Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 06-29-1978.:L. 44LM COPY FI1 _- C:: 09 June 29, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: CORRECTIONS TO THE 1978 -79 PLANT OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT BUDGET The. following corrections should be made to the Plant Operations budget for 1978 -79: Pump Stations - North, Account No. SOON Change Account No. 500 -03, Salaries and Wages from $57,924 to $98,466. Pump Stations - West, Account No. 50OW Change Account No. 500 -03, Salaries and Wages from $80,904 to $91,134• Treatment Plant, Account No. 600 Change Account No. 600 -03, Salaries and Wages from $1,303,296 to $1,252,956. These changes are due to clerical errors and do not represent any changes in staffing at the pump stations or treatment plant. The dollar value of these changes represents an increase of $50,772 for the pump stations and a decrease of $50,340 for the treatment plant, for a net difference in the Plant Operations Department 1978 -79 budget of plus $432. DGN:mg Reviewed: W. C. Dalton Deputy General Manager-Chief Engineer Respectfully submitted, (�P. . yld- _' D. G. Niles Manager, Plant Operations Appi-oved : Roger J. Dolan General Manager -Chief Engineer rlZy %y'� i:; �.:�.a Vim► Filed: June 29, 1978 MEINORANDUM FOR: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: CORRECTIONS TO THE 1978 -79 PLANT OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT BUDGET The following corrections should be made to the Plant Operations budget for 1978 -79: Pump Stations - North, Account No. SOON Change Account No. 500 -03, Salaries and Wages from $57,924 to $98,466. Pump Stations - West, Account No. 50OW Change Account No. 500 -03, Salaries and Wages from $80,904 to $91,134. Treatment Plant, Account No. 600 Change Account No. 600 -03, Salaries and Wages from $1,303,296 to $1,252,956. These changes are due to clerical errors and do not represent any changes in staffing at the pump stations or treatment plant. The dollar value of these changes represents an increase of $50,772 for the pump stations and a decrease of $50,340 for the treatment plant, for a net difference in the Plant Operations Department 1978 -79 budget of plus $432. DGN:mg Reviewed: W. C. Dalton Deputy General Manager -Chief Engineer Respectfully submitted, D. G. Niles Manager, Plant Operations Reviewed: Roger J. Dolan General Manager -Chief Engineer June 26, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR TWO PARCELS, P.A. 78 -21 DANVILLE AREA AND P.A. 78 -22 DANVILLE AREA, TO BE INCLUDED IN PENDING ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT Q +arc �\ �o . P� Qato a Pt e 0 a x�x`o� o o �e a Q0 Pt \%o• o��aPaa,�Qa�oe VII. N67 6/29/78 Board Action a 78 -21 DANV YES 1.64 RICHARD N. STUART PROPERTY OWNER IS HAVING 555 DEL AMIGO ROAD PROBLEMS WITH HIS SEPTIC DANVILLE, CA 94526 TANK, WANTS TO CONNECT TO 199 - 130 -D26 SEWER, 78 -22 DANV YES 1.30 GEORGE CASE ONE EXISTING HOUSE ON SITE. 432 LA GONDA 14AY OWNER WANTS TO CONNECT TO DANVILLE, CA SEWER AND CREATE TWO ADDI- 200 -161 -002 TIONAL BUILDING SITES. PRE- LIMINARY APPROVAL BY COUNT RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Parcels 78-21 and 78 -22 to be included in pending annexation to the District. Respectfully submitted, &JE�� 14. C. Da 1 ton Deputy General Manager -Chief Engineer WCD:WG:sf Reco endation ppr ved: Roger Do an General Manager -Chief Engineer June 26, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: THE CONSIDERATION OF A COUNTY - IMPOSED ENFORCEMENT CHARGE AGAINST ACME FILL AS AN ELIGIBLE FRANCHISE COST OF THE GARGAGE COLLECTORS IN THE DISTRICT FRANCHISE AREA VII. NB 8 6/29/78 ISSUE: Contra Costa County is considering imposing a surcharge on Acme Fill Corporation which may be as high as $207,000 per year. The County has asked that if they should impose this upon Acme Fill, alone, with similar charges on the other land fill operators, would the franchisers in the County determine these to be eli- gible costs to be passed along to the homeowners? In general, the costs compute to something between $.51 /yr. to about $1.45 /yr. per residential customer. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Commission adopted a Solid Waste Management Plan which provided for a staff of sanitarians and health specialists to implement the County plan and provide for inspection and enforcement of the County regulations. The principal activity of this staff would be involved with the land fill sites, as we understand it. According to the County Health Depart- ment's calculations, the costs allocatable to this service are approximately $310,000 per year. With the passage of Proposition 13, the County is no longer going to be able to carry these costs on the County general fund. The County Health Department is proposing that a fee be charged to the dump owners which would include a lump sum charge of $500 per site, $20 per vehicle and $.50 per ton of refuse disposed of on the site. The County Administrator's Office will be reviewing the proposed budget to determine whether or not it is an appropriate cost for that service. Many Commis- sion members felt that it was too high. Other Commission members felt that if they could assure that all of this cost would not have to be borne by the dump owners, but could be passed on to the customers, this would affect their decision. There- fore, the County asked all of the franchising agencies to take a position as to whether or not this dump fee would be an eligible cost to be passed immediately along to the customers or would it have to wait for the next regular rate adjustment or would it be considered to be a cost which was ineligible. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board consider the issue and make a determination as to the elig bt ty of this charge for an immediate rate increase or for a deferred rate increase, or for no rate increase at all. In the past, all disposal fees, tip- ping fees and other charges levied by Acme Fill against garbage collectors have been determined to be eligible costs for inclusion in the rate - making procedure. Re ully submitted, Rog r J. Ian General Manager -Chief Engineer RJD :mm 0 QF June 22, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: HONORABLE MCMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer � .,2-q, ?r SUBJECT: DONATION OF VACATION /EARNED TIME TO KENNETH HARRISON Issue: Kenneth Harrison has used up all of his sick and vacation leave time due to an industrial accident. Background: Mr. Harrison has been employed in the Plant Operations Department as Maintenance Technician II since February 1, 1978. On May 4, 1978, he was involved in an industrial accident at the Treatment Plant. He is expected to return to work after a four to six week recuperation period. In the absence of disability compensation, the Plant Operations Department employees wish to contribute a small portion from their vacation or earned overtime accounts. Recommendation: Approval for the Plant Operations Department employees to contribute their vacation or earned overtime to Kenneth Harrison. DGN: j Attachment Recommendation Approved: Roger J. Dolan General Manager -Chief Engineer Respectfully submitted, D. G. Niles Manager, Plant Operations Name EMPLOYEES WHO WISH TO CONTRIBUTE TIME TO KENNETH HARRISON Hours Donated Vacation Bane, Nick 4 Chatterjee, Ramendra 8 X Covey, Clarence 8 X Covey, Randy 8 X Ford, Bruce 4 X Fox, Walter 4 X Green, Jasper 8 X Griffin, Marjorie 8 X Groves, Clifford 8 X Holbrook, Frederic 8 X Horsfall, William 8 X LePage, John 4 McDowell, Roy 8 X Milano, Cheryl 4 X Miller, Sidney 8 Newman, Harold 8 X Packwood, J. Keith 4 X Russell, Aubrey 8 X Scalise, Bradley 4 Smith, Theodore 8 X Soychak, Richard 8 X Sukacz, Edward 8 Walter, John 8 Williams, Eugene 8 X Youry, Kenneth 8 X Earned Overtime X X X X X X June 16, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: DONATION OF VACTION /EARNED TIME TO KENNETH HARRISON Issue: Kenneth Harrison has used up all of his sick and vacation leave time due to an industrial accident. Background: Mr. Harrison has been employed in the Plant Operations Department as Maintenance Technician II since February 1, 1978. On May 4, 1978, he was performing maintenance duties on Centrifuge No. 3 in the solids conditioning building when he was overcome by hydrogen sulfide gas. When he became uncon- scious, he fell from a sling to the bottom of the centrifuge and suffered multiple bruises and abrasions on his head, hip, back, and rib cage. These injuries aggravated a previous weakness of his spleen necessitating surgery on May 15, 1978. He is expected to return to work after a four to six week recuperation period. In the absence of disability compensation, the Plant Operations Department employees wish to contribute a small portion from their vacation or earned overtime accounts. Recommendation: Approval for the Plant Operations Department employees to contribute their vacation or earned overtime to Kenneth Harrison. DGN:mg Attachment Recommendation Approved: Roger J. Dolan General Manager -Chief Engineer Respectfully submitted, D. G. Niles Manager, Plant Operations EMPLOYEES WHO WISH TO CONTRIBUTE TIME TO KENNETH HARRISON Name Hours Donated Vacation Bane, Nick 4 Chatterjee, Ramendra 8 X Covey, Clarence 8 X Dovey, Randy 8 X Ford, Bruce 4 X Fox, Waiter 4 X Green, Jasper 8 X Griffin, Marjorie 8 X Groves, Clifford 8 X Holbrook, Frederic 8 X Horsfall, William 8 X LePage, John 4 McDowell, Roy 8 X Milano, Cheryl 4 X Miller, Sidney 8 Newman, Harold 8 X Packwood, J. Keith 4 X Russell, Aubrey 8 X Scalise, Bradley 4 Smith, Theodore 8 X Soychak, Richard 8 X Sukacz, Edward 8 Walter, John 8 Williams, Eugene 8 X Yourv. Kenneth 8 X Earned Overtime X X X X X X 08 l.b 6/29/78 June 22, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE 1978-79 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET. Issue: The final budget consisting of equipment items, staff compensation, management compensation and all other supplies and services line items have been submitted for approval over the past three months. All major items have been approved with the exception of some line items. The final budget should be approved before the beginning of the fiscal year. Background: The final budget as presented represents the combination of previously approved items and items which management considers essential to the proper operation of the District. In a final effort to reduce the budget, we eliminated $500,000 of estimated costs -- recognizing that some costs may not be controllable, but that every effort would be continued to minimize costs that could be slashed. The major increases over last years budget are due to inflation, growth of the District, the anticipated full operation of a very complex plant, and the decision to reinforce engineering capabilities and reduce consulting fees In the future. This last decision will save taxpayer monies but tends to increase the operating budget to the benefit of the capital construction budget. The revenues to balance the budget do not include any tax funds - -as did last years budget. The level of other revenue is estimated at 21% above last year and it is proposed to use part of the 77 -78 surplus carried over to replace taxes and balance this budget. This does not mean that we intend to recommend a zero tax budget, but that tax revenue, when and if available, will be devoted entirely to the capital construction budget. Recommendation: Approve and formally adopt the 1978 -79 budget as presented for implementation beginning July 1, 1978. Respectfully submitted, W W. C. Dalton Deputy General Manager -Chief Engineer A #dZro GeneraIief Engineer VII. NB 9 6/29/78 June 21, 1978 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN ADDITIONAL $21,800 TO COMPLETE THE FINAL EIS ON THE STAGE 5B ENLARGEMENTS Issue: The final EIS on the Stage 5B Enlargements must be completed to allow funding of the Stage 56 -Phase 11 facilities. Background: Additional work is required to complete the final EIS on the Stage 5B Enlargements. Additional information must be incorporated into the final EIS to satisfy the requirements of EPA both procedurally and in light of the changes that have occured in the project during the last year. J. B. Gilbert and Associates will perform the work under the existing agreement. Their current cost ceiling is $224,200. This authorization would raise their cost ceiling to 5246,000. Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing an additional $21,800 to complete the finalEIS on the Stage 5B Enlargements. Respectfully submitted, coe� William C. Dalton WCD:jms Deputy General Manager - -Chief Engineer Rec mendation pproved: Roger . D ]an General Manager- -Chief Engineer June 21, 1978 c MEMORANDUM TO: W. C. DALTON, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER FROM: John Larson, Senior Engineer - Project Management SUBJECT: COST TO COMPLETE THE FINAL EIS ON THE STAGE 56 ENLARGEMENTS The additional information and the procedural steps required to complete the Final EIS on the Stage 5B Enlargements have been discussed with represent- atives of EPA, SWRCB, and WSS. Based on that scope of work, J. B. Gilbert and Associates has submitted a cost estimate of $26,300. To date the district has authorized $224,200 for the preparation of the EIR /EIS of which all but $4,500 has been expended. The cost of the work to complete the final EIS would bring the total to $246,000. There are three areas of work required to complete the Final EIS. EPA has requested additional information on the status of air quality planning and mitigation measures to satisfy the open ended statements they made in the Negative Declaration on Stage 5B Phase I. Approximately 15% of the addi- tional cost is associated with providing additional information for EPA. The project description and impacts must be modified in light of the decision to proceed with a two stage approach on the RDF /Power Generation Facilities and the possible addition of pressure filtration equipment. The necessity of discussing the two stages is based on the possibility that only the first stage may be completed. Approximately 53% of the additional cost is asso- ciated with the description of the two stage approach. Finally, reproduction and distribution of the Final EIS accounts for the remaining 32% of the additional cost. This cost would have been incurred regardless of any other changes in the project. My evaluation of the cost estimated by J. B. Gilbert and Associates shows that the additional cost is reasonable for the scope of work involved. Approximately $4,000 of the additional cost may be saved if the Stage 1 RDF Facilities provide internal tradeoffs for the air pollutant emissions. Use of the Volume 1 reproduced in June, 1977, will provide a cost saving of about $2,500 over what the reproduction costs would have been. recommend that the current cost ceiling in the agreement with J. B. Gilbert and Associates be increased from $224,200 to $246,000 and that the work to complete the Final EIS proceed at once. I have attached a position paper for action by the Board of Directors. n Larson Senior Engineer - Project Management JL: jms Attachment i June 9, 1978 Mr. John Larson Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 1250 Springbrook Road Walnut Creek, California 94597 Dear John: flssodala _ planning & Engineering Consultants 723 S Street, Sacramento. Ca 95814 (916)444-0123 ❑ Bay Area Office: Claremont Motet, Berkeley, Ca 94705 (415) 843 -0298 We request a budget increase of $21,770 for services needed to complete the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the District's Stage 5B Enlargements. This increase is primarily due to additional information which EPA has requested that be developed on Phase II project staging, minor project changes, furnace emissions, and the status of air quality planning and stationary source emission regulations. The estimated costs are detailed on the attached sheet. This supplemental authorization would bring the total job authorization to $245,970. The expected schedule for completion of the EIS is as follows: August 1, 1978 - submit Preliminary Final EIS to EPA September 1, 1978 -- obtain EPA approval to print September 15, 1978 - distribute Final EIS October 30, 1978 - end of mandatory review period. State and EPA can make Step 2 grant offers for Phase II, Stage 1. We propose to continue billing on the basis of our 19-7-//'78 billing rate schedule (attached) through September 1978. These rates normally would have been revised July 1, 1978; however, due to merger with Brown and Caldwell, our scheduled rate revi- sions will be delayed to coincide with Brown and Caldwell's rate changes. On October 1, an adjustment in rates would be negotiat=ed. If you have any questions or comments, please call. Very truly yours, J. B. GILBERT & ASSOCIATES e1"e, Pen y L. Schafer Attachments PLS :adh 14l M� • ro �•1 i.: � �• 1 � s . � ru .� is 1 0 (711 1 July 1977 PROFESSIONAL FEES Compensation for labor and expenses shall be made in accordance with the following: A. A fee based on the actual time engaged in the work in accordance with the following rates: Classification Hourly Rate President 60.00 Senior Engineer III 52.50 Senior Engineer 11 42.00 Senior Engineer I 34.00 Associate Engineer 29.00 Assistant Engineer 24.50 Environmental Specialist III 28.Q0 Environmental Specialist II 26.00 Environmental Specialist I 23.00 Administrative Assistant /Accountant 19.00 Draftsman 17.50 Secretary /Typist IV 15.50 Secretary /Typist III 15.00 Secretary /Typist II 12.00 Secretary /Typist 1 10.00 B. An amount determined by multiplying the actual costs by a factor. of 1.20, which allows for overhead, for the following: 1. Rental of equipment. 2. Direct travel expenses such as air, bus, and taxi, and automobile mileage at 15 cents per mile. 3. Identifiable communication expenses such as ;Long distance telephone calls, telegraph, and cable. 4. Identifiable reproduction costs such as printing of drawings, photostats, multilith printing, and binding. 5. Other similar direct nonsalary costs such as expendable supplies not applicable to general overhead. 6. All direct expenses for subsistence and lodging. 0 0 ESTIMATED COSTS TO FINALIZE EIS Person- Rate Estimated Weeks ($ /Week) Cost Professional Labor (numbers refer to May 25, 1978 handout): 2. Status of Air Planning 0.5 1,360 $ 680 2.0 1,040 2,080 3. Phase II Project Discussion Update 1.5 1,360 2,040 4. Summary of Stage 5B Enlargements 0.5 1,360 690 5. Mitigation Measures 0.2 1,360 270 6. Emissions Assess. - Stage 1, Furnaces 0.5 1,360 680 4.0 980 3,920 7. Emissions Assess. - Stage 1, R. R. Plant 1.0 980 980 B. Emissions Assess. - Stage 2 0.5 1,360 680 1.0 980 980 9. Discussion of Innov. /Alt. Tech. for Grant Program 0.5 1,360 680 Preliminary Final EIS Prep., Edit, & Review 1.0 1,360 1,360 C.2 2,400 4 sO Review and Prepare Final EIS for Printing 0.5 1,360 680 Typing (drafts and modifications to Final EIS) 1.5 480 720 Drafting 0_5 700 350 Supervise Printing and EIS Distribution 0.5 700 350 Reproduction: Drafts of sections and 20 copies of Prelim. Final EIS -- 7,000 pages @ $0.06 /page 420 Print Volume 2 of Final EIS -- 250 copies of 320 -page volume 5,500 Print new cover and pages up front, Volume #1, and bind* 2,500 Telep`ione, $50 /month 3 months 150 16 ol Travel: 4 trips to Bay Area at 150 miles each and $.15 /mile Total Estimated Cost to Finalize EIS Less: Estimated Remaining Authorization as of June 1, 1978 New Supplemental Authorization 90 26,270 4,500 $21,770 91S COMPLETION (May 25, 1978 - PLS, JBGA) 1. Environmental Documentation on CCCSD Stage 5B Enlargements: . Draft EIR /EIS issued August 31, 1976 . Final EIR issued August 26,.1977 -- CCCSD certified EIR and approved entire project . EPA Neg. Dec. (Phase I only) issued September 9, 1977 Result: Final EIS needs to be .issued on entire Stage 5B Enlargements. This would be accomplished by updating the Final EIR (orange - colored report) where necessary to satisfy EPA. 2. Chapter XX - Air Quality Discussion would be added concerning the status of the Bay Area Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQIP) and the new non - attainment planning now beginning under the auspices of ABAG. A brief update of what local cities and the County are doing in relation to vehicular movements would be included. 3. Chapter XXI - Phase 11 Project Phase II Description will be modified to relate the staging of the project as developed by. the Bay Region WSS. Cost- effective analysis from LASS included. Detailed costs and facilities description for Stage I included (WSS) . Rough costs and outline of facilities for Stage 2 included (CCCSp ?). Relatively detailed emissions for Stage 1 (WSS and CCCSD). Rough emissions for Stage 2 (CCCSD?)'. Emissions assessment will. be updated (see 6, 7, and 8 below). . Impact on Acme Landfill updated for Stage 1 4. Chapter XXTII -- Summary of Stage 5B Enlargements . Grant funding on Phase band Phase TT, Stage 1 will be updated. Possib a )grant funding• on Phase II, Stage 2 included . 0 &M costs updated CSD ?) Impact on sewer service charges updated (B and C) 5. Chapter XXIV -- Mitigation Measures Brief section will be added to summarize AQMP development and non - attainment planning. 6. Emissions Assessment - Stage 1, Furnace Modifications Assumption No. 1 -- that the existing construction permit fror. APCD for two incinerators can be corrected to show proper emissions (This could be critical, since without the correction, projected emissions from the two modified (Stage 1) furnaces may exceed the APCD's 25 pounds per hour limitation {Section 1309(b). Assumption No. 2 -- that all new or modified facilities will have Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Assumption No. 3 -- that complete internal furnace trade -offs will not be available. If trade --offs for all five pollutants are available, there is little assessment needed beyond showing the trade -offs and briefly describing how the surrounding air quality will be improved by Stage 1 Assumption No. 4 -- that net Stage 1 increased furnace emissions will be less than 25 pounds per hour for each pollutant. First, try and use Concord incinerator as trade -off. Any r,.�sidual increases after all of the above will be evaluated 0 0 for localized effects. Simple hand crank models (Gaussian plume dispersion) can be used to quickly arrive at downwind concentrations. A brief description of local air quality data from the Concord sampling station would be used to provide in- formation about local background levels. The analysis will be run through APCD, ARB, and EPA staff for concurrence and will be included in Chapter XXI. 7. Emissions Assessment - Stage 1 - Resource Recovery Plant It is assumed that suspended particulates will be the only pollutant emitted. This would be a new source which emits less than 25 pounds per hour. A quick air quality assessment of the source will be conducted to arrive at incremental par- ticulate concentrations downwind. This is expected to be a rather minor source of particulates. 8. Emissions Assessment - Stage 2 The rough estimates of emissions will be discussed with respect to the existing and likely future regulations regarding these facilities in this air basin. 9. Innovative/Alternative Technology Does any evaluation or discussion of Phase TI, Stage 1 need to be included in the Final EIS in order to make the proposed project eligible for such increased grant funding? 10. EPA Decision and Rationale The EPA decision on grant f undxng would need to cover the following elements: Approve Phase I or refer to previous approval granted in the Neg. Dec. last September. Approve Phase II, Stage 1 for design and approve for construction if all necessary permits are received. Approve Phase II, Stage 2 for additional planning and preliminary design work, approve for design if potential air quality restrictions can be resolved, and approve for construction if all necessary permits are received_ If the scope of Stage 2 changes significantly in the future, a supplemental EIS would be issued.