
EXISTING SEWER
—Q-
NEW SEWER
SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY
EASEMENT AREA
LAFAYETTE
SITE
LOCATION MAP
N. T. S.
i
i
/.- Centerline of quitclaimed easement
Q�
�p N
Z
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District ACCEPTANCE OF
EASEMENT DEDICATION
' SUBDIVISION MS 602 -96 JOB 5318
Attachment
1
i
L
rU
C
N
N
N
N
2
.1C
N
m
mi
0
0
N
(
i
O
U
Al u
C6
N
O
CL
a)
E
a)
■�
cu
L
�
Q
E
O
f+
cn
i
L
rU
C
N
N
N
N
2
.1C
N
m
mi
0
0
N
(
i
O
U
Al u
i
� / .�
�`� `�� ��
—'. i.
f � � J
�.. _., Ya'ie.. � A
"�� � � ^, .. � �
I. � '
�y�
�� � ,� '�
Y i} g ��
� l�M�'
-\ �`t Y
ry
,
I y �
��
� �
j
I �
l.eVi� ..
��
i'�.�
� .i �' �� -. � J I
_ ti N, �.
"`� �`� F,
t y S
Y i
� �
J i
� =�=
•
��
�
� � � �� ;
s,
.t 1 �ti �p �..
�;i
�' � -' t , ' d ;
���
..
,� „�
�.1 1 `4 �_
�
`t., � � � x � f
�
r�
i
� � �
�' ' i' �� I
j1
%HJ' J`
r
r � � � � 4 � �
\•
0
'V
W
AW
V
O
Muni
0
O
C
cu
O
i
L
73
Q
O
E
cu
Cl)
N
L
o
.L
L'
C
cu
�
4-a
N
C
•Cl)
L
L
_O
o
�
Q
T
T
C
O
O
O
0
O
N
C
N
(D
L
U
U)
.O N C E i
L i -p L
.O O O N
cn
.L c
Eocv0o �cn
to
++
,A L � .cn
CD. ,r- 4-1 O O
70 CU � L
c E u
oc cn
o 0 LE
Cl) c
>' N
., L to
_O c n
-O -0U c �
E
O
cn
a�
.O
cu
U.
cn
N
C
.N
cn
O N
cn N
J� Cc
>
W
n�
W
yr
N-3
W
M
Z
LLl
N
�
o
"a
E
O
N
U)
N
.%
CO
•
ftftft
CO
CO
c
m
.c
O
m
C
h
^O^'
�W
/1
LO
N
rl
.v
L
o
CD
cn
o
o
o
E
rn
:t:!
E
E
o
L
`p
U
N
Q,
C)
r
cc
3
C
S2
L
\
>
3
°
N
m
E
UL
cu
4�
a
B
oar
cu
=
CO)
w
c
-C
p
C c
m
a
m
E
`�= co)
c ca
v �_'
m
E
°
a�i
E
z
co
n
cn E
vi E
r
N
M
�
1A
0
(0
O
4-
O
0
CO co
_4NQ c
cu
Jc
co 1--o
M Cl)
N O N
L cu
CU
a--+
CQ 5
N 73
O � �--�
mit N
CN O I- �>
N �
I
12
L,
^O'1
ft
W
C4ftwr/�
,
A �
0 cn
N ca �' C
V Ci) U) 70
C
N ( •� N C
}' O '-
ca cn a..,
M U +r
• CU 4-a N >' cu
O cn N O w p cn `*— O
w
a
�o
U)
w
H
J
V
a
um
0
z
J
z
Q
J
w
� o
Q w
° N z
a. ti w
z a w
a ° ix
J a
a
Fe
D
V
0
z
a
ca
J
w
V
z
a
z
0
U)
0
._
0
a
Q
cr
W
0
ca
a
V
m
L
LL
.CL
On-,
_
V
i
.0
_
r�
.0
LM
r0�
U
CD
0
_
0
Z
LM
V
0
E
W
_
.0
E
V
.0
CL
0
_
_
0
cn
E
0
J
♦0
A
LU
0
Z
0
J
F-
0
C.
M
m
0
0
m
a.
0
._
0
a
Q
cr
W
0
ca
a
V
m
L
LL
.CL
On-,
_
V
i
.0
_
r�
.0
LM
r0�
U
CD
0
_
0
Z
LM
V
0
E
W
_
.0
E
V
.0
CL
0
_
_
0
cn
E
0
J
i
O
L
N�
I<M
2
O
S
CA`
W
J
I
Z
O
L
AW
/1
O
M
O
N
L
m
O
m
qqt C42 C4 V- CZO
(000`OLx) NOI1V7fld0d
N
O
N
cm
o
a
N
Lo
r
O
N
0
0
0
N
W
O
■
V
Lo
^^O
on
U)
■
A
a
w
W
W
■NEW%
O
L
a.
CD m co O A co O M N O O
`•fir
0
N
LO
M
O
N
O
M
O
N
O
N
N w
d
o.
w
A
O N I
N
N LU
m
m
a
d
O 7
r m
N A
I
O
r
N
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
(ASp/SUO ;) N011oftc3ONd Sa170S
i
O
a. _O
LL
0 L
y a a
CD
>
E 0 Q y
CL
CL W
a 0 p O
W p AW
Q V p
O uz = �
co ° to Wa
0 O L
> E 1 as
O w to E
Q Q � >+ O O
a. ca a.
V r O r
co
c Z
W O
.be J
c
L
Cl) mx cn cn
~ N Q
Q
o '
cn, °r a
LM
h U
W
Is- W F.
co
N W
W
V
Q
Z
w
M
Lm
H
Q
W
W
J
a
J
Z
W
W
U)
Q
H
0
Z
O
V
�.
O
as
.Cl)
co
c
c4)
•
i
!Q
E
O
0
m
L
LL
m
0
4)
N
•
LM
-
O
m
Lm
O
s
�
�
(
i
Lo
O
L
AMA
U)
c
•
y
V
i
LL
Z
Waft
O
Z
m
4WD GOD ti t00 O cc? N CO
(Auplsuo; tip) uos ;onpo,jd spllog
a:
M
O
N
0
0
N
N
N
ao
0
N
O
O
N
0
N
O `_
m
c
'w
m
0
LL
2
m
d
O
a
z
r
Im
C
i+
O.
O
N
a
c
c_
7
U.
4WD GOD ti t00 O cc? N CO
(Auplsuo; tip) uos ;onpo,jd spllog
a:
M
O
N
0
0
N
N
N
ao
0
N
O
O
N
0
N
O `_
Z 0 s
.T
Wi
L
O d
L E
Z L N
Iowa
W� 3
y
W c
Lon
ZOO
UA
J
y cn .N
0 m O �
o
cn
Oc♦ `+ w
5O .
3
C
L
Low
m � �
x
Z
O
J
0. C
MOMMM d d
G
N M
L
Lon
m
0
z
0
AMEMS
RENEW
2
CD
OR
N
L
:.i Z
O
a
L
CU �
�
U. O Cc
m Lon
NOMEM o IMMMM
LowSEMMES
3 � �
v O F_
FL
d .N V
N
W
IMMMM
� � Q
L C
� V C
c—
44 ui W
a
.O
LM
4)
CL
row
�J
O
O
Z
V
4)
0
0
E
W
i
.O
C
E
/O
V
J
L
a,
L
s
m
L
0
O
L
C.
N
� V
•- s
� 3
� o
� N
d
N
CL
E
3
m
L
0
J
w-
J
W
N
O
d
L
=
tp
b9
jo.
Cc
oL.
H
p
.-
J
Q
>
�
E
m
L
E
a.
ME
J
L
d
O
=
N
'>
Uj
C
N
co
a�
o
w
co
uu
0
O
U)
L
E
O
A
u
��OA
V♦
Loll
J
i
N
.y
Q
O
0
hal
C/)
U)
J
Z
J
Z U)
= W
Z
O_z
F— _
�U
W W
Z F—
Z
= U
W 0
Z
Z ('
OW
0 W
O
O
O
O
N°
_
.O
qT M
ti
TM
N
W'
O
00
m
cc
to
H
49.
T"
�
T
r
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
+�+
=
O
N
N
to
.O
r
=
�
~
vQ
csi
40-
O
C
O
O
N
Cl
.O
08
O
M
d'
ti
O
O
CD
m
w
_
4
N
M
d'
TM
Von
L
C
N
W
O
O
—
G)
i
Q
L
c
3
�_
=
4)
a
=
_
m
cd
Lj
m
Q
H
a
�m
ca
E�
aiW
O
V
G
H
J
Q
H
+O+
+O+
+O+
*k
N
m
V
LO
C/)
U)
J
Z
J
Z U)
= W
Z
O_z
F— _
�U
W W
Z F—
Z
= U
W 0
Z
Z ('
OW
0 W
LL
O
O
V
Q
a
v
l
CO
W
Q
O
rt
Q
J
O
4
°o
Z
O
v
Z
W
♦O
V
_
=
C
O
p
•-
INSION
•-
,O
MENEM
tC
'
N
44%
61).
O
■_
ANA
v
0
2
E
CL
.
cr
w
co
-
-
Q
O
SEEMS
._
0
2
CL
m
L
L
,O
L
CL
A
0
L
O
C
a:
E
w
,O
f+
2
C
O
0.
MENEM
2
r
0
TOM
cn
v
a
I.7
L
lo-
cn
w
Q
O
October 6, 2005
6.a.3)b) REPORTS
Page 1 of 2
Water Environment Federation Technical Education Conference /USEPA
Pretreatment Award
Ja,,ED STgTSS
4 PROSi�tO?
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY R [E(D[R0V [E0
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 1 2 2005
Ms. Barbara Hockett
President of the Board
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board of Directors
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Ms. Hockett:
SEP 2 1 2005
CCC8D
SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT
OFFICE OF
WATER
I am pleased to announce that the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Source Control
Program has been selected as the first place winner of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) 2005 National Clean Water Act Recognition Award for an outstanding
Pretreatment Program in the greater than 20 significant industrial user category. EPA based
this selection on your community's exceptional pretreatment efforts and the dedication of your
organization.
EPA will present your award at the National Clean Water Act Recognition Awards
Ceremony on Monday, October 31, 2005, in Washington, DC. The ceremony will take place
during the Water Environment Federation's 78h Annual Technical Exposition and Conference.
My staff will contact you shortly to provide more information regarding the ceremony and
conference, and to answer any questions you may have.
Congratulations and thank you for your commitment to excellence through the
Pretreatment Program. P Sincerely,
Benjamin H. Grumbles
Assistant Administrator
cc: Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Representative George Miller
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Timothy Potter, Source Control Program Superintendent
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX
Keith Silva, EPA Regional Coordinator
Internet Address (URL) • http: //w .epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Posiconsumer)
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: October 6, 2005
Type of Action: HUMAN RESOURCES
No.: 7.a. HUMAN RESOURCES
subject: ADOPT SALARY MODIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIED POSITIONS AS
RECOMMENDED IN THE MS /CG SALARY SURVEY AND AMENDED JOB
CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTIONS AS ATTACHED
Submitted By: Cathryn Freitas, H. R. InitiatingDeptJDiv.: Administration /H. R.
Manager
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION.
C. Freitas sgraves
General
ISSUE: As part of the Side Letter to the Management Support/Confidential Group
(MS /CG) Memorandum of Understanding, "A salary survey to be performed in the
second year of the agreement will be implemented according to the Board's direction in
the third year of the agreement by October 18, 2005."
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the consultant's recommendations for salary adjustments
according to the MS /CG salary survey to be effective October 18, 2005 and adopt the
amended job classification descriptions as attached.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Approximately $150,000 in direct salary for the next year.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: The Board may consider MS /CG
recommendations based on total salary adjustments ($490,000) or excluding one of the
agencies in the survey and redistributing the funds among selected positions
($390,000), or other alternatives at the Board's discretion.
BACKGROUND: Ajoint committee of MS /CG and management representatives was
formed in January 2005 to oversee the survey and make recommendations to the
District Board. Chris Casey of Casey and Associates was retained to conduct a salary
survey for benchmark positions in the MS /CG. The joint committee met with Ms. Casey
to review the MS /CG job classification descriptions and provide input on the scope and
parameters of the survey. Per the Side Letter to the MS /CG M.O.U., five public water
and wastewater agencies in the East Bay were surveyed. The median of surveyed
salaries (salary without retirement contributions) was utilized for comparison purposes
and positions that deviated five percent or more from the median were considered for
market adjustments. The recommendations also considered supervisor- subordinate
differentials, and internal equity adjustments. The management representatives and
MS /CG representatives on the joint committee made separate recommendations
through the General Manager to the Board.
C:\Documents and Settin Mefre @as \M Documents\ms sal sur os Page 1 of 3
9 Y c9 p ppr cwb 9 -22 -OS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: October 6, 2005
subject: ADOPT SALARY MODIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIED POSITIONS AS
RECOMMENDED IN MANAGEMENT SUPPORT /CONFIDENTIAL GROUP SALARY
SURVEY AND AMENDED JOB CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTIONS
The Board Personnel Committee, as well as the full Board, has received the
consultant's report and recommendations, as well as a copy of the MS /CG's
representatives' alternate recommendations for consideration.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt the consultant's recommendations for
salary adjustments according to the MS /CG salary survey to be effective October 18,
2005 and adopt the amended job classification descriptions for MS /CG as attached.
Page 2 of 3
C: \Documents and Settings\cfreitasVuly Documents\mscg sal sur pos ppr cwb 9 -22 -05
MS /CG Amended Job Classification Descriptions
Administrative Assistant
Administrative Secretary
Administrative Support Supervisor
Administrative Support Technician 1 /11
Assistant Engineer
Associate Control Systems Engineer
Associate Engineer
Buildings and Grounds Supervisor
Chemist 1 /11
Chemist III
Collection System Inspection Supervisor
Community Affairs Representative
Electrical Shop Supervisor
Engineering Support Information System Analyst
Engineering Support Supervisor
Executive Assistant
Field Operations Superintendent
Finance Administrator
Household Hazardous Waste Supervisor
Information Technology Administrator
Instrument Shop Supervisor
Laboratory Superintendent
Land Surveyor
Maintenance Supervisor
Materials Services Supervisor
Mechanical Supervisor
Operations Safety Specialist
Payroll Technician
Plant Maintenance Superintendent
Plant Operations Superintendent
Principal Engineer
Process Control Engineer
Public Information and Graphics Supervisor
Pumping Stations Superintendent
Pumping Stations Supervisor
Risk Management Technician
Safety and Risk Management Administrator
Senior Chemist
Senior Control Systems Engineer
Senior Engineer
Shift Supervisor
Source Control Program Superintendent
Staff Engineer
Supervising Engineering Assistant
Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance Supervisor
Page 3 of 3
DUANE B. BEESON
NEIL BODINE
ROBERT SONSALL
GEOFFREY PILLER
CATHERINE E. AROSTEGUI
JOHN C. PROVOST
ANDREW H. BAKER
JASON RABINOWITZ
SHEILA K. SEXTON
MICHAEL D. NELSON
MATTHEW MORBELLO
DALE L. BRODSKY
SHARON SEIDENSTEIN
TEAGUE P. PATERSON
COSTA KERESTENZIS
LISA W. PAU
DAVID WEINTRAUB
BEESON, TAYER & BODINE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1404 FRANKLIN STREET, FIFTH FLOOR
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
15101 625 -9700
FAX 15101 625 -6275
fug
October 6, 2005
Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa County Sanitation District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Salary Survey Recommendations
Dear Members of the Board:
1.61
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
1001 6TH STREET
SUITE 500
SACRAMENTO 956143324
FAX :9161 441'5 20B
DONALD S. TAYER
(1932-2001)
OF COUNSEL
JOSEPH C. WAXMAN
MARGARET A. GEODES
This office represents Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's Management Support/
Confidential Group (MS /CG). MS /CG presents this letter in opposition to the recommendation
contained in Human Resources Manager Cathryn Freitas's position paper presented for today's
Board meeting. In that position paper, District Management asks the Board to approve wage
adjustments for certain members of the MS /CG unit based on a salary survey conducted pursuant
to Management's unilateral directions. In making this recommendation, Management has
disregarded that provision in the MS /CG Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that requires
the salary survey to be conducted pursuant to the direction of a joint committee consisting of
both Management and MS /CG representatives.
The MOU Side Letter addressing the salary survey that is to be conducted in the second
year of the MOU states: "A joint committee of three MS /CG representatives and three
Management representatives will be created to assist in the review of job classification
descriptions and to provide input on the scope and parameters of the survey.... The joint
committee will make recommendations, based upon the survey results, through the General
Manager to the Board of Directors for their consideration." Yet the position paper pending
before the Board today has no joint committee recommendation.
A major reason there is no joint recommendation is that the Management representatives
on the joint salary survey committee unilaterally decided to change the definition of the term
"salary," and then unilaterally directed the survey be conducted using this new definition of
"salary." Instead of using actual salaries for the survey, the survey presented to you has been
based on adjusted salaries; the salaries have been adjusted downward by subtracting those
portions of employee salaries attributed to employee benefit costs. The joint salary survey
committee reached no agreement to used adjusted salaries as the basis of the survey. The
MS /CG representatives on the committee objected to the use of adjusted salaries because it
33577.doc
Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa County Sanitation District
October 6, 2005
Page 2 of 3
contradicts the clear and unambiguous language of the salary survey Sideletter, and because it
represents a deviation from the District's past practice with respect to salary surveys and a
deviation from the basis on which the MOU itself was negotiated.
When the Side Letter was negotiated in 2003, it was modeled after past surveys
(specifically, the MS /CG 1998 Salary Survey and the Local 1 1999 Salary Survey) conducted by
the District. Those surveys used actual. not adjusted salaries. The salary survey Side Letter
states that "[tjhe median of surveyed salaries shall be utilized for comparison purposes...." On
its face the salary survey Side Letter calls for a survey of "salaries," not "adiusted salaries;"
which is consistent with how the District has conducted surveys in the past. Indeed, even after
we entered into our MOU with the District, the District utilized unadjusted salaries in its
November 2003 Management salary survey. In documents received by MS /CG from
Management on April 19, 2005, Management representatives acknowledged that the use of
adjusted salaries is a deviation from past practice.
For Management to unilaterally redefine the salary that is used for purposes of the salary
survey two years after we have entered into a good faith MOU with the District undercuts the
very basis on which we entered into that MOU.
The selective use of salaries adjusted for employee benefits contributions skews the
salary survey results, ignores the fact that the employee retirement contributions at the other
agencies used in the survey results in a significant future increases for those employees, ignores
other monetary compensationitems such as bonus and pay- for - performance programs, and was
never contemplated or discussed during the course of the labor negotiations.
Since the start of 2005, Management has repeatedly emphasized to MS /CG that any
survey results and recommendations would be subject to the Board's approval. We understand
this aspect of the Side Letter, but the Side Letter language must also be read in the context of the
negotiations that produced the language. The original draft of the Side Letter, as drafted by
Management, did not include any language subjecting the salary-survey wage adjustments to
Board approval. When the General Manager reviewed the Draft Side Letter, he added language
requiring Board approval. MS /CG's negotiators objected to this language, expressing concern
that the revised wording guaranteed nothing to the MS /CG membership. In response,
Management representatives assured MS /CG's negotiators that the Board needed this language
in case of financial emergency. They assured the MS /CG negotiators that the Board would
honor the Side Letter barring some financial emergency. This understanding was conveyed to
the MS /CG membership and the promise of a fair salary survey was the major reason that the
MOU was ratified.
It is worth noting that MS /CG wage adjustments implemented according to the salary
survey actually contemplated by the MOU Side Letter would not result in exorbitant salaries. To
the contrary, such wage adjustments would only bring the salaries of MS /CG members to the
median of comparable agencies, leaving those salaries at a rate that is still less than the average.
33577.doc
Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa County Sanitation District
October 6, 2005
Page 3 of 3
MS /CG requests that the Board reject the recommendation of the Management position
paper presented for today's meeting. We ask that the Board instead direct the Management
representatives on the joint salary committee to conduct the salary survey in accordance with the
MOU Side Letter, established past practice (which was the basis of the Side Letter), and the good
faith understanding reached at the bargaining table. MS /CG also requests that the results of a
properly conducted salary survey be implemented by the Board barring any financial emergency.
If the Board however, elects to proceed with the recommendation as presented in the
Management position paper, MS /CG is prepared to pursue the necessary administrative and legal
actions to ensure the performance of the salary survey and its implementation, as required by the
MOU Side Letter.
Very truly yours,
Lisa W. Pau
IIINUJfm
33577.dm
October 6. 2005
8.a. CORRESPONDENCE
Paoe 1 of 9
Receive letter dated September 6, 2005 from Jeffrey Supran, Orinda
resident, requesting establishment of a rebate program for District Project
No. 2876 — October, 1978
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
September 30, 2005
TO: CCCSD BOAR@kVF,UECTORS
VIA: CHUCK BATTIO,
6�-ANN FARRELL
Vl CURT SWANSON�j� w /
JARRED MIYAMOTO - MILLS
FROM: MICHAEL PENNY fW
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT BY JEFFREY SUPRAN
In 1978, Mr. Jeffrey Supran constructed a public sewer extension to serve his property
at 66 La Encinal in Orinda (see attached map). His sewer project installed 627 feet of
8 -inch DIP, a 33 -foot creek crossing, and 7 manholes on a relatively steep slope. This
sewer extension provided service to four other parcels besides Mr. Supran's property.
In accordance with the CCCSD code, Mr. Supran could request CCCSD to establish a
reimbursement account so that benefiting property owners would reimburse Mr. Supran
for a portion of sewer construction costs upon connection to the sewer in the future.
Mr. Supran was advised of the requirements to establish a reimbursement account by a
letter dated October 19, 1978. Mr. Supran provided a "Waiver of Rebate Rights" form to
CCCSD for three of the benefiting properties. However, none of the cost and other
related information was provided to CCCSD. Hence, a reimbursement account was
never established for this sewer project. At the time of this project, the District code
required that a reimbursement account had to be requested prior to construction and all
required documents had to be provided within fifteen (15) days after acceptance of the
sewer by the District.
Mr. Jeffrey Supran is requesting that the CCCSD Board of Directors establish a
reimbursement account for CCCSD Job 2876 that he built in 1978. Staff has reviewed
existing project documents. Below is staffs understanding of the chronology of events
pertaining to the establishment of a reimbursement account.
07/28/77 - Date of final sewer plans prepared by Schell and Martin for Mr. Supran.
09/27/77 - Mr. Supran signed a "Waiver of Rebate Rights" for three parcels that he
owned. This submittal was one of the requirements for establishing a
reimbursement account for this project.
10/11/78 - Owner's Sewer Improvement Agreement signed and sewer construction
started.
Memo to CCCSD Board of Directors
Jeffrey Supran Reimbursement Account
September 30, 2005
Page 2
10/19/78 — CCCSD sent letter to Mr. Supran outlining the reimbursement account
process and requesting map, list of parcels, and copies of any agreements
relating to any terms of participation in the project by others.
12/18/78 — Final inspection approved.
01/04/79 — Work approved and accepted by CCCSD.
07/07/89 — Letter sent to Mr. Robert Ryan and cc'd to Mr. Supran stating no rebate was
established for CCCSD Job 2876 "because the installer never provided the
District with the necessary information to determine the rebate charge."
07/11/89 — Letter received from Mr. Supran stating 10/19178 letter was never received
and stating that he expects full rebate compensation.
08/30/89 — Letter sent to Mr. Supran disallowing his rebate claim because the required
documentation was not received within the required time.
07/05— A property owner uphill from Mr. Supran started preparation of the design of
a sewer to extend from the terminus of Job 2876.
08/29/05 — In a phone conversation with Mr. Supran concerning the sewer extension he
also stated that during the design of his sewer, Jay McCoy told him that a
rebate account would be set up but it was never done.
09/01/05 — In a phone conversation with Mr. Supran staff stated that after reviewing
CCCSD files that no rebate account was set up due to required
documentation not being supplied within the required timeframe. CCCSD
staff is not allowed to establish a reimbursement account at this time per
CCCSD Code.
09/02/05 — Staff sent copies of correspondence found in District files to Mr. Supran and
stated we concurred with the previous staff determination that Mr. Supran did
not turn in all required paperwork within the required time.
The Board of Directors has three options: 1) Deny Mr. Supran's request for
establishment of a reimbursement account; 2) Direct staff to proceed with a formal
appeals hearing; or 3) Suspend the reimbursement account provisions of the District
Code and direct staff to establish a reimbursement account for District Job 2876.
Staff recommends that the Board deny Mr. Supran's request. Mr. Supran apparently
requested determination prior to construction since he provided a "Waiver of Rebate
Rights" prior to start of construction but failed to provide the other required documents
within fifteen days of the 1978 project completion date in accordance with the District
Code. To establish such an account now, more than 26 years after construction, would
be inappropriate and in conflict with the District Code.
MP /mvp
cc: Kent Alm
Randy Musgraves
Elaine Boehme
N: \EWRSEC\Admin\Penny\2005\Supran Request for Reimbursement Account.DOC
ORINDA
go
LOCATION MAP
N. T. S. I
N
y /
LEGEND:
—� EXISTING SEWER
—Q— NEW SEWER
- - - -- POSSIBLE FUTURE EXTENSION
r
41
N2
Central Sanrt Contra I SUPRAN REIMBURSEMENT
REQUEST
Attachment
MAP
Jeffrey
Supran A.I.A
Architect
SEP 0 9 2005
SeDRETARY OF &S DISTRICT
September 6, 2005
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Elaine R. Boehme
Re: Project 2876 sewer main to 66 La Encinal in 1978
Ms. Boehme,
I am writing this letter at the instructions of Mr. Michael Penny of CCCSD. This a request for
the Board of Directors to establish a rebate program for the above noted project. The following
is a chronology of events leading up to this request.
March 25, 1977 to July 28, 1977 surveying and engineering drawings where done.
September 21, 1977 Schell & Martin Engineers completed drawings..
October 3, 1977 permit fee paid
May 1978 CCCSD approved drawings.
September 21, 1978 Schell & Matin Engineers submitted cost estimate.
September 27, 1978 Alan Brady Contractor submitted contract.
October 11, 1978 I signed Owners Agreement and placed required deposit with CCCSD.
October 17, 1978 work started on sewer project.
October 19, 1978 CCCSD claims to have sent me a letter asking for information for rebate
program. I never received this letter. (Copy enclosed)
December 8, 1978 work was completed.
January 16, 1979 CCCSD fmaled the project
March 23, 1979 final payment to Alan Brady.
July 7, 1989 ten years latter CCCSD sent a letter to Robert Ryan at 70 La Encinal in response to
his inquiry about needing to pay a rebate if he hooked into the line. I was copied with this
letter. This was the first I heard there was to be no rebate.(enclosed)
July 10, 1989 I wrote a letter to CCCSD (enclosed)
August 30, 1989 response from CCCSD denying information in my letter and stating that I never
sent CCCSD the construction costs when in fact CCCSD never requested construction
costs in it's letter of October 19, 1978.
66 La Encinal Orinda, CA phone 5io.883.176o fax 5io.883.1759
Email )e unran0earthlink2net
In fact CCCSD was in possession of all the information that was requested and still failed to
initiate a rebate program for this project. I was assured at the time that rebates would be
available for this project. I request this matter be taken to the Board of Directors and this
situation be rectified,
Yours truly, ZI
Jeffrey Supran
�b
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California 94553 -4392 (415) 689 -3890 FAX: (415) 676 -7211
ROGER]. DOI
p General Manager
August 30, 1989 JAMES IL ER RD
Counsel for the District
(415) 938 1430
JOYCE E. MCMILI
Secretary of the Dlstrict
Mr. Jeffrey Supran
66 La Encinal
Orinda, CA 94563
SUBJECT: REBATE FOR CCCSD 2876
Dear Mr. Supran:
I have attached pertinent sections of the District Code which pertain to
rebates and the District letter sent to you in 1978 requesting
documentation required to establish the rebate. Both of these items
stipulate time requirements to be met by the installer to establish their
rebate rights. Based on these items alone, the District is justified to
disallow your rebate claim.
Your contention that the District had sufficient information to calculate
the rebate is not true.The "construction proposal" you refer to in your
letter was a proposal in the amount of $15,860 (Fred Spaulding) which was
obviously not a valid amount. Consequently, the District used an
engineer's estimate, $24,350.00, to establish the bond amount for the
project. Engineer's estimates are not used to calculate rebates.
Rebates are established using verified costs, which the District did not
receive until your most recent letter (July 10, 1989) -- Brady
Construction contract of $30,000.00.
Assuming a rebate was calculated using the Brady contract, with
deductions made for the sewer work which was private and for the value of
the easement across the Crockett property, the rebate would be
approximately $1,500.00.
If you have additional comments regarding the District's position on this
matter, please contact the undersigned or Mr. Jay McCoy.
S cerely,
Dennis Hall
Associate Engineer
DH:cd
Attachments
cc: Kent Alm
Jay McCoy
Jeffrey Supran
66 La Encinal
Orinda, CA
94563
July 10, 1989
Mr. Dennis Hall
Central Contrta Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA
94553 -4392
Re:Rebate charge for 70 La Encinal, APN 264 - 110 -017
Dear Mr. Hall,
This letter is in response to your letter of July 7, 1989. There
seems to be some confusion as to my supplying information
regarding the cost of the sewer line in question. I never
recieved the letter dated October 19, 1989 which you enclosed
requesting rebate information. I do recall however that the
district reviewed the proposal for construction as well as the
contracter that was to do the work. As such the district was
well aware of the cost of the project. The district was also in
possession of all the maps and working drawings with parcels to
be served as well as copies of agreements of rebate wavers for
some of the parcels. These were supplied as part of the permit
process.
I am, however sending you this information again and expect full
rebate compensation for this line.
If you have any further questions please fell free to call me at
415 -254 9429.
Thank you,
1
LCentral Contra Costa Sanitary District
July 7, 1989
Mr. Robert Ryan
70 La Encinal
Orinda CA 94563
Dear Mr. Ryan:
REBATE CHARGE FOR 70 LA ENCINAL, APN 264 - 110 -017
CCCSD 2876 '
This letter will document our discussion
regarding the potential rebate charge for the sewer line
your property by Mr. Jeff Supran.
ROGER I. DOL
General Manager
Chief Englnee,
JAMES L HAZARD
Counsel for the District
(415) 938.1430
JOYCE E. MCMILL
Secretary of the District
of last week
installed across
As we discussed, a rebate was not established for the subject project
because the installer (Supran) never provided the District with the
necessary information to determine the rebate charge. Such information
was required to be submitted as specified in the letter (attached) sent
to Mr. Supran in 1978.
Accordingly, there will be no rebate charge collected by the District for
your parcel.
Sin,
Dennis Hall
Associate Engineer
DH /gv
Attachment
cc: Mr. Jeff Supran, 66 La Encinal, Orinda 94563
J. J.CAkNIATO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA
Tel. 93 -5 30 oteu;cl SANITARY DISTRICT General Manus r -Chief Engineer
Tel. 939 -330
3 a< ail
V
Yd fan
FiieLl:
Mr. Jeffrey Supran
91#11,
SPRINGBROOK ROAD
ADDRESS:- -P. -O: BOX -5266
EEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
i4 -6727 AREA CODE 415
r 19, 1978
W. C. DALTON
General Mulaa°er —Chief Engineer
1214 Walnut Street Project No. 2876
Berkeley, CA Subd• Orinda Park Terrace Area
Installer: Supran
Engineer: Schell b Martin
Dear Mr. Supran: Thomas Bros. Loc: 69C4
Your project will provide for future sewer service through the installation
of an 8" public sewer adjacent to other parcels.
In accordance%with the rebate policy of the Sanitary District, you may be
eligible for a refund of a portion of the project costs from other property owners
as house connections are made to the public sewer you installed.
In order to confirm that this project qualifies under said rebate policy and
to make a determination of the rebate service area for the sewer installed, you are
requested to submit the following information to this office:
A scale map delineating the portion of this project which is to be
considered as the rebate installation and the parcels to be. served by
said installation.
2. A list of all parcels served showing owner and County Assessor's parcel
number.
3• Copies of agreements between yourself and the owners of parcels adjacent.
to this sewer which outline the terms of any prearranged participation
by others in the project construction.
Failure to provide the above within 30 days of the date of this letter will
indicate that you do not expect to be repaid for any portion of this installation
by future connectors.
If there are any questions, please contact Mr. Ronald Klimczak at 934 -6727.
WCD:RSK:sf
cc: Engineer
Very truly yours,
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
W `-��-1LQGE_�_
W. C. Dalton
Deputy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
Nsow"
Recycled Pzipar
(8) "rebate value" means the rebate fees as classified in
Section 9 -301 less the cost of District administration
as specified in that section;
(9) "unit of use" means a living unit when applied to
single family residential use and in all other cases
means 25 "fixture unit equivalents" as defined in the
Standard Specifications of the District.
(10) "watershed trunk plan" means the engineering and financing
plan adopted by the Board upon the Engineer's recommendation
for each secondary watershed area of the District setting
forth therein the proposed facilities and unit charges
established therefor.
(Adopted by Ord. 50, Dec. 5, 1963; as amended by Ord. 57, Jan. 21,
1965; as amended by Ord. 50A, June 21, 1973; as amended by Ord. 93,
Jan. 3, 1974; as amended by Ord. 128, Jan. 5, 1978.)
Sec. 9 -102. Policy statement and declaration of intent.
It is the policy of the District that 'sewer lines should be designed:
and installed initially to provide service to the widest possible service
area. The Board of Directors finds that the replacement of sewers or duplication
of sewers due to increased demand for capacity results in:
(1) increased capital expense and maintenance and operation expense
to the taxpayers of the District;
. (2) inconvenience to the traveling public;
(3) reduction in efficiency of the collection process, and
(4) hazard to the public health.
The purpose of this Chapter is to encourage and aid in the construction of
sewers having capacities which are capable of handling sewage flows from
service areas when they are ultimately and finally developed.
(Adopted by Ord. 50, Dec. 5, 1963; readopted by Ord. 50A, June 21,1973.)
Cross- reference: See Section 9 -602 for requirement of payment of rebate few M
ARTICLE 2. PROCEDURE.
Sec. 9 -201. Application of installer.
Sec. 9 -202. Approval of application and com-
pliance with District regulations.
Sec. 9 -203. Procedures for establishing rebate fees.
Sec. 9 -204. Application of rebate provisions only
to those complying.
Sec. 9 -205: Waiver.
Sec. 9 -206. Rebate line to be 8 inches unless it
is cast iron.
Sec. 9 -201. Application of installer.
A person may file an application to install a rebate sewer line. The
application shall be in the form approved by the Engineer and shall include:
(1) a plan showing engineering details of proposed construction;.and
(2) a map outlining the proposed rebate service area and containing
the-details specified in the "Guide to Engineers ", a copy of which
is on file at the District, as part of the Standard Specifications.
(Adopted by Ord. 50, Dec. 5, 1963; readopted by Ord. 50A, June 21, 1973;
as amended by Ord. 128, Jan. 5, 1978.)
Sec. 9 -202. Approval of• application and compliance with District regulations
If the Engineer (1) approves the plans, and (2) determines that the
proposed sewer will provide sewer service to properties other than those An
owned or controlled by the applicant, the applicant becomes an installer
if he proceeds with construction. The installer shall comply with all
• rules and regulations and the installation of the rebate sewer is governed
by the procedure in this Chapter.
(Adopted by Ord. 50, Dec. 5, 1963; readopted by Ord. 50A, June 21,
1973.)
Sec. 9 -203. Procedures for establishing rebate fees.
(a) The District may establish rebate fees for future connections
upon the basis of watershed planning areas and estimated costs of future
facilities.
(b) If a connection is made to an existing sewer in a watershed
planning area before construction of the ultimate facilities; the person
connecting shall pay a rebate fee. These rebate fees shall be deposited
in an account for future construction within the watershed planning area.
(c) Upon recommendation of.the Engineer, the Board may classify and
establish District uniform rebate fees. If the Board does so, the rebate
fees shall apply to both established rebate installations and to pending
rebate installations. The Board may fix the uniform fees on a connection
basis, an acreage basis or a.front -foot basis.
(Adopted by Ord. 50, Dec. 5, 1963; readopted by Ord. 50A, June 21,
1973.)
Sec. 9 -204. Application of rebate provisions only to those complying.
This Chapter applies only to (1) the District in the case of an
existing District -owned sewer or to (2) an installer who:
(a) applies under Section 9 -201 for a determination before begin-
ning construction as to whether the line will provide sewer service to
property other than that owned or controlled by the installer, and
(b) furnishes to the Engineer, within 15 days after acceptance of
the sewer by the District, all of the information necessary to fix rebate
cost and. rebate fees.
(Adopted by Ord. 50, Dec. 5, 1963; as amended by Ord. 50A, June 21,
1973.)
Sec. 9 -205. Waiver.
A person who fails to comply with Sections 9 -201 and 9 -204 waives
all rights under this Chapter.'-"
(Adopted by Ord. 50, Dec. 5, 1963; as amended by Ord. 50A, June 21,
1973.)
Sec. 9 -206. Rebate line to be 8 inches unless it is cast iron.
A sewer line with a diameter of less than 8 inches may be installed
as a rebate line under this Chapter only if it is made of cast iron.
(Adopted by Ord. 50, Dec. 5, 1963; readopted by Ord. 50A, June 21,
1973.)
ARTICLE 3. DETERMINATION AND APPORTIONMENT OF REBATE
FEES AND VALUES.
Sec. 9 -301. Uniform rebate fees.
Sec. 9 -302. Recovery of rebate fees by installer.
Sec. 9 -303. Apportionment of rebate when more
than one installer.
Sec. 9 -304. Partial use by an extension of common
sewer line.
Ra
Board Options
• Deny request, upholding staff
decision (recommended by staff)
• Direct staff to establish a
reimbursement account for District
Job 2876
• Direct staff to establish appeal
hearing.
m