Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-04-26; Encina Joint Advisory Committee Ad Hoc; Minuteso CITY CLERK ENCINA JOINT POWERS MINUTES OF THE JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1978 AT THE ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY CONFERENCE ROOM Ed Stiles, Chairman Stanley Mahr, Vice Chairman 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ed Stiles called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. ROLL CALL Present: Vista Sanitation District City of Carlsbad Buena Sanitation District San Marcos County Water District Leucadia County Water District Encinitas Sanitary District County of San Diego JAC Administrator JAC Counsel Encina Joint Powers Guests: Brown and Caldwell C M Engineering Associates Blade Tribune Encinitas Sanitary District Leucadia County Water District San Diego Union Joe Zapotocky, Dan Carr Mary easier, A. J. Skotnicki Ed Stiles, Bill Dominguez Jim McKay, Stanley Mahr Dick Hanson, Stan Van Sickle Mark Schneider, Jack Filanc Jim Frandsen Ron Beckman Roy H. Gann, Esq. Les Evans, Mary Taylor Graham Eraser, Lynn Hartford John Murk, Jerry Frieling Jim Esterbrooks Jack Kubota Eric Elliott, Regina Ash Richard Ruane JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APR3j^^6, 1978 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 1978 Chairman Stiles asked for the approval of the March 22, 1978 minutes as submitted. Mr. Hanson stated that an error had been made on the first page which transposed Leucadia and Encinitas. Mr. Zapotocky moved to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Skotnicki. Mr. Van Sickle noted that, on page 5, although he was not ob- jecting to the figure of 39 mgd, he did not understand just what was meant. He wanted to know if the JAC thought he was quibbling if he would prefer to have the minutes read 27,000 gallons per minute rather than the 39 mgd figure. Mr. Zapotocky stated that the minutes were a reflection of what had been discussed and the gallons per minute were not discussed. He felt that if the JAC were to get into the gallons per minute it should be a separate issue and addressed separately. Mr. Hanson then referred to page 8 of the minutes (second par- agraph from the bottom) in which he had asked a question of Mr. Murk. After much discussion, it was decided to amend the first line of the last paragraph to read "Mr. Murk stated the goal would be to not make the solids handling facility a lim- itation on rerating." Mr. Evans stated that Mrs. Taylor did most of the minutes ver- batim and what was stated by Mr. Murk was probably what was said. Mr. Schneider (bless your heart) stated that he would like to show his appreciation to Mary who does an excellent job on the minutes. His appreciation was seconded and a third made by Mr. Skotnicki. The motion was finally put to a vote and passed. INFORMATION 3. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Evans to report on the Coastal Devel- opment Permit. - 2 - JOINT ADVISORY^fiDMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APRJ^^S, 1978 Mr. Evans stated that the permit was included in the agenda packet for information. The Coastal Permit was adopted on February 15 and the maps were adopted on March 15. Each of the agencies involved now has a set of the maps which are the maps reduced in the agenda packet as Exhibits 7A and 7B. Mr. Zapotocky added that this permit was approved for sig- nature at the last Vista Sanitation District's Board meeting. Mr. Evans stated that until the conditions of the permit were implemented, we haven't accepted or rejected the permit. Mr. Beckman went on record to say that the maps, that had been furnished, did not conform to the examples that had been at- tached to the permit and the large scale maps that had been prepared are in need of corrections. Mr. Zapotocky asked if these maps should not go back to the 'affected agencies for correction and resubmission. Mr. Evans suggested that the agencies look the maps over and get back to him so that they can be corrected. 4. RWQCB PROGRESS REPORT ON ENCINA Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Evans for his report on the RWQCB Progress Report on the Encina plant. Mr. Evans stated that the Regional Board is keeping a close eye on Encina primarily due to odor problems. At their meet- ing of April 10, the City of Oceanside, San Diego Metro plant, Escondido plant and we were on the agenda. He referred to the Conclusion on page 4 of the report and said that the Re- gional Board was aware that we were trying to identify the causes of the odor problems. He also referred to page 3 (second paragraph from the bottom) regarding efforts to restart Digester No. 1. Several months ago, there had been a failure on this digester and early in April, an attempt had been made to restart it by first re- ducing the volume, feeding it mass doses of sodium bicarbonate, trying to raise the pH and increasing the mixing and heating again to make the environment as confortable as possible for the bacteria we are trying to bring back. None of this has resulted in raising the pH very much but has resulted in getting that digester foaming again and increasing the odor problems. Mr. Schneider asked about the decision of the Regional Board. - 3 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APR^J>6, 1978 Mr. Evans stated that there was no decision and this was just a Progress Report and that, every two months, another report would be forthcoming. ROUTINE REPORTS 5. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE REPORT Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Evans to report on the Operations and Maintenance. a. Ordinance Adopting New Septage Regulations, etc. Mr. Evans reported that we have not proceeded any further with the ordinance pending receipt of supporting resolu- tions. We have received resolutions from some of the agencies and received word that other agencies have also adopted. Buena has not yet adopted the resolution. b. At the Encina WPCF Mr. Evans reported that, during the last few weeks of rain, we were experiencing a lot of grit problems. c. At the Buena Vista Pump Station Mr. Evans reported that this is under construction and is a continuing nuisance problem. Mr. Zapotocky asked Mr. Frandsen if anybody was overly con- cerned about the 600 ft. of transite pipe that occurs just after the pump. Mr. Frandsen said that it was one thing which Chuck Oldsen thought we should take another look at. Mr. Zapotocky said that if it was a problem that it should be looked at especially since we are adding capacity to that pump. d. At the Aqua Hedionda Pump Station Mr. Evans stated that the construction is now complete and that system is fully operable. e. Industrial Waste Control Mr. Skotnicki questioned how the petroleum base organics got into the sewage if they were not found in the local industries. Mr. Evans said that he was not sure and the bad part about these Operations and Maintenance reports is - 4 JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APRII^^, 1978 that they are about a month old before we see them. Mr. Evans continued that one day the operators noticed a strong odor from the sedimentation tanks and found them covered with some kind of petroleum type product. We sent a sample to the lab and they gave us a list of pos- sible sources. The County checked these sources and really couldn't come up with anything. Evidentally, a large parts washing or paint operation dumped a bin of this cleaning solvent. Mr. Carr, who is in the auto parts business, said that they had formerly used a product that did result in what Mr. Evans was talking about specifically. He ques- tioned whether there had been a specific test made for caustic soda which has a particularly high foaming action when introduced into liquid. He asked whether it wouldn't be too much of a problem to run a test for caustic soda the next time the digester was foaming. Mr. Evans said he would follow it up. Mr. Carr continued that ±hey used to have their tank pumped but didn't know where it was taken to be dumped. f. Septage and Chemical Toilet Waste Chairman Stiles asked whether this was low gallonage for the septic haulers. Mr. Evans replied that it has been about average for the last six months. Since the dumpers decided that it was cheaper to dump in the San Diego area, our discharge at Encina has fallen off to about 25% of what it was a year ago. 6. FLOW REPORT Chairman Stiles asked for a report on the flows. Mr. Evans stated that he would prefer not to dwell on it because since we were still getting rains and the flow data is al- most worthless except for billing purposes. Mr. Zapotocky raised a question in connection with the Flow Report. He expressed concern about what we show as flow for EDUs collectively. This report shows the extent of exagger- ation from 177 at a low to 415 at a high and, for making pro- jections as to remaining capacity, he felt that it would be appropriate for the JAC to try to come up with an acceptable norm for these flows. He said he would be much happier to not even see this figure in here with this kind of spread. - 5 - JOINT ADVISORYJJOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APR36, 1978 Mr. Evans stated that he was unsure that the estimated flow per EDU makes any sense anyway because everybody calculates it using a different method; some agencies count it as an EDU when the sewer permit is taken out, some count if when the escrow closes, some count it when the first billing goes out so everybody has a different way of calculating it. It's never a very good indicator of anything. As far as he was concerned, perhaps it would be better to delete that column unless somebody uses it for specific purposes. Mr. Zapotocky expressed his concern about the flow/EDU be- cause Vista was at the point where they had to make some pro- jections into the future and would like to have a realistic figure which would subtract out inflow/infiltration and come up with a realistic flow unit per housing unit. Mr. Skotnicki said that Carlsbad would agree with the concern expressed by Mr. Zapotocky because they use the EDU as a mea- sure in their moratorium and handing out of the few sewer per- mits as a result of leasing of capacity from Encinitas. All in the council are dissatisfied with the way we are computing it. For Carlsbad's purposes, they have industry, commercial and trying to equate industry with a 2 bedroom house is lack- ing in logic. He felt that trying to equate dwelling units with industry is an excercise in futility. Mr. Skotnicki asked if we couldn't come up with a way of esti- mating our flow by some particular norm for various residen- tial, commercial, industrial and compute our future capacities on that basis rather than something that just didn't make much sense to him. He stated that their staff was looking into this because they were so close to capacity. Mr. Zapotocky said that Vista would like to participate in this type of investigation with Carlsbad. Chairman Stiles stated that he would like to see Mr. Zapotocky and Mr. Skotnicki meet with Mr. Evans and see what they can work out and present it to the Board so that we can all use the same system. 7. SULFIDE CONDITION REPORT Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Evans for a report on the sulfide conditions. Mr. Evans stated that, again with the rainy conditions, the sulfide condition report is not very useful. No problems were being experienced. - 6 - JOINT ADVISORYJ:OMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APRlC^e, 1978 8. EXPENDITURE REPORTS Chairman Stiles asked for a report on the expenditures from Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans stated that the expenditure report was up to March 31 which gives us 75% indication of how we are doing on our overall budget. Overall, with 3 months of the fiscal year left, we are underspent on our operating budget by $58,809 and the majority of this is because we have some unfilled positions at Encina. In fact, with the County hiring freeze now, we might have unfilled positions for quite a while. Mr. Frandsen stated that the total freeze wasn't approved because three supervisors voted against that. We still have this limited freeze which means that each new position has to go to the Board. As long as there are health and safety requirements and responsi- bilities , they have been looking at them very carefully but they have been approving them. Chairman Stiles asked if the $58,000 was all employees. Mr. Evans stated that it was not because it also included some contingency funds. There is $25,000 in the contingency fund in the operating budget and possibly some other items were overestimated. Because of the nature of this agency or Joint Powers, the budget tends to be conservative so we can expect to be underspent. Mr. Zapotocky asked if, with the absence of some of these people in the non-filled positions, we were able to keep up with our maintenance work. Mr. Evans replied to the affirmative but added that we still haven't established the second shift. We were go- ing to try and put some people out here until 10:00 P.M. Mr. Zapotocky asked Mr. Frandsen if there was a County pool of employees and if we got into a jam at Encina, would it be pos- sible to get supplemental help to get us over the problem areas. Mr. Frandsen answered to the affirmative adding that they had a couple of swing people that they utilized on maintenance. Mr. Evans continued with the Special Consulting and Industrial Waste that is also underspent, based on a pro-rated budget, by about $3,600 and pretty evenly underspent. Also, he went through the portions of the budget which were not included in the printouts provided by the County.- - Capital out- lay is underspent by $40,000 because we did not purchase a grease holding tank and we did not purchase a heat exchange system for the digester since we had the mixing system redesigned and the heating system was incorporated with the mixing system. - 7 - JOINT ADVISORYJJOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APR^S, 1978 Also, there is a contingency fund under "Other Costs" of $15,000 and in Outside Consulting in the Administration budget, we still have $5,300 unspent so, all in all, we have about $95,000 under- spent at this point. Everybody should expect to spend consider- ably less money than they budgeted for this year. ACTION 9. C M ENGINEERING PROPOSAL Vice Chairman Mahr asked Mr. Evans for a report on the C M En- gineering proposal. Mr. Evans stated that, at the last meeting, Mr. Murk reported on their progress with the pilot digesters and gave us some conclu- sions and avenues of approach to work with the foaming problem. The JAC discussed, at that time, having C M Engineering continuing with the pilot digesters as well as doing some work centered around rerating of the plant. He continued that he had been given author- ization to request a proposal from C M Engineering to accomplish the things discussed at the JAC meeting. Attached in the Agenda Packet is their proposal which includes the continuation of the pilot digester program as Task 1. Task 2 is an analysis of some of the preliminary findings. Tasks 3, 4 and 5 are design work to convert Digesters No. 1 and No. 3 to digesters which would better serve the needs of the solids handling system here. Task 6 is de- velopment of a program to better utilize our solids handling system. Task 7 is a look at our dewatering system. We have a centrifuge now and that's not the only way to do it and they are suggesting that this needs a look. Task 8 is a task which would involve preparing a rerating study or a solids handling study which would enable us to minimize our prob- lems to the Regional Board and perhaps pursue a rerating here. The tasks are summarized on Page 3 of the proposal. The estimated man hours, the level of effort and the estimated cost of each task is also outlined. Mr. Evans explained that, since we had just gone through the budget, we have approximately $5,000 left for outside consulting although we have considerable-contingency funds in the amount J3f $8,000 which he felt would be available for this kind of work. There is also $20,000 in capital outlay. He stated that he felt that the funds would be available to pursue all or any part of the C M proposal. He felt that, at this time, he would like to proceed with Tasks 1, 2 and 3 which is a continuation of the pilot digester program and the conversion of Digester 1 to a fixed cover design. He was not - 8 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APRIS, 1978 concerned about Digester 3 at this time. The remainder of the program would involve a lot of design work to accomplish the projects and he felt that projects of that magnitude should be discussed along with the total budget for next year. Mr. Evans asked that the JAC to authorize him to work out a con- tract with C M Engineering to proceed with Tasks 1, 2 and 3 and the remaining tasks: could be referred to the budget process. Mr. Zapotocky asked whether the $4,500 was an outside figures. Mr. Evans replied that it was a cost estimate and addressed Mr. Zapotocky's question to Mr. Murk. Mr. Skotnicki stated that he was somewhat taken aback by the amount involved and assumed that the engineering plans and specs would be $10,000 plus whatever Task 8 takes but then there's about a quarter of a million dollars in capital expenditures. He assumed that none of these items are in the Phase III expan- sion and these are just deficiencies which we are trying to cor- rect. Also, that none of these items are in the grant eligible category and is all out-of-pocket local expense. Mr. Evans agreed that even if these things were included in Phase III and some of them overlap into Phase III, they would not be grant eligible. Mr. Skotnicki stated that the reports, which he had recently read, stated that the dewatering system and the odor complains coming out of it were attributed to inadequately treated sludge and ques- tioned the cost of $100,000 for the interim dewatering system. Mr. Evans stated that if we were going to increase the solids handling capability of the plant, then we would have to improve the process. Mr. Skotnicki was under the impression that this plant was al- ready designed to handle what the rerating would establish and that all we had to do is to prove it. Mr. Evans referred to the Brown and Caldwell report and the County report and stated that one of the things that would have to be done was to convert Digester No. 3 to a primary digester to facilitiate this rerating. When this digester is converted, it also has a floating cover and we are going to have to deal with the foaming problem.-—When-this-digester is converted, you -•- will need to add some kind of a heating and mixing system. The dewatering system is something new. As brought out in the County report, we have a centrifuge that needs an overhaul every 1,200 hours and when that system is torn - 9 - JOINT ADVISOR>iCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APR^^26, 1978 down and overhauled, it is out of service for 2% months. We could not live with it being out of service for 2^ months if we were operating at 16 mgd. On a normal day, we centrifuge up to 10 hours/day and we're treating about 11 mgd. If we were treating 16 mgd, the County recommended that we have a full com- plement of parts on hand so that when it came time to overhaul the centrifuge, we could do it in as short a time as possible. What C M Engineering is recommending is that there may be a cheaper way to do it than to overhaul the centrifuge all of the time. Mr. Murk felt that the best dewatering device would work con- sistently and provide some kind of redundancy for the existing water device that would not involve a hugh capital expenditure. The $100,000 sounds like a lot of money but, relative to a permanent full time dewatering installation for a plant this size, the amount is meager. With this amount of money, it will not give you a piece of machinery that you will want to throw away 3 years from now but, looking at it from a standpoint of between now and when the plant gets built; you have something realistic and that Water Quality will say is realistic to handle a changing situation. Mr. Murk has done some prelimianry investigations with manu- facturers and the costs for performing the study are probably the outside for renting their equipment and trying it. There is some good equipment that we can try here in a week or so which would give us the type of good effluent and, guessing in this area, he felt was not the right thing to do. Mr. Skotnicki felt that there was a solution in the Phase III Project Report for the solids handling. Whatever that solution is, he asked if it were wiser for us to spend $100,000 for an interim solution or to go into the final solution as recommended by the Project Report as a permanent solution. What appears to be the possibility here is that we may be spending the $100,000 for a captive facility that may last us 4 years and that didn't make cost effectiveness ring true to him. Mr. Hanson said that he understood that the performance of Task 7 by the engineers is going to let us know if we are or not go- ing to need it. It isn't necessary that we're going to design it or will be committed to build it. He assumed that it was a recommendation of the JAC staff that Tasks 1 through 6 be im- plemented. He felt that Task 8 was critical to the end result and, if it is a recommendation of staff, we should get on with it. Mr. Evans stated that the reason he didn't recommend the whole project only recommended Tasks 1 through 3 is because there has - 10 - JOINT ADVISORY JJOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APR3l6, 1978 a lot of discussion on converting Digester No. 1 to a fixed digester cover and he was pretty sure he was on safe ground. The remaining things, if we get into the mixing system for Digester No. 3, conversion of heating systems, piping re- visions, we would be into some larger capital items which he wasn't sure he could recommend since we were having a budget review committee to review those items. Also, on this same agenda, Brown and Caldwell have a preliminary design contract that overlaps into some of these areas and they will also be looking at dewatering. Mr. Zapotocky moved that the JAC accept the General Manager's recommmendation for Tasks 1 through 3. Seconded by Mr. Skot- nicki, the discussion continued. Mr. Murk said he would like to answer Mr. Skotnicki and Mr. Dominguez by saying that anything they would put in would not necessarilly be incompatible with the Phase III expansion. The two devices that we would consider right now would be a belt filter press and a low speed centrifuge and they both cost out for the type of installation we could do right now but one thing with which they were concerned with the $100,000 is the timing. The two devices they would like to look at would be the belt filter press and the low speed centrifuge on which both the manufacturers have been contacted. It would cost money for these to be moved around the country and they are not incompatible with the Phase III expansion. In fact, if we had a cheap installation with good pieces of equipment, we could go to an elaborate installation and move that equipment at some future date. It's not that the concept will be out of date - it's the utilization as an interim piece of equipment will phase out when Phase III comes in. Mr. McKay asked if it wouldn't seem logical to do the entire thing. Mr. Evans said that he would like to do Tasks 1 and 2, that part of Task 3 that deals with Digester No. 1 and that part of Task 5 that deals with Digester No. 1 and not mess with Digester No. 3 right now. Mr. Hanson said that he thought what Mr. McKay was referring to is the time element - the longer we make reports and make studies, the further down stream we are for rerating. He continued that if all of these things were necessary for rerating, why study it more and budget it more. We should get on with the act and do it now. Mr. Hanson asked Mr. Evans what the timing would be of waiting. - 11 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APRIlC, 1978 Mr. Evans assumed that we would have to come back to the next JAC meeting with a recommendation from the JAC Budget Subcom- mittee on what things to do and what not to do. Mr. Zapotocky said that he thought everything would come together at the May JAC meeting since the Budget Subcommittee would have met and Mr. Evans would, in the interim, be working our a contract for these first three tasks, which would also be considered at the next meeting, so that we could actually do the thing simultaneously. Mr. Skotnicki asked that if we authorized implementation of all of these tasks, would CM conduct them all at the same time? Mr. Murk felt that it could be done in four months. A lot of the tasks will be simultaneous. They would be working on the whole project simultaneously and looking for a 3 to 4 month period where they would come to the last half and wrap it up and see how it fits with everything else. It is very important to match this thing, to get the balance of the .numbers from the County report, the Brown and Caldwell report and talk to Brown and Caldwell about their thinking on the dewatering devices and future digestion sys- rem." They look forward to about 3 to 4 months from inception to the conclusion of the report. With the exception of Task 1, the pilot digester program, he felt that all other tasks could be done simultaneously within a three to four month period. Mr. Hanson stated that he felt that all of the tasks were not only important to the rerating and proper operation of the plant but he also felt, personally, that authorization be given to proceed with the whole program at this time. He saw nothing wrong with over- lapping of C M and Brown and Caldwell with regard to particular design functions in this plant. In fact, he felt that it could be advantageous. Mr. Zapotocky withdrew his original motion if Mr. Skotnicki would withdraw his second. Mr. Zapotocky then made the motion to take on all eight functions. Mr. Van Sickle seconded the motion and it carried. Chairman Stiles called for a 5 minute coffee break. 10. PROPOSED 1978-79 BUDGET Chairman Stiles appointed the following JAC members to the Budget Subcommittee: Stanley Mahr Dan Carr Jim Frandsen Ed Stiles Mark Schneider Ron Beckman Les Evans Eric Elliott - 12 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APq^S 26, 1978 The Subcommittee will meet at 9:00 A.M. on May 9th at the San Marcos County Water District Board Room. 11. PHASE III GRANT ADMINISTRATION Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Evans to report on his memorandum to the JAC. Mr. Evans pointed out that Mr. Oldsen is no longer with the County and several of the County people who had been active in the Encina project, both in administering and negotiations,, are either assigned to different project or working in other department or are retired. He felt, as it was originally intended, he became more and more in- volved. One of the problems with his involvement is that it is not grant eligible. It was suggested that he become grant eligible and it was suggested to him that Vista Sanitation District adopt a resolution with some kind of wording which inserts him as Project Coordinator. Mr. Gann suggested that Vista appoint the City of Carlsbad and Mr. Evans would be covered by being an employee of the City of Carlsbad. Mr. Zapotocky asked if Mr. Evans could be an agent for the City of Vista for a stipend of perhaps $1 per year. Mr. Dominguez suggested making an executive loan since Mr. Evans was under the Carlsbad personnel system to the agency in Vista. Mr. Gann said that this would be permissable provided that it was not contrary to any of the City of Carlsbad's ordinances. Mr. Beckman said he would explore the matter with the Carlsbad Per- sonnel Department and see what is the easiest way to get Mr. Evans qualified. Mr. Zapotocky added that if we went independent, we could assign the whole thing to Mr. Evans. 12. PROPOSED BROWN AND CALDWELL DESIGN CONTRACT Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Evans for comments on the proposed Brown and Caldwell contract. Mr. Evans stated that in October, 1975, the Negotiating Committee of JAC (Dick Hanson, Mark Schneider, Ron Beckman, Chuck Oldsen and Harry Hecht) came up with a contract document based on the Project Report which was prepared by Brown and Caldwell in February, 1975 describing the scope of work and the contract amount of $700,000 - 13 - JOINT ADVISORY/W8MMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - ATRIBMgS, 1978 to perform the design work for Encina Phase III. The amount was based on a pretty intensive investigation by that group of exactly what effort Brown and Caldwell would have to go through. They actually decided that it would be 255 sheets of plans and how many man hours on each plan based on what was to be designed. According to the Federal and State peo- ple, it was an excellent negotiating procedure. So here we are three years later with the same contract but the scope of work is in question. The scope of work includes the design by Brown and Caldwell of another floating cover digester, biofilters, submerged launders, air skimming, screenings, grind- ings, biological odor control devices and a lot of things which since were included in the Project Report over three years ago have come into question. On March 16, the JAC staff met to discuss with Brown and Cald- well concerns over past problems with design, things that hadn't worked out too well, how to not have that happen in the future and it was decided that there would be a real intensive design review process including a review of the Project Report. On April 5, the Negotiating Committee again sat down with Brown and Caldwell to try to put all these things into this contract and, no matter how they tried, they couldn't get it into the old format. It's not the same scope of work. The Negotiating Com- mittee decided that maybe the best thing to do is to come up with a new contract format which would be a two part format. The first part would take us to what the Sate calls the "10% submittal stage". At 10%, the project is on paper, the VE team comes in to look at it, all the agencies who wanted to be in the review process would have had their engineers look at it during the time it takes to get to the 10% design phase. The first part of the new contract would be called the "Preliminary Design". The second part would be the Basic Design but we don't know what the design will be until the first part is complete. The contract, which the JAC members received in the JAC Agenda Packet, is a con- tract which just describes Part 1. The ^Negotiating Committee again met on April 14 with Brown and Caldwell to discuss the contract in its two part format. There were some things that were questioned with minor wording revisions. The only things that wasn't settled at that meeting was the owner- ship of documents which is discussed on Page 5, Paragraph 6. Essentially, the contract documents contained in the packet dated April 14 is the two part document and the prices are contained therein. It is no longer a lump sum contract. It would be a - 14 - JOINT ADVISOR^£OMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APRt^6, 1978 cost plus fixed fee in which the engineer gets a fixed fee no matter how much or how little time it takes him to do the pro- ject. His actual time and expenses are reimbursed under hourly rate. This is a method that is utilized by the State and Federal contracts mostly because they feel that agencies don't have much expertise in negotiationg a lump sum cost. It is an approved method of paying for design work under Federal funding. On Page B-6, it shows the compensation which is not correct. For the preliminary design services, the cost ceiling is $189,000. The fixed professional fee is $25,355 but this is now $21,772. Essentially, the calculation of that fixed pro- fessional fee is based upon Brown and Caldwell's estimates of how much various effort goes into each portion of the design. Mr. Evans asked Mr. Hartford to explain the difference between direct and indirect labor. Mr. Hartford said that the direct labor costs would be the actual salary cost they paid their people for convenience purposes. Direct labor would be representative, of the actual salaries and the indirect labor is expressed in percentage of direct labor and that would include labor benefits and general and administration overhead. The other direct cost would be non-salaried type costs including some subcontract costs for geotechnical survey work. Mr. Evans pointed out that Part 2 services fee cannot be deter- mined because we don't know what is going to be done. Also, on Page B-5, there is a maximum allowance of $1,281,521 to be es- tablished for those services. When we decide, at the end of Part 1, what is going to be designed, we will have to negotiate exactly what their fixed fee is going to be. Who is going to own the documents is something on which we are going to have to come to an agreement with Brown and Caldwell. Also, on Page 4, paragraph 17 has been deleted. Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Evans if the Negotiating Committeee is recommending this contract. Mr. Evans answered to the affirmative and added with the exception of the above mentioned changes. Mr. Zapotocky said that Vista would feel a lot more comforatable if they had the other agencies' stamp of approval on the contract. He said that it couldn't be done until sometime in June but that Vista would like a resolution from each agency and that would give each agency time to review the contract, act on it and approve it by resolution. Mr. Zapotocky moved that each agency review the Brown and Caldwell contract, as it will be amended, and that it be referred to all of - 15 - JOINT ADVISORY JJOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APR^6, 1978 cost plus fixed fee in which the engineer gets a fixed fee no matter how much or how little time it takes him to do the pro- ject. His actual time and expenses are reimbursed under hourly rate. This is a method that is utilized by the State and Federal contracts mostly because they feel that agencies don't have much expertise in negotiationg a lump sum cost. It is an approved method of paying for design work under Federal funding. On Page B-6, it shows the compensation which is not correct. For the preliminary design services, the cost ceiling is $189,000. The fixed professional fee is $25,355 but this is now $21,772. Essentially, the calculation of that fixed pro- fessional fee is based upon Brown and Caldwell's estimates of how much various effort goes into each portion of the design. Mr. Evans asked Mr. Hartford to explain the difference between direct and indirect labor. Mr. Hartford said that the direct labor costs would be the actual salary cost they paid their people for convenience purposes. Direct labor would be representative of the actual salaries and the indirect labor is expressed in percentage of direct labor and that would include labor benefits and general and administration overhead. The other direct cost would be non-salaried type costs including some" subcontract costs for geotechnical survey work. Mr. Evans pointed out that Part 2 services fee cannot be deter- mined because we don't know what is going to be done. Also, on Page B-5, there is a maximum allowance of $1,281,521 to be es- tablished for those services. When we decide, at the end of Part 1, what is going to be designed, we will have to negotiate exactly what their fixed fee is going to be. Who is going to own the documents is something on which we are going to have to come to an agreement with Brown and Caldwell. Also, on Page 4, paragraph 17 has been deleted. Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Evans if the Negotiating Committeee is recommending this contract. Mr. Evans answered to the affirmative and added with the exception of the above mentioned changes. Mr.^apotocky said that Vista would feel a lot more—comforatable if they had the other agencies' stamp of approval on the contract. He said that it couldn't be done until sometime in June but that Vista would like a resolution from each agency and that would give each agency time to review the contract, act on it and approve it by resolution. Mr. Zapotocky moved that each agency review the Brown and Caldwell contract, as it will be amended, and that it be referred to all of - 15 - JOINT ADVISORM^l|pMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APR]»*26, 1978 the member agencies for independent Board approval prior to sub- mission to the Vista Sanitation District for final approval and agreement. Sconded by Mr. Skotnicki, the motion carried. Mr. Zapotocky said they would have to have agency approval by the week of May 22 and Mr. Gann will prepare a resolution. 13. APPOINTMENT OF EVALUATION COMMITTEE - VE PROPOSALS Mr. Evans stated that a part of the entire Clean Water process is value engineering. Proposals were requested from the State's pre- qualified value engineering list. Six proposals were requested and only two responded although one of the responses is a joint effort of three of the firms from which proposals were requested. The problem with value engineering is that it involves so many dis- ciplines; electrical, structural, civil plus somebody with value engineering expertise that not too many firms feel qualified to perform. The list of people from which proposals were requested did not included Brown and Caldwell or any of the firms who are providing engineering services for our member agencies on a con- tract basis. Lowry & Associates could not submit a proposal since they were not qualified to do value engineering. We have two proposals; one from Arthur Beard and one from Value Management Institute. There is an evaluation process that we have to go through which includes a format prepared by the State and approved by the Federal government. Mr. Evans asked that a committee be appointed and a date set at which time the two firms can make a presentation on which they can be evaluated and we can select a value engineer. Once a value en- gineer is selected, we will have to work out a contract and nego- tiate a price. To the existing Engineering Negotiating Committee, Chairman Stiles appointed Dan Carr, Stanley Mahr, Dwight Smith with Jack Kubota as an alternate for Encinitas. The meeting is scheduled for May 16 at 9:00 A.M. at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility Conference Room. 14. BROWN AND CALDWELL PROPOSAL FOR PART 1 TASKS IN PREPARING AN APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS Mr. Evans stated that, at the last meeting, it was determined that the JAC would ask Brown and Caldwell for a proposal to perform this work which is included in all the JAC voting member's agenda packets. - 16 - JOINT ADVISOR^gCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APR^^26, 1978 The tasks here are somewhat difficult since neither the final regulation or the draft regulations are out. All we have is a preliminary draft of the draft regulations to go on. Because of that, he has received several comments that the scope of work and the tasks to be performed were kind of vague. The cost of the Part 1 services is not to exceed $26,658. Again, this figure is based on the level of effort Brown and Caldwell felt would be involved in completing each task. Mr. Evans said that there was a Part 2 to this contract also and that is the preparation of some population eligibility, flow data, infiltration/inflow, information that's required to be submitted to the State to determine our grant eligibility. We discussed this at a JAC meeting many months ago authorizing Brown and Cald- well to proceed and it was determined to wait until such time that we were sure that we were going to go ahead with the project. The Part 2 work is grant eligible but the work for preparing-an application is not necessarily grant eligible. The $26,658 might come out of our own pockets. Mr. Evans said that at this point, with an indication that he has received from all of the agencies that we want to proceed with at least Part 1, he would like to recommend that we pro- ceed under the existing contract Vista Sanitation District has with Brown and Caldwell. Mr. Filanc asked if we, in this modification for secondary treat- ment requirements, are going to be duplicating work than San Elijo, the City of San Diego and other plants are going to be doing? Mr. Evans answered to the affirmative. Mr. Filanc asked why there wasn't some concerted effort in southern California if we all experienced the same problems and make similar applica- tion. Mr. Evans agreed that a lot of people are going to be doing the same work but everybody seems to want to do it on their own. Mr. Hartford said that there had been some discussion why the State couldn't apply for all the ocean dischargers in the State in one application. Unfortunately, the wording of the law is that it would have to be a case-by-case basis. Mr. Schneider asked about splitting the cost three ways. Mr. Hartford said "definitely from the standpoint on things that are common. There are other things that are specific." - 17 - JOINT ADVISORY^JOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APR]6, 1978 Mr. Zapotocky felt that it was up to the individual agencies as to whether they needed Board action or if JAC instruction was enough. Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Gann his thinking. Mr. Gann said that this was an amendment to the original agree- ment that was entered into by all of the agencies, is it not? Then it should be amended by all of the agencies. Mr. Schneider asked why we had to go back because we had all agreed that we want to do this thing and it seemed to him that we already have the vehicle which Vista has with the County. Chairman Stiles answered that the simple reason is that we are not a deciding factor. We are only an advisory committee. We cannot make a decision here. The only decision we can make is to stop for a coffee break but, other than that, we sit and talk and it's costing the taxpayers a bundle. Mr. Gann said that he thought this should be approved similarly by resolution to the original contract. He said it would be short and to the point and it would be out immediately. Mr. Hanson asked that Mr. Schneider's question and Mr. Stiles' response be entered into the minutes. 15. BIDS FOR CLEANING DIGESTER NO. 2 Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Evans for his report on the bids for cleaning Digester No. 2. Mr. Evans said that the bids had been received and the low bidder was about 20% over the engineer's estimate. Since we had only $25,000 approved by the JAC to do this work, he asked for the approval of an additional $6,575 from the remaining contingency funds in order to ask Carlsbad to award this bid and be able to tell them that there is money available. Mr. Carr asked how many bid notices were sent out and how many firms do this type of work. Mr. Evans answered that only two people bid the job and he wasn't sure how many firms did this kind of work. Mr. Evans said that Hubbard has consistently been the low bidder in this area. Mr. Mahr moved that we take $6,575 out of the Contingency Fund for cleaning Digester No. 2. Seconded by Mr. Zapotocky, the motion carried. - 18 - JOINT ADVISOR^^OMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APRT&r26, 1978 OTHER BUSINESS 16. NEXT MEETING Chairman Stiles told the JAC that the next meeting was scheduled for May 24 and suggested that we meet at 10:00 A.M. after which we will convene to the Wayside Inn to honor Chuck Oldsen. He asked Mrs. Taylor if she would arrange the affair. Mr. Evans said that, in the past when we have had small luncheon meetings, the JAC has picked up the tab. However, in this case, several individuals who have been past JAC members or worked closely with Chuck in this area were unable to attend his retire- ment luncheon in San Diego, have indicated that they would like to attend this luncheon. We will probably have from 25 to 30 people. Mr. Zapotocky felt that we should pay individually to which Mr. Schneider and the JAC agreed. There being no further business, Chairman Stiles adjourned the meeting at 11:30 A.M. Respectfully submitted, M. GunnI Taylor RecortJiijg Secretary - 19 -