Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAPITAL PROJECTS ACTION SUMMARY 11-08-13Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Protecting public health and the environment 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553-4392 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA s4- �IESA.NEJEDLF SANITARY DISTRICT R,vs,ak„ t CAPITAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE DAF7D R. IT=1.4.IIS' R,vs,ak„tRroT�m R4 FL H.(' r -EF ACTION SUMMARY 111CH�EL R. 1IC(TILL TAD J RILECBZ PHO.\E: (925) 228 -9500 Chair Pilecki FAI: (925' 676 -7211 www. ce�rtralsa�r. org Member Causey Friday, November 8, 2013 8:30 a.m. Collection System Operations Conference Room 1250 Springbrook Road Walnut Creek, CA 94597 PRESENT: Chair Tad Pilecki, Member Paul Causey, General Manager Roger Bailey, Director of Operations Curt Swanson, Capital Projects Division Manager Andrew Antkowiak, Senior Engineer Sasha Mestetsky, Senior Engineer Alex Rozul, Accountant Amal Lyon, Collection System Operations (CSO) Division Manager Paul Seitz, Field Operations Superintendent Steve Sauter (left after Item 3.), Maintenance Crew Leader Don Turk (left after Item 3.), Senior Administrative Technician Christina Gee 1. Call Meeting to Order Chair Pilecki called the meeting to order at 8:33 a.m. 2. Public Comments None. *3. Review of Collection System Operations Best Asset Management Practices Program. Staff provided background (attached) on Collection System Operations (CSO) staffing and tools used in asset management, including but not limited to its Construction Maintenance Management Software (CMMS), Closed Circuit Television (CCTV), and Geographical Data System (GDI). They also provided samples of reports generated by staff (attached). CSO Division Manager Paul Seitz stated that a mock audit will be scheduled in Spring 2014, to include officials from the Regional Water Quality Control Board Capital Projects Committee November 8, 2013 Page 2 and other agencies. Mr. Seitz also noted that the District's Accela program has had to be customized to meet the needs of staff, and the use of iPads or electronic notebooks has been considered, given that the laptops currently in use are prone to damage, cumbersome because of their size, and inefficient because of their slow startup times. It was noted that data entry automation would be an important feature in a replacement tool, as it reduces human error and saves staff time. Senior Engineer Alex Rozul reported that staff is preparing to release a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a new CMMS system in February or March 2014. Member Causey noted that whatever system is chosen should be able to communicate with the District's other software programs. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed the program and provided input to staff. 4. Review current Capital Projects monthly and quarterly reports and discuss Committee needs for additional reports. Member Causey stated that he was concerned with the differing amounts of allocated versus actual spending in the Ten -Year Plan and stated his belief that the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) needs to reflect the real project costs. He believed that when the amounts do not match, or if a project changes significantly in scope, the Committee should be informed why. He also asked whether allocations could be eliminated altogether, to which Chair Pilecki responded that allocations act as a control to assess a project in terms of budget. Following a discussion about balancing Board Member concerns regarding the Capital Projects budgets and other costs such as the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL), General Manager Roger Bailey suggested that staff put together a list of priorities and associated costs, so the Committee may take a comprehensive look at the policies. Mr. Bailey also noted that staff will put together a report on prioritizing projects. how projects are developed within the scope of the CIP, included in the budget, and placed in order of priority. Member Causey suggested that there be a list of performance metrics to evaluate the success of a project. The Committee and staff formed a preliminary list, including functionality, timely completion, cost within the budget, and public satisfaction. Chair Pilecki noted that the metrics should be weighted, meaning the District should not, in its efforts to meet these criteria, lose focus on its bottom -line goals such as reducing overflows and providing customer service. Member Causey noted that the District should consider a two -year budget, to which Mr. Bailey responded that staff has begun studying this, including surveying other agencies on their budgeting process. This study will be brought back to the Board and could come via the Capital Projects Committee. Capital Projects Committee November 8, 2013 Page 3 The Committee requested receiving the Cash Flow Analysis, Change Order Log, Quarterly Reports, and Bid Schedules on a quarterly basis. Member Causey noted that the reports would be more useful to him in graph form, with all four programs shown separately and one cumulative graph. Chair Pilecki suggested holding yearly Committee meetings in January, when staff has expenditures, and May, before the construction season begins. Member Causey stated that he would prefer to schedule regular meetings, possibly monthly, and cancel them when unnecessary. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed the reports. Requested that if a project is over budget by a certain amount, the Committee should be informed. Directed that staff formulate a list of proposed performance metrics by which to measure the success of a project. Requested receiving reports on a quarterly basis. In addition to the above reports requested receiving financial statements variance reports. Requested to discuss how projects are prioritized, and evaluate the pros and cons of switching to a two -year budget. Directed staff to schedule a Committee meeting in January 2014 and May 2014 and possibly set a regular meeting schedule. *5. Discuss current process of handling change orders. Senior Engineer Sasha Mestetsky gave a presentation on the current process of handling change orders (attached). Chair Pilecki expressed concern with allowing a 15% contingency at the General Manager's discretion on top of the 15% construction contingency authorized by the Board during construction project award. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reviewed the process. 6. Announcements None. 7. Suggestions for future agenda items Currently, the Committee is scheduled to meet once more in 2013 on December 11. The Committee asked that, before a new Committee is formed in January, the following issues be resolved: • Discuss project prioritization process used in development of Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) (requested by Chair Pilecki ( Pilecki)) • Discuss project variance procedures ( Pilecki) Capital Projects Committee November 8, 2013 Page 4 • Discuss reducing General Manager's change order authority from $100,000 to $50,000 (Pilecki) • Review the entire authorities table (Causey) • Discuss the possibility of revoking the General Manager's extra 15% project contingency on top of 15% construction project contingency (Pilecki) • Discuss streamlining the CIB /CIP process (Pilecki) • Receive update on the IT Master Plan (Causey) • Review and ratify proposed Committee Charter (Causey) The Committee also wished to consider the following items, but noted they may not be feasible to consider before the formation of the new Committee in January: • Discuss possibly revising the way the City of Concord is billed (Pilecki) • Review how other agencies conduct their budgeting process (Pilecki) Other items discussed earlier in the meeting: • Formulate performance metrics by which to measure the success of a project (Causey) • Receive Cash Flow Analysis, Change Order Log, Quarterly Reports, and Bid Schedules reports on a quarterly basis (Pilecki) • Receive list of the District's financial priorities and associated costs to discuss possible policy changes (Bailey) • Receive and discuss a study on the pros and cons of switching to a two -year budget (Causey) • Schedule Committee meetings in January 2014 and May 2014 (Pilecki) 8. Adjournment — at 12:00 p.m. * Attachment All CAPITAL PROJECT COMMITTEE MEETING November 8, 2013 Item #3 — Discussion Notes Introductions ➢ Introduce Field Operation Superintendents o Steve Sauter — Collection System o Don Rhoads — Pumping Stations (Absent) ➢ Introduce Supervisors • Dante Marchetti — Rodding • Tifton Gantt — Construction o Ed Silva — Hydro o Chris Johnsen — CCTV o Leo Gonzalez — Pumping Stations o Fleet — Nick Wright ➢ Introduce Tech Services in attendance • Alex Rozul — Senior Engineer • Don Turk — Maintenance Crew Leader ➢ CSO general information • There is a staff of 64 personnel at CSO • Our work groups include: Administration, Safety, Construction, Hydrovac, Rodding, CCTV, Locating, Pumping Stations, Fleet, Recycled Water and Technical Services • CSO's Primary functions are: ■ Cleaning and repairing the collection system ■ Maintaining maintenance records ■ Gather CCTV data • Provide input / guidance to Capital Projects ■ Provide training for personnel — safety, equipment and emergencies Asset Management ➢ Tools CSO uses to formulate decisions that makeup Collection System Asset Management: o CMMS • CCTV • GDI • Collection System Asset Management Plan • Forcemain Asset Management Plan • Consultant Reports and Assessments ■ Cathodic Protection Assesments ■ Sewer Cleaning Effectiveness Assessment ■ Quality Assurance and Quality Control Assessment o Sewer System Management Plan 3. • Collection System Master Plan • Cathodic Protection Consultant Report • Capital Improvement Plan • Capital Improvement Budget ➢ In regard to the Collections System and Forcemain Asset Management Plans discussed a couple of workshops ago, today I would primarily like to focus on: • Our Construction Maintenance Management Software (CMMS) • Our CCTV Program • Our GDI System • Briefly discuss each of these tools and then pull them up on the monitor to put them to use. ➢ CMMS • Our CMMS system is what we use to generate and track our work orders. Work orders can be generated for Rodding, Hydro, Construction, Locating and CCTV. • The system we use at the District is called ACCELA. We have used it successfully since 2000. We are in the process of replacing ACCELA with a new CMMS that is compatible with an ESRI platform • Working with Brown and Caldwell on RFP • The budget for our new CMMS system is $250,000. • The project is scheduled to be completed by 2015. ➢ CCTV Program • District CCTV — used for QA/QC, Line acceptance as part of new construction, point repairs, overflows and stoppages ■ We own (4) CCTV trucks — (2) CCTV on daily basis, (1) Permaliner Truck, (1) is reaching the end of its useful life. • Roto Rooter CCTV Contract — used to perform a District Wide CCTV survey. • Annual budget of 1 million in Capital Improvement Budget • Complete approximately 750,000 linear feet (142 miles) per year • Entire collection system has been CCTV'd once • Roto Rooter now re- CCTVing trouble areas. CSO to review and asses for any changes • Roto Rooter has found 3 stoppages this year that could have resulted in overflows. • They produce over 450 work orders per year • In my opinion, looking inside a pipe is the best assessment tool we have. This Capital project and previous phases may have prevented more overflows than any other project. Continue to fund this capital project. ,,` f ➢ GDI System • This system is managed by the Engineering Support Group of Capital Projects. • It is a Geographical Data System for the District. • It is used for mapping, reviewing maintenance records, reviewing CCTV reports, looking up as- builts. • This system is in place for every line segment in the District. • This tool is used everyday by CSO and Engineering. • As previously mentioned our system will be transitioned to an ESRI based platform. • This will increase the efficiency at CSO tremendously due to the fact that it will be able to produce maps for the field crews. • One of the requirements for the CMMS system is that it is an ESRI Platinum Partner. This will ensure that all updates to either the CMMS or ESRI will be compatible with each other. 3 WEEKLY REPORT FROM 10/2/13 to 10/9/13 ACCIDENTS: 0 INJURIES: 0 OVERFLOWS/ WEEK: 1 Occurred on 10/4/13 at #2 Lloyd Lane in Orinda 71A7 M22 to M22.2. This line was plugged with roots 2' D/S of M22.2 causing a 10 gal o/f out of M22.2. This was discovered by one of our Rodding crews while responding to a call at that address at 10:15AM. This line was last cleaned on 6/1/2012 on a 12 month Rod schedule. The map shows this line to be 8" PVC. After tv it is actually 6" VCP. It was removed from the 12 month schedule after the acceptance the U/S line segment which is new 8" HDPE on 3/28/12M20 to M22.2 is now back on a 12 month Rod schedule. OVERFLOWS / MONTH: 1 OVERFLOWS THIS CALENDER YEAR TO DATE: 31 OVERFLOWS LAST YEAR AT THIS TIME: 30 LAST YEAR: 0 RUNNING 12: 52 STOPPAGES/WEEK: 1 Occurred on 10/7/13 at # 3136 Ptarmigan Dr. in Rossmoor 77A2 M160 to M58. M58 was found to be standing by one of our Hydro crews while setting up to clean this line from a Roto Rooter work order at 7:30AM. This line is 6" ACP and was last cleaned on 9/24/2010 on a Rod routine schedule. We will not make any schedule adjustments until we review the results of the tv inspection. STOPPAGES/ MONTH: 1 CALL OUTS/ WEEK: 10 CALL OUTS / MONTH : 10 RESPONSE TIME/ WEEK: 35 MIN RESPONSE TIME / MONTH: 35 MIN. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District October 4, 2013 TO: ROGER S. BAILEY, GENERAL MANAGER VIA: PAUL A. SEITZ, COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS DIVISION MANAGER ?p,-e;r FROM: GRACE B. VALDEPENAS, CSO ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT' SUBJECT: CSOD FIELD OPERATIONS END OF MONTH DATA SUMMARIES - SEPTEMBER 2013 Enclosed are the following charts and reports for the month of SEPTEMBER: 1. 4 -year Overflow Monthly and Running Totals 2. Category 1 Overflow Totals for the past 5 years 3. Monthly Sewer System Overflow Self- Monitoring Report 4. 2013 Overflow Causes 5. 2013 Completed Monthly Scheduled Cleaning: Rodding — 155,902 Hydro — 133,396 Total — 289,298 6. Annual Scheduled Cleaning History 7. 2013 Completed Monthly Routine Cleaning: Rodding — 33,701 Hydro — 26,101 Total — 59,802 8. Annual Routine Cleaning History 9. Monthly Service Request Totals for past 4 years 10. TV Footage Comparison Chart: CSO vs Contractors 11. Monthly Summary of on call response — 42 minutes average NAStaffiTracking Charts\EOM Reports\2013\EOM Report for CSO - September 2013.doc 12. Monthly User Feedback Survey Report • "Overall Service" Average — 4.0 13. 2013 Unscheduled Work Orders Per Section cc: R. Foss S. Jocovic A. Rozul S. Sauter C. Swanson NAStafflTracking Charts\EOM Reports\2013\EOM Report for CSO - September 2013.doc 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Four Year Overflow Monthly and Running Totals 2 0 W, 1 - ti►— W Sept Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 —Seriesl F- YSeries2 Enclosure #1 Category 1 Overflows (Over 1,000 gallons or into the waters of the state) Updated through September 2013 Year: 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 14 Total O /Fs by year: 1 91 121 41 81 0 YTD comparison: 1 71 101 31 31 0 12 JAN ©©MMM FEB ©©MMM MAR M©MMM APRIMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIII ' Mmmmm MM©MM JUL MMMM ' =M©MM mmmm� mmm©_ 10 i 8 i 6 4 c 2 i 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC - 2009 2010 2011 2012 1 2013 Enclosure #2 To: Paul Seitz Via: Steve Sauter From: Dante Marchetti Collection System Operations Department MONTHLY SEWER SYSTEM OVERFLOW SELF - MONITORING REPORT September 2013 Prepared by:xl f/ Date: _ 2 - o Reviewed by: if ! �1 C S 0/C : \fieldops \overflow \2011 Date: lam' c i ? TOTAL OF's TO DATE E a) E U) o v ate+ E to Location L) E E o a a a) T 0. a 3 0 _ > O C U Estimated Volume in Gallons ° o m F E Q� y Vl >^ C(n C7 sk x m m U o 0 � M U p Schedule Change Street Address /City o .o 00 m CL 0 g F- CCCSD Structures V O O 0 O O O 0 ° O O °- D/S U/S 9/24 12:28 .75hrs. 65 Ede ate Ct Dan 101137 M31 M30 8 ABS Debris 250 250 N Leave on HF Routine 9/25 8:50 .75hrs. 75 Oak Knoll Loop W.C. 75C3 M33 M32 6 CIP Ras 26 0 N Leave on 2 mo. Rd. 9/28 9:00 14 hrs 3977 N.Peardale Laf 71 D2 M24 M32 6 VCP OT 4080 4080 Y Line Abandoned TOTAL # OVERFLOWS IN EACH CATEGORY 0 1 1 1 3 TOTAL # GALLONS IN EACH CATEGORY 0 26 250 4080 4330 0 TOTAL # O /Fs THIS MONTH 3 TOTAL # GALLONS THIS MONTH 4356 1 TOTAL OF's TO DATE 30 Prepared by:xl f/ Date: _ 2 - o Reviewed by: if ! �1 C S 0/C : \fieldops \overflow \2011 Date: lam' c i ? TOTAL OF's TO DATE i 10 i 9 i 8 i i 6 i 5 i I i 4 f I j 3 i t 2 I 1 I 3 i 0 2013 Overflow Causes Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Roots Plug r7 Grease Plug Other Plug --I Physical Defect Enclosure #4 350,000 300,000 268,458 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 I- 50,000 0 2013 Completed Monthly Scheduled Cleaning 321,185 316,534 301,031 295,849 286,17 '2 289,298 273,036 271,8E6 i i i I J F M iii A M J 1 A 5 r Rodding ■ Hydro r Monthly Total Enclosure #5 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 F 2,500,000 O O T 2,000,000 A G E 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 m ANNUAL SCHEDULED CLEANING HISTORY TOTALS 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Sept. 2013 Annual Totals 2,539,339 2,520,804 2,350,255 1,532,023 2,413,233 2,691,657 3,343,955 3,435,501 3,483,797 3,569,691 2,623,359 YEAR Enclosure #6 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2013 Completed Monthly Routine Cleaning 162,002 J F M A M J J A S ■ Rodding o Hydro _ -a Monthly Total Enclosure #7 O N D 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 F O O 1,000,000 T A 800,000 G E 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 i i 2003 ANNUAL ROUTINE CLEANING HISTORY TOTALS 2004 2005 2006 i 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Sept. _ 2013 Seriesl 1,234,614 1,539,450 1,228,620 1,625,530 1,220,460 1,400,588 594,726 1,175,250 758,446 731,358 875,771 YEAR Enclosure #8 i I --J i I i i -- - , 2004 2005 2006 i 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Sept. _ 2013 Seriesl 1,234,614 1,539,450 1,228,620 1,625,530 1,220,460 1,400,588 594,726 1,175,250 758,446 731,358 875,771 YEAR Enclosure #8 Updated through September 2013 26 Year: 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total requests: 272 334 325 260 Y TD comparison: 33 32 29 APR JAN 26 28 180 229 206 237 JAN 26 28 27 36 FEB 17 22 27 29 MAR 28 33 32 29 APR 24 30 22 31 MAY 18 26 21 30 JUN 20 29 23 23 JUL 20 23 28 33 AUG 27 38 26 26 SEP 15 23 27 23 OCT 25 29 21 NOVI 27 23 21 DECI 25 30 50 50 45 40 3S , 30 25 20 15 10 5 ' j 0 - JAN f MONTHLY SERVICE REQUESTS Comparison Chart ' r I i i! i i II EB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2010 2011 ❑ 2012 ^12013 Enclosure #9 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 :10,000 I 0 TV Footage Comparison Chart: CSO vs Contractors titi titi titi titi titi titi titi titi titi titi titi titi titi titi titi titi ti� ,LO IV ,tio T T T do T do T \T T T �T JTC3 `,LO �,yo �eQ O °� °J Oe° �a� �C�� �Sa� PQ� �Sa� ��� �� vo 49 d° q CSO ! Contractors Enclosure #10 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District October 9, 2013 TO: STEVE SAUTER VIA: DANTE MARCHETTI��' FROM: MARY REYNOLDS SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF ON CALL RESPONSE TIME RECORD FOR MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2013 CREW LEADER WEEK OF AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME NUMBER OF CALLS Crouch 08/28/13 — 09/04/13 56 minutes 2 Plascencia 09/04/13 — 09/11/13 25 minutes 1 Walsh 09/11/13 — 09/18/13 38 minutes 7 Plascencia 09/18/13 — 09/25/13 46 minutes 1 Gratis 09/25/13 — 10/02/13 45 minutes 1 TOTAL AVERAGE MINUTES OVER 5 WEEKS 42 minutes *average response time excludes consecutive calls /msr CC' P. Seitz NAUsers \MReynolds \On -Call Report\2013 \ocsum13sept.doc Central Contra Costa Sanitary District October 10, 2013 TO: PAUL A. SEITZ VIA: DANTE G. MARCHETTI FROM: GRACE B. VALDEPENAS 1� SUBJECT: USER FEEDBACK SURVEY REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 2013 (A = Outstanding B = Above Average C = Average D = Below Average F = Unacceptable) *Action /Result Key: Rd = rod (the crew cleaned the line with a rodder); Hyd = hydro (the crew cleaned the line with a hydro); CI = clear (the crew found the line was clear and the cause for the call -out was not us); Dye = the crew dye- tested the line; CB = cutterbladed; OP = other plug (rags, paper, construction debris, vandalism, etc.); HR = hand rod (the crew cleaned the line manually rather than mechanically); ST = they sample- tested the water; Ins = the crew inspected the situation; Neg = the sample test was negative for the presence of sewage; Ours = the opposite of clear — whatever they found in the inspection dm B L 3 .� 'V w L y as 2 d E Crew Action/ a� d ° � G o E ° Day/ / Address Result U) 0 w On- w ; Call d G a O ea N E Lu V C p U 15 Sycamore Road, Orinda Salva / Rd / Cl A A A A A N D Whitman 316 Glorietta Boulevard, Orinda Tehrani / Rd /CI A A A A N O Stiltner 83 Acacia Drive, Orinda Plascencia / Dye / Cl A A A A A N O Stiltner 1300 Juanita Drive, Walnut Creek* Bartlett / Insp / Dye A A A A A Y O Anderson / Cl 25 La Fond Lane, Orinda Tehrani / Rd / RP A A A A A N O Stiltner Point Totals (A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, F = 0) 20 20 20 20 16 Total Responses by Rating Category 5 5 5 5 4 Average Rating by Category 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Total Number of Points This Month 96 All Categories' Average This Month 4.0 "Overall Service" Average 4.0 *Action /Result Key: Rd = rod (the crew cleaned the line with a rodder); Hyd = hydro (the crew cleaned the line with a hydro); CI = clear (the crew found the line was clear and the cause for the call -out was not us); Dye = the crew dye- tested the line; CB = cutterbladed; OP = other plug (rags, paper, construction debris, vandalism, etc.); HR = hand rod (the crew cleaned the line manually rather than mechanically); ST = they sample- tested the water; Ins = the crew inspected the situation; Neg = the sample test was negative for the presence of sewage; Ours = the opposite of clear — whatever they found in the inspection User Feedback Survey Report September 2013 Page 2 or sample test was our fault; RL, RM, RH = the crew found light, medium or heavy roots in the line; GL,/ GM, GH = the crew found light, medium or heavy grease in the line; RP, GP = the line was plugged with roots or grease; GD = the crew found grit in the line ( "garbage disposal'), Insp = the crew inspected the complaint and determined the cause. Number of surveys sent in September 2013: 16 Number of responses received in September 2013: 5 Total sent in 12 -month period ending September 2013: 232 Total received during same 12 -month period: 93 Twelve -month return rate: 40% Comments Not Requiring Follow -Up: 1. Superb crew and crew leader! Responded to 15 Sycamore Road. (15 Sycamore Rd., Orinda; #259 Salva / Whitman) Comments Requiring Follow -Up: cc: R. Bailey E. Boehme M. Scahill C. Swanson Post at CSO CSO /N:\ Users \SJocovic \FIELDOPS \MONTHLY\User Feedback \reports13 \0913rpt.doc Date Comment Copy to Corrective Action Corrective Corrective Taken Action By Action Completed *Customer wished to be contacted. Dante Dante contacted the Dante 10/9/13 Marchetti customer. Customer Marchetti is very happy with our service and response. cc: R. Bailey E. Boehme M. Scahill C. Swanson Post at CSO CSO /N:\ Users \SJocovic \FIELDOPS \MONTHLY\User Feedback \reports13 \0913rpt.doc 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 CSO 2013 Unscheduled Work Orders Rodding Section Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TV Section iR9 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Hydro Section 120 100 - 80 �$ - - -- -- — 58 60 _53 60 — _ -- - —51 44 — 40 37 35 33- 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Construction Section 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Enclosure #13 Annual Report of Sanitary Sewer Overflows Paul A. Seitz Collection System Operations Department March 21, 2013 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2012 Sanitary Sewer Overflows r49 overflows — 3rd lowest in CCCSD history y 3.3 overflows per 100 miles r- No pumping station or wet - weather capacity overflows 3. 1 Comparative Data for 2012 from State Database Statewide (CIWQS as of 0310612013) ■ 4,891 overflows and total volume of 14,072,790 gallons • Average of 5.3 overflows per 100 miles ■ Average volume of 2,900 gallons per SSO for the year Region 2 — Bay Area (CIWQS as of 03106113) ■ 1,388 overflows and total volume of 10,668,165 gallons ■ Average of 8.2 overflows per 100 miles ■ Average volume of 7,700 gallons per SSO for the year Overflow Quantities Size of SSO (gallons) Number in 2012 Number in 2011 Greater than or equal to 1,000 2 1 Between 100 and 999 19 9 Between 10 and 99 17 17 Less than 10 11 10 Total overflow volume 9,449 gallons 1 10,264 gallons 2 Overflows Comparison 1999-2012 NUMBER OF OVERFLOWS 180 162 160 143 143,,--- 140 00�'O3� 123 120 }_ '\107 100 _� _ ` 81 86 80 4� 3 60 - 43 49 40 37 r 20 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 204 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 Overflow By City and Cause Walnut Creek 11 t San Ramon 1 Pleasant Hill 2 1: Orinda 11 2 Martinez 3 2 Lafayette Danville 5 Alamo 0 4 a 12 16 20 Number of Overflows o Roots ❑ Grease ❑ Rags/Rock/Paper/Tile ❑ Other Plug l� •L y�a: -j -_— 3 18 15 12 9 8 3 0 2012 Overflows by Pipe Size, Type, and City Aamo D"'lle Lalayntte Mal. .Z 0-da Pl—$M WII San Ramon Walnut Crook a4' VCP o6'ACP 06' VCP ■6' VCPL DS'ARS 818 OB' CIP ■8'VCP 0a' DIP 0W HOPE •8' PVC 010' PVC 2012 Overflow Percentage by City C: Walnut ❑ Alamo. 2`,o O Danville. � Creek, 24% i 10 ❑ Lafayette, ■ San Ramon, �_ 12'-0 2 ❑Pleasant Hill, 6% 0 Martinez. 1(1% ■ Orinda, 33% Li Comparison of Cumulative Overflows Updated through December 2012 roar 2009 2010 2011 2012 yesr 63� 43 37 49 Y iD carts, e, 63 d3 37 49 JAN 7 5 7 6 FEB 5 6 7 3 MAR S 3 0 3 APR 10 5 3 MAY S 2 1 "e JUN 5 4 3 2 JUL 2 1 4 3 AUG 4 2 3 5 SEP 5 2 3 0 OCT 0 3 2 6 NOV 2 5 3 4 DEC 7 5 3 12 if 2012 Overview 37 days without a single overflow during 2012. := "Quality Cleaning" philosophy and follow up with CCTV quality assurance. Increased scheduled cleaning frequencies where significant material was removed. :> Cleaned 4,301,049 feet of sewers. 61 2012 Overview ➢ Current TV contract is focused on sewers in Walnut Creek area. ➢ Engineering continued projects to rehabilitate sewers — more focus on lines with overflows and sewer lines on frequent cleaning cycles. ➢ Responded to two potentially disastrous sewer overflows over a 24 -hour period during heavy rains. • On Mt. View Drive in Lafayette, installed within two hours a temporary sewer bypass when road was washed away. • On Tarabrook Drive in Orinda, installed a temporary sewer bypass when a storm drain created a sinkhole and our sewer was damaged. Questions? 0 O' 5) CHANGE ORDERS November 8, 2013 Capital Projects Committee Central Contra Costa Sanitary District NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS INVITING SEALED BIDS FOR CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT DISTRICT PROJECT 8405 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (District), Martinez, California, invites and will receive sealed bids for furnishing all labor, equipment, materials, and services specified for the construction of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Project 8405, 2013 CIPP Project, in conformance with the Contract. The work generally consists of renovation andfor rehabilitation of approximately 6,200 feet of 18-, 21 -, and 36 -inch sewer by cured -in -place lining method in private and public rights of way. The work includes, but is not limited to, sewer bypassing, trenching, shoring, installing /modifying manholes, and asphalt paving. The estimated cost of construction is $2,500,000. The District, at its discretion may add additional sites to the oroiect after Award of the Construction Contract. Go- Types of Change Orders Change Site Condition During Project -Unknown utilities, hazardous materials, soil, etc. -Definition and process outlined in Project Specifications Emergency Situations -DAFT Tank •ReW pipe failure -Storm damage Urgent System Deficiencies Discovered by CSO or POD -Overflows -CCTV inspection -Damage to District Facilities by others l �} Change Order Process 1. CSO or POD submits request for a change order 2. Construction team evaluates the request 3. If appropriate Construction team issues Work Directive or Request for Proposal from the Contractor 4. After Contractor's proposal is received, Construction team evaluates the proposal and if appropriate prepares memo for approval at appropriate level 5. Authority Limits: Senior Engineer - $10,000 Division Manager - $25,000 Director -$35,000 General Manager - $100,000 Board — unlimited 6. After approval Change Order is issued to the Contractor 2 Change Orders Accounting • Change Orders target is to be less than 10% of the Construction Contract • Change Orders are charged against Construction Project Contingency • Change Order work is limited to similar work and geographic location of the project • Change orders over $100,000 require Board approval Questions? 3