Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-10-1972 AGENDA BACKUPMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOARD CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD APRIL 13, 1972 The District Board of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in an Adjourned Regular Session in Room 215, Las Lomas High School, 1460 South Main Street, Walnut Creek, California, on April 13, 1972, at 8:00 o'clock P.M. The meeting was called to order by President Allan. I. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan ABSENT: Members: None None. None. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES IV. HEARINGS DISTRICT REVENUE PROGRAM President Allan welcomed members of the audience to the public hearing to consider the District's Revenue Program. He then introduced the Members of the Board of Directors and staff personnel of the District. After explaining the format for audience participation, President Allan de- clared the hearing open and then introduced Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager -Chief Engineer, moderator for the staff's presentation on the District's proposed revenue program. Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager -Chief Engineer, utilizing charts, explained to the audience that waste water discharge requirements for the Bay Area and for the Sanitary District in particular, are imposed by regulatory agencies of the Federal and State Government. In order to qualify for Federal and State grant funds, it is necessary that the District have a viable revenue program and that its proposed waste water treatment facilities project meet Federal guidelines for design, operation and maintenance. Mr. Dalton, Administrative Engineer, presented a summarized report on Contra Costa County's Water Quality Study which is a subregional approach for the treat- ment of waste water within the County. Mr. Dalton explained the reasons for and scope of the study. Further, he outlined the major factors and criteria Lhat governed the preparation of the study and briefly reviewed the alternative waste water plans examined, including their estimated capital and operating cost's. Mr. Dalton stated that the District's proposed waste water treatment expansion and water reclamation project basically conforms with all of the alternative plans studied. More important, however, the District's project is almost identical to that recommended in the County's study. Mr. Niles, Superintendent of Plant Operations, presented a brief report on the Disinfection Criteria and Design Guidelines as published by the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Niles explained that, in order to qualify for Federal funds, all proposed waste water treatment facilities must meet prescribed design and main- tenance standards and be capable of removal of a minimum of 85 per cent of the bio- chemical oxygen demand. Mr. Ho,:sLkot,:-,11s:sal Manager Chic i: 1ng4nees, commented that, as a result of the Clean Wate,A ck 1965, ache District and Cohtra Costa County Water District had initiated wdissr renovatinl 2101QCi: which was a two-year pilot plsilL operation jointly financed by the District, the WaLer District and the Federal Covernment. In conjunction with this pilot plant operation, a one-year virus removal study was made and toxicity parameters were establsl. Mr. Horstkotte then explained that, as a result of the itot study, the Sani:a_y District financed the construction of an Ad- vance Treatment Ueat Facility to verify pilot da and to facilitate expanded treat- ment and water reclination plant design. Mr. Niles, biperintendent of Piant Operations, presented abrief technical report on the DistricL's Advanceci Treatment Test Faci)ity, Theii, with the u3e of a flow chart, he explained in detail. :he d -,!sign and fiou processes for the District's proposed expanded waste water and water ecfatantion plant and how the District pro- poses to reclnim T,Iste water for industrial use. Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager -Chief Engi_ncer, utilizing a chart, indicated that the Federal 0,Pilt Program provides for 80 per cent funding for viable treat- ment projects. The Listrict's project is estimated to cost $38,400,000.00 of which $7,680,0.00 would be a responsibility of the Sanitary Disisrict. Mr. Horstkotte stated that without inclusion of the water reclamation projec;-, only 33 per cent Federal funding would be available to the DYstricL. He Further commented ihat sale of 1 -claimed water to industry could reduce the Di.st;ict's outlay of 76S000000$ by P,600,000.00. Mr, Horstkotte then explained the surfelit status of pcoding Federal egislation which would have impact uoa District lundIng of projects for which rcderal. grants have been established, r_;ecause of the direction of Federal and State legislation, it was the conclusion of he staff to recommend establish- ment oi an Environmental Quality Chargr, 'if. McCoy, Engineering Associate, in;,de a brief presentation on Lhe proposed Environmental Quality Charge. He explairted that, in order to qualify foi Federal Grant funds, the District's revenue pLogfv..1 must have approval by the State Water Resources, Control Board, In his explcqation of the Eaviroomental Quality Charge, Mr. McCoy stated the charge Imposed for 5ndustclai users is based upon. quantity and quality of waste water discharged; the charge for residential property is based upon parcels or living units per parc:el of property sad that the charge for unde- veloped parcels wollta be $6.00 per year. Mr. Dalton Engiecr; with the use of a graphic aid, presenicd a summarized report on the DisLricL's )1-n,4/Acial plan through the year 1980-1981 Mr. Dalton commented chi projected Levenues, tbe sources of revenue, on operating costs, deplia'rion, Lha re.pital expeliditu,e3 projected by the District, and that the format for the District financial plao ,vas a basic requirement of both Sac. and Federal Govermonnis In :o7cpoIlr,'e to MPm er Boeysteele, Mr. Horstkotte cammertcld on Lhe Porter - Cologne Act, and its impact upon the District's project and the penalties that could be imposed upon ih=1 District if standards for waste watel: treatment were not met. Fresdeni. Allan asked for comments or questions from the members of the audience. A gnnrIco,n from the audience posed several questions to members of the staff and Board of Directors regarding the District's current treatment facilities, its proposed expansion program and costs rniated thereto. Mr. Horstkotte explained while it was prude,L to anticipa, kuture requirements, expo -Liston of facilities was mandatory when th- opczal_:4ng capacity of the Lreatment plat approached 80 per cent. President Allan noted tat, as quality a;schargc standards are raised, the cost for treatment of waste w, -,1%c-1- is greatly inerRascd and that the District was attempting to offset some of thlt; increased cosL by developing and selling a by- product, namely rcclaimed water-, Member Mitchell commented that the present ex- pansion program of '38,400,000.00 represented only one third of the ultimate re- quirement as projected for the District and that it was dle Uneqcial policy of 2 Lh 01,4tr1eL that new coAstrucLion be ciirlrged iLs irit- share without, capttul cost Ilurden ';',J present Jsniq. Mr. Dalton stated Lhe (leLermination of a $2.00 Environmental Quality GIIP:rgc was predicated upon a cel!_tain tax rate and the amount of rr,v1.que LawAi-ecd to finance the expansion program. Mmber Mitchell commented or, the method adopted by staff io de;.eli1liu02. t.he $2.on it.e and explained the rationale for tij1ying an Euvionmentel Qualiry Charge to 11?9,veloped land. Mr. Horstkotte noted Lhai-,, preseotly, disposal of sludge from the treatment plant is by contract but that with the expnndivi faciltttes, it has been determined by District consultants thnf it will be necasy to resort to incineration. Member Boneysteele c,°.Torteirl that the District ht ford e Citizens Advisory Committee for solid was:7, recycling, commented ou Lts progress, and vindicated that on,. of the alternatives being considered is integrating the disposvi of sil,Idge with the regional progreill ucommended in the SPUR report. Member Mitchell stated that the design of the c,panded q_:yeatment plant incorporates provision for a road to link the plant with the Acme Fill disposal site in the event an Htelnative to incinera- tion of sludge becomes dpsirabic. If incineration is the outy vvacttetll manner for disposal, there are sevoi11 processes that could be use such es py,olysis to gen- erate energy requirements. He furtbr_tr commentad tbqt it_ is anticipated that only the minimum of incineraLion units would be newlircd At Lhis time. Mr. Dalton com- mented on the cost for servicing the WqtrieL's ooLctandiag long team debt and its relationship to t.hu District's flaal.eiti plau. Member Gibbs noted thri- the need for short term borrowing presented in th financial plan was for the pocpose of financing the constiuction phase of the oxveodcd plant lini"li c.,,ceipi of govern- ment grant funds. Mr. M. K. Gorter- resident of Wainw„ Creek. California, addressed the Boaid In his remarks, Ct.0 comme_71ded the District foe its fine service to thr om munity and in particulnz for lsiab1i8itmat of a decliaing tax rate for the pasi_ six years, However, hi1c hu ?,ppreciatPa the staff's presentation, Mr. Carter was of the opiT,Inn tbmU Lhe public should ha,ve greater opportuni,y to familiarize it- self with Lhe details of the DistricL's propoE20 revenue proram. Mr. Carter noted that establishment of 2O0Nuviroilmeaiol Quality Charge ior single residential parcels would not. b,2 tax dedw:LlbJe and 7vold ;orreaoc -!ewer service costs to him approximately 30 pr vent_ Mr. Carter inquired AS to the co8t for coast!. ction rnd operation of the water reclamatio.t facilities road Illvaf icveilue was p,:oincted from sale of re- claimed water, Mr. HortkoLic, General MaLInger-Chr ,espondPd teat a District c:mmittee was ,,zur-lf!ALly 11;:goLiaiing wah Contra CoL:La Coollty Water District for a contraire foe rim]e of '47cloirsd cater and, depeDdtng upon of that contract, the Distri.ct wi.ght expcc $3.50 or $8.50 pc acre foot. Membnr Gibbs, Chairman of the Ne,?,oilating Cotpmittee, pxplained that he DisLrici in eonwar,ltion with the WnLcv District was moving louard a program for reuse of water. Further, t.Iat. t:bc Dis;zieZ'r; finanrial goal for this progicum of watex clamation was to olin sufficien.7_, ,ev31-Lue to recover costs for own:ation, mainten- ance and 40prPcir,iiolct givL the District a 6 per cent return on its in- vestmeloL_ T.0 zot,pohse to inquiry by Carter, Memb,-,-.: Gibbs and M. Horstkotte indicated that, of tha proposed $38,00,000-00 expansio,1 program, ,illproximately $2,600,00.00 would be „:pent on water ,eclamaiion raciiitles. The remaining $35,800,000.00 uould have to be spent regardless ot cocts for water reclamation in order to meet higher qualiLy virste water d:sehoxge fequireutnaL,;: Member Mitchett commented that grant funds welcc great devand tod order Lo quality for these funds, the Districi was obligated !_-o meet a May 1, 1972, deadline. Whi1.-2 the Board of Directors would have preferred having the p7olem of resale of reclaimd water to the Water Distiict .csolved prior Lo consideration of the revenue program, the severe deadline imposcd by the State precluded this from being realiry. Presi— dent Allan responded that while 1-hc Board of Directors need not make a decision on the revenue program at Chjs meeting, a decisio.1 would be necessary prior to May 1.. In a getriral discussion, comments were maci, by Board Members regarding the Environmental Quality Charge as being a possible tax deductible item and rhat the District proposod to collect the charge by of the LnY roll. Mr, Dalton com- mented that other revenue available to the Di.stict, such as idle District's co.titfact 3 with the City of Concord, had impact on the size of the proposed Environmental Quality Charge and the projected tax rate. President Allan commented ori the possible effect passage of the Watson Amendment might have on Special Districts such as the Sanitary District and that such passage might necessitate establish- ment of an Environmental Quality Charge. Member Mitchell stated that he was con- fident that it was the consensus of the Board that the District does not intend to resort to a billing procedure to collect the Environmental Quality Charge from the more than 50,000 arcounts, but that collection would be made by use of the tax roll. Mr. Carter requested the Board Members to carefully consider the alternatives available to the District prior to making a decision and that the public be given another opportunity to familiarize itself with the facts on the matter. Mr. James Disney, an attorney and resident of the District, addressed the Board. Mr. Disney stated that it was his impression that the District's proposed expansion program resembled a "hurry up job"; that the District was planning to construct a very large plant at considerable cost; that it appeared that a decision would be made this evening; and that, if the public had been made aware of the pro- posed $2.00 a month Environmental Quality Charge, more of the public would be in at- tendance at the hearing. He further commented that he was in agreement with Mr. Carter and that under the circumstances, without a current viable contract for sale of reclaimed water, he thought the expansion program represented speculative action by the District. Mr. Disney noted that while it was commendatory for Central San to be obviously further ahead in its program than seventeen other local sanitary districts, he personally would prefer to "take his chances" with the latter. He stated that availability of water was not a local problem; that he suspected that the Water District could purchase water cheaper than the reclaimed water offered by the District; and that the type of project proposed by the District was more suitable to an area like Southern California. Unless the Board Members have al- ready reached a decision, Mr. Disney thought a deadline of May 1, 1972, was too short to permit public consideration of the project, assuming the Board Members were interested in the views of the public. Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager -Chief Engineer, commented on the sparsity of the attendance (twenty persons in the audience) suggesting that this was caused more by lack of interest on the part of the public rather than a lack of communica- tions, especially since progress on the District's project had been reported fre- quently in the local press and notice of the hearing duly published by the District. Member Mitchell stated it was the responsibility of the Board Members to determine if the District's expansion program was constructed. The purpose of the public hearing was to determine how to allocate the costs involved in building and operating the expanded treatment plant facilities. Member Mitchell commented that the point raised by Mr. Carter, namely use of an Environmental Quality Charge as opposed to ad valorem taxes, was a valid issue and a matter of concern to the Board. Member Mitchell commented on an apparent trend by the Federal Government requiring substitution of service charges to replace ad valorem taxes. While it has always been the policy of the Board not to place undue burden on the District's taxpayers, as evidenced by the District's record of declining tax rate and operations at mini- mum cost, the circumstances today have changed. The public wants and the regulatory agencies are demanding that requirements for discharge of waste water into the San Francisco Bay be raised. As an example of the more stringent requirements being in - posed, Member Mitchell cited the areas of Lake Tahoe and the Livermore Valley. In response to Mr. Disney's comment that perhaps the public's interest in ecology was approaching the extreme, Member Gibbs emphasized that the District would have spent 95 percent of the $38,400,000.00 regardless of water reclamation and sale of water just to meet the rigid requirements for discharge in San Francisco Bay. The purpose for inclusion of the water reclamation project is two -fold, The Board considers water reclamation as a positive long term economic benefit for the area and, secondly, with this project included in the total expansion program, the District can qualify for 80 per cent grant funding. In response to inquiry by Mr. Disney, President Allan stated that all other local Sanitary Districts, including East Bay Municipal Utility District, have to meet the same rigid requirements for 4 discharge in the Bay as does Centrals San. Because their programs are not as ad- vanced, their costs will be much higher, assuming they can build the necessary facilities to meet the rigid standards and the time schedule imposed by the regu- latory agencies. An alternative is connection to Central San facilities which regional and state regulatory agencies may require if discharge standards and re- quirements cannot be met. Member Gibbs commented that this situation presently exists with the City of Concord but emphasized initiative for such action does noir reside with the Sanitary District. Member Mitchell commented on the Delta Bay plan which envisa cd expe;: e'-ture of approximately $200,000,000.00 to construct a large pipeline to transport effluent from Central Contra Costa County to the City of Richmond. Member Mitchell stated the District wished to avoid this use of pipelines, preferring instead a subregional approach for treatment of waste water. President Allan and Member Boneysteele com- mented on the impact that high density areas can have on the District's sewage col- lection system. In response to Mr. Disney's comment as to the large amount of money now required, Member Mitchell stated the District had delayed its expansion plans until there was certainty that any treatment facilities constructed by the District would be entirely compatible with any regional plan to be adopted for the Bay Area. During the interval of this delay, the District functioned at.V a minimum of cost so that now the cost for the proposed facilities appears relatively high. Member Mitchell noted that the staff in its proposed revenue program was recommending a declining tax rate with a $2,00 Environmental Quality Charge. The Board Members at one time had under consideration a level tax rate of 43 cents. Member Mitchell suggested the Board Members may wish to consider this alternative and, in this conjunction, requested that the staff make a determination as to how high the Environmental Quality Charge would have to be using a level 43 cent tax rate. Member Boneysteele stated he shared the concern of Member Mitchell and Mr. Carter concerning effect on the tax rate. He then suggested that as another alternative, the District maintain the 43 cent tax rate and the proposed $2.00 Environmental Quality Charge with the excess monies being used to reduce the District's short term borrowing requirements. After this need has been met, the Environmental Quality Charge or thetax rate could be reduced as appropriate. Mr. Dalton commented that the amount of short term borrowing required has not been firmly established. He agreed with Member Boneysteele`s analysis that main- taining the 43 cent tax rate and the proposed Environmental Quality Charge would permit reduction in short term financing. Mr. Dalton noted that, in order to qualify for grant funds, the District needed a guaranteed revenue program and suggested that adjustment of tax rate would beadministratively an easier task than adjusting the Environmental Quality Charge, especially at the beginning of the next fiscal year when more information on revenue and operational cost requirements would be available. Member Mitchell commented that perhaps the Board Members may desire to maintain the current tax rate and drop the Environ mental Quality Charge to $1.50 per month. Brief discussion followed. Mr. Robert Grinstead addressed the Board Members. In his remarks, Mr.. Grinsteadcommended the Board Members for adopting an enlightened approach to- ward the treatment of waste water- He then commented that, based upon his analysis of other District's financial plan, the cost to him as an individual would approxi- mate $4.00 per month which was comparable to what he paid to receive tenter service. In Mr. Grinstead's opinion, this appeared to be a reasonable cost, which he was willing to pay, especially when it should be recognized that the effluent has to be treated for discharge into the Bay. In response to Mr. Grinstead's question regarding water reclamation, President Allan stated that by inclusion of this project, the District could qualify for up to 80 per cent grant funds. Without the project, the District's expansion program could qualify for 33 per grant funds. Mr, Johnson, a resident of Lafayette, addressed the Board Members. Mr. Johnsonposed several questions to which staff and Board Members responded. Mr.. Horstkotte, General Manager -Chief Engineer, stated that, if no buyer existed for 5 the District's reclaimed water, there would be no grant funds and, therefore, no project. President Allan stated inclusion of the water reclamation facilities was recommended by the District's consultants. Member Gibbs noted that the pro- posed plant design is not experimental nor innovative. Rather it is designed on proven and well established technology. The only matters that may be unique are the treatment quality and the economics in achieving this quality. Member Mitchell stated he was confident the District's consultant, Brown and Caldwell, would have recommended the current plant design, which is basically secondary treatment, re- gardless of whether the District had a market for its reclaimed water. Fieethermore, nutrient removal was still a key problem for discharge into the Bay. To clarify the scope of the problem with which the Dietrict muat cope. Member Gibbs stated that current treatment facilities remove only 40 per cent of the solids from the effluent prior to discharge into the Bay. Secondary Lreatment of effluent will remove virtually all of the bacteriological matter after which there would be nutrient removal. Member Gibbs noted that secondary treatment of effluent resulted in clear clean water which could be considered approaching potable quality. However, to discharge into the Bay, this was not adequate and that further treatment for nutrient removal was necessary. Member Gibbs emphasized that the District has no choice in the matter and that it must be done soon. Member Gibbs commented that not only its own consultants but those consultants and scientists working with Federal and State regulatory authorities have been of great assistance in helping the District to solve the problems it faces today. Member Mitchell stated that heretofore, the District, with its outfall line to Suisun Bay, has been utilizing the Bay as basically a part of the District's treatment facility. This procedure has had, up to now, the complete approval of regulatory authorities because the Bay had the capacity to absorb a certain amount of biological oxygen demand, solids or organic matter. However, this situation has changed. We no longer con rely on use of the Bay to assimilate these wastes; we must remove them. In fact, the wederal Government is contemplating imposing a requirement for zero pollution by 1985. Be- cause of the tremendous impact this would have on industry and all municipalities, obviously it has to be controversial and would be most expensive, Mr. Dean LaField, Executive Vice President of the Homebuilders Association for Contra Costa and Solano Counties, inc., addressed the Board Members. Mr. LaField recognized the major problem facing the District in developing a revenue program to finance its proposed expansion treatment plant facilities. However, Mr. LaField was deeply concerned over the proposed schedule of fees, fixture and connection charges. He indicated that these charges were being increased over 50 per rent, and, acting as agent for the absentee home buyer, he considered the pro- posed charges excessive. Emphasizing that his Association, as a representative of the industry, had a mandate to provide suitable housing for the public. Mr® LaField commented that the proposed schedule of charges does not recognize people. Citing several examples from the proposed schedule of charges, Mr. LaField illus- trated that costs for the future home buyer could increase as much as 350 per cent - He noted that the proposed schedule of charges is regressive in form and asked that the Board Members consider the impact such a schedule would have on the people. Mr. LaField suggested that District policy should be oriented toward encouraging good planning for land development in order to foster the optimum in open space. Member Mitchell commented that the District was concerned with the density factor. Pe then cited an example, because of higher density, costs for treatment of et fluent rises in dramatic proportion to the quality of treatment as it is increased. He then acknowledged that it was possible to have a low density factor for a multi- story building with the proper allocation of open space. In response to Member Boneysteele, Mr. Dalton presented the staff's rationale on fixture charges for multi -storied buildings. While the District had limited experience in this area, Mr. Dalton explained that higher density did cause special sewage problems due to increased volume of effluent and peak load factors Board Members and staff discussed various aspects of the proposed fixture charges and its impact upon multi -stored buildings after which President Allan suggested that perhaps the matter required further study by staff. 6 Nonan Alumbaugh President of the Homebuilders Association for Contra Coeta and Soleno Colludes, Tnc., addressed the Board Members. Mr. Alumbaugh smoported the remarks of Mr. LaField regarding what he eonsideLs excessive in- cesease in charges as proposed by staff, Mr. Alumbaugh then commented on the matter ot lern1 intensity vs, Ian,' density using an illustrative example single family de- I-eched nnita as opposed to a planued matt development to indicate the impact the prolpoed scheduk of cher3es with the application of the density multiplier would be-Je on each on a per capita basis. Because the Oistncict's proposed schednle of cUnnTes is not predicated on a pe capita basis, Hr. Alumbaugh suggested the schedule of charges should be adjusLed to pencmit g-eeater equity. Such action enld fecilitae the building industry in meeting the lequirements of low cost housing. In eesponse to inquiry by Me,,lber Gibbs, Mr. Alumbaugh stated that, eurrenay, the average occupancy for apartment units uas two persons and that over eexie ten yeacs, he thought this average would 1eciru- Mr, Alumbaugh noted that 'rhere has been a dramatic change today tn the plaoning of land use intensity and in providing mofe open space for housing developments, Ile stated he had en appreciation of the p/oblems facing the District today end suggested meeting with the District staff to review the matter of land use intensity so that cost on per capita basis For similar service would be more equitable. Member Mitchell commented that it was his underctanding that staff had taken inLo considcLcation the relationship et lard us and the number of people per unit. Perhaps the dilemma was agreement on how many people represented an average family for single residential units and for condoelinium units, Mr. Dalton responded that staff was falailiar with land use intensity and that District planning in this aiea was based on projections as es- tablished hy i -he cities and the countv. FartheLmore, in determining the long term financial requirements which would be equitable to both present and future residents, the District must employ broad 'paced land use techniques and population projections for projection of revenue, Member Mitchell cotnroented that Districi_ connection charges have historically been based upon number of fixtures which will be connected as they relate directly to usage of the sewage systew. He suggested that perhaps Mr. Aluobaugh may wish to prepare some facts and figures for evaluation by staff prior to presentation to the Board. Meoar Bonevsteeic reported on a conversation he had had with Mr. Felix Tnsingel- regarding his concern over special service charges for commuaity pools :Jrid i-crisza,inn of large areas. Mr, Dalton stated he had conversed with Mr. Logarding the special service charge and that based upon the proposed water nsnge schedule, it was not anticipated that the charge would exceed $24.00 per yea'rn Membv-3; Mitchell suggested that staff prepare a comparative revenue program utilizing a fixed tax rate of 43 cents and that it explore the feasibility of establishing a declining minimum fixture fee as the multiple density factor in- creoses- Also, the staff should study the desirability of applying the multi. sLocied charges to residential vscommercial structures with staff repott to ine Board Members to follow, AfineL brief discussion by staff and Board Meobers, PreGideat Allan indicated thaw further review of the proposed revenue progiam by staff and Board Members wouid have to be completed prior to May 1 1972. Pl.esideni Allan thereafter rontinued the hearing to the next meeting date. None. None. V. BIDS VI. QLD BUSINESS 7 VIL NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTION NO 72-17, A RESOLUTION CUANGING THE NEXT RKGULAR MEETING TO FRIDAY, APRIL 21, 1972 vjas moved by- Member Boncvsteelc, seconded by Member Gibb that Resolu- tion No= 72=17 be adopted,. Carried by the following vote: AS Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and NOES Members: None ABSEgT: Members: None Noe. VIII. REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT President Allan expressed the appreciation of the Board Members to those poons in the audience for attending the hearing on the Dictrict's propot4e4 revnue program. At 1042 o'clock P.M., President Allan adjoufned the regular meetLng to April 21, 1972. 8 May 8, 1972 MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE AEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Mr 0 G. AD Horstkotte, Jr, ganeral Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT Local Improvement District 51, Town ofJClyde, Work Completion - Hearing Date 1. PROBLEM Work Hearing on LDID 51 for the town of Clyde 2 BACKGROUND OnApril 5 1972, we contacted the Clyde Civic Improvement Association concerning sewer work within the town of Clyde. it was agreed that they would send out the attached notice to all property owners within the town of Clyde. From the above notice we received three complaints, NAME ADDRESS COMPLAINT Porter 326 Wellington Sidewalks Vickers 206 Wellington Sidewalks Dozier 330 Wellington Driveway MGM. Construction Company has taken care of these complaints 3 RECOMMENDATION; We recommend no work hearing be held, From our dis- cussion with the Improvement Association we do not feel that it is necessary to have a work hearing before the Board of Directors, JL73;eh aecommendation approved r 0. AL. Eorstkotte, general Manager -Chief Engineer • Respectfully submitted, .------- 6e,57 Encls Jack L. Best Office Engineer 0 64 2. LO jt W }I] 11 11,1E YC[ 7 147 IE IE 0 L7E' rll PLEASE C ALft. CO qi,,_17URYADCAr. FTP (7, At 1I & PLIFAr j U.;17,a riE-LL! _497<7.0(2_ A cot I P`ski riks15 fitT2 / fl/IX P 1,D) 11 iRCT -to 4 1' 4,1 ie Tz7,,Eva:,71.1,,L,D „.„ 7,1AKEN _fryro_6L.i4,4„7-14,2 44- 4003-1-7: ji©Ln( NL r-3 ,n• , C\,1&, r- Git J — I ' IF 'TELEGRAM CHARGE Date 1 Form 40 4-66 A 59463 4 PUT IT JN WRITING—WRrITEN MESSAGES SAVE TIME, PREVENT ANNOYING INTERRUPTIONS AND ERROI fRAL CONTRA COSTA SAAJTARY DJSTMCEcI APR 4 72 oula it* (4) AcHon (V) Ink I n.od bY1 Gen.EART.-Cii. Eng. Admin. Engr. Admin DWagri Calfois0 ---- . — ----J L90 Counsel agenda — at_ -.4.11-iti 61g-Adin- Delign Survey 2,-T3iiij©slufat-1;;;;— Volnieonuce 13 aaaaair2.11 Date May 8, 1972 MEMORANDUM FOR THE HON01ABLE MEMBERS •DF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA G, A„ Holstkotte, Jr General AAnager-Chief Engineer SUBJECT Authozization of.S1,20,00 for Shoring Safety Training School 1. PROBLEM: -Tile Sacramento Valley Chapter of the American Society of Safety Engineers is holding a weekly trainiag course in Sacramento for shorihg safety. 2. akaKGROUNP, The training will include 411 typesof systems and methods or basic shoring in conformance with the guide lines set up by the Division of Industrial •Safety, State of California. We propose to send our Field Engineer, Jay McCoy, Inspectors and Awl= Inspectors at a rate of one or two a week, 3 RECOMMENDATION;. Approval. JLBeh Recommendation approved r / // C/A , Horstkottes Jr General Nhnager-Chief Engineer Respectfully submitted, Jack L Best Office Engineer t May 87 1972 HEWRANDUM FOR; The Honorable Members of the Board of Directors G. A.. Morstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT Fixture Charges The reason for the recommended 50% increase in basic fixture charges was to uiore equitably distribute the costs of treatment facilities between the present taxpayers of the District and the future users of the system° With the 270,000 existing In -District population and the costs to bring plant rapacity to a 500,000 population level, we developed a cost per person wilic1rwas converted to a yield per new living unit in terms of fixture targe totals. Tabulation Cost of Treatment Plant to 1980 4. (500,000 pop,) Less Anticipated Grants New Local Investment Value of Existing Facilities Costs of Facilities for 5007000 pop. Needs of Present District -270,000 New Facilities* Less Grant Cost to he allocated present services $39,90 taxes Needs of Future Connectors -2309000 New Facilities Existing Facilities* $57,000,000 33,000,000 $24,000,000 L2p0,000 $31,5009000 $42,0009000 33 009000 2.23r9°C $15979000 )0 0000 $2295a9060 $9fkqtlye_r peTson fixtyre_charRes *New facilities include 15MGD primary and other features which are needed for new connectors and are equal in cost to existing plant, V Page 2 Using the $98.00 per person and the average living unit tenancy of 3-5, the necessary fixture charge yield would be $343. Staff recommended the 507a increase to reach this level recognizing that many liviag units will not yield the full amount but may not have the 3.5 pions per dwelling. The density factors wtre established in part to pick up the deficiency in basic charges. Density Factors • A secondary aspect to the fixture cbarges is the local •density factors which ± the future will require reconstruction of local collector systems and trunks. The District accepted this responsibility .when the first density' charge was placed against apartments and again .later when multi -storied buildings were included in this provision. To illustrate ratios of flow in varying densities, we submit the following; Living units Gallons per day per acre per acre @ 3.5 ppu 5 10 20 30 50 Recommended Gallons per day (Multi?1e), 3225 - 1.0 2100 - 1.0 1,0 5850 - L8 3600 - 1.7 1.2 11100 - 3.4 6600 - 3.1 1.5 16250 - 5.0 9600 - 4.6 2.0 26850 - 8.3 15600 - 7.4 3.0 These ratios indicate that the recommended multiples were conservative and allowed for lower occupancy and land use intensity.. The question of the minimum charge for residential units would only occur in motels, hots and trailer parks. Other residential uses would have a_minimum of $150 for a single bath without laundry. In practice the fixture list is calculated and multiplied by the proper multiple and the minimum is only used if that result is leap than the minimum charge per unit. WCD:jv Rcomrnend tion Approved A. Horstkotte, Jr. General Manager -Chief Engineer Respectfully submitted, W. C. Dalton Administrative Engineer May 8, 1972 XEMORAagUK FOR: TEE EDNORABLE =BEES •OF TUE BOARD 02 DI'AECTOaS VIA: 1437. G A. Horstkotte, JrGeneral Y,anager-Chief Engineer SUBJECT: Authorization of $65.00 for Wendle Whipple, Supervising Surveyor, to Attend the Workshop on Surveyipg Instrtimentar tion and Coordinate Computation 1. PROBLEM The East Bay Coundil of Surveying and liapijing, of whiob we are a member, is sponsori,ng the Workshop on Surveying Instrument atf_ou and Coordinate Computation from June 27 through Julie 29, 1972 These three- day workshop programs will be concerned with the subjects of electronic distancemeasuripng equipment, maim theodolites, and coordinate compu- tation. 2. BACKGROUND: As part of our 1972-73 budget we are considering ?urdhasing some new surveying equipment. To enable utilizing this for a sav:Ings to the District we need to study the modern methods and teChniques. 3, RE COivii4ENDATIONg Approval. LT-B;eh 2.ecmmenaatLon approved: 4/0 cf orstkotte, J General Mannager -Chief Engineer Respectfully submitted, ,f1;4 1(.1 ----- Jack L. Best Office Engineer