The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAPITAL PROJECTS ACTION SUMMARY 08-30-11 � Central Contra Costa Sanitary District m � '" ° � � �"ro ro � � � � � � m m A W J 0 W SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT Bo�oF�zr�cTOr�s: CAPITAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE B�RB�R��H°`-�TT Presldent J.�,1IES.�.,\EJEDL I' Pr�esldentPr�o Tem A C T I O N S U M M A R Y ��H�ELR�r��rLL ,1 L�RIO,1 L,1IE.\ESI.\I D�L7DR.iI�7LLI�!1LS Chair McGill PHOlE: �9�5��8-9500 Member' HOCkett F��: �9as�6�6-�all ��.ce�rb°alsa�r.org Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:00 p.m. Second Floor Conference Room 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California PRESENT: Mike McGill, Barbara Hockett, Ann Farrell, Ba Than, Tad Pilecki, Alex Rozul, Christina Gee 1. Call Meeting to Order Chair McGill called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. 2. Public Comments None. 3. Review Capital Program Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Year-End Financials Director of Engineering Ann Farrell stated that the Board would receive the year- end status report at the September 1, 2011 Board meeting. She reported that total expenditures were $28 million, about the same as what was budgeted at $28.5 million. Unfortunately, revenue was $3 million less than budgeted, primarily due to reduced capacity fees from new construction. This resulted in a deficit of$11.6 million instead of the budgeted$8.8 million deficit and a resultant drawdown of$11.6 million from the Sewer Construction Fund. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed the financials and received the report. Capital Projects Committee August 30, 2011 Page 2 4. Review Project Closeout memo Ms. Farrell discussed the contents of the memo, detailing the completion of 20 capital improvement projects during the 2010-11 fiscal year, and the subsequent return of$605,995 in unspent funds to the Treatment P/ant, Collection System and General Improvements Programs for allocation to other projects. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed the memo and received the report. 5. Review revised Capital Program Authorization Limits (Table 1) needed for FY 2011-12 based on end of FY 2010-11 financial data (Item 10.c. in Board Binder) Ms. Farrell stated that the amount of actua/carryovers has resulted in the need for a higher authorization limit to accommodate the planned level of expenditures. COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval of revised limits. 6. Discuss staff and Board authority limits for Capital-Project-related items and consider increased authority where appropriate Ms. Farrell noted that, at the suggestion of several members of the Board, a review of staff authority and comparison with other agencies had been conducted. It was found that many comparable agencies have a General Manager authority limit of$100,000 as compared to the District's of$50,000 or $15,000 or$25,000, depending on the type of contract or agreement. She suggested a review of all General Manager authority limits and a report to the Board to determine their interest in possibly increasing the General Manager authority to $100,000 for all types of contracts and agreement. Ms. Farrell a/so noted that staff would still recommend that the Board consider delegating to the General Manager the ability to allow subcontractor substitutions. This would avoid the need to wait for a Board meeting when a contractor wishes to make a substitution and possibly risk delaying a project. The comparable agencies surveyed have delegated this function to staff. COMMITTEE ACTION: Concurred with staff's recommendation to delegate subcontractor substitutions to the General Manager. Directed staff to bring a Position Paper to the Board for their concurrence. Also concurred with staff's suggestion that a report be made to the full Board on General Manager authority limits with discussion of raising those to $100,000 for consultant agreements, construction contracts, joint powers agreements with other jurisdictions and the full range of financial agreements into which the District enters. Capital Projects Committee August 30, 2011 Page 3 7. Review Capital Project expenditure versus contractor costs Ms. Farrell stated that the total payment to contractors over the /ast five fiscal years, including change orders, was calculated to be 68% of the capital expenditures for all programs of the Capital Improvements Program. She described this as a metric that is used to quantify staff's goal to be efficient in the delivery of projects. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed the costs and received the report. 8. Discuss how adding the currently-unbudgeted construction of the Concord Recycled Water Landscape Project and development of the Martinez Recycled Water Refinery Feasibility Study to the Recycled Water Program of the Capital Budget could be accommodated, if the Board desires (Preliminary work would start in FY 2011-12, and construction of the Concord project would occur in FY 2012-13). The matter of reviewing funding options for these projects was referred to the Capital Projects Committee by the Recycled Water Committee at its August 18, 2011 meeting. Chair McGill stated that he had no preference whether the funding was accommodated in addition to or in lieu of other projects and said that staffing would also likely be a consideration in the ability to accommodate the added project. Ms. Farrell identified three candidate projects for deferral: Incinerator Wet and Dry Scrubber Replacement, Lower Orinda Pumping Station Force Main Improvements and Pleasant Hill/Grayson Creek Capacity Improvements. She noted that the /atter was the /east like/y candidate, as it is furthest a/ong in its fruition, though all three could be deferred at least one year to accommodate either funding or staffing constraints. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed options for modifying the FY 2011-12 Capital Budget and Plan to accommodate the construction of the Concord Landscape Project and development of the Feasibility Study for the Martinez Refinery Feasibility Study which are currently unbudgeted, if the Board wishes to approve these projects. Determined deferral of other nonessential project(s) to be an option, which will be further examined at the time of the next Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) approval, unless funds are needed sooner, in which case a special Position Paper would be brought to the Board. *9. Review Position Paper authorizing the General Manager to execute an amendment to an existing agreement with Complete Project Solutions, Inc. to increase the cost ceiling from $60,000 to $270,000 for professional engineering Capital Projects Committee August 30, 2011 Page 4 services for design of seismic upgrades for the Pump and Blower Building, District Project 7291 (Item 9.a. in Board Binder) Senior Engineer Ba Than presented a slideshow of the seismic retrofit pre-design of the Pump and Blower Building and Machine Shop (attached). He stated that, initially, the retrofit of the Machine Shop was a separate project, but, due to the proximity of the buildings to one another and the danger of the buildings coming into contact with each other in a seismic event, it was added to the Pump and Blower Building project. This will be the first seismic project design contract to be brought to the Board. COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board authorization. 10. Reports and Announcements None. 11. Suggestions for future agenda items Chair McGill suggested that the next Capital Projects Committee meeting be held at the CSO campus in Walnut Creek. 12. Adjournment — at 3:58 p.m. * Attachment