HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.a.(Handout) Responses to questions from Member Causey,,.rQ
6#0a . oui-
Responses to questions from Member Causey about Calmar Vista Road Public Hearing
(Item 5.a.):
• Did the project include the installation of 953 linear feet of pipe and four
manholes?
The project actually installed 1486 linear feet of pipe and 6 manholes.
• On the Reimbursement Application it says that he wants 100% of fee in the first
line under installers information - shouldn't this be about 82% as he has two
parcels covered here?
The wording on the application form could be clearer. One hundred
percent indicates that there is a single installer and 100% of all
reimbursement fees collected will be paid to that person. We include all of
the fees as eligible costs in determining total cost.
• Why did it take two and a half years to get to the Board from acceptance of the
project? Is there no drop dead date for application for a reimbursement contract
request?
The work was completed and accepted by inspection staff in September
2012. District Code does contain a six -month time limit for submitting all
paperwork after construction. Staff worked with the installer to obtain
project cost information and in several cases granted extensions to the
installer in order to obtain additional backup materials for
clarifications. We have provided similar extensions to other installers in
the past.
• Have any of the other nine parcels already connected in this period of time? Will
we then be required to go back and try to collect additional funds from those who
have connected?
District Code contains provisions for property owners who wish to connect
to a facility prior to the reimbursement fee being finalized by allowing them
to pay an estimated fee and then refunding any difference once the final
fee is set. None of the remaining 9 parcels have connected, though there
has been one inquiry about connecting.
• What is the District's average cost for the installation of 8 -inch pipe? $400 per
linear foot seems high unless there were extenuating construction
circumstances? Were there unique construction issues with this installation to
warrant the higher per linear foot cost?
Private contractor costs for similar projects over last 10 years (adjusted for
inflation) average about $200 per linear foot. For this project, a total cost
of $377,300 divided by 1, 498 linear feet (actual footage) gives a unit cost
of about $2521LF.
• Why was the extra $109,000 change order cost determined to be invalid?
The $109,000 in change orders were rejected because there were a
number of construction issues that should not be borne by the other
property owners. Change order costs included delays associated with
EBMUD facilities for which the installer had already been compensated by
EBMUD. There were a number of change order items that could not be
supported. Final reimbursement costs and the basis for determination
were conveyed to the installer on January 8, 2015. Staff has had several
contacts with the installer since then and our understanding is that he has
no issues with the total reimbursement amount.
• Why was the installer required to install pipe well beyond the location for the
discharge of his two lots? Did District require the extension beyond the
connection from his property? If so why?
This project was processed by Development staff that have since left the
District. In reviewing notes about the project it appears that extending the
project allowed additional properties to potentially connect, thereby
increasing the chance of the installer receiving reimbursement
fees. Additionally, the longer project should have allowed better
economies of scale. Our understanding is that the extension was mutually
agreed to by the contractor and District staff (CCCSD meeting notes from
a November 17, 2011 meeting indicate that the length of project was
discussed and that the installer was told that he could stop the project at
his property if he desired).
• Finally, it seems like the ordinance for the useful life of pipe in Sec 6.20.210
should be changed from 75 to 100 years at least - this is a subject for the future
but one that the Board should consider as the industry currently considers new
pipe to be 100 years - pre 1960 1 would agree with the 75 years.
Staff is looking at streamlining District Code Section 6.20 for
Reimbursement Fees. We would be happy to review changing the useful
life of pipe in conjunction with that endeavor.
Paul Causey