The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2/16/2006 AGENDA BACKUPCentral Contra Costa Sanitary District ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: February 16, 2006 No.: 3.a. CONSENT CALENDAR Type of Action: ADOPT RESOLUTION Subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND AN OFFER OF DEDICATION FROM DELCO BULIDERS AND DEVELOPERS, INC. FOR EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THE RECORDED FINAL MAP OF SUBDIVISION NO. 8174 IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA (DP 5311) Submitted By: Initiating Dept /Div.: John Mercurio, Engineering Assistant III Engineering /Environmental Services REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTT N: J. Mercurio M. y C. Swanson A. Farrell aGeneral arles W. alts, Manager 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 document 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 easements shown on the recorded final map of Subdivision No. 8174 that are required for a recent public sewer extension off Boulevard Way in the Walnut Creek area (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 an offer of dedication from Delco Builders and Developers, Inc. for easements shown on the recorded final map of Subdivision No. 8174 in the Walnut Creek area, and accepting District Project 5311 public sewer improvements, and authorizing staff to record the resolution with the Contra Costa County Recorder. Page 1 of 2 N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Mercurio \5311 Offer of Dedication 2- 16- 06.doc LUCY U r Jx LN �O LEGEND: 1 -- PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT - e EXISTING SEWER --Q- NEW SEWER SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY EASEMENT AREA �..� Central Contra Costa Sanitary District CREEK \"cam LOCATION MAP ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT DEDICATION SUBDIVISION 8174 DP 5311 N. T. S. aae z o Attachment 1 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: February 16, 2006 No.: 3.b. CONSENT CALENDAR Type of Action: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS Subject: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS ACCEPTING PUBLIC SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND OFFERS OF DEDICATION FROM PH HOLDINGS, L.P., AND ICI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. IN THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, DP 5787, PARCELS 2 AND 3 Submitted By: Initiating Dept. /Div.: John Mercurio, Engineering Assistant III Engineering /Environmental Services REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTT N: � . G J. Mercurio y Swanson A. a Tell 1,,,, /General harles W. Bad, 10 ` Manager 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 resolutions accepting public sewer improvements and offers of dedication, and authorizing staff to record the documents 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 resolutions will accept easements that are required for a recent public sewer relocation off Monument Boulevard in the City of Pleasant Hill (as shown on Attachment 1). Staff has reviewed the easement documents, inspected the public sewer improvements, and determined that they are incompliance with District standards. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt resolutions accepting offers of dedication and public sewer improvements from PH Holdings, L.P. for the easement offered in the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) recorded January 18, 2005 (Series 2005- 0019414), and from ICI Development Company, Inc. for the easement offered in the IOD recorded March 11, 2005 (Series 2005 - 0083850), accepting DP 5787, Parcels 2 and 3, public sewer improvements, and authorizing recording of the resolutions with the Contra Costa County Recorder. Page 1 of 2 N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Mercurio \5787 PH Holdings & 10 Dev IOD 2- 06.doc O \_ 7�Ap Al BLVD D PLEASANT > CONCORD } HILL �daJ� OyF I BOYD RD SITE OL d �JO F GEARY RD R� WALNUT CREEK GAO yC� LOCATION MAP N. T. S. MONUMENT BLVD Parcel 2 CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER Parcel 3 LEGEND: ...� -- EXISTING SEWER N ,` T NEW SEWER EASEMENT AREA M Central Contra Costa ACCEPTANCE OF Attachment Sanitary District EASEMENT DEDICATIONS 1 DP 5787 PARCELS 2 AND 3 Paae 2 of 2 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: February 16, 2006 No.: 3.c. CONSENT CALENDAR Type of Action: APPROVE MERIT INCREASE Subject: REQUEST APPROVAL OF REGISTRATION DIFFERENTIAL SALARY MERIT INCREASE FOR STAFF ENGINEER ALAN R. WEER Submitted By: Initiating Dept/Div.: Ba T. Than, Senior Engineer Engineering / Capital Projects REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION: .3 —OW-0-�J 04A_ - B. Than Acting Capit I Projects A. Farrell a 6sa Division Manager General Manac ISSUE: A registration differential salary merit increase requires approval by the Board of Directors. RECOMMENDATION: Grant Staff Engineer Alan R. Weer a one -step increase of his basic salary effective January 23, 2006. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: One step salary increase. ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: None BACKGROUND: Alan R. Weer is a Staff Engineer in the Capital Projects Division of the Engineering Department. This classification does not require registration as a Professional Engineer. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Management Support/Confidential Group and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District provides for a salary merit increase for employees who achieve registration or license as Professional Engineer, Land Surveyor, or Certified Public Accountant while employed by the District in a position not requiring such registration or license. Alan R. Weer has provided evidence to his supervisors that he has passed all required examinations and is now licensed as a Professional Engineer in California (see Attachment 1). Alan has consistently demonstrated his ability to assist in the accomplishment of the planning, design, and construction activities of the District requiring the professional level of judgment and skill expected of a Professional Engineer. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Grant Staff Engineer Alan R. Weer a one -step increase of his basic salary effective January 23, 2006, as the registration differential salary merit increase provided for in the MOU. N: \PESUP \Position Papers \Than \PE Merit Increase Weer.DOC Page 1 of 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -STATE AND CX-WSUUtK ACKVK r,A AbGN4.7 rw.v�u �,.•....ncu.canac... wvmww >w.a BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS o,ena 2535 Capitol Oaks Drive, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95833 -2944 , Consumer AffahS Telephone: (916) 263 -2222 Calnet: 8-435 -2222 01/20/2006 ALAN R. WEER CONGRATULATIONS! Fax: (916) 263 -2246 or(916)263-2221 Board Internet Address: hnp:/ /www.dca.ca.gov /pels ATTACHMENT 1 ID: 63427 Branch: Civil We are pleased to inform you that you have successfully passed the recent Professional 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 /pelsAaws.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 Item# 5.a.1 CCCSD's Pollution Prevention Program Melody LaBella February 16, 2006 _ r® A Snapshot of 2005 • In 2005, we did not exceed any of our NPDES permit effluent limits • CCCSD continued its award - winning public outreach programs and operation of the HHWCF ■ CCCSD continued outreach to the dental community in an effort to reduce influent mercury concentrations Pollutants of Concern ■Acrylonitrile ■ Bis(2- ethylhexyl) pthalate ■ Copper ■ Cyanide ■ 4,4' -DDE ■Dieldrin ■ Lead ■ 2,3,7,8 -TCDD Equivalent ■Tributyltin ■ And... Highest Priority Pollutant Mercury 2 Why Mercury? ■The San Francisco Bay is impaired for-mercury - a legacy pollutant ■It's a bio- accumulative pollutant ■The remanded mercury TMDL • Will include even lower mercury limits • Will include a requirement to reduce mercury contributions from dentists 2005 Mercury Reduction Activities • Continued accepting mercury - containing wastes & the mercury thermometer exchange program at HHWCF • Participated as a control facility in NACWA's Amalgam Separator Study • Completed Dental Inventory Program with 100% Compliance • Continued in DTSC's HELP Program 3 Highlights from the 2005 2005 Pollution Pollution Prevention Prevention Annual Annual Report Report February 2006 Over 1.5 million pounds of HHW was collected 1 Over 2,000 mercury thermometers were collected in 2005 HHWCF Over 36,000 feet of fluorescent lamps were collected Collected over 11,000 pounds of pesticides 4 The Result... Almost 100 pounds of elemental mercury was collected at HHWCF and kept out of the wastewater stream! Won 2005 EPA National Completed Pretreatment Program Implementation of Excellence Award Dental Inventory Program Pretreatment & Stormwater Programs Conducted 772 pretreatment inspections at 596 businesses Performed 952 stormwater inspections at 747 businesses F1 WE "yi a The Result... • Reached over 2,300 students at 28 schools with our P2 education programs • Reached 140,000 residences & businesses twice with P2 messages contained in the Spring & Fall issues of the Pipeline • Recognized dentists in our services area that have installed amalgam separators n '/ gay Arcs f w"�� Stormwatcr Managvement Agencics Association Cooperative Partnerships The Result... `0 -IRA CO GRrr.N BUSINr%S PROGRAM ■ 36 P2 story placements via print articles, radio and the web ■ 30 new businesses were certified by the GBP in our service area in 2005 ■ 19 local nurseries & hardware stores in our service area continued participation in the OWOW pesticide - reduction campaign What's New for 2006? • Develop a Program for Mandatory Amalgam Separators for Dentists • Continue outreach to the Dental Community, keeping them apprised of the next steps • Increase mercury- specific outreach • Amateur gold miners • Sunset of Universal Waste Law exemption • Addition of PCBs to P2 Plan In Conclusion... LA �r, We're still doing a GREAT job meeting our NPDES permit P2 requirements, but... additional mercury source - reduction is needed! M MERCURY TMDL BACKGROUND • MERCURY TMDL ADOPTED BY SAN FRANCISCO BAY WATER BOARD IN SEPTEMBER 2004 • CONSIDERED BY STATE WATER BOARD AND REMANDED TO WATER BOARD FOR REVISIONS SEPTEMBER 2005 • WATER BOARD ANNOUNCED PROPOSED REVISIONS JANUARY 31, 2006 • WATER BOARD EXPECTED TO ADOPT REVISED TMDL IN SUMMER 2006 5.a.2. 1 11 - \ FBI • MUCH OF REMAND DIRECTED AT TREATMENT PLANTS — ALLOCATIONS MUST REFLECT EFFECTIVE POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2) — REQUIRE POTWs TO MONITOR FOR METHYL MERCURY — ALLOCATIONS MUST REFLECT EFFECTIVE TREATMENT — HAVE INDIVIDUAL ALLOCATIONS FOR DISCHARGERS — DIRECTED STATE BOARD TO DEVELOP A TRADING PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS MUST REFLECT EFFECTIVE P2 • REQUIRE WASTEWATER DISCHARGERS TO IMPLEMENT P2 MEASURES FOR MERCURY • WATER BOARD EXPECTS BENEFIT TO BE A 20 PERCENT LOAD REDUCTION; THIS WILL BE IN THE TMDL 2 REQUIRE POTWs TO MONITOR FOR METHYL MERCURY • REQUIRE ALL DISCHARGERS TO MONITOR FOR I METHYL MERCURY • START WITH THE POTWS, AND START SOON BY ISSUING A 13267 LETTER ALLOCATIONS MUST REFLECT EFFECTIVE TREATMENT & HAVE INDIVIDUAL ALLOCATIONS FOR DISCHARGERS • HOPE TO ADDRESS BY REDUCING THE ALLOWED DISCHARGE BY 20 PERCENT IN THE FIRST 10 YEARS AND ANOTHER 20 PERCENT IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS • CHANGING THE TRIGGER FOR INVESTIGATING THE CAUSE OF HIGHER- THAN - AVERAGE MERCURY FROM MASS AND CONCENTRATION TO MASS OR CONCENTRATION 9 DIRECT STATE BOARD TO DEVELOP A TRADING PROGRAM • UNDER DEVELOPMENT BY THE STATE. • 40 PERCENT REDUCTION CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT A TRADING PROGRAM • A QUASI TRADING PROGRAM HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN A RECENT NPDES PERMIT FOR A REFINERY KOUR REGION WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO THE DISTRICT? • START AN EFFECTIVE P2 PROGRAM; THE FIRST STEP IS AMALGAM SEPARATORS FOR DENTAL OFFICES • REDUCE MERCURY RECYCLED IN THE SCRUBBER WATER • TRY TO HAVE A TRADING PROGRAM ALLOWED, SIMILAR TO THE REFINERY'S, PUT INTO OUR NEW NPDES PERMIT III S. cc . 3) Central Contra Costa Sanitary District February 10, 2006 TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: ANN FARREI-4w FROM: TIM POTTER '�X- SUBJECT: MANDATORY AMALGAM SEPARATOR PROGRAM OPTIONS BACKGROUND The District will be negotiating a renewal of our NPDES permit this year, and we are expecting that the future mercury discharge limit will be below the level of our current treatment plant discharge. As part of the NPDES permit negotiations process, the District will need to prepare a series of proposals to meet that new limit. As we have learned from other POTWs facing the same stringent new requirements, one important element of any proposed mercury reduction program is pollution prevention. A step in such a program, already initiated by several agencies, is the control of amalgam discharge to the sewer from dental practices. Mercury from dental practices is estimated to make up almost half of the mercury entering the District's wastewater treatment plant. Important issues to consider in reviewing options for controlling mercury from dental offices include: • Only 35 of the 313 amalgam generating dental practices or 11 %, either use or have ordered, an amalgam separator based on the findings of the District's Dental Inventory Program. • Studies throughout the country indicate that only between 5 and 10% of dentists will install amalgam separators if it is voluntary. • Bruce Wolfe, SF Bay Regional Water Quality Board (RWQCB) executive officer, and other RWQCB staff indicated at a Bay Area Clean Water Agencies meeting on January 30, 2006, that they plan in the near future to require POTWs to make amalgam separators mandatory for dentists in their service areas. • The most commonly used separator model costs about $600 -700 per vacuum system. Commonly, each dental office needs only one separator, and multiple dental offices in one building can sometimes use one unit if they share a common vacuum system. • The cost for maintenance and disposal of the amalgam separator waste runs approximately $200 a year. Memo to District Board February 10, 2006 Page 2 In a memo to the Board Outreach Committee dated February 6, 2006, the historic and proposed communication and outreach efforts to the dental community were outlined. The purpose of this memo is to outline the significant issues that need to be considered as staff proceeds with designing, and then implementing a mandatory amalgam separator program. OTHER BAY AREA POTWS' MANDATORY AMALGAM SEPARATOR PROGRAMS Three Bay Area POTWs have implemented a mandatory amalgam separator program for the dental facilities in their service area: City and County of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, East Bay Municipal Utilities District, and City of Palo Alto. The following table identifies the significant elements of these agencies' programs. MANDATORY AMALGAM SEPARATOR PROGRAM OPTIONS There are two alternative methods available to implement a mandatory amalgam separator program: Use the Source Control Ordinance (Title 10 of the District Code) or use Industrial User Permits. • Source Control Ordinance: The District will be updating and modifying the Source Control Ordinance (Title 10 of the District Code) during 2006. Establishing ordinance conditions to require the installation and maintenance of amalgam separators could be included in this update. This approach relies on outreach and enforcement to ensure compliance. • Industrial User Permits: The District has a system in place of Industrial User (IU) Permits to facilitate the process of establishing operating standards and timelines to meet the standards. Permits are an effective method to clearly NAENVRSRV\Source Control\PotterWemos 2006 \Dental amalgam BOD 2- 10- 06.doc Agency No. of Permit Fee for _ % Time for Notes Dentists Issued? Permit? Compliance Compliance San —400 Yes No 100 9 Months for 6 Month Francisco Most Hardship PUC Extension Offered Palo Alto 132 No, Used N/A 96 12 Months Self - Ordinance Certification Forms in Lieu of Permits EBMUD 246 Yes No 88 18 Months Pollution Prevention Fee Funds Program MANDATORY AMALGAM SEPARATOR PROGRAM OPTIONS There are two alternative methods available to implement a mandatory amalgam separator program: Use the Source Control Ordinance (Title 10 of the District Code) or use Industrial User Permits. • Source Control Ordinance: The District will be updating and modifying the Source Control Ordinance (Title 10 of the District Code) during 2006. Establishing ordinance conditions to require the installation and maintenance of amalgam separators could be included in this update. This approach relies on outreach and enforcement to ensure compliance. • Industrial User Permits: The District has a system in place of Industrial User (IU) Permits to facilitate the process of establishing operating standards and timelines to meet the standards. Permits are an effective method to clearly NAENVRSRV\Source Control\PotterWemos 2006 \Dental amalgam BOD 2- 10- 06.doc Memo to District Board February 10, 2006 Page 3 District staff recommends implementing a mandatory amalgam separator program using an IU Permit so that the installation and performance standards of the amalgam separators and appropriate installation timelines can be clearly communicated. MANDATORY AMALGAM SEPARATOR PROGRAM PERMIT OPTIONS There are two options available to implement a mandatory amalgam separator program using an IU permit. One option uses the existing Class III IU Permit program, while another option would require establishment of a new type of permit. • Existing Class III IU Permit: Under the current District's IU Permitting program, a Class III IU Permit would be issued to dental facilities that generate amalgam - bearing wastewater. There would be no need to modify the Source Control Ordinance and the existing Class III IU Permit fee (currently $351 /year) would be assessed. A rebate could be offered initially to encourage compliance. New Best Management Practices (BMP) Permit: The District could establish a new type of permit under the Class III IU classification that would separate out dental facility permits from the current Class III IU Permit fee requirement and enable the District to set a separate fee or defer the fee in lieu of an alternative funding option. The downside of this option is that other businesses permitted under the Class III IU Permit program (current or future) would likely want to be permitted through this lower -cost permitting program. PROGRAM FUNDING OPTIONS District staff estimates that the budget to design and implement a mandatory amalgam separator program is $100,000 per year. The actual cost to operate will be known after the program is implemented but it could be higher during the initial phase of implementation (e.g. issuing permits, verifying installation of separators) depending on the degree of cooperation by the individual dentists. Historically, District staff has set fees to recover the cost of programs from the individuals or businesses that receive the service (e.g. developer fees, inspection fees, IU permit fees). Several alternatives for funding a mandatory amalgam separator program could be considered. The options reviewed below use the number of 313 amalgam generating dental facilities as the basis for revenue projection. Permit dentists using existing Class III Permit program and retain the Class III Permit fee (currently $351 per year) to recover the costs of this program. This option would require no changes to the existing ordinance or fee resolutions, and would generate $109,863 per year. The dental facilities that voluntarily installed amalgam separators in advance of the mandatory program could be the last dentist to be permitted, and the last to pay fees, in recognition of their pro- active efforts. • Permit dentists using existing Class III Permit program, and offer an annual permit fee rebate program for the first year as an incentive to those N: \ENVRSRV\Source ControlTotterWemos 2006 \Dental amalgam BOD 2- 10- 06.doc Memo to District Board February 10, 2006 Page 4 dentists who install separators by a prescribed deadline, such as by December 31, 2007. Create a new tier of Class III BMP Permits with no permit fee. Fund program costs from an increase in the commercial Pollution Prevention Surcharge. A 51 % increase in the Pollution Prevention Surcharge, to $0.111 per hundred cubic feet would cover the estimated costs of the mandatory amalgam separator permit program. All commercial and industrial customers in the service area would pay this increase. • Create a new tier of Class III BMP Permits with no permit fee, and cover the costs of the Program with a general increase in the Sewer Service Charge. All of the residential and non - residential customers would pay for the cost of this program under this option. The cost of this program would represent approximately a $1 increase in the sewer service charge. As the Board considers these funding options, remember that over 50 small businesses are permitted under the Class III program and are required to pay the $351 annual permit fee. These businesses include small radiator repair shops and mobile washers. In addition, many more small businesses, such as vehicle repair shops, will be permitted in the future to improve our control of copper and lead. These small businesses will also be permitted as Class III Industrial Users and subject to the $351 annual permit fee. The current and future permitted small businesses may feel that it is unfair for the Board to make an exception from the permit fee for the dental community. If the Board wishes to encourage dental community participation in the mandatory amalgam separator program, staff suggests using a rebate, where the annual permit fee is waived for the first year, if the amalgam separator is installed within the prescribed time line. CONCLUSION Staff believes that amalgam separator programs will be required as part of our pollution prevention efforts in the near future. By beginning our program now, we can maximize time available for outreach to the dental community and allow time to implement the program and evaluate the effectiveness of the program in reducing influent mercury concentrations. As outlined in our memo to the Board Outreach Committee, our suggested time line targets full compliance by the end of fiscal year 2007, with verification inspections beginning in 2008. We would begin the mandatory amalgam separator program with an extensive education and outreach effort to the dental community through calendar year 2006. As soon as we have Board consensus on the specific program, permit and funding approach, we will begin the outreach effort. N: \ENVRSRV\Source ControlTotterNemos 2006 \Dental amalgam BOD 2- 10- 06.doc Item 5.a.3 MANDATORY AMALGAM SEPARATOR PROGRAM OPTIONS CCCSD Board Meeting February 16, 2006 BACKGROUND • Only 35 of 313 practices use separators • Voluntary installation typically 5 -10% • SFRWQCB plans to make mandatory • Cost $600 -700 per vacuum system • Annual maintenance & disposal $200 • Mandatory programs are working in other Bay Area communities i San Francisco PUC • 539 dentists permitted • Self- certification with follow -up inspection • 100% compliance based on receipts • Funded through sewer service charge • Follow -up sampling of sewers shows significant reduction in mercury City of Palo Alto • 132 dentists regulated • Self- certification forms in lieu of permits • 96% compliance via contract inspection • Follow -up inspection 20% per year • Funded through sewer service charge 2 EBMUD • 246 dentists permitted • Self- certification and no inspections planned • 88% compliance based on receipts • Funded through pollution prevention fee • All commercial /industrial accounts pay $4.65 per month ($56 per year) for P2 Dental Community Outreach • Early 2003 — Initiated discussions with CC Dental Society and sponsored insert in newsletter • November 2003 — Staffed booth at Dental Society Meeting to provide information • July 2004 — Mailed information on Best Management Practices and inventory program • January 2005 — Paid for ad in CCDS newsletter • January 2005 — Mailed Inventory Report Packet • February 2005 — Held two workshops & mailed reminder postcard • March 2005 — Mailed certified letter to remainder • March - November 2005 — Contacted remaining dentists & achieved 100% Inventory Compliance K Mandatory Amalgam Separator Program Suggested Timeline • Early Calendar Year 2006 — Develop Program • Remainder Calendar Year 2006 - Outreach — Articles in Dental Society Newsletter — Appearance at Dental Society Meetings — Informational Mailing • Calendar Year 2007 — Implementation — Mail Permit Materials — Sponsor Informational Workshops — Work with Dental Community to Encourage Compliance • Calendar Year 2008 — Follow -up Inspections Mandatory Amalgam Separator Program Options • Source Control Ordinance — Require by ordinance — Verify compliance by inspection — Enforce using Notice of Violation • Industrial User Permits — Clearly communicate requirement — Set specific timeline — Self- certify with follow -up inspection 4 Mandatory Amalgam Program Permit/Fee Options • Estimated Program Cost $100,000 per year • Existing Class III IU Permit — $351 fee or — $351 fee with rebate first year • New Class III BMP Permit — No fee, fund by pollution prevention surcharge or — No fee, fund by sewer service charge Fee Considerations Permit Fee Approach • Assessing $351 per dentist raises $110,000 and covers program cost • Existing Class III permitted industries include small businesses assessed $351 annual permit fee • Exempting dentists from fee may be seen as unfair by other small businesses • A first year rebate would encourage compliance and help defer initial cost to dentists 5 Fee Considerations Pollution Prevention Surcharge Approach • Recovery of $100,000 program cost would require 50% increase in Commercial /Industrial P2 Surcharge • John Muir Medical Center — $1,785 current $2695 future • Contra Costa Times — $1,090 current $1,645 future • Sweet Tomatoes Restaurant — $270 current $405 future • Tin's Tea House Restaurant — $315 current $475 future • Commercial /Industrial users subsidize dental permitting Fee Considerations Sewer Service Charge Approach • Recovery of $100,000 program cost would require approximately $.70 annual increase to sewer service charge for each customer • Approach is inconsistent with past policy to recover program costs from fees • All users would subsidize dental permitting Col Staff Recommendation Under Current Program Constraints • Adopt Mandatory Amalgam Separator Program • Permit Dentists using existing Class III IU category with $351 annual fee • Offer first year fee rebate for timely installation of amalgam separator Alternative Fee Scenarios • Suspend Class III fees for all permitted industries — currently 70 such permits and $25,000 annual revenue. • Continue to issue Class III permits to dentists and other sectors but recover costs either —1) through pollution prevention surcharge or — 2) through sewer service charge to all users rN Next Steps • Move forward using current program guidelines and charge Class III permit fee to dentists with first year rebate? • Come back to Board at future meeting with additional scenarios and discussion of spreading Class III permitting costs either over the entire commercial /industrial user base or over the entire District user base? Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: February 16, 2006 No.: 7,a. BUDGET AND FINANCE Type of Action: RECEIVE BUDGET REVIEW Subject: RECEIVE THE 2005 -2006 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET REVIEW FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005 Submitted By: Debbie Ratcliff, Controller Initiating Dept./Div,: Administrative Department REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION: D RqT ISSUE: A report of the results of a comparative review of actual and budgeted Operations and Maintenance (O &M) revenues and expenses for the first six months of the 2005 -2006 fiscal year as well as full year projections are provided in this Position Paper. In addition, any significant variances from budget for the first six months and any significant full year projected variances are discussed. RECOMMENDATION: Receive the 2005 -2006 Operations and Maintenance Budget Review for the six months ended December 31, 2005 and full fiscal year projections. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Six -Month Review: For the first six months ended December 31, 2005, total O &M revenues are $22,167,136 compared to a budget of $21,704,237 for a positive variance of $462,899 or 2.1 %. Total O &M expenses for the first six months are $21,581,337 compared to a budget of $22,958,653 for a positive variance of $1,377,316 or 6.0 %. The six -month status reflects the financial results at a certain point in time, as of December 31, 2005, and looks favorable. Annualized Proiections: The projected O &M revenues for the full year are $48,867,488 compared to a budget of $47,817,500 for a positive variance of $1,049,988 or 2.2 %. Total projected O &M expenses for the full year are $46,661,328 compared to a budget of $47,188,613 for a favorable variance of $527,285 or 1.12 %. This favorable variance is due to cost savings in labor expense of $555,877, employee benefits $306,408, outside services $145,000, and other expenses $80,000 partially offset by an unfavorable variance of $60,000 for chemicals, $260,000 for utilities, $170,000 for repairs & maintenance and $35,000 for hauling and disposal. These savings reflect staff's continued focus to obtain cost reductions through their efforts to manage vacant positions and reduce costs wherever possible. Page 1 of 5 N:\ADMIN\FINANCE \6mopp. DOC POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: February 16, 2006 subject. RECEIVE THE 2005 -2006 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET REVIEW FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005 ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: None BACKGROUND: Six -Month Review: The table on Attachment A compares actual O &M revenue and expense for the first six months of the fiscal year to the six -month budget. Significant variance explanations are included on the table. Annualized Projections: Attachment B compares full year O &M projections to budget. Anticipated significant projected variances from the annual 2005 -2006 O &M Revenue and Expense budget are listed below: Revenue: Total O &M Revenue is projected to be $1,049,988 higher than budgeted and $397,772 higher than the 10 -year financial plan projection presented to the Board in January mainly due to higher than expected commercial sewer service charge revenue as well as more sewer service charge revenue generated from Dougherty Valley than anticipated. Expense: Salaries: Salaries and Wages expense is projected to be $555,877 or 3.1 % lower than budgeted due to more capital salaries than budgeted as a result of more capital work than anticipated, long -term absences of two employees in Plant Operations, and savings from budgeted positions not being filled until the second half of the fiscal year. Benefits: Benefit costs are projected to be $306,408 lower than budget for the full fiscal year. A $200,000 savings is anticipated in worker's compensation due to lower rates and experience mods. Another $100,000 in savings is anticipated in salary- driven benefits due to salaries being projected lower than budget. Chemicals: Chemicals expense is projected to be $60,000 over budget due to more hydrogen peroxide and hypochlorite usage than budgeted to control odors. Utilities: Utilities expense is projected to be $260,000 higher than budgeted due to anticipated substantial increases in natural and landfill gas costs for the second half of the fiscal year. Page 2 of 5 N: W DM I N T I NANCEI6 mopp. DOC POSITION PAPER Board Meeting Date: February 16, 2006 Subject RECEIVE THE 2005 -2006 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET REVIEW FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005 Repairs & Maintenance: Repairs & Maintenance expense is projected to be $170,000 over budget due to unanticipated expenditures for repair work on two centrifuge rotating assemblies during the fiscal year. Hauling & Disposal: Hauling & Disposal expense is projected to be $35,000 higher than budgeted as a result of an unbudgeted expense for disposal of Basin A South cap repairs. Outside Services: Outside Services expense is projected to be $145,000 lower than budgeted as a result of deferred expenditures for mercury and equipment testing and lower consulting expenses in the area of safety than anticipated. Materials & Supplies: Materials & Supplies expense is projected to be $35,000 higher than budgeted due to the unforeseen need to purchase additional UV lamps due to premature lamp failure and early wet weather storms. Other Expenses: Other Expenses is projected to be $80,000 lower than budgeted due to savings from deferred technical training expense and from Prop 218 mailing expense due to no mailing anticipated. The Revenue over Expense results for the 2005 -2006 O &M budget anticipated an increase to the O &M Fund balance of $628,887. Based on favorable revenue results and reduced O &M expenses, the full year projections indicate that the O &M Fund balance will increase by $2,206,160. 10 -Year Financial Plan: These full year O &M projections are more favorable than the projections that were shown to the Board at the Financial Planning Workshop on January 26, 2006. The full year projections for revenue are $397,772 higher than the projections shown at the Workshop due to higher commercial Sewer Service Charge revenue from adjustments and corrections reported to the County as well as more revenue generated from Dougherty Valley construction than anticipated. The full year O &M expense projections for fiscal year 2005 -2006 indicate that the District's O &M expenses will be slightly higher by approximately $63,000 from previous projections. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Receive the 2005 -2006 Operations and Maintenance Budget Review for the six months ended December 31, 2005 and projections for the full fiscal year. Page 3 of 5 N: WDMIMFl NANCE\6mopp. DOC Page 4 of 5 d o 0 w o �a j e `o c o > p w o R w cm N 1a d V C > o d•O E = ++ c C 0o v `•_°a Z 3 °rn u c m udi`0 Q d 6 A a C w d C c L d E O. V w w d N > w 10 R r w 7 7 'p w ; R • O m° Q w L C d L O w � d tV� d 01L O m w O C 7 a v N.0 d 0 R E Rc a a CL x w x ac,m m0 nErn L p u x w '> « L x w d R x a >. m tr 'v d o > 4) C 0 •o w 10 y d s C w d d 2 t d 0xi O a d .L,, Ica d d 1~ N C R E Ol w 3 w d w .O �> d -0 d V 0 d .� 0 w M O C d R C =41 C 3 V co C a E N w d O 0) d E H 0 R > 41 C ) ` v Oo u c cE a O C x x N O ° W « C d % Edp CD 1`oB�' °E 1`0 am a wdw c� w a`rcdi° n w dE C L 0 C R 0 d d d L d C m0 O L d C N O O .0 w w •v w'06 0 a._ LO t a° E 7 d °—'m` d w aRr a`,•" L L " o Z`adi to w w R •°'m 7` E rn 9 'm m 'O w 01 O m N Cf N O) y O v R N R C +°.. d d R L 'O w w Er' wd w O041-c do « dHO 3N 'O R to dN d9 V y E� d y �y w d d O ; d d d Lrn Of •o d 1wacE 'g — 9 d d Ui 10 d � ; .°r d p •p 10 p C V t d w d C C R C R ° u) N 0 d w 7 Q O 0/ L E p w R w m Ol p C ° O 0 d R O p d w d L XCo ` J= a A G �c a _w w @ R 0 y y a y d wo0 Ao cay o °dc �> -a w E•0 m °tl� dov x�� y c ° C W U dd C p E ;m udi d L:%° —' 0 a �` dy C O R L 3 ch g d C d x d G O ww = d N O d w V x w > d C 'd0� �'� C C aC d C L a0+ 1000 cc aR OL Of ;w w w 6 R d R C W C R 7 tAa R d J Rd X d W d O U 0 R Y„ p 2 ON d d 1; R w 2 R d J O Jw x �W p Jw h V d e° o o e 4 7 M OJ M A 1O M Oi Of M IO r A O C d d V O Ci N A M C� OJ N N V 1p C Re o LL d ++ O N w co N M tO fL N Of m O 1NO 01 V 1b AV 10 M O M tO h ONE tO M 07 IO A Of N N A A N A O co /O N fO M A N OD 1O M A Rp M V 1O N ' r M N r M .r E >Q O N O O A CD A M N N O) O1 O O V tO w) O Of Of a a Of O V M to N O Oi N M N V _ � N M at N fO N co V w co eO M N V O v O 1t N Of N O is M A V f� O < O wO 1fi N V IO N A O tO A A co IO O) 1O !b T m N N co tO N r r N N O A M O) M O eO M M 1 f1 O A O N le V A N A M tp V co A M 00 O N r r O 00 A N l- co Oa O N M M R co M 1fi A 1\ V Of M' Of V N co co O i.f N O N 1O N Hf M Of V w N O V N O CO A V O O M Q N N CO w N r N d O) d 0 C Q L U R C R w p O) d J d N G z W V a O w 7 U d '10 CL w W d O C ap w a 2 m x fA U > W a d 66 cif o N Q W d O d a' Z W J A C O. 0 E N R C ._ ww w 'd0 R W d Ix W N L O X O E L y q O` 7 w R L 'R' Q K N U O r W r W U 7 2 d O 2 O F Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENT B Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Revenue & Expense Account Summary Projected for the Year Ending June 30, 2006 Variance Variance Projected Budget Amount % REVENUES: Sewer Service Charge 37,848,488 36,964,500 883,988 2.39% City of Concord 7,840,000 7,913,000 (73,000) -0.92% Other 3,179,000 2,940,000 239,000 8.13% Total Revenues 48,867,488 47,817,500 1,049,988 2.20% EXPENSES: Total Labor Charges 17,275,097 17,830,974 555,877 3.12% Employee Benefits 13,430,000 13,736,408 306,408 2.23% Directors Fees & Expenses 50,000 50,000 0 0.00% Chemicals 1,136,000 1,076,000 (60,000) -5.58% Utilities 5,138,680 4,878,680 (260,000) -5.33% Repairs & Maintenance 3,092,606 2,922,606 (170,000) -5.82% Hauling & Disposal 1,024,560 989,560 (35,000) -3.54% Professional & Legal 487,650 487,650 0 0.00% Outside Services 1,942,400 2,087,400 145,000 6.95% Self- Insurance 250,000 250,000 0 0.00% Materials & Supplies 1,616,805 1,581,805 (35,000) -2.21% Other Expenses 1,217,530 1,297,530 80,000 6.17% Total Expenses 46,661,328 47,188,613 527,285 1.12% To /(From) Reserves 2,206,1601 628,887 1,577,273 Page 5 of 5 2005 -2006 OPERATIONS &MAINTENANCE SIX MONTH BUDGET REVIEW N:WDMINSUPSUDGET\2005 -2006 O &M 6 mo Budget Review.doc H F-- 0 Cl) W Z Q W �a zX W Vn 0 Q Z HQ Ow V D W H � ZLLI (-)2 Q0 Z W V r M w W m W V 0 W 0 W • W J m o \I 7 N o (D a A C)f W U) a M 0 m � aW Qui WWW H > f- (0 00 00 a� LL O V- LO U') <1 WQ U L N Z z Q V z :D rn o0 co M L-O N Q O CNT �t M 000 <1 60, 69 I,- co W N 0 0 m N 69 co 0 00 rn N N N 69 U O ? a� 0 m m E 0 0 0 N LO O O W D m 'a D U) Z N co U) a M � aW Qui WWW H > f- (0 00 00 U V- LO U') <1 N N N 69 U O ? a� 0 m m E 0 0 0 N LO O O W D m 'a D U) Z N U) n (n aW Qui WWW H > � CL > W a- O of O W - - w O W U O ? a� 0 m m E 0 0 0 N LO O O W D m 'a D U) Z N W W J m o CV CN �- :D U) Z) U) W W Q W Q W W W F- > � m > W Q- W �W � wow U- O WQ LL Q v Z D 00 co In N M N (.� O rn ti ti F- > < Q O LO y cn 609, 609- LLB O �Z N <a Zx p O M_ ti LLI co G N W LO co co coo Q Z Q Q Q ti o 00 � N Ow m q�t q V M Z J Q 643 W V Zwy 0 J ca Q O J L L H J Q O CO 00 dt co c1r) ~ ') 0 V 0 0 COO N CNF LLI V �Q 06 W w W W :D U) Z) U) W Q W Q W W W F- > F- 0- > W Q- W �W � wow PROJECTED FULL -YEAR EXPENSE VARIANCES FAVORABLE VARIANCES: • Salaries & Wages under budget due to more Capital work, two long -term absences, and filling positions in the second half of the year. • Benefits under budget in line with salary savings. • Outside Services under budget due to deferred expenditures for mercury and equipment testing and lower consultant expense. UNFAVORABLE VARIANCES: • Utilities over due to anticipated substantial increases in natural and landfill gas • Repairs and Maintenance over due to unanticipated work on two centrifuge rotating assemblies. NAADMINSUP \BUDGET\2005 -2006 O &M 6 mo Budget Review.doc 9 uj 0 0 z W 2 W O w a 2 J a a a v w 0 0 0 0 N LL O a. W w U) a a w 0 0 0 N to TM eo L LL d E 0 CL L cu U U a� 0 0 ti CO 0 O N t0 co r M O O LO W t0 ti N 40 O .Q Y, 0 m_ 0 0 cU d rn O E m CL rn rn cn � co /1 G CD � U) O T3 � U co U) M M a N o W DL � c 60, a 0 C V ~ Cl) O d p O N p� a. L >- a rn 0 rn co W m ti M 00 �O +r Co O La N � N m � W O U c "v O O W O IT L H O M o N Z W N w LO OC a. Cfl O d' W W 69 Q co FL E 0 CL L cu U U a� 0 0 ti CO 0 O N t0 co r M O O LO W t0 ti N 40 O .Q Y, 0 0 0 L rn O E T CL rn rn cn � co /1 G CD � U) O T3 � U co U) M M N c 60, 0 0 O LO O rn 0 rn co ti M 00 N Co O N � 6N? O O O IT dw O M co N w LO Cfl O d' 69 E 0 CL L cu U U a� 0 0 ti CO 0 O N t0 co r M O O LO W t0 ti N 40 O .Q Y, 2 L rn O E T CL c� L rn cn � 2 ^ I.i. (� I L E � IL /1 G CD � U) O T3 � U CD cc C CD 2 Q C C N C CD 0 E 0 CL L cu U U a� 0 0 ti CO 0 O N t0 co r M O O LO W t0 ti N 40 O .Q Y, W Z J a a V Lid 0 N LL .°r � m �O V d v, r c as � c� as -0-0 d � V D L. !- a C d L � W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL. 0 0 M 0 N 0 0 M 1n e- V" N N EA 69. fA t0 e= 4? C t�D N 44% 49F O�Ow 0 0 L6 N 0 ti iA 0 0 0 m r r 00 0 0 0 o� Q1 00 N U) 0 0 0 0 0 LL. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •L C4 U) O+' LU CO) � V" J !C C t�D N N t�Ow O�Ow I— cli LL = 0 to 40W iA iA C4 0 0 L6 N 0 ti iA 0 0 0 m r r 00 0 0 0 o� Q1 00 N U) 0 0 0 0 0 LL. cc 0 0 0 0 w 0 •L C4 U) O+' LU CO) � V" J !C C t�D N N t�Ow O�Ow I— cli LL = 0 to 40W iA iA C4 U) N � LL. cc V > fl. •L U) O+' LU CO) � V" J !C C v as Z O1�— V1 I— v LL = 0 U) LLI i z W L x W (� V � W a O z M 0.. w H O z W Q � Q U. W O G VI N C N E O V C' d CD F a> m e+� W J cc 0a` °N o � E CD N W LL U 6 z a 0 o) M IT M LO 0) d(D 9 (D Ef! CY) CY) N I 1 I 0 0 r- C6 O 00 (1) a) L U U CL O .O a) O 2 O O LO T � N T a) N a) 00_ 0 0 O °• N N O Q 0 L co L N O O N "O O O >' a) a) a) a) T- 0) 000 � M) C0 CD T- CO CO O O O O O 6-t O M LO CO IT O qt o) M IT M LO 0) d(D 9 (D Ef! CY) CY) N I 1 I 0 0 r- C6 O 00 (1) a) L U U CL O .O a) O 2 O O LO T � N T 00 0 r T 699 V) If t,A N N 0 CD M E y CD 0 E Q� O d cu U L O z M LO m O O 0 T• 00 00 T- co 6a a�= O O IT N ti T- 00 � � N M m co CN N eQ 10.0 O H E L a. CL C CL 2 CL m E d cu E H d L � L O Q 0 00 00_ 0 0 0_ LO IT CO 0 'qt to t` L O LO M tL j In T- 0) 000 � M) C0 CD T- CO CO LO ti 69 6-t 6c� 6r> W 69k U) 69* O O cn a w o U 4O- m 0 40). 00 0 r T 699 V) If t,A N N 0 CD M E y CD 0 E Q� O d cu U L O z M LO m O O 0 T• 00 00 T- co 6a a�= O O IT N ti T- 00 � � N M m co CN N eQ 10.0 O H E L a. CL C CL 2 CL m E d cu E H d L � L O Q 00_ 0 0 0_ 0_ 0 0 0 O � t` L O 1 LO 0) 000 � IT M ,. Ef} Efl ffl Efl Efl 69 U) N O O cn a w o U 4O- m 0 M ca L O' I �' O U a) o a O O E O a E >, m 0 c "' E > 0 °- E Q a) - O- I cn O a) > ° E o m _ c a) m O Na) it a, U m > a cn CO s 0 O 'T M O Tl- N O ti � � I- r- ti 00 0 r T 699 V) If t,A N N 0 CD M E y CD 0 E Q� O d cu U L O z M LO m O O 0 T• 00 00 T- co 6a a�= O O IT N ti T- 00 � � N M m co CN N eQ 10.0 O H E L a. CL C CL 2 CL m E d cu E H d L � L O Q v C E E 0 U U) O O w a°o v rl: OCT C5 04 CC) 0 64 C W 63 d� W o m cv I- o o a V a qT W co C5 ~ C OD N W d La Lo D. U) ❑ o 0 'o c N Z >- a O O Q U 0 LLB co li J E CO N N O U c°r W `m a N L a c , cc > O c O c E c N c > r F- 0 Z a U a) O a a) 4- c a) a) a) O O O a°o v rl: OCT C5 04 CC) 64 63 O o O °v 0 00 qT co C5 OD 0 N cq C6 6N9 00 00 0 00 ° LO CO N N N L a c , cc > O c O c E c N c > C a _ O cu 0) a`) con c N O J > Cl) LO LO LO U) a) a) v a O O r- Ci N O Ef? 0 O LO N O O O C N O r r 0 N c� a. O (Q 0 c a) m .Q O s 0 Z rn ti LO 0 0 Q O O rn 0 N O O O ti O) 64 O 0 O LO M r E!4 0 U) N CL O O c a) a) a) c >ca rn N O LO m D U) O a) v O a) .0 a) 4 0 rye 0 0 ai d9 0 0 LO L U) IT 64 O O O ti 07 C 0 U cc a. 0 c ca a) O LL O T- It LO 0 0 ti 0 0 O O M u d N rn 0 a c O U a) a c F- Iq LO LO 0 0 0 N 40 0 0 ti o� ti O O O ti N M N V- 40 0 O C4 0 O ti t0 E13 0 0 00 Iq • • U N O a N cn c 0 U N O U a) s O Q 0 0 co r 0 0 O� ti N 0 N 0 0 O c- N r tD r U) r O H 2 O a aEi co N c 0 0 ui w D H Z LU a x H LLI 7 O w CL w O a LL O Q 0 O a H Z W w O a J w Z w I � I d CD d m' 5 CO) C d v W Cl CL C N 4° o E N W V m WIR O Z a 0 co N rn c rn a> 0 0 a) cc a) O O o O r L tC 0) ch M N 69 40 69 V-r fl4 O O O O 0) 0) O CD co co O CV N O 4 40 � °o °o °o °o 0 r r LO w r- N M 69 fA 69 iR ca 0 N U) a) E a) F�— > a E CL E N c L 0 CL a) 0 a m C: 0 > > c a E ) L mo O C d co Q W H D W X LU F- V I O w a. w O Q LL O C� c vI O w CL W H W J W w N C d E E O V c d U IM ca CL -p M as 00 p O N a a m o d OO m �- V W LL IL im z O 0 O CO O O O O O N 69 0 0 O N_ M 69 T- c O N C co U) ca a) ti c� 0 0 0 tD 0 0 0 O tC 0 N 0 0 O N r M lir, O O 7 0 0 0 0 rn m M d' 6g � 00 GOo � tM0 E,9 04 0). 0 0 C) ti v} N U Q) r O 0 � L c O -a a � L U d a � U N CD d o a � CO) p� CD 0 t 0 0 coo ca oo m .= v a 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 oc a C4 c CO) T- cli cli N 00 00 0 W Qo Z m 0 ao � 0 m ti 0 co co 40t V z Co 0 LL o 0 J N Q H U- a Q w z = as " Q CD z V ° cr W Q w +t v cc v Q V I— W z W V Z Q J Q m D Z D LL J Q H Q U t0 0 0 N LO °O N V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C5 cv ti co c� rn co 00 N L U 601 to 69 ' 69 U C m m 'c m N rn c m U .a c U- Q c0 U 0 i O N LUL w 0 O N O M C N U c ca m C W b F- U) c � § \ � S Q / E 0 k e w CN � 2 U- 2 $ 2 E 8 0 (D 0 k cm e � / � ) E ■ k k � k , ■ � c $c c 2 A ( I CL / ƒ wJ it 0 3 CL £ x C/) § E k( f U22 o ; am @ £ CL L c m ) U, ; C/) � (D )E ° § . 2 k $ k kf�� L §_o 2 k A w Q (D B � J � § 'to §0) LLJ k (D 4) U) #tee ® �— E 0 k _. 0 0) > 2 = m §a E o— c o A t b = gJe k . B � Q 2 f § E m kk �k� > ƒ Cl) # k � k , ■ � c $c c 2 A I CL / ƒ wJ it 0 3 £ 2k _ � E k( f U22 ; am @ CL L c m ) ; )E ° k 2 k $ k kf�� §_o / ■ k E § k � e§� 'to §0) k (D 4) U) #tee ® �— E 0 k _. 0 0) > 2 = m §a E o— c o A t E §§ CD gJe k � Q 2 2, � E �2 kk �k� to. w D -� J2� { �8x k k�` :.0 -§ k\2 §ƒ t0 I � ■; �2 $kJ � � k �c LO k C k 0 / � k 2 ;» L . \ q ' G @ 8 « ® — m LO W r § 7 g I c ~ co 0 6 0 o 2 ® — k � k , ■ � c $c c 2 A CL / wJ it 0 3 Prepared by: D. Hinkson FINANCIAL STATEMENT SUMMARY �--� December -05 Year to Date Actual Budget Variance Actual Budget Variance O & M Expenses 4,072 3,907 (165) 21,581 22,959 1,378 -4.2% 6.0% Year to Date Actual Budget Variance O & M Revenue 22,167 21,704 463 2.1% Year to date Favorable Variance > $10K: Variance YTD Sewer Construction Total Labor Charges 896 Revenue Directors Fees & Expenses 0 Expense Chemicals 0 Over /Under Utilities 0 Doughtery Valley Completed Repairs & Maintenance 315 Hauling & Disposal 21 Professional & Legal 0 Outside Services 208 Materials & Supplies 32 Other Expenses 108 Year to date Unfavorable Variance > $1 OK: Total Labor Charges Chemicals Utilities Repairs & Maintenance Hauling & Disposal Professional & Legal Outside Services Materials & Supplies Other Expenses 1,580 0 -16 -193 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,371 TEMPORARY INVESTMENTS: Held in District LAIF Account, Commercial Paper and US T -Bills & T- Note. LAIF yield as of November, 2005 was 3.636% 11,427 18,989 (7,562)