Santa Clara County Grand Jury
• 2008-2009
2008-2009 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Santa Clara Valley Water District – Part 2 New Water Quality
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 12 findings
F1
Building costs for the Water Quality Lab were initially estimated at $8.1 million. When the bids were submitted by contractors in February 2004, the low bid was $11,344,921. The District reported that the Water Quality Lab Building was completed November 2008 at a cost of $ 17,895,000. When the cost figures for the District Labor Design Phase, Consultant Design Fees and Consultant Engineering Support during Construction and the actual lab construction contract costs are factored in, the total cost for the Water Quality Lab Building is $ 21,195,666. The building was paid for through water sales and ground water replenishment taxes.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
Final Board approval before a project is put out for bidding must be based upon current independent cost justification.
R2
Retain the services of a qualified consultant to assess the proposed plans for any future major capital investments including, but not limited to, Rinconada Water Treatment Plant, to ensure they are necessary and are not over-designed. Solicit and follow the advice of independent experts regarding the costs and benefits of all substantial capital expenditures.
F2
The Rinconada Water Treatment Plant short-term and long-term plans call for improvements amounting to $81,816,000 (through 2013) and $195,438,000 (through 2019), respectively, totaling $ 277, 254,000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Retain the services of a qualified consultant to assess the proposed plans for any future major capital investments including, but not limited to, Rinconada Water Treatment Plant, to ensure they are necessary and are not over-designed. Solicit and follow the advice of independent experts regarding the costs and benefits of all substantial capital expenditures.
F3a
The Water Quality Lab occupies the entire building but actually utilizes about half its square footage. 6
No recommendations for this finding
F3b
District interviewees have stated that due to its current layout, the excess lab office space could not be leased out to another county agency or governmental group. However, in the view of the Grand Jury, the office area, composed primarily of cubicles formed by movable partitions could easily be converted to other uses. Laboratory space is sufficiently large to accommodate individual staff offices.
No recommendations for this finding
F3c
Several members of the Board of Directors who were asked about the building were not able to justify the size of building and did not know that the building was constructed as an essential facility. The Board was remiss in its duty to oversee the scope and cost of the project.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Most testing in the Water Quality Lab is for drinking water from water treatment plants. It occasionally provides free ground water testing to private well owners. The Water Quality Lab does not sample or test river, stream or creek waters which are subject to urban water contamination problems, particularly nitrates and mercury.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The Water Quality Lab has well documented processes and is audited regularly by the State of California. It has received positive comments in recent ISO assessments.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The Water Quality Lab is not operating at full capacity and is looking at the possibility of using its spare capacity by analyzing samples from various other sources to generate extra revenue. While the subject is still under discussion, District officials have noted that they may only be able to sell services to municipal retailers. The estimated additional revenue is in the range of $500K-$720K.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Water Quality Lab staff acknowledged that salaries at the District may be too high to be price-competitive against private labs, and they believe that their quality level justifies it.
No recommendations for this finding
F8a
The new Water Quality Lab Building was constructed as an “essential facility” with extensive seismic reinforcements, including a failsafe power system for total uninterrupted power.
No recommendations for this finding
F8b
The District justifies building the Water Quality Lab Building as an essential facility by saying that “it is consistent with the design of water treatment plants and facilities that support their operation. The basis is that water facilities need to operate reliably on a continuous basis and need to be designed to withstand loss of power, earthquakes, and other hazards.”
No recommendations for this finding
F8c
The Water Quality Lab building is not required by statute to be an essential service facility within the meaning of California Seismic Health and Safety Code §16007: "Essential services building" means any building, including buildings designed and constructed, for public agencies used, or designed to be used, or any building a portion of which is used or designed to be used, as a fire station, police station, emergency operations center, California Highway Patrol office, sheriff's office, or emergency communication dispatch center.”
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 3
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R5No recommendation. 7
-
R8bNo recommendation. 8
-
R8cPage 9No recommendation. APPENDIX A Water Quality Lab Building History Date Event Cost Laboratory Needs Study; 1987 Recommended 7,000 sq. ft. Lab. Needs study updated – additional 1990 space beyond Rinconada WTP would be needed Initially proposed as part of 1993 Headquarters Facility Master Plan Presentation to BOD – required size of Lab to be 12,000 sq. ft. for core services, plus 3000 sq. ft. for Mar.17, 1998 services such as MTBE monitoring, and analysis for private water companies and well owners. BOD approves agreement with Montgomery Watson for planning, design, construction management Feb. 6, 2001 services. Includes requirement for Essential Facility. BOD removes limit of 15,000 sq. ft. amid concerns about lack of space. BOD authorizes location on Sep.18 2001 Almaden Campus. Engineers report recommends 16,500 sq. ft. to meet needs of Lab for at least 10 yrs. With projected staffing of 23, Lab design to Engineer’s estimate Dec. 4 and 18, include solar collectors. Document $8,100,000. 2001 cites previous estimate of $6,000,000.and increase due to increased floor space. “Scheduled to be fully functional by April 2004.” 10 APPENDIX A Water Quality Lab Building History Date Event Cost Put out for bids. Expanded to Low Bid Received 18,400 sq ft. (per BOD Consent February 2004 $11,344,921 calendar 12/16/03) Engineer’s estimate $9.6M. March 16, 2004 Staff recommends rejecting all bids. Board rejects all bids. FY05-06 Budget includes $13,500,000 for the building. Budget is in formal Budget review with County Board of Supervisors. BOD approves publicizing bids that May 30, 2006 have “improvements” suggested by staff. Projected cost is $14M- $17M. Board approves lowest bidder, Aug 22, 2006 Zovich construction. Gets budget $17,540,329 adjustment of $4.490M. Money to come from WUE Fund reserves. Reported Lab ‘finalized” Sep 16, 2008 construction $17,802,255 Final Labor Construction Contract Lab Declared COMPLETE Other Costs as reported by CFO SCVWD Labor Design phase $1,570,519 Nov.12, 2008 Consultant Design Fee 1,140,084 Lab Construction Contract 17,895.003 Consultant engineer support 590,060 TBD SCVWD Labor construction phase $21,195,666 TOTAL 11 APPENDIX B Santa Clara County Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) Fields of Testing 12 ygoloiborciM yrtsimehC cinagronI stnemelE lacimehC cixoT yrtsimehC cinagrO elitaloV cinagrO elitaloV-imeS yrtsimehC Lab Type Lab Name City Drinking Water Field of Test PALO ALTO REGIONAL City WATER QUALITY PALO ALTO x x x x CONTROL LABORATORY ACCUTEST Commercial LABORATORIES - SANTA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CLARA x ACCUTEST Commercial LABORATORIES - SANTA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CLARA x ANACON TESTING MOUNTAIN Commercial LABORATORIES, INC. VIEW x x x SANTA Commercial AQUALAB INCORPORATED CLARA Commercial CM ANALYTICAL, INC. GILROY x x Commercial DATALAB SAN JOSE SAN Commercial EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC. LEANDRO x x Commercial MACS LAB, INC. HAYWARD x TESTAMERICA MORGAN Commercial LABORATORIES, INC. HILL x x x x TESTAMERICA MORGAN Commercial LABORATORIES, INC. HILL TORRENT LABORATORY, Commercial INC. MILPITAS x x SANTA CLARA COUNTY County PUBLIC HEALTH LAB SAN JOSE x Public Water System CITY OF SUNNYVALE SUNNYVALE x x x x Public Water SANTA CLARA VALLEY System WATER DISTRICT LOS GATOS x x x x x APPENDIX C Recently Built Water Quality Laboratories in California Orange County Water District Lab • 20 chemists and lab technicians, 10 water-quality monitoring personnel • 350,000 analyses of 18,000 water samples each year • 39,000 sq ft • $24M • Completion Spring 2009 • Environmentally efficient (Labs 21 laboratory spec) Alameda Water Quality Laboratory • 60,000 analyses/year • 10 people • Size: 7195 SF • Cost: $3.3 million • Completion: July 2005 Marin Municipal Water District Water Quality Lab • 5300 sq feet • 120,000 water quality tests/yr • Completed 2004 MWH Labs, Monrovia, CA • This is the lab used by SCVWD when it sends out samples for testing • $3M in “State-of-the-art” instrumentation • Staff is > 90 • 34,000 sq. ft., including 24,000 sq ft of lab space • $6M lab building • Moved in Jan 2003 Metropolitan Water Quality Lab, La Verne, CA • 58,000 square feet facility • Serves 18 million Southern Californians • Staff = 120 • 320,000 analytical tests on more than 50,000 samples per year 13 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 13th day of April, 2009. Don Kawashima Foreperson June Nishimoto Foreperson pro tem 14
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of Santa Clara
Agency
Lions Gate Community Services District
Special District