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 -