HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-03-1972 AGENDA BACKUPMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE DISTRICT BOARD
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
HELD JANUARY 20, 1972
The District Board of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in
a Regular Selion at its regular place of meeting lucated at 1250 Springbrook
Road, Walnut Creek, County of Contra Costa, State oi California, on January 20,
1972, at 0;00 o'clock P.M.
The meeting wts called to order by President Allan.
I. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigiti Find Allan
ABSENT: Members: None
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of japuary 17, 1972, were approved as presented.
III. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES
None.
None.
None.
IV. HEARINGS
V. BIDS
VI. OLD BUSINESS
FINANCIAL PLAN FOR WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
Mt. Horstkotte, General Manai6er-ChieC Filgineer, sated that the financial
plan had been independently studied by Brown and Caldwell, Mr. William Dalton,
AdminisrI:ative Engineer and staff, arid the conclusions reached are in general
agreemeaL Mr. Horstkotte then asked Mr_ Dalton to explain the plan,
Mr. Dalton stated the new plan received by the Board Members was a reline
ment of the basic plan submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board. he
explained that cash flow was the major problem because the Disc/ict would haw
to finance a major portion of the plant during the construction peiiod hcforc
grant funds would be received. To accomplish this, the District will have to
borrow $15,000,000.00 on a short term basis, Mr. Dalton thcn revirwod the plan
in detail, after which a discussion betwPnn sLaff and Board Mc.mbers on altetna
tive methods of financing the ,f,rlamation plant occurred.
Member Mitchell suggested that the staff should reevaluate current District
sources of revenue as an adjunct to the financial plan and to ensure that the
monetary burden is equitably distributed. Mr. Hotstkotte indicated this would
be done and then explained that the imposition of a sewer service charge was
practically mandatory in order to receive grist funds. Further discussion
followed after which Member Mitchell stated the 1)sLilct should be prepared
to implement the financial plan as soon as possible. The iLeffl wag continued
VII. NEW BUSINESS
ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS
It was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Rusttgian that easements
from Lawrence J. Gomez, Jr., L.I.D. 49-2, Parcel 2 R-1, Neil Vi Wende,
Job 2078, the Safecare Co., Inc., Job 2037, and Walnut Creek Psychto:Lric Hospital,
Job X2060, be accepted at no cost to the District and their recording ordered.
Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
RESOLUTION NO. 72-5, A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SALARY SCHEDULE FOR DISTRICT
EMPLOYEES
After explanation. by Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager -Chief Engineer, it
was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Rustigian, that Resolution No
72-5 hn adopted. Carried by the following vote:
AYES; Members: Boneystecle, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: iiimbers; None
RESOLUTION NO. 72-6 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1876 AS AMENDED
"A RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT",
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 50
After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager -Chief Engineer,
iL was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Rustigian, fiat Resolution
No. 72-6 be adopted. Calcried by the following vote:
AYES Membe-1:s; Boneysteele, Clbbs, Mitchell, Rustigian aid Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
RESOLUTION NO. 72-7 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1877, AS AMENDED,
"A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ACQUIRE AND CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS", LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 50
After explanation by Mr. liorstkoLte, General Manager -Chief Engineer,
it was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Rustigian, that Resolution
No. 72-7 be adopted. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan.
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
RESOLUTION NO. 72-8 A RESOLUTION RE UESTING,CONSENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MARTINEZ TO A CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARIES OF
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 50
ASStSSMENT DISTRICT,
After explanaLion by Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager -Chief Engineer,
it ,ilas moved by Neinher Gibbs, seconded by Member Rustigian, that Resolution
No. 77-8 be adopicd. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boiteysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian aad Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
2
Member Mitchell stated that, prior to the Board meeting with the City
Council of Martinez and the public hearing to held on assessments, he
desired the staff to present a review of L.I.1) Nu. 50 for the benefit of
the Board Members.
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 43-5 ASSESSMENT, PARCLL 43-5-24-6, RE: ROBERT
HUNTWORK COMPLAINT
Continued to meeting of February 3, 1972, due to illness of counsel for
Mr. Huntwork.
AUTHORIZATION OF AN INITIAL $20,000.00 FROM SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR SEWER
SERVICE CHARGE INVESTIGATION •
Member Mitchell requested Mr. Horstkotte to present his rationale on the
sewer service charge. Mr. Horstkotte stated that Ps a practical matter, im-
posing a sewer charge based on usage was complicated earl difficult to admini-r...
The ideal approach was to establish a basic uniform service charge which would
be applicable to all property within the District. Board Members and staff
discussed the philosophical rationale nit levying a sever service charge on
property not connected to the sewer system_ Member Mitchell suggested perhaps
a better name would he "cnvironmental quPli_ty charge".
Mr. Horstkotic sLai-ed that the financi 0- 1 I
!1.1000rnitted to the State
contained provisiolm; ToI" a scwo.r service chr.vge, Pad i_hat, If the Board adopts
this type of charge, it must be implemented by July 1, 1972.
Board Members and staff then discussed the scope of the proposed sewer
service charge investigation. Mr. Hol-ilforte explained that it would be
necessary to conduct field surveys in order to develop data to ipply the
charge and that he anticipated iotl authorization of $50,000.00 would be
required to complete the task. Y‘,.;r Mitchell suggested that perhaps a map
survey would be adequate. Meober Uilihrl suggested that a preliminary survey
indicaUng revenue to be generated oy applying the sewer service charge to
alternPiivo types of property would be sattsfacLoly.
Alto!' furthec Jiscussion and explanation by Mr. Horstkotte, it was moved
by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Gibbs, that authorization in the amount
of $5,000.00 from ihe Sewer Construction Fund for Sewer Service Charge Investi-
gation be approved. Such investigation to be a detailed field survey confined
to a limited area selecrod by the General Manager -Chief Engineer, and a report
made to the Board Mcmbeis at the meeting of February 17, 1972. Carried by the
following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ASY,NT: Members: None
::LAIM Or MLINA E. WAKE IN THE AMOUNT OF $61.90
After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte and staff, it moved by Member
Boneysteele, seconded by Member Mitchell, that the claim of Melina E. Wake,
in the amount of $61.90, be paid following receipt of signed Release iv Full
Settlement and Compromise. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Booey-;Leele, Gihbo, Mitchell, Rusriglan and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
CLAIM OF LYTY S. DIGNS5 IN THE AMOUNT OF $391.00
After explanation by MI, ilorstIoLte and staff, it was moved by Member
Rustigian, seconded by Member Mitchell, that the claim of Lyle S. Digness,
3
in the amount of $391.00, be paid following receipt of signed Release in Full
Settlement and Compromise. Carried by the following vote:
AYNS: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, MiLchell, Rostigian aid Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
AUTHORIZATION TQ PAY JOHN A. BOHN FOR SERVICES RENDERED RE DISTRICT SEWERING
PROJECT 1997 CONDEMNATIONS, $1,750.00
After explanation by Mr. Bohn, Counsel for the District, it was moved by
Member Boneysteele, seconded by Member Gibbs, that Mr. Bohn be paid $1,750.00
for services rendered re District Sewering Project 1997 condemnations. Carried
by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members! None
ABSENT: Members: None
CORRESPONDENCE FROM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COUNCIL OF CHURCHES AND THE PROGRESSIVE
EDUCATION LEAGUE - CO -CONVENORS
Member Boneysteele suggested that Board Member attendance at the County
Citizen Participation Meeting was an individual matter. The Board Members
were in Pgreement.
AUTHORIZATION IN TnE AMOUNT OF $50.00 TO SACRAMENTO NORTHERN RAILWAY FOR
PREPARATION OF LICENSE DISTRICT SEWERING PROJECT 1642, LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 51, PARCEL A
It was moved by Amber Mitchell, seconded by Member Rustigian, thaL payment
in t1i7,, amount of $A.00 to Sacramento Northern Railway for preparation of
license be approved. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs. Mitchell, Rustigian and A11.an
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Mr. Borstkotte introduced Mr. Donald McCormick of the County Bureau,
Contra CosLa Times, Presideta Alla invited Mr. McCormick to address the
Board.
Mr. McCormick xcqucsZ2,1 that the Board authorize the District staff to
distribute to the Contra Costa Times all doLuments, reports and supporting
data made available to the Members for use at Board meetings. He then distri-
buted several examples of agenda packages made available to the press from
other agencies.
Individual Board Members expressed dwir views on the ad-Osab-Mity of
acceeding to Mr. McCormick's request and the impact such action might have on
communications between the staff and the Board Members. After discussion
between Board Members, staff and Mr. McCormick and, after clarification of
type of data desired, it was the consensus of the Board that the staff be
authorized to distribute to the press, at the time of each meeting, the data
requested by Mr. McCormick. Such authorization will be reviewed as matter
of policy in gay, 1972.
VIII. REPORTS
COMMITTEES
Mather Boneysteele provided Board Members with additional background
intormation on the Advisoty Committee for Solid WashRo_cycling. Discussion
followed.
4
GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
AUTHORIZATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1 000.00 FOR HEATER
Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager -Chief Engineer, requested authorization
in the amount of $1,000.00 to install a heater for the Board Room. The heating
installation would be added to the Offire Building Expansion 1972 project.
After discussion between Board Members and staff, it wa moved by Member Gibbs,
seconded by Member Rustigian, that authorization in the emount of $1,000.00
from Sewer Construction funds for installation of a heater for the Board Room
be approved. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Member.Boneyst_eele, Gibbs, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Member: Mitchell
ABSENT: Members: None
CALL FOR ORAL EXAMINATION FOR MAINTENANCE MAN I
Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager -Chief Engineer, explained the present
custodian for the District Offices has submitted his resignation. Mr, Horstkotte
requested authorization to conduct oral examinations to fill this position and,
after selection, the individual would be bonded. It was moved by Member Gibbs,
seconded by Member Rustigian, that authorization to call for oral examinations
for Maintenance Man I and bonding be approved. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Aliau
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
President Allan suggested that on personnel matters, staff should ensure
that Personnel Committee be briefed prior to meetings.
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH DESIGN LNVESTICATLON FOR SEWER REPLACEMENT,
HACIENDAWAY, ORINDA
After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager -Chief Engineer,
and assurance from Mr. Bohn, Counsel for the District, that action to replace
the sewer line on Hacienda Way, Orinda, would not jeopardize current liti-
gation involving the District, it was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by
I'Member Boneysteele, that authorization to proceed with design investigation
for sewer replacement, Hacienda Way, Orinda, be approved. Carried by the
following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT
None
IX. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:15 o'clock P.14., the meeting was adjonrned by President Allan.
5
0
February 2, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: Mr, G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT:
Joint Meeting of Bay Counties Water and Environmental
Committee and Bay Area Leagite of Industrial_ Associations,
January 28, 1972
la The undersigned attended subject meeting as an observer. The program was
"Seminar on Sewerage" for the Bay -Delta Region. Speakers were Mr. John H.
Plumb, Secretary, EBMUD, Mr, Fred H. Dierker, Executive Officer of State
Regional Quality Control Board and Mr. Jerome B. Gilbert, Executive officer,
State Water Resources Control Board.
2, Mr, Plumb spoke on the background, scope, plans and procedures for imple-
mentation of BASSA. Mr. Plumb's remarks were basically informational to the
two organizations. No new information concerning BASSA was presented which
was not previously available to the Board. However, the undersigned was
interested to learn how, after prodding from the State and Regional Water
Quality Control Boards and being disenchanted with the Kaiser Study, twenty
to twenty-five bay area dischargers got together under EBMUD (Plumb) and
wrote the legislation for BASSA and got Mr. Knox to introduce it in Sacramento,
Mx. Plumb stated that it was the intent of the BASSA legislation that only
elected officials of agencies treating and discharging waste water were eligible
to serve on BASSA's 21 member Board of Trustees. Language clarifying this
intent would be introduced in Sacramento.
Er. Plumb further stated that to assist the BASSA Board, a 19 man Technical
Advisory Committee would be formed. Representatives of this advisory committee
would serve for four years and would include individuals from the Regional
Water Quality Board, the Environmental Protective Agency, ABAG, BCDC, and three
scientists (biology and oceanography) from the public.
In response to a question, Mr, Plumb stated that a law has been passed in
Sacramento permitting agency dischargers to promulgate industrial waste dis-
charge ordinances. He speculated that all agencies would do this and that
such ordinances would be quite rigid.
3. 1r. Dierker spoke on the status of sub -regional studies and the final
basin plan for the bay region. Ha stated that 14 sub -regional studies are
currently underway covering 99 of the waste water generated in the State.
Tota] cost for the studies is $1,800,000,00 with the San Francisco study
amounting to $1,000 000.000
Mr. Dierker stated that originally the San Francisco Basin Plan was to be
completed by July 1973, when it would super -cede the current Interim Plan.
However, current schedules call for a draft report by January 1974, followed
by hearings and review with the final basin plan completed by July 1974.
2
The State Water Resources Board is primarily respoAsible'for the development
of the Basin Plan and has as its overall managenent team, Mra Ray Walsh and staff
representatives from ABAG and the Regional Watei QualiV.Control Board° However,
it is anticipated that development of the plan will be turned over to BASSA when
it becomes operative,
Mr, Dierker stated that the State and Regional Boards have adopted the
concept of Stage 1 in the Kaiser Study, however, the concept of Stages 11 and
ITT has not been adopted.
4 Mr, Gilbert spoke on policies and programs of the State Water Resources
Control Board with particular reference to the Bay -Delta region He stated
that the State Board has adopted 16 Interim Plans and that California may be
the only State to qualify under the Muskie and Blatnick bills.
Mr. Gilbert stressed the importance of California moving rapidly ahead.in
the field o environmental protection so as to provide leadership in the de-
velopment standards and trends.
Mr. Gilbert stated he visualizes BASSA as a utility type organization be-
cause it not only plans but can build and operate facilities, Further, he
considers it essential that BASSA be formed soonest because it should be in-
volved in the development of the Basin Plan.
La conclusion, he stressed that it was necessary that action be taken now
and facilities built because the field is dynamic and he cautioned, the State
Water Resources Control Board would be moving fast.
EKD'oms
. Forwarded:
Respectfully submitted,
E. K. Davis, Secretary
if" I
HorstKotte Jr.
4,
General Manager -Chief Engineer
February 1, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA:
SUBJECT
Mr, G. A. Horstkotte, Jr,, General Manager -Chief Engineer
Meeting of the Board of Directors, EoBoMoU.D. January 25, 1972
1. The undersigned attended subject meeting as an observer. Scheduled to appear
before the E.B0M,U.D. Board was Mr, Frank Mn Stead and Mr. Rans A. Feibusch who
authored the SoP,UoR, report on "A Solid Wastes Management System for the Bay
Region",
2. Prior to the appearance of the above gentlemen, Mr. John Plumb, Secretary
for EoB,M.U.D. summarized correspondence received from individuals and companies
praising the initiative and encouraging the E,BoMoU,D, Board to adopt an active
role in a regional solid waste management disposal program. Among the correspondence
received were letters from Alameda Supervisor Fred Fo Cooper Ralph M. Parsons
Co,, and Physics International Co.
3. Mr. Stead and Mr, Feibusch made a thirty minute presentation utilizing charts
and graphs of the SoPoU,Ro report on "A Solid Wastes Management System for the
Bay Region", Highlights of the presentation were:
a. Individual agency approach to environmental problems must be
abandoned, What must be adopted is a program oriented to ''manage-
ment of the life support system",
bo New concepts for solid waste management must be adopted, the
basic one which is highestLuile .ferligoltd-waste for recycling",
c A demonstration program of 100 tons solid waste disposal is
planned to indicate the feasibility of the SPUR. report. H.P.A.
has indicated interest in the project particularly in regard to
sludge disposal..
do The major 'logjam" to solving the problem of solid waste manage-
ment is too many governmental bodies and jurisdictions all oriented
for a single purpose. A regional agency must be formed which would
have the authority for planning, implementing and.operating a
regional solid waste management program. E.B,M.U.D. is in a unique
position. It currently is involved with solving the problems of
pure water, liquid wastes, and solid waste disposal (sludge). in
addition, it is a major landowner. For these reasons, it is three
jumps ahead of any new agency",
4. Mr, Roland F. Kelley, Vice President, Ralph M. Parsons Co. of Los Angeles
addressed the.E.B.M.U.D. Board and related experiences his firm had encountered
in solid waste management. Mr® Kelley advised the Board that: A good public
relations program was essential; the initial program should be modest in seope
and there are no easy solutions to solid waste management,
2
5. A representative from Easley and Brassy Corporation, Brisbane, addressed
the Board. He stated his firm had thirty years experi,eace in solid waste
disposal was well qualifLed in this fields and wouid like an opportunity to
talk with the EaBsivitU,D„ Committee before tiaey submitted their final report.
6. President Krueger of the E.B,M,U.D. Board stated the sub -committee of the
E,B.11.U.D, Board exploring the question of solid waste management had further
investigations to make before reporting to the entire Board, Ha further stated
that he did not anticipate.a decision on the matter for some time,
Respectfully submitted;
EKD ms
Forwarded:
Li e
Horstkotte, Jr,,
oral Manager -Chief Engineer
E. K. Davis, Secretary
FILE COPY
Filed:
January 31, 1972
• MgM(XiWDIT:, :20Rrwcb1f. ticlalbaro ut thQ :Bourd of Dirc!coro
VLA C. AD KortAkotte, Jr. Gclir.!ral Monaccr-Chief Engineer
SU3JECT.g
Ectebliahad Sel:vic(J8 of Ravenuc
As directs 1 have r(4viewed the major existing sources (7) revi2nue
cf the :"Aatrfct excpt taxes. 1 have not includd ecualizatioa charses
which, in my opiaion, need no adjustment and are not signLficant, ncr
:-_ayc 1 stdied f?,ngineering and inspection fees which are being reviewed
sspara.zely. 1 have f,ncluded a recommendation on the proposed unf.versal
Service or Environmental Quality Charge,
Dm to the press. of timQ and work ;pad, this revm and f.tc
ri?.commendons are sdimitted in less deail-th'an past. studies and must
be zegar&ad as prliminary. Its submittal in this form is to seek dio-
cz:ssion and suidance fro the Board in those areas judged to be deficient
or worhy of expansion.
W. C Dalton
Admthistrativ,...2 Engineer
Approved 3y
G
G, A. Horst:,:otze,Jr
General Manzger-Chief ETA.iner
"AlCD: v
r,SMAT:N
has been resardc6 as a 'ouy-1,1' Te.yr:2;1t oI.epresent Lhe
paymer (acuity achieved by plcoperties within he District: Since Jaxi7ary 1,
1967, hs charge has been $250 per acre except in Orinda and Moraga
SYM
2roce in rt rc3x acialnr-;t wY.lue
acre within th3 reslf:s f,n iccumulaive ttal of 025 in 1970-71A
bond azs rate is ac' u: of of tilt fisurc,1 o 77Q1rewni:
total major capital improvement costo disrege the se-asides and surpluses
from the running expense bua3et f=ansfc7Irred CJni-,;truc4on z-.7ad the
investment and accumulation of several MI=OUE of dollars of sewer (:onst'rLIctio2,
funds which should be inchxled in th'e present taXpayro'uiLy
The staff recommendation is to increase the ana,z;Aation therge sufficLently
zo avoid another increase for many years and
Aake one unifom charge
throughout the enti-,ce potential servide area, Ne :ecoinmene that the new
uniform charge b $400 per acre effective July 1D 1972-
FIXTURE CHAAGE
This care formerly desi nated as the "Connect,ion Charge" was the 3ub:j'ect
of r. otudy following submittal of the Brown end Caldwell Report in January, 1967,
At Cme, only minor changes were reconmz,n&ld and edoptTx: (on Jon. 1, 1955)
C:14 ti u unIA fixture charseo elro, vitually unchL.ntj(xl 7.1953
recommended changee were for 1967 to 1972 only.. .We iad sc.du1ed Stage 5A
fur 1972 and knew a review of rEanue would D62 nc'tef,sary, Sta1 5 viar;
mated by Brown and Caldwell to coot $3,815,300 which would Ilave appreciated
to about $5,000,000 by 1972. S:age 5A as now :planned wilL cost about
$8,000,000 but will overlap the old Stages 5 and 6 In addition to 5i, at
$3,0009000, we must plan for 5B at $3,000,000 plus fzrunk and defency wo1.7&
To put this part of the revenue picture in the aimplest terms,
projections of the population increase subject to fiEfzure charger from 1972
until 1980 are estimated at 1509000 to 1809C009 and construrtion fund
n!qtArements at about $1598509000. These estiattes wouLd demand a yield, of
$88 ':() $106 per person or about $300 to $375 par living unit The preL;en,...
y,,zle is estimated at $75 per person buz de to apartmnt building the living
uni-
Az is eotimand at an average of $200 leas
From he above comparisons and estimates, f_z wpale aproea desf.ibl to
:mos e a 50% increase on fixture c'aars,
thTh cha-:se is to co7Linu
e
maf,or source of cental improvement revnue.
11(7, recuumencitztfLaA to izcreeze -L7.c, base charges
y 50'4 each and the mf.nimum totzl carse Zoz. a:Ly living =i.1- or non-7:esf_dntial
usa to $25C, effec:Lve Jrcly 1 7_972. We wf..1: su,',Dr.Lt a revied scheele for
:aisce:Ianeou3 fixturz charges in te near futu:e,
( Con ri)
,iti 400
(
Pp 'I
We also propose, as the ui of aprel.i.minay st7Tady Lust comp',V,1!te,,O re-
commend chanc! of the muItfpla Ccms.fty .E.A,7,rc1a:3 'co oriati reiztue,
Imitu rather J.u..tr, was developed
to 7-70:vc.1),(.1 of TAiht h1,14 boen singlo
family 17,,,j,6ent-,:d-1
o
the new revenue could b ,Illoc:At .d to such
,Aqtr (;11-' tmllh
v1w7,11_,L ogram 11441
boc:n acENucte and nuccesful„
rrb! objalc:ion to thc vczent L,t:hod f fLg-t3th urchcq7fe two -fold.
Fln;t. n f%actl,e of 113-7 maly units rAr,1 plcItmod ald/cv built i: :Lr
and ft docit ac coni:: acri;u um:A- Sc,cond, dr)c.:21 no'z appLy to olaGi
family developmnts auc-a com4omilLiumE, town hues, o7: ?lann(..6 Dev,Ilopmunts
which usually hcmcl a muca srtctc1:.7 density thEn old or nsw sir1gi fzimf.ly homa
To illustrate -ucit-.1e, we hv 1.w three rcent conijm1ou,5
r)nging from 7.35 to 9.79 units pe E:re, an fou: Epzrtments from 38.1
units per acre. Sinff,le family home sub&iwisions, or. the othr ttathl, tend to yield
less than the old four units per acre used in the enrlier study, possiblybecause
new hones are larger and/or topography limits maximum densities to a greater
degree
Going back to the first density study (May 15, 1961) and reintAni; som
pertinent figures for comparison, we have the forlouing unit flows:
7zIally_qpits -Der ,rtPre IgaiLL'47.,:e
, 4 r 6,100
10 7,4C0
LOC
10
.7...:.,20C 104
33 14,70C 240
50 7.2_ OCC 361
70 29, ',0C) 422
:LS On
'4ixture Chargc! (Contd)
PLc-e 3
-
Based on the a'oove, wa uould change the mrathod of f-Lxing density charges
to units per 1.c.n:1, nad recomm:ur: followinl rb1 riry ch(Idlu We would use
gross acreage ar.cludf,ng puollr,c road rights of wLy or drafmage ditches, etc.
LI; ,
its Per aerf.-!
r
O5
5-10
_1-20
21-30
31-50
over 51
.Fixture M
0
1-2
2 „
3.0
„ 0
35
ELECT73 717::: CHARGES
This charge, formerly knom ,;,o the "Sei,Krc Sc?.rvcc. Charge" was oricinrAly
enacte4 to help high-risk buvinesses or e,evelapments with unusually high con-
nectiop charges get established before paymen': of full standard connecdon
cha-rges. Examples of such enterpriLBec were launderes, restaurrintE, car -washes
and dairy bars.
However:, in pnT,C:ice vLLL lim:,orfty of _!LA.InIcorJ th..LE opt or.
ii'vbc.AL:n own.
1-1,-1 ,
1-yd0 0,
use has creatad problems when sales occur and hnc enailed much legal 'Lime
as well as BoaE review.
Staff recommendation Is to modify the language of the Code to Iimf_t tic
use o the Elective Fi7,1ture Charges to non-resideEtial connections only and
not tc permit the optilon (including existing options) to be t'ransfer:red 1E:rom
the original owner t':o any s
ubsequent buyer.
5 of .11
REBATE CaARGTI]S
nlpat, th:Lsenco, a rucommonck.tion inae,a in 1967,, We propose that
rebat,2, chrse nreas be eNpanded to cover the entire. Diotrict outside of Zhose
an!as alrv!ady covered by LID on equalization charge
This would establish
paynble to the District for any conm!ctf,on mitd, to trunk or rulln
s(:!wer financed by Lit6trfxt-wide taxciF:— It woi.ed alEo eklJtablish such rebztes
for m.ens where the connecting properL7y her 2ot conibiLted to the cost of local
sawetin3,
6 of L1
f.;ATERSEIT, Tana CEARGES.
tithAershW trunk charsz have bc!(!n oilin.biloa inv-4idu,aLly by nor(
action after a sudy of each drainage area. In 3eneral, costs have pe -,1,.n
a,
projected ahead and areas o developuent within a ten-year period estimated
conHrvate.ly. ?,iowaw17:, both cot s and cirri!nE have been infimq1c4,!d by t171
deflatLon of the dollar arc chnuAls in development petternso 'We have reviewed
Lhe approved wuterohed plans and chrges and rcilcoumend the followThs adjmens
Ln unit charges. In a namber of crlscs Di3trict corltribut:Ions or .1-riv7,1stlIts are
involved and he incray.se will _'L-.2,c:eliate return of fullo to tIIe 3w Con-
struction 7und
Watershed % Established
lio. Cua_121ee. Chare_
CIan.,
e for chLTA9 Date
........_
2 100 $520 per acre or home
3 0 92 77 77 r7
:
8 0 150 per unit of use:() ,V00 (Future Cost) -1-72
.
10 25 175 " 77 37 77 11
( 79 V ) 7-1-72
li 0 175 " 17 77 73 77 ( 71 17
) 7-1-72
13 100 Rebate Class I $162-50 none
15 50 175 per unit of use to $200 (Dist, Invest) 7-.i,-72
22 100 100 per unit of use to $200 (Dist,Contrib) 7-_-72
23 60 100 " Iv 7 7 *200 (c',:fall) 7-L-72
241\T TO 1005C
" 17 77 77 (Disc C'z
onri7D) 7.:72
$1
24C 100 100 in v `Jit $153 N 11 ) 7-1-72
24S 98 15C " 17 47 $203 (6ensy ) 7-1-72
27 70 15C ' 11 U $2C0 (ds:. , :n -Jest) 7-1-72
27W 98 1J -D
7 r' A V N• 47 $20C ( 77 " ) 7-1-72
29N LOO 300 ' 17 1 $200 f 1,i
k vi ) 7172
aecommend Raason Effective
none
y „D.=
WatIrshed r„::=7rs Charg(.?.,„ (Cont'd) Page 2
WatershA %
No. Ci10',
Recommend Reason Effective
r°7-arre_ for_ftTEE Date
29S 0 $150 per unit of tacJ:! None
33N 0 $150 v? v? ,v qq
None
3354 70 ..200 v? : ,,
„on(
34N 63 $150 14 N 14
None
34S 100 $150 q9
No
35N
40 $150
35S 25 $150
35W 100 $150
1 90 15.0'
M
27
17
2,1
99 Not established - LID 50
VCV, nx.z.vrc, Cc
MC 7uzure Cest 7--72
$200 ()it Contrib) 7-1-72
$200 (Dist Contrib) 7-1-72
9
17;RViCE CHAGE OR naAcimmTAL QUALITY CHARGE,
typ(2, vintudly manchaory undu7Stron,4
legision and i bsolutry a:andatory for any user that cn b(a clar2sd as
inc:stsial. We have previou$ly adopted a special service &large vhich will
cover most non-reuidcmtial uoere and whIch will be incorporated under ght.geTieral
Q. '(.!ory.
We have p:evious:.y discussed with the Board. ,Jf Directors the proor3eo:
InT3::c amount of $2,00 por month or $24.0C per year pr home and will assume
that charge aF, a beginnfLns point. :he use o -,Z the County tax roll and collection
procedures also seems to be agreed as the only 7)ractical method of billin2.,col-
lectfns ancf, accounting.
We have reviewed the procedures to be used and plan to keep our accounting
to a minimum. The first tax roll to he used will he the most dif2icu1t and
laborious to process, but from that point internal organization will
relesate the bLI:ing to a ::cuz7.1n(a but cri.f.cal record-keepin3 ,job,. A field
check of svery area wifa:,n the DIst7ict must br; made and in zoning areas other
than avicultral and sf.n3le family every property must have a field check
and a record of pertinent das established. Attaced is list of )rocedures to
be followed
The staff pro9oszl is to appy the service or E Q. cha7:g, (1) f -o all
separate parcelsas 7,Lstad on the County tax roll withth the Disif.c: (2) .Lo
every Living unit in :he Diatreit in excess of c'ne on each prop__,.ty (3) to -1,ac:i
comme.rcial Iea sa or rental unt or luse :1777, excess o one cn each properzy.
The'3alance of uses ar,?, ccvered by tie Special ',:se Charge prviously adopted,
SEWER SERVICE OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL:T7 CC : ?a0CiOUU
The following is a lf.st of events which will occur p7:Lor to establishlng
fina1. ervice charges after Service Charge or Environmantal Caarge ordinance has
been adopted.
n:11 d pu Tiltitze tO have Cunty collect t4rvi
roll and instructs staff to vepare a written report describing he 'parcel
(assessor's parcE1 number), nam. of owner (s) and amount of charge for each
parcel within the Dstrict "reiving such services and facilities.
la.
card miAas an areernent with County Board of Superviscrs to pay
County a fee for collect -ion of sr,!rv-Lce charge on tax roll (shoud be done
concurrently with #1). Fee wi12_ not exceed 1% of all money collected.
2, Staff contines field cMck and completion of data cares,
2a. Staff meers with wo.nr districts to work out a procedure of
obtaining water consumption of special users.
3 Staff writes letter 1.".o County Administrator requesting a determination
of feasibility of the District: Lsing the services of the Data Procesving
Division of the County
3a, Staff meets with County to discuss procc?duras to be foliowad
to obtain a list s-aoviing Esseso:f's parcel numIcer owner,' Lame and address a7,.d
amount of se:vfc,a chJP.rge.
4, Staff racaives :.n.7forma:ion frm water districts ad enIers agnl-opriate
figures on data cards.
Aa. Staff com;utes serv!ce cliaz.ge for special L:sers.
5. Stef:7 receives print oun: fro r2 County coverinq entire District showing
7)a:cal 17...,mber and owners rame and addTecs.
10 of 11
Ss,i7er Service or Envilonmental QualizT Charge Procedir (Cont'ci) Page 2
(1.g.1u2rmln whfivk pfln?Als ,-re served or chtx4ed.
6a. Staff notes amount of E3ervicz chn7.4;i! for each parcel on print out.
7. County takes print
Board gives notice
owlwr nnd publiohwA
Board holdh(ilerinb,
estniishrad.
10. List of charges ii filed with Accounting Dre7artment.
10a. Notice g,.ven to County that charges a:2 final. Notic has to be
in hands of County by August 1.
out and runs final list of parcel, ownc!r- and charge.
of service ca zze 1::o every parcal affected (1.1;:::Jue
in zAt- ,tyJpv) 2c-lt:e of hearinr„
If thure. are no luejority protests, cha7Ges are
11 of 11
•
January 31, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR. uonorable Members of the Board of Directors
VIM G A. Horstkottel Seneral Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT Time limit for rebate recoveries
1. BACKGROUND - The rebate provisions of this District (formerly
Ordinance 25) contain the statement that the installers right
to recover rebate fees terminates ten years after the District
accepts the rebate installation unless the Board upon recommendation
of the Engineer extends the recovery period to a certain date.
In the early daits of the rebate ordinance, it was felt that ten
years was sufficient in :most .cases to insure recovery. Also many
of the early rebate lines were installed by subdividers and it
was assumed that they had written the cost of off-site rebate
lines into the sale of their homes and that rebate payments were
just extra profit.
For the seventeen years that the District's rebate procedures
have been in operation, a different picture has developed, First,
ten years is obviously not long enough to recover rebate fees in
most cases, and, second, the majority of rebate installations are
not connected with subdivision developments, but are neighborhood
or single -owner extensions.
In 1963, the extension of time change was rnade3 but staff has
not brought individual installation to the Board for action on the
assumption that extensions would be granted when and if special
action were required. We are reaching a time whea.a considerable
number of rebate jobs will reach the 10 year limit. It is our
conclusion that individual action in such cases would create un
necessary staff 'work and clutter up Board agendas. We believe
that under our accounting systew credits can be carried indefinitely
or until fully paid so that no installer reed lose such credit.
Attached is a letter referring to a rebate line installed in
1960 on which no recovery has been made.
2. RECOMMENDATION - Modify the Code Section 9-111 to eIthnate the
last sentence wnidh pertains to the time limit.
r- -
r
Eliminate the reference in Section 9-123 which excepts the
District from the 13 year limitation from the word 'except" to
the end,
Eliminate Section 3-131 entitled "DuTation of insta1lerfi2redi "
Approved By
t.
G. A. •orstkotte,
Genera Ehnager-Chie E;agineer
WC1):117
T/L C Dalton
Administrative Engineer
January 31, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR Honorable Ilmbers of the Board of Directors
VIA: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr, - General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT Consents to Execution of Easement, LID 52-7.
Parcels 10 and 14, Danville area.
1. PROBLEM: East Bay Municipal Utility District desires to install
underground water service within a portion of our exclusive easements
(LID 52-7, Parcels 10 and 14).
2, BACKGROUND:, This Distact acquired a 10 foot in width exlusive
easement (LID 52-7, Parcel 10) from Mr. George G. hall, etal,
(Mr, Hall's property has' since been sold to Mr. John F. Oliverio)
and a 20 foot in width exclusive easement (LID 52-7, Parcel 14)
from Mr. Robert Mainhardt. The developer of subdivision 3992 has
requested rights over said easements to install water service.
Mr. Oliverio and Mr. Mainhardt are willing to grant BMUD a portion
of said easements, 032 a non-exclusive basis. EBMDD has requested
our approval of said Consents to Execution of Easement.
3. ALTERNATIVE a. Approve said Consents to Execution of Easement
b Deny approval
4. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Consents to Execution of Easement. We
frequently deal with public utilities agencies inmatters of,this
type, for our benefit as well as theirs.
Respectfully submitted
Recommendation Approved
G.A Horstkotte Jr.
General Lanager -Chief Engineet
J1,13jv
Jack L. Best
Office Engineer
January 26, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr. , General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: Rahn Court and Mayo Lane, Walnut Creek - D.S.P. 1957
1. PROBLEM: The District staff is prepared to recontact the property
owners in D.S.P. 1957 so we may proceed with construction this ppring.
Attached is a new bulletin dated January 24, 1972, and a letter giving
an option to property owners on reconnecting side sewers where necessary.
2. RECOMMENDATION: Proceed with acquiring right of ways and agreements for
D.S.P. 1957 project.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack L. Best,
Office Engineer
JLB:m.s
Attach.
Recommendation approved:
G. A. Horstkotte, Jr.,
General Manager -Chief Engineer
\,
January 26 1972
MEMORANDUM POR THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA G. A. Horstkotte, Jr. General ManagerChief Engineer
SUBJECT: Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District Waed Abatement
Charge, in the amount of $30.00, levied against Parcel 17
R-1, LID. 50, Fairview Pump Site -
10 PROBLEM A Weed Abatemant charge has beau levied against this District
and appears under delinquent taxes; cost to.;redeem, $30000. We filed
a complaint and the Fire District made an tnvestigation, the conclusion
being the charge will remain as assessed
2, BACKGROUND A "Notice to Abate" was mailed to this District January 29,
1969, and the "Self Abatement Card" returned to the Fire District allowing
an extension of time to April 15, 19690 This notice was not complied with
and the Fire DistrictIs contractor completed the abatemerit on June 27 1969
3 RECOMMENDATIONg
JLB:ins
AEC
Pay abatement charge in the amount of $30000.
Respectfu14 submitted,
Recommendation approved:
G. A. Aorstkot Jr.,
General Nanager-Chief Engineer
Jack La Best, Office Engineer
January 26, 1972
mEmoRANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MENBERE OF THE BOARD O DIRECTORS
VIM
A, Horstkotte, Jr„ General MAnager-Chief Engineer
Mx. TJ C. Dalton, Administrative Engineer
SUBJECT: Agenda Item
1. PRObLEM Overflow, John L 'Adler
1533 Harlan Drive
Danville, California 837-8703
2. BACKGROUND: On Saturday, January 1, 1972, the District on call crew
was called to relieve an overflow at the address nentioned above,
Upon arrival, the crew found the r exiAting line plugged 120' upstream
from manhole on 114rIan at Conway toward manhole in front of #I548 Harlan.
The stoppage consisted of lots of grease and was cleaned
wit :I no difficulty.
The damage was limited to the wall to wall carpet and pad
in bedroom and dressing room and hardwood floors.
The District crew cleaaed and disinfected throughout and
an overflow device has been installed.
3. ALTERNATIVES: Pay claim, refuse. claim,
A, RECOMMENDATION: The total of this claim comes to $141.37 and it seems
to be reaeonable for this type of damage. The claimant is entitled to
a settlement,
REM me
AG
Recommendation approved:
41,1'
G Herstko=te,
General Aanager-Chief Engineer
Respectful T submitted,
H. Hinksons
Superintenclent of Field Operations