Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 06-22-89 122 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD ON JUNE 22, 1989 The District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in an adjourned regular meeting at its regular place of meeting, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, at 3:00 p.m. on June 22, 1989. President Rainey called the meeting to order and requested that the Secretary call roll. I. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Members: Boneysteele, Dalton, Clausen, Carlson, Rainey ABSENT: Members: None II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None III. CALL FOR REQUESTS TO CONSIDER ITEMS OUT OF ORDER None IV. SOLID WASTE 1. RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE THREE-MONTH PILOT PROGRAM CONDUCTED BY VALLEY. WASTE MANAGEMENT..., AND AUTHORIZE FULL-SCALE IMPLEMENTATION OF CURBSIDE RECYCLING ...IN DANVILLE, ALAMO, AND LAFAYETTE Mr. Roger J. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, introduced Ms. Harriette Heibel, Public Information Coordinator, who reviewed the scope of the three recycling pilot programs conducted by Valley Waste Management in the Danville, Alamo, and Lafayette communities. Ms. Heibel reported that the three pilot" programs were very successful. Both participation and volume were very high. Ms. Heibel acknowledged Mr. Tom Ferro, Valley Waste Management Recycling Supervisor, and his crew for their assistance in compiling the statistical information on participation rates. Ms. Heibel showed slides and described the pilot programs highlighting the types of containers used, the method of collection, the schedule, publicity# and informational meetings held in each community. Surveys were conducted at the beginning and end of the pilot programs. The main concerns expressed in the surveys were: - cost - impact on non-profit organizations - aesthetics of placing containers on the streets - convenience of using containers - including additional items for recycling in the future Ms. Heibel reported that terrain did not seem to impact the participation rate. In some cases flat areas had lower participation rates than hilly areas~ The one exception was the long, steep driveways in the El Pintado area. Ms. Heibel briefly summarized the statistical information gathered by actual physical count and presented in detail in the position paper and attachments. The overall monthly participation averaged 81.7 percent of all pilot program participants recycl ing. The average amount of recyclables collected per household per month was 48.36 pounds. . In addition to the pilot curbside recycling program, a pilot automated refuse collection program was conducted in areas of Alamo and Danville. Selected homes were given either a 60-gallon or 100-gallon "supercart", which is a refuse container on wheels, to replace their regular garbage container(s). Surveys were sent to those who participated in the automated refuse collection pilot programs in Alamo and Danvill e. Responses indicated that there was sufficient room in the ~supercart'for household garbage but not enough room for garden trimmings. Of those who responded to thè surveys, 78 percent wished to keep the automated refuse coll ection. If automated refuse coll ection were to -' .' (:? i:~, 06 22 RQ 123 reduce rates, 95 'percent of those responding indicated that they wished to continue the automated refuse collection service. Some people requested smaller carts because it was difficult to wheel the large carts down steep driveways. Board discussion followed concerning separation of household garbage and garden trimmings. The Board commended Ms. Heibel on, the excellent and detailed report. 2. RECEIVE DISTRICT ANALYSES OF APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT, ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, introduced Mr. Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer, who stated that Valley Waste Management has requested a 69.07 percent rate increase, Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. has requested a 18.22 percent rate increase, and Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal has requested a 16.07 percent rate increase effective July 1, 1989. Analyses of the three rate increase requests have been completed and distributed to the Board, the affected cities of Orinda, Moraga, Lafayette, and Danville, and the refuse collectors. Major issues wh,ich are common to all three rate applications are the significant increase in disposal expenses which have recently occurred, the uncertainty regarding future increases, and the implementation of recycling programs. Mr. Funasaki reviewed each of these items in greater detail highlighting the information contained in the analyses. Mr. Robert D. Hilton, of Price Waterhouse, summarized the analysis of the issues as they related to Valley Waste Management. Valley Waste Management has requested a 69.07 percent increase based primarily on the uncertainty of disposal costs, recovery of unrealized profit from the 1989 rate year, and the use of a 90 percent Operating Ratio instead of the 94 percent Operating Ratio customarily used by the District. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the analysis of the issues relating to the 18.22 percent rate increase requested by Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. During the 1988-1989 rate setting period for which the rates were set by the Board last year, Orinda-Moraga realized a 96.7 percent Operating Ratio instead of the 94 percent Operating Ratio used in setting rates. This was the result of higher than forecasted disposal expenses which were offset to a certain extent by higher than forecasted revenues in residential and drop boxes. Mr. Funasaki stated that Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal Service had originally requested a 2.25 percent rate increase. During the course of the staff review, the request was changed to 16.07 percent. A final analysis of the Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal application will be distributed to the Board prior to the July 6, 1989 public hearing. A 92.1 percent Operating Ratio was realized by Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal instead of the 94 percent Operating Ratio used in setting rates 1 ast year. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the staff proposals for Board consideration as follows: - Use the exi sti ng $47 per ton disposal fee at Acme 1 andfill to establish collection rates. - Re-establish rates if disposal expense changes significantly; reconsideration of rates would be made on the singl.e issue of disposal expense increase or decrease. - Permit a unique adjustment in the current rate-setting period for recovery of the unanticipated 87 percent increase in the Acme landfill disposal fee, netted against a total credit variance in all other accounts, f9r Valley Waste Management. - Establish an incremental charge of $.95 per month for the recycling program for Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal. ,,::0,,6 ,',.2"2,::'89 124 - Review further the implementation of automated curbside collection by Valley Waste Management. Member Clausen asked if it were appropriate to provide a profit margin on the pass-through of disposal charges. Mr. Hilton indicated thàt these charges were classified as operating expenses and thus would be marked up with a profit in accordance with the Board approved rate process. Mr. 'Hilton also mentioned that if the rates were set on another index such as return on equity, the automatic increase in rates as a result of an increased operating expense wouldn't follow. Mr. Dolan indicated that the staff had considered that a link existed between risk and profit. If the Board woul d adj ust rates rapidl y to account for disposal charge changes so that the collectors were always made whole then low or no profit markup may be appropriate. Mr. Dolan indicated that staff would provide figures to indicate the effect on rates of eliminating the profit on disposal charges. In response to a question from Member Carlson, Mr. Funasaki stated that Orinda-Moraga Disposal did not request consideration for the prior year's greater than forecasted expenses due to disposal fee increases. Member Boneysteele inquired as to the significance and derivation of the Return on Net Fixed Tangible Assets calculation included on Attachment I of the Valley Waste Management analysis. Messrs. Hilton and Funasaki responded that this measure is purely informational. Mr. Funasaki stated that he would provide Member Boneysteele with the requested derivation., In response to a question from Member Carlson, Mr. James Landa, Valley Waste Management's Senior Division Controller, responded that the figures contained in the June 20,1989 Valley Waste Management letter are a compilation of the actual costs of the automated service pilot programs and do not include profit or cost of recycling. Mr. Dolan expressed staff dissatisfaction with the quality of the automated collection pilot program report and the Valley Waste Management position that such service might not be provided in the immediate term. Mr. Skaggs and Mr. Kruszka indicated that there were recent personnel changes at Valley Waste Management and that they were interested in the automated coll ection service. They woul d meet with staff and provide an improved report. Discussion followed concerning implementation of automated collection during the current rate-setting process. President Rainey stated that there was an understanding on the part of the Board that the automated collection pilot program was a study and if it were successful, it would be part of the rate consideration for implementation throughout the franchise area. In the discussion that followed, the Board indicated that it is appropriate to continue consideration of automated collection. The issue regarding level of service and rates for automated collection will be considered following the refuse collection rate setting. Staff will meet with representative of Valley Waste Management to clarify the issue and the timing of the automated collection program. The improved automated collection report will come back to the board in August and not interfere with the present rate-setting process. Member Boneysteele suggested that the District may wish to challenge the disposal fee increase. Member Boneysteele suggested that the Board brief itself, through counsel who are specialists in the field of public utility regulation or antitrust, as to whether it would be appropriate for the District to institute a challenge as to the reasonableness of the tipping fee. If the District does not have the direct authority to do so, could the District cooperate with the collector in challenging the tipping fee increase? Member Carlson stated that it would be counterproductive to challenge the tipping fee increase at this point. Member Carlson stated that the County, rather than the District, should regulate the landfill. President Rainey stated that the Touche Ross study commissioned by the County has been expanded to consider expenses and profit for a ten-year period as requested by the District. The District shoul d continue to monitor this issue but should go forward with refuse collection rate setting at this time. Member Boneysteele stated that at the request of Lafayette City Councilmember Uilkema, the District agreed to provide a breakdown of the amount of waste generated and the costs per customer. Following t'ð"6 : '~';2 .~';Q in ':, "V' ',"" fitI ,:', ':'\: lè:1 125 discussion, breakdown. Mr. Dolan indicated that staff would prepare such a The agenda for the next Regional Recycling Advisory Committee was discussed briefly. Ms. Harriette Heibel indicated that she would contact Ms. Sheila Cogan, of Contra Costa County, to schedule a presenta~1on on recycling of plastics and other materials. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 1989 It was moved by Member Clausen and seconded by Member Boneysteele, that the minutes of June 1, 1989, be approved with editorial changes suggested by Member Boneysteele on pages five and seven. There being no objection, the motion was unanimously approved. VI. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS REQUIRING BOARD ACTION None VII. REPORTS 1. GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER, None 2. COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT Mr. Hazard, Counsel for the District, stated that he would return for the July 6, 1989 Board meeting if the President or General Manager-Chief Engineer wish. Otherwise, Mr. Kent Alm will attend the meeting. 3. SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT None, 4. BOARD MEMBERS President Rainey reported on the County Solid Waste Commission meeting held on June 21, 1989 at which the initial study dealing with amending the County Solid Waste Management Plan to allow an additional transfer station in Central and/or South County, was discussed. This matter will be discussed further on June 26, 1989. VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS None IX. CLOSED SESSION 1. EXISTING LITIGATION The closed session was held to discuss existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a). The title of the litigation discussed was Central Contra Costa Sanitary pistrict versus Laura Lorraine Stidger, et al, Contra Costa Superior-'Court No. 302250. At 5:32 p.m., President Rainey declared the closed session to discuss litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a). At 5:40 p.m., President Rainey concluded the closed session and reconvened the meeting into open session. x. ACTIONS RESULTING FROM DISCUSSIONS IN ClOSED SESSION It was moved by Member Carlson and seconded by Member Clausen, that Resolution No. 89-090 be adopted, accepting the Stipulated Judgment of Condemnation in the action of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District versus Laura Lorraine Stidger, et al, Contra Costa Superior Court No. 302250, Parcel 32, in the event that the judgment is received on or .,' ,'",06.: :.22:,f ~..89 126 before June 30, 1989, and authorizing exchange of property between Contra Costa County and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District in accordance with the agreement dated September 13, 1988. Motion unanimously approved on the follow ing vote: . AYES: Members: Carlson, Clausen, Boneysteele, Dalton, Rainey NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None XI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, President Rainey adjourned the meeting at the hour of 5:43 p.m. President of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: ;>06..., ;~22~}i'.89