HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/16/2006 AGENDA BACKUPCentral Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006 No.: 4.a. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: ADOPT RESOLUTION
subject: ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
AND OFFER OF DEDICATION FROM ROBERT D. JOHNSON AND PETER
KNOEDLER FOR AN EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE RECORDED FINAL MAP OF
SUBDIVISION NO. MS 860 -90 IN THE TOWN OF DANVILLE, DP 5417, AND
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO RECORD THE RESOLUTION WITH THE CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY RECORDER.
Submitted By: Initiating Dept /Div.:
John Mercurio, Engineering Assistant III Engineering /Environmental Services
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
J. Mercurio M. y . Swanson A. Farrell CAh
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
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. MS 860 -90 that is
required for a recent public sewer extension off Camino Tassajara in the Town of
Danville (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 Robert D. Johnson and Peter Knoedler for an easement shown on the
recorded final map of Subdivision No. MS 860 -90 in the Town of Danville, and accepting
DP 5417 public sewer improvements, and authorize staff to record the resolution with
the Contra Costa County Recorder.
Page 1 of 2
N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Mercurio\2006 \5417 Pos Paper Adopt Res Johnson - Knoedler 3- 16- 06.doc
2
V
Z
9
P,
a
a
C0
CAMINO
- _'-`-''-- T'ASSAIARA
New Manhole
ZENITH I RIDGE
DANVILLE
LAWRENCE RD
I-,
SAN RAMON
LOCATION MAP
N. T. S. ---
LEGEND:
e EXISTING SEWER I) N
SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY
EASEMENT AREA
Central Contra Costa Attachment
Sanitary District ACCEPTANCE OF
EASEMENT DEDICATION 1
[-.Am SUBDIVISION MS 860 -90 DP 5417
rage c OT e
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006 No.: 4.b. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK
subject: ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WORK FOR THE LOWER ORINDA PUMPING
STATION RENOVATION PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT 5448, AND AUTHORIZE
THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Submitted By: Initiating Dept /Div.:
Andrew Antkowiak, Senior Engineer Engineering / Capital Projects
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION.
l�t
rvt-
A"Wkowiak ecki Division Manager A. Far I
General
ISSUE: Construction has been completed on the Lower Orinda Pumping Station
Renovation Project, District Project 5448, and work is now ready for acceptance.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for the Lower Orinda Pumping Station
Renovation Project, District Project 5448, and authorize the filing of the Notice of
Completion.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None related to this action.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: Not applicable. Filing the Notice of Completion
is advisable under the California Civil Code, Section 3090.
BACKGROUND: The District's 1989 Pump Station Master Plan identified the need to
renovate the Lower Orinda Pumping Station to meet long -range operating goals. The
renovation of the Lower Orinda Pumping Station was done in several phases. The
current project was the last phase of the renovation and consisted of complete
renovation in the existing location. The project expanded the existing building and
replaced the mechanical and electrical equipment, and added extensive
instrumentation, control, and monitoring systems.
On December 4, 2003, the Board of Directors (Board) authorized the award of a
contract for the construction of the project to Pacific Mechanical Corporation. The
Notice to Proceed was issued on January 20, 2004. The work was substantially
completed in January 2006.
There are several outstanding financial issues pertaining to the standby generator and
the pumping station control panels that still need to be resolved. Staff will brief the
Board on these issues as they develop. The Contract work is now complete and the
project is ready for acceptance.
NAPESUMCbradley \Position Papers\2006\March \DP5448 AcceptContractWork.doc Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006
subject: ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WORK FOR THE LOWER ORINDA PUMPING
STATION RENOVATION PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT 5448, AND AUTHORIZE
THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
The total authorized budget for the project is $8,941,000. The budget includes the cost
of engineering design, District forces, testing services, contract services, etc. An
accounting of the project costs will be provided to the Board at the time of project
closeout.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Accept the contract work for the Lower Orinda
Pumping Station Renovation Project, District Project 5448, and authorize the filing of
the Notice of Completion.
NAPESUP\Cbradley \Position Papers\2006 \March \DP5448 AcceptContractWork.doc Page 2 of 2
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006 No.: 4.c. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: ESTABLISH PUBLIC HEARING DATE
Subject: ESTABLISH APRIL 20, 2006 AS THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND DISTRICT CODE CHAPTER
6.30 "SCHEDULE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT - RELATED RATES
AND CHARGES"
Submitted By:
Kurt Darner
Supervising Engineering Assistant
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
P&
[karner . Swanson A. Farr II
Initiating Dept/Div.:
Engineering / Environmental Services
General
ISSUE: The District Code requires that a public hearing be held prior to the Board of
Directors consideration of amendments to the District Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Establish April 20, 2006 as the date for a public hearing to
receive comments on and consider adoption of a proposed ordinance to amend District
Code Chapter 6.30 "Schedule of Environmental and Development - Related Rates and
Charges ".
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None by this action. If the staff recommendation to increase
Capacity Fees is adopted by the Board of Directors following the public hearing, it is
projected that approximately $50,000 to $100,000 in additional annual revenue for the
O & M Fund and the Capital Improvements Fund will be generated beginning in fiscal
year 2006 -2007.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: The Board of Directors may decline to establish
the recommended public hearing date or may elect to choose a different date. However,
a public hearing must be held if Environmental and Development - Related Rates and
Charges are to be revised. If the hearing were held on April 20, 2006 as recommended,
the fees would be effective on July 1, 2006.
BACKGROUND: Staff has completed its annual review of the District's Environmental
and Development - Related Rates and Charges and has concluded that it would be
appropriate to revise rates and charges to account for: 1) increases in general salaries,
benefits, and overhead; and 2) re- evaluation of the actual level of effort for some of the
tasks as currently performed. Staff also proposes to conduct a public hearing on a
related recommendation to revise Capacity Fees at the same Board meeting (April 20,
2006).
Page 1 of 2
N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Darner\Set PH Date Re Rates and Charges 3- 16- 06.doc
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006
subject. ESTABLISH APRIL 20, 2006 AS THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND DISTRICT CODE CHAPTER
6.30 "SCHEDULE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT - RELATED RATES
AND CHARGES"
A coordinated outreach program to inform and solicit input from interested customers
regarding both the proposed Capacity Fees and the proposed Environmental and
Development - Related Rates and Charges will be conducted by staff before the public
hearing date.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION Establish April 20, 2006 as the date for a public
hearing to receive comments on and consider adoption of a proposed ordinance to
amend District Code Chapter 6.30 "Schedule of Environmental and Development -
Related Rates and Charges ".
Page 2 of 2
N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Darner\Set PH Date Re Rates and Charges 3- 16- 06.doc
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006 No.: 4.d. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: ESTABLISH PUBLIC HEARING DATE
subject: ESTABLISH APRIL 20, 2006 AS THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND DISTRICT CODE CHAPTER
6.12 "CAPACITY FEE PROGRAM"
Submitted By: Initiating Dept /Div.:
Jarred Miyamoto - Mills, Principal Engineer Engineering / Environmental Services
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
1fV11***' D &--- �w
J. Miyamoto -Mills . SwIsfison A. Farrel
General
ISSUE: The District Code requires that a public hearing be held prior to the Board of
Directors consideration of amendments to the District Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Establish April 20, 2006 as the date for a public hearing to
receive comments on and consider adoption of a proposed ordinance to amend District
Code Chapter 6.12 "Capacity Fee Program" to include a revised Schedule of Capacity
Fees.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None by this action. If the staff recommendation to increase
Capacity Fees is adopted by the Board of Directors following the public hearing, it is
projected that approximately $300,000 in additional annual revenue will be generated
beginning in fiscal year 2006 -2007.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: The Board of Directors may decline to establish
the recommended public hearing date or may elect to choose a different date. However,
a public hearing must be held if Capacity Fees are to be increased. If the hearing is
held on April 20, 2006, the increased fees could take effect on July 1, 2006.
BACKGROUND: Staff has completed its annual review of the District's Capacity Fee
Program, and has concluded that it would be appropriate to revise the fees to account
for changes in the valuation of District assets and the number of current customers. The
effect of implementing the staff recommendation would be to increase the Capacity Fee
as follows:
Fee Cate-gory Current (2001) Proposed % Change
Gravity Zone Fee
$4,150 per RUE
$4,263 per RUE
2.7%
Pumping Zone Fee
$5,481 per RUE
$5,667 per RUE
3.3%
N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Miyamoto -Mills \Capacity Fees, Rates \Set PH Date Re Capacity Fees 3- 16- 06.doc Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006
Subject: ESTABLISH APRIL 20, 2006 AS THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND DISTRICT CODE CHAPTER
6.12. "CAPACITY FEE PROGRAM"
Staff also proposes to conduct a public hearing on a related recommendation to revise
the Schedule of Environmental and Development - Related Rates and Charges at the
same Board meeting (April 20, 2006).
A coordinated outreach program to inform and solicit input from interested customers
regarding both the proposed Capacity Fees and the proposed Environmental and
Development - Related Rates and Charges will be conducted by staff before the public
hearing date.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Establish April 20, 2006 as the date for a public
hearing to receive comments on and consider adoption of a proposed ordinance to
amend District Code Chapter 6.12 "Capacity Fee Program ".
N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Miyamoto -Mills \Capacity Fees, Rates \Set PH Date Re Capacity Fees 3- 16- 06.doc Page 2 of 2
Item 6.a.1)
Metropolitan Treatment Plant
Minneapolis -St. Paul, MN
March 1
Randy
CCCSD MercOyBackground
• Final Effluent Mercury
- NPDES Permit Limit
. 87 ppt Hg, monthly max \
. 1000 ppt Hg, daily max
- Average of 30 ppt, Peaks > 50 ppt Hg
- 2nd Highest Hg Concentration in Bay Area
• Potential NPDES Permit limit in 2010
- 25 ppt Hg, 4 -day average
1
Item 6.a.1)
Options for fury Control
• Pretreatment Program \
• HHW Collection Facility
• Pollution Prevention Program
• Amalgam Separators for Dental Facilities
Removal Treatment Plant
• Treat entire Effluent Flow
• Control Mercury from Incinerators
Why Minnesota.yn February?
• Meeting Strict Final Effluent ury
Limits
- 14 ppt Hg, daily max
- 9 ppt Hg, monthly average
• New $200 Million Solids Handling Faci
• Extensive air pollution controls
• Unique vapor phase carbon injection for 1
control
N
Item 6.a.1)
MERCURY MASS BALANCE — ANNUAL BASIS
AIR
CCCSD 29 lbs Hg
Metro 11lb Hg
I
INFLUENT PLANT EFFLUENT
CCCSD 35 lbs Hg ---► CCCSD — 45 MGD CCCSD 4 lbs Hg
Metro 32 lbs Hg
Metro —180 MGD Metro 4 lbs Hg
CCCSD 2 lbs Hg
Metro 27 lbs Hg
ASH, GRIT, CARBON
Item 6.a.1)
Summa oints
• Influent Mercury Controls
• Effluent Mercury Control
-Vapor Phase Carbon Injection is 1 option
-Only increases ash by 1 -2%
- Non - Hazardous
- Dispose at Sanitary Landfill
-Treat scrubber water
-Treat entire Effluent stream
4
O
Z
E
ca
c
CD
m
Q
O
a-
W
0
•
L
VJ
A
c
co
D
W%
C/)
c�
0
AMMO
ca
O
c
a)
N
C/)
(6
L
O
N
Cfl
2
U
Q
�J W v,
U C .�
O U
O
L. _ � O
L
CL
(Dl
3 C/)
O
ol
co 4-a j O
> Cn Z U
O Ca
o LLI co
O - O �
Cu
O -T
C: E
O U O
0 � C-
a) U
4) 4- �
U CU O O
cn
c ,� O
O m O -- CU
4- �- cu cn E M
ow 0
-fc-n-j . IS -a C D =3 Jc: Co
cn o
.c = CD
m
1
/
ri
M tt �mlf
W o E = t�
�) to
W
;T
La
3
ao
M
i�
U
co
(1)
LM
W
U
C
O
H
7
C
(0
D
()
O
U
,O ti
0
CL
a) CU
a)
a)
O
CL
c
O
�U
c
O
AW
c
W O
—
C: L .�
CU a) cn a)
0 E cn .0
L. E a) O
00 .Ci
> C�
Ov cn
.cn 0
L.
0 .—
O �,r
0.0 to C
+� cn O
E
O� O O
cn
a) O a)
CD
a) � a)
E�
O a)
73
a) co -0
O :t'cnO 0
� 0 � C: CU
a) � � O
CL 0
0 0
A
a�
U
CD
CO O
O O
O N
N ..
., 00
C qr�
(6
N
0
m
t0
2
L
cu
Q
A.-A
U
CL
C�
u
L
O
U
Al
O
c
O
U
u
V
O
�O
L
0 0 0
L
W
E
0
-6--+
U)
cn
2
Q
V
O
cn
O
L
(0. 1�4. 5� � )
- S� EAST BAY
c MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
MICHAEL J. WALLIS
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
(5 7 0) 287-7615
wellis@ebmud.com
RICHARD G. SYKES
MANAGER OF WATER SYSTEM
(5 7 0) 287 -1629
rsykes @ebmud.com
March 2, 2006
Mr. Charles Batts
General Manager
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Batts:
Over the past four months, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District has played a vital
role in developing a first -of -its -kind coalition of utilities from across this country to
provide mutual aid assistance to the residents of New Orleans, and the management team
and employees of the Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans (SWBNO). On behalf of
the Board of Directors of the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), I wish to
express my sincere gratitude to you for your organizational support for this cause.
As you are aware, Hurricane Katrina caused immeasurable damage and suffering to those
in the Gulf Coast States in late August of 2005. The SWBNO sustained significant
damage to its water, wastewater, and storm water infrastructure, which to this day leaves
a high percentage of its employees homeless. Their need for operational support from the
water and wastewater community is unparalleled. Unfortunately, a functional process for
this assistance to occur does not exist.
In November of 2005, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District joined a coalition of
utilities seeking a process to overcome the issues preventing assistance to the SWBNO.
These organizations include:
• City of Portland, Oregon: Bureau of Water
• San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
• City of Cleveland, Ohio: Cleveland Water
• Greater Cincinnati Water Works
• Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara, California
• Marin Municipal Water District, Marin, California
• San Jose Water, San Jose, California
• California Utilities Emergency Association
• East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, California
375 ELEVENTH STREET . OAKLAND . CA 94607 -4240 . FAX (5 10) 287 -7956
P.O. BOX 24055 . OAKLAND . CA 94623 -1055
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
March 2, 2006
Page 2
Individuals from your organization who played a critical role in the development of this
unique coalition of utilities include:
Craig Mizutani, Associate Engineer
This coalition of utilities collectively put forth their best efforts and assembled a
volunteer team of over 200 subject matter experts. While the coalition team did not
ultimately deploy to provide mutual aid to SWBNO, we all learned a great deal about
mutual aid, working together in the future, and emergency procedures. Hopefully, the
bureaucratic roadblocks that prevented our deployment will be removed and allow
mutual aid to proceed.
On behalf of EBMUD and all the utility coalition member organizations, thank you for
your willingness to support this volunteer effort to assist those in New Orleans.
Sincerely,
Michael allis
Director of Operations and Maintenance
MJW:ss
wAadmin\mjw\new orleans \utility coalition.doc
Legal Update
Central Contra Co
Sanitary "
Board of Direcr.-'66rs' M'
Ma
By: I
Dis
1C, 2006
on L. Almr
y�
(o.
1
• Wanda Way
• Strentzel Lane
• National Park Service
• Dickerson Matter
(2)
Engineering Projects
Attorneys Assigned:
Kent Alm, Bryan Otake, Be
• UV Disinfection Project;,
• Plant Control Project.,
• Alhambra Way Proj6
(3)
�A
Disputes/Negotiations
Attorneys Assigned:
Kent Alm, Arne Sandberg,"
■ Kaweah — Clarifier Datnager
■ PSC v. Kaweah
• Arbitration
• Contact with attorrie Y$ co6rdi
this week
ke
staff
Q
Real Property Issues
Attorneys Assigned:
Kent Alm, Bryan Otake, Dee Bardwick
. Kiewit Clean Fill Lease
. ' Conco Real Estate Docu
• Road Maintenance Agree
• Odor Easement
• Pond flooding /Channel 4
• Outfall Easements
• Right of Way /Road easel
• M -2 Rights
• Dealing with Conco,;but
Development, and BNSF
(6) illm
t
involve U.
road
Real Property Issues (cont'd)
• M -2 Line Relocation
• Subdivision Map Act/
Easement Issues
• Alhambra ROW ISSUE
• Contra Costa T
• Others
(7)
4
5
Permitting Issues
Attorneys Assigned:
Kent Alm, Leah Goldb
• NPDES Permit Renewal
i..
• Mercury TMDL
• BACWA /CCCSD settlement with Regii
• SSMP WDR — Statewide and Regiona
Section 13267 letter ON
• SSO Fine
(10)
Alamo
Risk Management
Attorneys Assigned:
Kent Alm,
• Storm Damage — Slides'
• Round Hill North
• Risk Management meeting /End
Consultants
(11)
rd
ent of
E
Fees and Charges
Attorneys Assigned:
Kent Alm, Bry"
• Review and support stz
• Work with staff to updz
needed (i.e. continued'
Proposition 218)
■ Coordinate with
(12)
n all rate ings
nethodolo as
bliance w
ng process
Administrative
Attorneys Assigned:
Kent Alm, B
■ Board meetings, Agenda
meetings, Workshops an
■ Purchasing
• Assist as needed
• Review of current standar
■ General support to Gene
Ratcliff and others
(13)
contracts
�I M6nac
rsI
:ings
iei
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006 No.: 7.a. ADMI N I STRAT I V E
Type of Action: AUTHORIZE PURCHASES
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT
FOR THE PLANT CONTROL SYSTEM, DISTRICT PROJECT 7204
Submitted By: Initiating DeptJDiv.:
Ba T. Than, Senior Engineer Engineering /Capital Projects
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
B. Than Acting apital Projects A. Fa ell J. arrington K. Alm 4 .13 *Mnar
Division Manager Genera
ISSUE: Board of Directors' authorization is required for the General Manager to
purchase equipment in an amount greater than $5,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Directors (1) Determine
that purchase of Modicon Programmable Logic Controllers and Modbus
Communication Protocol is required to provide compatibility with existing equipment,
and authorize the General Manager to purchase equipment from Alameda Electric in an
amount not to exceed $55,000 as sole source provider in accordance with Public
Contract Code Section 3400 (b); and (2) Authorize the General Manager to purchase
additional equipment for the Plant Control System, DP 7204, at a price not to exceed
$195,000 from State - negotiated procurement lists in accordance with Government
Code Section 10298 -99, and by competitive bid.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total cost to purchase this equipment is estimated at
$250,000.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: Alternatives include; 1) not to proceed with the
replacement of the plant control system, and 2) changing the entire plant control
system. Staff does not recommend either of these alternatives.
BACKGROUND: The secondary treatment portion of the plant was put into operation
in 1976 as one of the first computer - controlled treatment plants in the country. The
plant's original central computer system was installed to provide all of the automatic
control for the treatment plant. For nearly 30 years, treatment plant staff have
upgraded and maintained the existing control system.
On September 15, 2005, the Board authorized a contract with Transdyn, Inc. to replace
the existing control system. Transdyn has prepared and submitted the technical
specifications for the server hardware to the District for review and acceptance.
N: \PURCHASING \Position Paper - Purchase of Hardware for Plant Control System.doc Page 1 of 4
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006
Subject AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT
FOR THE PLANT CONTROL SYSTEM, DISTRICT PROJECT 7204
The technical specifications were reviewed and accepted by Operations, Engineering,
and Information Technology (IT) staff. Hardware includes high -speed computers,
central processing units, power supplies, workstations, network switches, and
Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC), which are field control units. The total cost of
hardware is estimated at $250,000 (see attached Table 1 for breakdown).
Several methods of procurement will be employed in this equipment acquisition. These
procurement methods include competitive bid, sole source, and use of Government
Code Sections 10298 -10299 procedures for purchasing from State negotiated
procurement lists. Use of these Government Code provisions exempts local agencies
from further public bidding for those purchases. The main components purchased via
the State procurement process are the workstations manufactured by Dell Computer
and the Dell Computer is currently the District's standard for PCs.
Competitive bidding will be used for equipment that is generally available in the market
place, but not available through the State purchasing program. The equipment in this
category includes network switches, printers, cables, etc. The Purchasing Division will
notice and obtain competitive bids for this equipment (see attached Table 1 for
breakdown).
The District has for many years standardized the instrumentation and the network
communication within the treatment plant on the Modicon PLC and Modbus
communication protocol. Alternative makers of similar equipment exist, however our
existing Modicon /Modbus technology is not compatible with the available alternatives
and a change to the current district standard would be extremely expensive. Staff has
confirmed that Alameda Electric is the sole authorized distributor of Modicon /Modbus
equipment for the San Francisco Bay region. Public Contract Code Section 3400(b)
requires the Board to make a finding that purchase of Modicon /Modbus equipment is
required to match equipment already in use and that the necessary equipment is only
available from a single source.
These purchases can be divided into two phases. In the first phase, the components of
the main server will be purchased. The server is the central processing unit or the
brain for the entire plant control system. With the new server in hand, Transdyn will
start the programming and system implementation. In the second phase, other
equipment components such as workstations, monitors, and printers will be purchased
as needed to keep the hardware up to date with rapidly changing technologies
The Plant Control System Improvements Project is included in the Fiscal Year
2005 -2006 Capital Improvement Budget on pages TP -121 through TP -123.
NAPURCHASING \Position Paper - Purchase of Hardware for Plant Control System.doc Page 2 of 4
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006
subject. AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT
FOR THE .PLANT CONTROL SYSTEM, DISTRICT PROJECT 7204
Staff has concluded that this project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, since it involves
equipment replacement to an existing sewage facility with no increase in capacity.
Approval of this award establishes the Board of Directors' independent finding that this
project is exempt from CEQA.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Staff recommends for the Board's approval the
following:
1. Determine that purchase of Modicon Programmable Logic Controllers and Modbus
Communication Protocol is required to provide compatibility with existing equipment,
and authorize the General Manager to purchase equipment from Alameda Electric in an
amount not to exceed $55,000 as sole source provider in accordance with Public
Contract Code Section 3400 (b); and
2. Authorize the General Manager to; purchase additional equipment for the Plant
Control System, DP 7204, at a price not to exceed $195,000 from State - negotiated
procurement contract (Master Release Agreement WSCA A63307) in accordance with
Government Code Section 10298 -99, and by competitive bid.
NAPURCHASING \Position Paper - Purchase of Hardware for Plant Control System.doc Page 3 of 4
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006
Subject AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT
FOR THE PLANT CONTROL SYSTEM, DISTRICT PROJECT 7204
Table 1 — Detailed Cost Breakdown
NAPURCHASING \Position Paper - Purchase of Hardware for Plant Control System.doc Page 4 of 4
Method of Procurement
Cost
Phase 1
Competitive Bid
$ 40,000
Sole Source Purchase
Modicon Equipment)
$ 55,000
State Procurement Program
$ 40,000
Phase 2
State Procurement Program
$ 90,000
Subtotal
$225,000
Contingency
$ 25,000
Total
$250,000
NAPURCHASING \Position Paper - Purchase of Hardware for Plant Control System.doc Page 4 of 4
7.a. ADMINISTRATIVE
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO PURCHASE
EQUIPMENT FOR THE PLANT CONTROL SYSTEM, DISTRICT PROJECT
7204
Background: Our existing plant control system is 30 years old and obsolete. In
September of last year the Board authorized a contract with Transdyne, Inc. to
replace the existing system. The hardware we are seeking authorization to
purchase includes:
• high -speed computers, printers, cables
• central processing units,
• power supplies, workstations,
• network switches
• Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC), which are field control units.
ISSUE: Board of Directors' authorization is required for the General Manager to
purchase equipment in an amount greater than $5,000. In addition, as a District
Project, competitive bidding is required when the cost exceeds $15,000.
The table below indicates the specific costs associated with each purchasing
method recommended.
Table 1 - Detailed Cost Breakdown
Method of Procurement
Cost
Phase 1
Competitive Bid
$ 40,000
Sole Source Purchase
Modicon Equipment)
$ 55,000
State Procurement Program
$ 40,000
Phase 2
State Procurement Program
$ 90,000
Subtotal
$225,000
Contingency
$ 25,000
Total
$250,000
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006 No.: £3.a. ENGINEERING
Type of Action: APPROVE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM
subject: IMPLEMENTATION OF MANDATORY MERCURY AMALGAM SEPARATOR
PROGRAM FOR DENTAL FACILITIES
Submitted By:
Timothy Potter, Source Control Program
Superintendent
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
f)"- Pte,
T. Potter
Initiating Dept. /Div.:
Engineering /Environmental Services
J /r/ A A
A. Farrell K. Alm
a es alts,
General Manager
ISSUE: Control of mercury in the wastewater from dental facilities is an important
component of the District's Pollution Prevention Program for addressing this significant
pollutant of concern. Use of amalgam separators to reduce the amount of mercury
discharged from dental facilities that either provide or remove amalgam fillings is
recognized as the most effective means of achieving control of mercury discharges.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve implementation of a Mandatory Mercury Amalgam
Separator Program for dental facilities located in the District's service area that will:
• Perform extensive outreach to the dental community through state and local
professional associations, direct mailing, workshops to inform affected facilities of
the program elements and schedules;
• Require installation and maintenance of mercury amalgam separators at
appropriate dental facilities using a Class III Industrial User (IU) Permit document
developed specifically for this program; and
• Fund the development and implementation of this program through the general
Sewer Service Charge (SSC) by setting the Class III IU Permit fee (currently
$351 annual fee) to $0 effective fiscal year 2006 -07.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Staff estimates that the cost to develop and implement a
Mandatory Mercury Amalgam Separator Program will be $100,000 annually. The
current revenue generated from all Class III IU Permits is approximately $30,000.
Setting the Class III IU Permit fee to $0 beginning July 1, 2006 and using the general
SSC to fund the Class III IU Permit Program, including the proposed Mandatory
Mercury Amalgam Separator Program, would utilize less than $1 per year of the Sewer
Service Charge assessed each residential unit equivalent.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: Alternative program elements and funding
options have been included in previous reports to the Board. In summary, alternative
program elements evaluated included:
N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Potter\Amalgam Separator Program Implementation 3- 16- 06.doc Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006
subject IMPLEMENTATION OF MANDATORY MERCURY AMALGAM SEPARATOR
PROGRAM FOR DENTAL FACILITIES
• Maintaining a voluntary program to implement dental Best Management
Practices (BMPs), including use of mercury amalgam separators;
• Implementing a mandatory program using the Source Control Ordinance rather
than a permit program; and
• Funding the program using either the Class III IU Permit fee (with possible
waivers to off -set the cost of installing amalgam separators) or an addition to the
current Pollution Prevention surcharge added to the SSC of all commercial
accounts.
Staff recommends using the Class III IU Permit program to implement the Mandatory
Mercury Amalgam Separator Program because it creates the best line of
communications with the affected dental facilities. Staff recommends funding the
program through the SSC because the cost of this program is minor compared to the
total budget and will have limited impact on the amount of the SSC. Additionally,
controlling contaminants at the source benefits the entire rate base by avoiding costly
capital improvements to remove contaminants from the wastewater after it enters our
facility. Finally, the waiver of Class III IU Permit fees is nominal relative to the potential
administrative burden of collecting the permit fee from so many small businesses.
BACKGROUND: Changes in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program
developed by the RWQCB indicate that a very stringent mercury effluent limit could be
placed in the District's next NPDES Permit along with specific requirements to address
mercury control through pollution prevention measures. RWQCB staff has indicated
that mandatory mercury amalgam separator programs will be considered to be the
preferred, if not required, method of achieving mercury control from dental practices. In
anticipation of this requirement, staff implemented a Dental Inventory Program during
2004 and 2005 to quantify the use of BMPs to reduce mercury by the dental practices in
the District's service area. As a result of this reporting program, the District determined
that less than 15% of the current dental facilities either had voluntary installed or
intended to install, amalgam separators on the discharge from the vacuum systems in
their practices as a result of the District's Voluntary Dental BMP Program.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Approve implementation of a Mandatory
Amalgam Separator Program using the Class III IU Permit program after modifying the
fee resolution establishing the IU Permit fees for fiscal year 2006 -07 to set the annual
Class III IU Permit fee at $0.
NAENVRSEMPosition Papers \PotteMmalgam Separator Program Implementation 3- 16- 06.doc Page 2 of 2
0
4
MANDATORY AMALGAM
SEPARATOR PROGRAM
CCCSD Board Meeting
March 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 for most
commonly used separator
• Annual maintenance & disposal $200
• Mandatory programs are working in other
Bay Area communities
M. •
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 add 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
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 w/ Dental Community to Encourage Compliance
• Calendar Year 2008 — Follow -up Inspections
5
Implement Mandatory Amalgam
Separator Program Using Class
III Industrial User Permits
• Clearly communicate requirements
• Set specific compliance timeline
• Dentists to self certify
• Conduct follow -up inspections
Mandatory Amalgam Program
Permit/Fee Options
• Existing Class III IU Permit for Dentists
— $351 fee consistent with other Class III permits
• New Class III BMP Permit for Dentists
— No fee, fund by pollution prevention surcharge
or
— No fee, fund by sewer service charge
• Existing Class III IU Permit for Dentists
— Eliminate fees for all Class III IU Permits
Permit Fee Considerations
• Assessing $351 per dentist raises $110,000
and covers estimated dental program cost
• Existing Class III permitted industries include 70
small businesses assessed $351 annual permit fee
for total annual revenue of $25,000
• Exempting dentists from fee may be seen as unfair
by other small businesses
• Eliminating Class III annual fee of $351 for all is
most equitable solution
Benefits to Rate Payers of
Eliminating Class III Permit Fees
• Controlling pollutants at the source through Class
III permits is most cost effective way to meet
effluent discharge requirements
• Treatment at the plant to remove pollutants is
considerably more expensive and the treatment
costs are born by all rate payers
• Cost of current and proposed Class III permit
program represents less than $1 on the sewer
service charge per RUE and benefits all
Recommended Fee Scenario
• Set Class III Industrial User fees to zero
effective July 1, 2006
• Continue to issue Class III permits to
dentists and other business sectors as
needed to meet effluent requirements, but
recover costs through sewer service charge
Next Steps
• Develop program specifics in collaboration
with California Dental Association (CDA)
and Contra Costa Dental Society (CCDS)
• Develop and implement outreach program
in collaboration with CDA & CCDS
• Target January 2007 for implementation
and January 2008 for full compliance
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16,'2006 No.: 8.b.1) ENGINEERING
Type of Action: APPROVE PROJECT
Subject: APPROVE THE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS DIVISION (CSOD)
CALTRANS LEASE AREA AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, DISTRICT
PROJECT 8215, FOR CEQA/PERMITTING PURPOSES
Submitted By: Initiating Dept. /Div.:
Don Berger, Associate Engineer Engineering / Environmental Services
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTIO
1 !'r
D. Berge R. midt C. Swanson A. Farrell Charles
General
ISSUE: The Board of Directors' approval of the CSOD Caltrans Lease Area and Site
Improvements Project, DP 8215, is required prior to filing a Notice of Exemption under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the CSOD Caltrans Lease Area and Site
Improvements Project, DP 8215.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total project cost is estimated to be $800,000; however,
this position paper only approves the project for CEQA/Permitting and does not approve
a lease of property or an award of a construction contract.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: The Board may decline to approve the project.
However, Board approval of the project and direction to file a Notice of Exemption is
needed so that staff can submit the project to the City of Walnut Creek for approval.
Caltrans requires that the City of Walnut Creek approve the project before a lease can
be issued. A separate position paper for a lease will be prepared after the District
obtains approval from the City (anticipated in June 2006). This project also includes
replacement of the large retaining wall next to the freeway that is failing, and demolition
of the Ducca House, which has exceeded its useful lifespan.
BACKGROUND: The CSOD Alternatives Analysis (November 2004) identified the
desirability of leasing and developing the adjacent Caltrans parcel located underneath
the freeway overpass to increase yard space and improve vehicle circulation. The
CSOD Existing Structures Assessment (August 2004) found that the Ducca House was
in need of extensive repairs and should be demolished.
A geotechnical engineering investigation completed in February 2006 following
observations of settlement after the December 2005 /January 2006 storms, determined
that the large retaining wall next to the freeway is failing and must be replaced. There
are several options for the retaining wall being examined, including construction of a
N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Berger\8215 CSOD Caltrans Lease Area CEQA & Consult Agreement.doc Page 1 of 3
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006
suviect: APPROVE THE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS DIVISION (CSOD)
CALTRANS LEASE AREA AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, DISTRICT
PROJECT 8215, FOR CEQA/PERMITTING PURPOSES
new wall and possibly eliminating the retaining wall if suitable bedrock can be located in
the hillside behind the existing wall.
Board approval of a project and direction to file a Notice of Exemption for CEQA is often
considered at the time of award of a construction contract, unless requirements by
permitting agencies require an earlier CEQA determination. In this case, Board
approval of the project and direction to file a Notice of Exemption is needed so that staff
can obtain approval from the City of Walnut Creek. Caltrans requires that the City of
Walnut Creek approve the project before a lease can be issued.
The CSOD Caltrans Lease Area and Site Improvements Project is a spin -off project
from the CSOD Facility Improvements Project, DP 8208, included in the fiscal year
2005 -2006 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) beginning on page GI -20. Attachment 1
shows the location of the Caltrans parcel, retaining wall, and Ducca House in relation to
the other CSOD facilities.
Staff has concluded that the Caltrans Lease Area and Site Improvements Project is
exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, since it involves minor
alterations of existing public facilities with negligible or no expansion of use beyond that
existing at this time and the demolition of a single - family residential unit. Approval of
this project will establish the Board of Directors' independent finding that the project is
exempt from CEQA.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Approve the CSOD Caltrans Lease Area and Site
Improvements Project, DP 8215, and direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the
Contra Costa County Clerk.
WENVRSEC \Position Papers \Berger\8215 CSOD Caltrans Lease Area CEQA & Consult Agreement.doc Page 2 of 3
DUCCA -
HOUSE — —
(DEMOLISH) ,,/' `" DUCCA
BLDQ
r
r.
RETAINING �'� " °°a ..�
WALL
(REPLACE) / -' •
/-
� MIDDLE YARD �
1 EXISTING 0
AREHOUS = i C
/.:
j
LOWER YARD
a .
i SMSTINO X •�� CALTRANS
o CREW
BUILDING LEASE PARCEL
CZD
� � ��f rte*
.�
AFIKINO ,�� 0� �� _ R
_ PROPETY LINE
CCCSD
D • '��o� sNG` ■umuum■ CALTRANS L
BOUNDARY
CAMINO DIABLO
CSOD CALTRANS LEASE AREA AND
SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, DP8215
ATTACHMENT 1 page 3 of 3
�1
N
s
•t
0
i
Q
J
h
i
w
ca
V
O
O
y
V
-0
OA
O
i
010
Q)
400
a
c
�a
olwok
I.S
W)
N
CO
a
0
v
a�
�o
a
to
o
N
tm
to
�
m
m c
i O
m 0
.�
O - 'a _
.� m F
U) V
C •viva �� O�
x O
L a± ■
ca 0 O V ° � LM O �
L i O
O �
LL
v O V Cl)
L
�1 CL
Q
Law
to i V i c� O
co 04C 0 CL
V00 D.V> �0 Qi=
cl
LO
w
w
°o
°o
0
CD
r
N
N
N
N
cl
DUCCA
HOUSE
(DEMOLISH) sic
RETAINING °"
° r
WALL /'• %%� %'
(REPLACE)
MIDDLE YARD
J.
AREHOuS
� ► / / . /PARKING � • �
,t
a -
E
cw FFS ;• • ♦ +QF �� CALTRANS
0 °t► � _ -- � � •♦
suaolN� '' r LEASE PARCEL
�
0 :.. QP
♦o6 o
ol
CcCSO
PARKING G ♦ PROPERTY LINE
,'I� `�� %�♦ f ♦•f ♦f�f� ° "ice' - - uu♦�fu■ CBO TRANSS LEASE
"
r
C A M I N O D I A s LO
CSOD CALTRANS LEASE AREA AND
SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, DP8215
0
ATTACHMENT 1
h*
a
4
9
14
I .",
'Y IP
t! i I '.a
! r
k
,r
Ea
..a
+V
Nkm
r
l�
f
'
h
e E'
_
E
t
{
Nkm
r
l�
w
0
i
Q
a�
ca
a�
J
V
O
O
O
V
c�
c
,o
i
v
a�
v
a�
0
C.
V
E
.°
v
ca
�a
s�
0
E
.i
a
CD
a�
V
O
a�
a�
i
a
LM
6%,
•
0
0
f+
i
a�
0
a
■ ■
F_
0
c�
F1
0
cn
•
a�
E
Cr
L
V
CY
0
.O
0
3
o ■
0 ca
MOVES >
�- .
ca �
3s
.10000 0
_ a)
4a a'
as o
MEMOM
ca ,�
L
.. L
.__
•
a�
L
a�
0
0
Low
�a
s
'IMMEN
o
E a-
0 m
-0 05
m
L
0
c
._
0
s
V
V
0
•
°o
co0
°o
■ ■
0
0
AMEN
'o
CL
m
E
a
O
•
V
V
4�
�o
a
r
w
LM
O
N
V
•
0
�
O
O
O
3
O
N
O
�
N
0
E
0
1.�
E
�
0.
V
x
"-
Q
•-
L
W
E
%I-
V
�
O
0
vMa
—
>
ov
'W
-W
0
0
o
L
c�
o
E
�
�
o
�E
0.
O
m
vvQ
�v
w
LM
O
N
V
•
v
a
0
o.
CL
m
it
,.
a
'o
L
m
r.
�
O
O
O
3
O
N
O
�
N
E
1.�
O
�
�
V
Cl.
vMa
�
o
o
E
o
�E
0.
O
CL
vvQ
v
a
0
o.
CL
m
it
,.
a
'o
L
m
,O
V
i
O
0
0
ca
3
Q
c�
O
N
O
•
CL
E
O
,O
0
W,
0
O
N
L
O
.O
E
O
Z
•
�
O
O
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
�
�
,O
V
i
O
0
0
ca
3
Q
c�
O
N
O
•
CL
E
O
,O
0
W,
0
O
N
L
O
.O
E
O
Z
•
yr �
Q �
O
y
ELI 0
� O
= V
V �►
O �
(� a a�
� > O
Cc
CL
Q V
L
•O
4. O
P1 LL
ca M
O crft
� 3
� O �
� y OO
O �
a� •i o
O
Q 4) 609�
• •
14" 1 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006 No.: 8.b.2) ENGINEERING
Type of Action: AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RBF CONSULTING FOR DESIGN OF
THE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS DIVISION (CSOD) CALTRANS LEASE
AREA AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT 8215
Submitted By: Initiating Dept✓Div.:
Don Berger, Associate Engineer Engineering / Environmental Services
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION.
D. Berger R. Schmidt C. Swanson A. 04ell Charles
General
ISSUE: Authorization by the Board of Directors is required for the General Manager to
execute professional service agreements for amounts greater than $50,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager to execute a Professional
Engineering Services Agreement with RBF Consulting in the amount of $60,000 for
design of the CSOD Caltrans Lease Area and Site Improvements Project, DP 8215.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The cost for RBF Consulting to complete the design is
$60,000. The total project cost including construction is $800,000.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: The Board may decline to authorize the
engineering services agreement. However, these services are needed in order to
design the improvements for the Caltrans lease area; evaluate and design
improvements for the retaining wall that is failing; and prepare plans for demolition of
the Ducca House, which has exceeded its useful lifespan. Design work needs to
proceed now in order to be able to bid the project and complete construction during the
upcoming construction season.
BACKGROUND: In February 2006, RBF Consulting completed a pre- design study for
the Caltrans lease area improvements including preparation of conceptual landscape
drawings to meet City of Walnut Creek requirements. Staff authorized an agreement of
$32,100 to complete this work.
An agreement for $60,000 has been negotiated with RBF to design the Caltrans lease
area improvements; evaluate and design improvements to the retaining wall; and
prepare plans for demolition of the Ducca House. RBF Consulting was selected for this
project because of their experience working on similar projects that interface with the
City of Walnut Creek and Caltrans and because of their experience completing the initial
work on this project.
N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Berger\8215 RBF Agreement 3- 16- 06.doc Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006
suvlect: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RBF CONSULTING FOR DESIGN
OF THE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS DIVISION (CSOD) CALTRANS
LEASE AREA AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT 8215
The CSOD Caltrans Lease Area and Site Improvements Project is a spin -off project
from the CSOD Facility Improvements Project, DP 8208, included in the fiscal year
2005 -2006 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) beginning on page GI -20.
In a separate position paper for this Board meeting, staff explained that this project is
exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. Board approval of that
position paper establishes this exemption.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize the General Manager to execute a
Professional Engineering Services Agreement with RBF Consulting in the amount of
$60,000 for design of the CSOD Caltrans Lease Area and Site Improvements Project,
DP 8215.
WENVRSEMPosition Papers \Berger\8215 RBF Agreement 3- 16- 06.doc Page 2 of 2
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 16, 2006 No.: 10.a. BUDGET AND FINANCE
Type of Action: RECEIVE ANNUAL REPORT
subject: RECEIVE THE 2005 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Submitted By:
Debbie Ratcliff, Controller
Initiating Dept /Div.:
Administrative /Finance & Accounting
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
D. Rat
V. IV graves
Charles . en
General M
ISSUE: The Deferred Compensation Plan Advisory Committee (Committee)
respectfully submits its 2005 Annual Report.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the Annual Report of the Deferred Compensation Plan
Advisory Committee for 2005 and provide any comments to staff.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: None
BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors approved the establishment of the Committee
in January 1982. The scope of activities of the Committee includes:
• Establishing internal administrative procedures
• Educating participants regarding the Plan
• Reviewing emergency withdrawal requests
• Reviewing investment performance of the Plan
• Submission of an annual report to the Board of Directors and Plan
participants
The Committee is made up of the following Departmental representatives:
Debbie Ratcliff, Controller — Chairperson
David Rolley, Accounting Technician III —Administrative
Michael Penny, Associate Engineer — Engineering
Roseanna Barrett, Administrative Secretary — Collection System Operations
Matthew Mahoney, Maintenance Planner — Plant Operations
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Receive the Annual Report of the Deferred
Compensation Plan Advisory Committee for 2005 and provide any comments to staff.
N:\ADMINSUP\ADMIN\POSPAPER\Annual.Report.2005.Def.Comp.doc
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT
JANUARY 2005 — DECEMBER 2005
The Deferred Compensation Plan Advisory Committee (the Committee) was
established by the Board of Directors to facilitate the internal administration of the
District's Deferred Compensation Plan. The scope of the Committee's activities
encompass the following:
• Establish internal District administrative procedures within the provisions of the
Deferred Compensation Plan document.
• Educate participants regarding the plan provisions by issuing a handbook which
summarizes the Deferred Compensation Plan and responding to questions from
participants.
• Review accountability by the Program Administrators, Hartford Life Insurance
Company (Hartford), Nationwide Retirement Solutions, and ICMA Retirement
Corporation (ICMA) and respond to participants' queries regarding accuracy or
propriety of account balances.
• Review participants' requests for emergency withdrawal of funds and make
recommendations for acceptance or denial to the Board of Directors.
• Review investment performance of the Deferred Compensation Plan on an
annual basis.
During the period of January 2005 through December 2005, the Committee addressed
all of the activities included in its scope of responsibilities through the conscientious
efforts of all of the Committee members.
The performance of Hartford, Nationwide Retirement Solutions, and ICMA in
administering the Deferred Compensation Plan during the 2005 report is considered to
be satisfactory. The performance results of the Hartford, Nationwide Retirement
Solutions, and IMCA stock and bond investments for the calendar year 2005 follow.
N:\ADMINSUP\ADMIN\POSPAPER\Annual.Report.2005.Def.Comp.doc
Please note the following when reviewing Plan results:
■ Market index benchmarks have been provided for comparative purposes only.
These indexes reflect broad based changes in the market conditions based on
average performance. Indices are unmanaged and reflect no fees or expenses and
are not available for direct investment.
■ Rate of returns quoted by providers and fund managers include reinvestment of
capital appreciation (depreciation), plus realized gain (losses), dividends and
interest income.
■ All rate of return performance results are net of annual asset -based fees, which
include fund manager fees and expenses, marketing fees and plan administrative
fees.
■ In general, plan administrative fees are charged by the carriers and differ between
the carriers. The basic plan administrative fees are as follows:
Nationwide
An annual plan administrative fee of .29 percent is
deducted from the participants account and is based on
the participant's account balance.
ICMA
There is no plan administrative fee.
Hartford
The plan administrative fee is .25 percent for all funds
with the exception of the General Account.
For additional information on fee charges consult with your plan provider. The
above information is general information. Additional fees may be incurred for other
items such as transfers and withdrawals. See Attachment 1 to this report.
■ Results shown represent past performance and are not a guarantee of future
performance. Ask your Plan Representative for a current prospectus for each fund
in which you are interested. The current prospectus presents more complete
information about the fund including fund charges and expenses. Read it carefully
before investing in that option under the Plan.
Helpful Definitions
■ Balanced Fund is a mutual fund that invests in a combination of common stock,
preferred stock, bonds and short term bonds, to provide both income and capital
appreciation, while managing volatility and avoiding excessive risk.
■ Blue Chip Company is used in the context of general stock market investments.
Large and creditworthy company. Company renowed for the quality and wide
acceptance of its products or services, and for its ability to make money and pay
dividends.
■ Dollar Cost Averaging or Constant Dollar Plan is a method of purchasing
securities by investing a fixed amount of money at set intervals. The investor buys
more shares when the price is low and fewer shares when the price is high, thus
reducing the average cost.
■ Dow Jones Industrial Average or DJIA is the best known U.S. index of stocks. It
is comprised of 30 actively traded blue -chip stocks, primarily industrials, including
stocks that trade on the New York Stock Exchange. The Dow, as it is called, is an
indicator of how the largest U.S. companies are performing. Measuring the Down
Jones Industrial Average is used to gauge the direction of the stock market.
■ Indexing is a passive instrument strategy consisting of the construction of a
portfolio of stocks designed to track the total return performance of an index of
stocks.
■ Lehman Brothers Bond Index is an unmanaged list of U.S. Treasury/Agency and
investment grade corporate debt securities. It is used as a general measure of
performance of fixed income securities.
■ MSCI Europe, Australia /Asia, and far East or EAFE index is the European,
Australian, and Far East stock index, computed by Morgan Stanley Capital
International. This index is used to measure the general performance of the
international market.
■ Model Portfolio fund is a fund that consists of a combination of stocks, bonds and
cash equivalents in a preset or predetermined ratio based on market risk tolerance.
Model Portfolios are rebalanced, typically every quarter, to maintain adherence to
the preset ratio.
■ Mutual Funds are pools of money that are managed by an investment company
and regulated by the Investment Company Act of 1940. The investment company
purchases securities which become jointly owned by its shareholders. The fund's
portfolio is managed by a professional money manager. They offer investors a
variety of goals depending on the fund and can invest in equity, debt, cash, real
estate, options and futures.
■ NASDAQ (once an acronym for National Association of Securities Dealers
Automated Quotation System) is a computerized system that provides price
quotations to market participants about the more actively traded common stock
issues in the over the counter market. This market is comprised of securities not
listed on a stock or bond exchange. Large technology stocks have a major effect
on this index value. The NASDAQ stock market is comprised of two separate
markets, namely the NASDAQ National Market, which trades large, active securities
and the NASDAQ Smallcap Market that trades emerging growth companies. The
NASDAQ market includes approximately 5,000 common stocks in the system.
■ Standard & Poor's 500 or S &P 500 is an index of blue chip stocks, which
measures changes in stock market conditions based on the average performance of
500 widely held common stocks. The S &P 500 is one of the most widely used
benchmarks of U.S. equity performance. This index tracks industrial, transportation,
financial and utility stocks with heavy emphasis on industrial companies.
■ Treasury Bill or T Bill is a discounted government security that matures in one
year or less. It is a negotiable debt obligation issued by the U.S. government.
CCCSD Deferred Comp Distribution
BY ADMINISTRATOR AND INVESTMENT TYPE
CCCSD Deferred Comp Distribution
BY ADMINISTRATOR
December 31, 2005
HARTFORD
$8,339,864 NATIONWIDE
13.7% $10,523,181
17.3%
ICMA 401(a)
$12,722,163
21.0%
ICMA 457
$29,124,984
48.0%
■NATIONWIDE ■ ICMA 457 ❑ ICMA 401 (a) ❑HARTFORD
CCCSD Deferred Comp Distribution
BY INVESTMENT TYPE
December 31, 2005
SAVINGS
$20,044,983
33.0%
STOCK
$31,930,799
52.6%
BALANCED
FUNDS
BONDS
CALENDAR
R ENDED DECEMBER
31, 2
1.5%
NATIONWIDE
INVESTMENT TYPE
%
RETIREMENT
ICMA 457
ICMA 401(a)
HARTFORD
TOTAL
STOCK
52.6%
$7,247,803
$13,634,974
$7,300,005
$3,748,017
$31,930,799
BONDS
1.5%
382,693
206,033
94,924
245,544
929,194
BALANCED FUNDS
12.9%
227,135
4,699,236
2,767,542
111,303
7,805,216
SAVINGS
33.0%
2,665,550
10,584,741
2,559,692
4,235,000
20,044,983
TOTAL INVESTMENTS
100.0%
$10,523,181
$29,124,984
$12,722,163
$8,339,864
$60,710,192
CCCSD Deferred Comp Distribution
BY ADMINISTRATOR
December 31, 2005
HARTFORD
$8,339,864 NATIONWIDE
13.7% $10,523,181
17.3%
ICMA 401(a)
$12,722,163
21.0%
ICMA 457
$29,124,984
48.0%
■NATIONWIDE ■ ICMA 457 ❑ ICMA 401 (a) ❑HARTFORD
CCCSD Deferred Comp Distribution
BY INVESTMENT TYPE
December 31, 2005
SAVINGS
$20,044,983
33.0%
STOCK
$31,930,799
52.6%
BALANCED
FUNDS
BONDS
$7,805,216
$929,194
12.9%
1.5%
0 STOCK ■BONDS I-] BALANCED FUNDS ❑SAVINGS
CCCSD Deferred Comp Stocks and Mutual Funds
Calendar Year Ended
December 31, 2005
Rate of Return ( %)
Market Index Benchmarks
MSCI Europe, Australia /Asia, and Far East (EAFE) 14.01%
Dow Jones Industrial Average 7.13%
Standard & Poor's 500 4.91%
Nationwide - Source: Available Investment Options Without Plan Charges, less .29%
Nationwide plan administration fee as of 12/31/05.
EuroPacific Growth Fund
20.83%
Fidelity Contrafund
15.94%
Janus Adviser Forty S*
14.31%
Growth Fund of America
13.94%
Oppenheimer Global Fund A*
13.54%
Vanguard US Growth
10.86%
Federated Kaufmann Fund K
10.55%
Templeton Foreign Fund
10.34%
JP Morgan Mid Cap Value A*
8.58%
Vanguard Primecap
8.20%
Scudder Dreman High Return Equity A
7.43%
Neuberger & Berman Socially Responsive
7.29%
AIM Mid Cap Core Equity A
7.14%
Gartmore Total Return Fund A
6.79%
Vanguard Windsor II
6.72%
Investment Company of America
6.58%
Fidelity Magellan Fund
6.13%
Fidelity Equity Income Fund
5.45%
DFA U.S. Micro Cap Portfolio
5.40%
Vanguard Institutional Index
4.61%
Brown Capital Management, Inc., Small Company
4.54%
Janus Fund
3.69%
Washington Mutual Investors
3.26%
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Value R*
3.04%
Fidelity Growth & Income Fund
2.42%
American Century Ultra Fund
1.83%
Franklin Balance Sheet Investment
N/A
Janus Adviser Capital Appreciation Fund
N/A
Mutual Beacon Fund
N/A
AIM Dynamics Fund
N/A
Janus Worldwide Fund
N/A
New fund effective 1/28/05.
N/A Fund closed effective 1/28/05.
CCCSD Deferred Comp Stocks and Mutual Funds
Calendar Year Ended
December 31, 2005
Rate of Return ( %)
Market Index Benchmarks
MSCI Europe, Australia /Asia, and Far East (EAFE) 14.01%
Dow Jones Industrial Average 7.13%
Standard & Poor's 500 4.91%
Nationwide (cont'd)- Source: Available Investment Options Without Plan Charges, less .29%
Nationwide plan administration fee as of 12/31/05.
Asset Allocation Funds
10.26%
Gartmore Investor Destinations Funds
4.55%
Aggressive
7.56%
Moderately Aggressive
6.75%
Moderate
5.11%
Moderately Conservative
4.11%
Conservative
2.91%
The Gartmore Investor Destinations Funds are designed to provide diversification and asset allocation across
several types of investments and asset classes.
Balanced Funds
Income Fund of America 3.12%
Vanguard Wellington Fund 6.53%
Fidelity Puritan Fund 4.38%
Info only: (Existing balances will remain in the phased -out funds until moved by the participant.)
Fidelity Independence Fund*
10.26%
American Century Growth Fund*
4.55%
American Century Select Fund*
0.57%
Rate of return was obtained from the fund manager, less .29% National Deferred plan administration fee.
CCCSD Deferred Comp Stocks and Mutual Funds
Calendar Year Ended
December 31, 2005
Rate of Return ( %)
Market Index Benchmarks
MSCI Europe, Australia /Asia, and Far East (EAFE) 14.01%
Dow Jones Industrial Average 7.13%
Standard & Poor's 500 4.91%
ICMA - Source: ICMA Retirement Corporation Fund Performance Report as of 12/31/2005.
Vantaoeooint Funds
VP International
16.88%
VP Aggressive Opportunities
13.21%
VP Overseas Equity Index Class II
13.03%
VP Mid /Small Company Index Class II
9.87%
VP Broad Market Index Class II
6.27%
VP Growth & Income
6.02%
VP Equity Income
5.76%
VP Growth
4.86%
VP 500 Stock Index Class II
4.57%
Balanced Funds
Vantagepoint Model Portfolio Funds
VP All Equity Growth
8.49%
VP Long Term Growth
7.24%
VP Traditional Growth
5.79%
VP Conservative Growth
4.31%
VP Savings Oriented
3.06%
Vantagepoint Milestone Portfolio Funds*
VP Milestone 2035
8.13%
VP Milestone 2040
8.04%
VP Milestone 2030
7.68%
VP Milestone 2025
7.18%
VP Milestone 2020
6.48%
VP Milestone 2015
5.93%
VP Milestone 2010
4.65%
VP Milestone Retirement
3.39%
Other Balanced Funds
VT Fidelity Puritan
4.67%
VP Asset Allocation
4.54%
Milestone funds, which became effective 2/5/05, automatically become more conservative as the account ages.
Vantagepoint Funds (VP) are certain funds available through ICMA. These funds are sponsored by the ICMA
Retirement Corporation and registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
CCCSD Deferred Comp Stocks and Mutual Funds
Calendar Year Ended
December 31, 2005
Rate of Return ( %)
Market Index Benchmarks
MSCI Europe, Australia /Asia, and Far East (EAFE) 14.01%
Dow Jones Industrial Average 7.13%
Standard & Poor's 500 4.91%
ICMA (cont'd) - Source: ICMA Retirement Corporation Fund Performance Report as of 12/31/2005.
VantaaeTrust Mutual Fund Series
VT Rainier Small /Mid Cap Equity
17.53%
VT Fidelity Diversified International
17.23%
VT Fidelity Contrafund
16.23%
VT American Century Real Estate
15.99%
VT Fidelity Small Cap Retirement
9.17%
VT T. Rowe Price Small Cap Value
8.56%
VT T. Rowe Price Small Cap Stock
8.23%
VT Templeton Growth A
8.15%
VT Fidelity Magellan
6.42%
VT Hotchkis & Wiley Large Cap Value
6.41%
VT T. Rowe Price Growth Stock
6.33%
VT American Century Value
5.03%
VT Calvert Social Investment
4.16%
VT Lord Abbett Large Company Value
3.33%
VT American Century Ultra
2.12%
VT Gabelli Value
0.02%
VantageTrust Mutual Fund Series (VT) invests in a third -party mutual fund which is not affiliated with the
ICMA Retirement Corporation.
CCCSD Deferred Comp Stocks and Mutual Funds
Calendar Year Ended
December 31, 2005
Rate of Return ( %)
Market Index Benchmarks
MSCI Europe, Australia/Asia, and Far East (EAFE) 14.01%
Dow Jones Industrial Average 7.13%
Standard & Poor's 500 4.91%
Hartford - Source: Investment Choices Performance Plan Summary Statement as of 12/31/2005.
Janus Advisor International Growth
31.40%
Hartford Small Company
20.71%
Putnam International Opportunities
18.00%
MFS Utilities
16.53%
Hartford MidCap
16.49%
Hartford Capital Appreciation
15.26%
Hartford International Opportunities
14.33%
American Century International Growth
13.05%
Hartford Global Health
12.15%
Putnam Vista
11.93%
Janus Enterprise
11.13%
Hartford Global Technology
10.88%
Skyline Special Equities
10.61%
Franklin Small -Mid Cap Growth
10.27%
Hartford Stock
9.35%
Janus Twenty
9.15%
Putnam Global Equity
8.42%
Fidelity Advisor Growth Opportunities
8.17%
Fidelity Advisor Growth & Income
6.76%
Hartford Dividend and Growth
5.70%
Scudder Growth & Income
5.66%
Janus Worldwide
5.58%
AIM Small Company Growth
5.23%
AIM Financial Services
5.01%
American Century Value
4.77%
American Century Income & Growth
4.53%
Hartford Index
4.24%
MFS Massachusetts Investors Growth
3.62%
Dreyfus Premier Third Century
3.00%
American Century Equity Income
2.20%
American Century Ultra Fund
1.86%
AIM Technology
1.55%
MFS Capital Opportunities
1.10%
AIM Leisure
-1.48%
Balanced Funds
Janus Balanced
7.48%
Dreyfus Life Time Growth
7.35%
Hartford Advisers
6.97%
Calvert Social Balanced
5.39%
Fidelity Advisor Balanced
4.71%
Dreyfus Life Time Growth & Income
4.38%
Dreyfus Life Time Income
1.16%
CCCSD Deferred Comp Bond Performance
Calendar Year Ended
December 31, 2005
Rate of Return ( %)
Market Index Benchmark
Lehman Aggregate Bond Index 2.43%
Nationwide - Source: Available Investment Options Without Plan Charges, less .29%
Nationwide plan administration fee as of 12/31/05.
Scudder High Income Fund A 3.71%
Vanguard Total Bond Index Adm 2.20%
Bond Fund of America 1.65%
ICMA - Source: ICMA Retirement Corporation Fund Performance Report as of 12/31/2005.
Vantagepoint Fund
VT PIMCO High Yield 4.36%
VT PIMCO Total Return 2.63%
VP Core Bond Index Class II 2.17%
VP U.S. Government Securities 1.05%
VantageTrust Mutual Fund Series (VT) invests in a third -party mutual fund which is not affiliated with the
ICMA Retirement Corporation.
Vantagepoint Funds (VP) are certain funds available through ICMA. These funds are sponsored by the ICMA
Retirement Corporation and registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Hartford - Source: Investment Choices Performance Plan Summary Statement as of 12/31/2005.
Putnam High Yield Advantage
2.99%
Hartford Total Return Bond
2.19%
Hartford Mortgage Securities
2.11%
MFS High Income
2.09%
Dreyfus Premier Core Bond
1.41%
CCCSD Deferred Comp Saving Performance
Calendar Year Ended
December 31, 2005
Rate of Return ( %)
Market Index Benchmark
90 Day T -Bill 3.06%
Nationwide - Average annual yield rate.
Stable Value Fund
3.66%
5 YR CDs
3.38%
3 YR CDs
3.18%
Liquid Savings
2.13%
ICMA - Source: ICMA Retirement Corporation Fund Performance Report as of 12/31/2005.
Vantagepoint Funds
VP Money Market 2.70%
Plus Funds
Plus Fund (401a) 4.43%
Plus Fund (457) 4.43%
Vantagepoint Funds (VP) are certain funds available through ICMA. These funds are sponsored by the ICMA
Retirement Corporation and registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Hartford - Source: Investment Choices Performance Plan Summary Statement as of 12131/2005.
General Account 4.08%
Money Market 2.59%
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
SUMMARY OF FEES — ATTACHMENT 1
AS OF MARCH 2006
FEES CHARGED BY PROVIDERS
(Based on account balance)
Plan Fees
Annual Plan Administrative Fee
Fund Expenses
Stable Value Fund
3 &5 YR CD's, and Liquid Savings
Plus Fund Management
General Account (Savings)*
Model Portfolio Fund Fee (Total Fee Charged)
FEES CHARGED BY THE FUND MANAGERS
Fund Fee
PROVIDERS
NATIONWIDE
ICMA
HARTFORD
0.29%
NONE
0.25 %*
0.20%
N/A
N/A
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.47%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00%
N/A
0.99 -1.20%
N/A
0.05-1.95% 0.23-1.44% 0.43-1.68%
These expenses are charged by the fund managers which include Advisory Fees, 12b -1 Fees,
Operating Expenses and Other Fees charged by the individual funds. These fees and expenses
differ for each fund invested. As a general rule, the higher the potential reward, the higher the risk,
the higher the fee. The reverse is also generally true, the lower the potential reward, the lower the
risk, the lower the fee.
* Hartford's General Account (Savings) is not subject to plan fees.
NAADMIMFlNANCE \Deferred Comp 2005 Summary.doc Page 13 of 13