Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 01-07-93 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD ON JANUARY 7, 1 993 The District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in a regular meeting at its regular place of meeting, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, at 3 p.m. on January 7, 1993. President Clausen called the meeting to order and requested that the Secretary call roll. 1. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Members: Dalton, Menesini, Hockett, Rainey, Clausen ABSENT: Members: None 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Gary Gallaher, of Orinda, addressed the Board concerning the refuse collection rate increase requested by Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. and the request to eliminate one of the seasonal cleanups. Mr. Gallaher asked that the Board deny the request of Orinda-Moraga Disposal to eliminate one seasonal cleanup per year since the savings per customer would be minimal. President Clausen stated that the Board is looking for ways to save money and one of the areas identified was elimination of one seasonal cleanup. The current frequency of three seasonal cleanups would be reduced to two seasonal cleanups of the same total volume previously allowed for three. President Clausen stated that the consensus of the Board was to eliminate one of the seasonal cleanups during 1993 as an experiment. Member Menesini expressed interest in establishing a citizens' advisory group to assist the District with regard to this issue. President Clausen thanked Mr. Gallaher for his comments. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Following discussion concerning charging for Consent to Dedications and cross training with information gained at seminars and courses, it was moved by Member Rainey and seconded by Member Dalton, that the Consent Calendar, consisting of Items a. through d., be approved as recommended, resolutions adopted as appropriate, and recordings duly authorized. a. The Consent to Dedication to Contra Costa County, M.S. 202-90, Job No. 1583, was approved, the President of the District Board of Directors and the Secretary of the District were authorized to execute said document, its recording by Contra Costa County was authorized, and Resolution No. 93- QQ1 was adopted to that effect. Motion unanimously approved on the following vote: AYES: Members: Rainey, Dalton, Menesini, Hockett, Clausen NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None b. The contract work for construction of the M-4 Parallel Force Main Project (DP 4781) was accepted and the filing of the Notice of Completion was authorized. Motion unanimously approved on the following vote: 01 07 93 2 AYES: Members: Rainey, Dalton, Menesini, Hockett, Clausen NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None c. January 21, 1993, at 3 p.m., was set as the date and time to receive public comments on the Negative Declaration of the Collection System Operations (CSO) Yard Reconfiguration Project, DP 30023. Motion unanimously approved on the following vote: AYES: Members: Rainey, Dalton, Menesini, Hockett, Clausen NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None d. The attendance of Randy Schmidt, Associate Engineer, was authorized at the January 19-22, 1993 air dispersion modeling course given by BEE Services, Inc. in Dallas, Texas, at a cost not to exceed $2,500. Motion unanimously approved on the following vote: AYES: Members: Rainey, Dalton, Menesini, Hockett, Clausen NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None 4. CALL FOR REQUESTS TO CONSIDER ITEMS OUT OF ORDER None a. 5. SOLID WASTE ADOPT RESOLUTIONS TO ESTABLISH REFUSE COLLECTION RATES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1. 1993 FOR VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE. INC. Mr. Roger J. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that at the December 1 7, 1992 Board meeting, the Board reached decisions on almost all of the issues relating to the refuse collection rate applications of Valley Waste Management (Valley) and Orinda- Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. (Orinda-Moraga). The resultant effects on the rate adjustment calculation and schedule of refuse collection rates for Valley and Orinda- Moraga were calculated and are set forth in the position paper. In addition, the following suggestions and requests were made by the Board: 1) That the rate for seven cubic yard drop boxes be recalculated on a breakeven basis, to eliminate subsidy from other customer categories; 2) That the District's franchise fee be reviewed to produce a reduction of at least $50,000, or possibly a larger reduction, if achievable without eliminating required activities; and 3) That questions raised with regard to the allow ability of some of the Contra Costa County fees included in the landfill gate fee and the transfer station fee be addressed. Mr. Dolan introduced Mr. Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer, who reviewed adjustments made to the rate calculations for the Valley service area excluding the City of Lafayette, for the City of Lafayette, and for the Orinda-Moraga service area based on the decisions and input of the Board of Directors at the December 17, 1992 meeting. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the restructured seven cubic yard drop box rate, the reduction of $89,400 made 01 07 93 3 to the District franchise fee calculation, and the County fees collected through the Acme Transfer Station fee and the Keller Canyon Landfill Gate fee forecasted for 1993. Mr. Dolan stated that at the last meeting, the Board requested that some background be provided with regard to the uses of County fees collected through the transfer station fee and landfill gate fee. Mr. Dolan introduced Mr. Val Alexeeff, Director of the Contra Costa County Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, who was invited to provide that background and information on the uses of those fees by the County. Using the overhead relating to County fees referenced by Mr. Funasaki, Mr. Alexeeff stated: 1 ) The Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) Fee of $1.00 per ton is mandated by the State and goes to the County Health Department, who is required to monitor and ensure that all health requirements are met. This fee is comparable to other LEA fees with the exception of those for State-run LEAs, which are higher. 2) The City AB 939 Planning Fee of $.80 per ton and the County AB 939 Planning Fee of $.15 per ton are used for AB 939 planning. The fees are distributed on the basis of population and not on the basis of tonnage delivered to the transfer station. The County AB 939 Planning Fee of $.15 per ton is used for preparation of the County-wide AB 939 Plan. The Contra Costa County AB 939 Plan was the first plan completed and submitted to the State for approval. 3) The Household Hazardous Waste Planning Fee of $ .41 per ton is used for the Mobile Household Hazardous-Waste Collection Service. All the cities, with the exception of the City of Pittsburg, passed resolutions authorizing participation in the County's Mobile Household Hazardous Waste Collection Service. 4) The County Resource Recovery Fee of $.27 per ton is used for various cooperative programs including a County-wide telephone recycling hot line, market development zone activities, and activities required under the Resource Recovery and Recycling Element of the AB 939 Plan. The County is working with the District to provide a telephone hot line for backyard composting. 5) The Keller Canyon Landfill Operation and Maintenance Expenses, including the County Resource Recovery Fee of $200,000 annually, the County Resource Recovery Management Fee of $100,000 annually, and the Landfill Development Coordinator Fee of $15,000 annually, are the result of the environmental review process for the Keller Canyon Landfill and are required as part of the mitigation measures. The Landfill Development Coordinator attends all Landfill Advisory Committee meetings and participates in monitoring actions taken. In response to questions from Member Rainey, Mr. Alexeeff stated that the LEA Fees discussed earlier are restricted to solid waste activities; however, Mr. Alexeeff did not indicate who was responsible for monitoring this. Mr. Alexeeff stated that the County Resource Recovery Fee and the County Resource Management Fee are used for monitoring and responding to State legislation, responding to needs and requests of various County-wide organizations, and County initiatives such as grant opportunities. Ms. Louise Aeillo, of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, stated that County staff working in this area has been reduced from six to three. In addition to the items mentioned above, this group has responsibility for producing and mailing documents, and preparing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the County- wide AB 939 Plan. Mr. Alexeeff proceeded with his explanation of County fees collected through the Acme Transfer Station Fee and Keller Canyon Landfill Gate Fee forecasted for 1993 as follows: 01 07 93 4 6) Transportation, Open Space, and Community Mitigation Fees of $2.00 per ton each, were conditions of approval of the Land Use Permit approved in 1990. The Community Mitigation Fee is going to the West Pittsburg area to provide programs to help the area socially respond to the landfill. There is a yearly process for review and consideration of those programs. Open Space Mitigation was another condition of approval of the Land Use Permit. This fee is used for beautification and thistle removal in the area. A substantial portion of the Transportation Mitigation Fee went to complete street improvements. The City of Pittsburg has refused to provide encroachment permits for that work, so the work has not yet been completed. In addition, some improvements will be made to the SR4 interchange. President Clausen questioned whether Keller Canyon Landfill was required to provide those improvements to the SR4 interchange. Mr. Alexeeff stated there is an ongoing argument on that issue. The question is whether the cost for the improvements comes out of the mitigation fees or the operations fees. Mr. Alexeeff stated that he would provide the District with a copy of everything that was approved as part of the mitigation program for the year. President Clausen indicated that the District would appreciate receiving that information. President Clausen stated that once these mitigation measures are met, presumably the fees will cease. Mr. Alexeeff agreed, stating that when the Board of Supervisors determines the mitigation measures have been met, the fees will cease. However, there is one view that says that as long as the landfill operates, there should be mitigation. Member Menesini questioned the test for culmination of mitigation fees and asked Mr. Alexeeff to provide that information. Member Rainey requested a budget, breakdown, and history of how all the County fees collected have been and will be used. Mr. Alexeeff stated that he would provide that information. Member Rainey stated that it has been said that Acme has found "nooks and crannies" and that some waste going into the Acme Transfer Station is actually staying at the Acme Landfill rather than being transferred to the Keller Canyon Landfill. Member Rainey stated that she had been told that the County had negotiated a differential rate, that the surplus funds collected were being put into a fund, and that the LEA was monitoring that process. Member Rainey asked if that is true or if Acme Corporation is enjoying the use of the funds. Mr. Alexeeff stated that the County does not receive that money. The County does receive information on the amounts of waste being deposited and where. The County does not have information or control of the money received. The County has noted discrepancies and is considering how to proceed. Mr. Alexeeff stated that Acme contends that the money has been set aside for closure. The closure isi:.ue is currently in litigation. The County does not know exactly where that money is or how it will be applied to closure. Mr. Alexeeff returned to his explanation of the County fees collected through the Acme Transfer Station Fee and the Keller Canyon La.ndfill Gate Fee forecasted for 1993. 7) The County Surcharge of $3.90 per ton is the County franchise fee and is used for the County's operational responsibilities in the broader sense. This year the County surcharge was used for the Recycling Center in Pacheco. General Assistance recipients will operate that facility. President Clausen thanked Mr. Alexeeff and Ms. Aeillo for their presentations, and asked again that Mr. Alexeeff provide the information requested by the Board. Mr. Kenton L. Aim, Counsel for the District, distributed proposed changes to the draft resolutions establishing new refuse collection rates for Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. The proposed changes amplify President Clausen's point with regard to a mid-year rate adjustment. Member Menesini stated that there is no test or assessment as to whether the refuse collectors are actively pursuing less expensive transfer station and disposal options. Member Menesini asked if there is anything that could give a sense of urgency to find less expensive disposal options. Mr. Aim stated his belief that the rates create an urgent 01 07 93 5 need. Mr. Aim stated further that the newly hired Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority manager has been charged with actively pursuing alternative disposal and transfer options. It was moved by Member Rainey and seconded by Member Hockett, that Resolution No. 93-002 be adopted, establishing new rates for refuse collection for Valley Waste Management within Zones 2, 4, and 5 effective January 1, 1993. Motion approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Rainey, Hockett, Menesini, Clausen NOES: Members: Dalton ABSENT: Members: None It was moved by Member Rainey and seconded by Member Hockett, that Resolution No. 93-003 be adopted, establishing new rates for refuse collection for Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. within Zones 1 and 1 A effective January 1, 1993. Motion approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Rainey, Hockett, Menesini, Clausen NOES: Members: Dalton ABSENT: Members: None Member Rainey requested that Mr. Gallaher advise the Board on the impacts of elimination of one seasonal cleanup. a. 6. CORRESPONDENCE NOTE RECEIPT OF LETTER FROM MR. CRAIG PETERSON OPPOSING THE REFUSE COLLECTION RATE INCREASE REQUESTED BY ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE. INC. b. NOTE RECEIPT OF LETTER FROM MS. SUSAN NORTON OPPOSING THE REFUSE COLLECTION RATE INCREASE REQUESTED BY ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE. INC. NOTE RECEIPT OF LETTER FROM MR. DOUG LOMOW. PRESIDENT OF ORINQA- MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE. tNC.. CONCERNING THE REQUESTED REFUSE COLLECTION RATE INCREASE c. d. NOTE RECEIPT OF LETTER FROM A. B. McNABNEY. VICE PRESIDENT- CONSERVATION. MT DIABLO AUDUBON SOCIETY. OPPOSING THE TRI-VALLEY WASTEWATER AUTHORITY PROPOSED PROJECT President Clausen noted receipt of the letters from Mr. Craig Peterson and Ms. Susan Norton opposing the refuse collection rate increase requested by Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., the letter from Mr. Doug Lomow, President of Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., concerning the requested refuse collection rate increase, and the letter from A.B. McNabney, Vice President-Conservation, Mt. Diablo Audubon Society, opposing the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority proposed project. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3. 1992 It was moved by Member Rainey and seconded by Member Dalton, that the minutes of December 3, 1992, be approved as presented. There being no objection, the motion was approved with Members Menesini and Hockett abstaining. 01 07 93 6 b. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17. 1992 It was moved by Member Menesini and seconded by Member Hockett, that the minutes of December 17, 1992, be approved with the following addition: On page 20, the following was inserted at the beginning of the second paragraph: "Member Menesini expressed concern with regard to accountability in terms of pursuing the Acme closure problem. Member Menesini requested that the legal establishment working on the Acme lawsuit pursue a joint approach and strategy, and that the Board be kept informed of what is happening in terms of the strategies and the pursuit of the lawsuit. " There being no objection, the motion was unanimously approved. a. 8. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE LIST DATED JANUARY 7. 1993 Member Menesini stated that he and Member Hockett reviewed the expenditures and found them to be satisfactory. Member Menesini complimented staff on the completeness of the answers provided to questions posed. It was moved by Member Menesini and seconded by Member Hockett, that the Expenditure List dated January 7, 1993, including Self-Insurance Check Nos. 100653- 100657, Running Expense Check Nos. 72588-72881, Sewer Construction Check Nos. 11886-11947, and Payroll Check Nos. 29805-30098, be approved as recommended. There being no objection, the motion was unanimously approved. None a. 2) 01 07 9. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS REQUIRING BOARD ACTION 10. REPORTS GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER 1) Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that the Board will recall that the District considered a rate adjustment to make up the shortfall due to the loss of 35 percent ($2.6 million) of the District's ad valorem tax revenue. The decision was made to postpone the rate increase until 1993 since it seemed inappropriate to move quickly and pass a substantial rate increase without advising our customers and responding through the normal rate process. As a result, the District took a loss in Capital Improvement Program revenues. It now appears that the fiscal crisis at the State level is worse than last year and a further taking of ad valorem tax revenue may occur. Potential rate increases in the Sewer Service Charge range from $30 to $ 70 per year. This is somewhat complicated by the fact that the District anticipated a rate increase for Capital Improvement Program requirements directed toward environmental issues prior to the loss of ad valorem tax revenue. Staff is working diligently to cut and defer projects. In addition, consideration is being given toward financing some portion through the issuance of debt. Mr. Dolan proposed that a letter be drafted and sent to our customers, describing the 1992 loss of ad valorem tax revenue, and the potential range of actions the District may have to take. Discussion followed concerning the use of letters, two-sided flyers communicating a second message, friendly postcards, press releases including comments from members of the public and individuals outside our organization, and news conferences to communicate with our customers. Mr. Dolan stated that alternatives will be prepared for review by the Board. Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that some time ago, the District received a comment from the Danville Town Council relating to concerns raised by restaurants in Danville. They commented that the 93 7 District's Facilities Capacity Fee was high. Staff checked and confirmed that the District rates are in the. mid range of similar agencies in the Bay Area. Nevertheless, the Facilities Capacity Fee is a substantial percentage of capital costs for a new restaurant because of the high strength of waste produced by restaurants. It has been a long standing practice of the District and a requirement of the Environmental Protection Agency's federal revenue program, that each category of customers pay their own costs without subsidy from other groups. Therefore, simply cutting the rate would not be appropriate. Mr. Dolan introduced Mr. Jarred Miyamoto-Mills, Principal Engineer, who reviewed the basis for establishing non-residential fees. The fee charges for the capacity required by using generally accepted industry standards considering flow and strength. A special study process is available for some user groups or upon request. Mr. Miyamoto-Mills reviewed the staff proposal for modification of the Facilities Capacity Fee structure for categories with the highest fees to provide for: a) An initial payment at the time the building permit is approved; b) An annual capacity fee increment to the Sewer Service Charge over the life of the business; and c) A relocation credit when a business moves from one location to another within the District service area. Mr. Miyamoto-Mills stated that if the Board is inclined to move forward in this consideration, it would be necessary to ensure that all the necessary notices are provided to the public and that the necessary documents are developed. Staff would come back to the Board with proposed revisions to the District Code allowing, but not requiring the Board to institute such a program. The specifics of the program could then be considered during the next rate-setting process. Discussion followed concerning the present state of the economy, implementing such a program throughout the District service area and not just in the Town of Danville, obtaining feedback on the proposal from restaurant owners, and applying such a fee structure to laundromats as well as restaurants. Mr. Dolan indicated that staff will return to the Board with feedback from the restaurant owners and with the other information requested by the Board. It was agreed that a separate meeting will be set to discuss questions from Membèr Menesini concerning the basis currently used for setting Facilities Capacity Fees. 3) Mr. Dolan briefly described some of the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TW A) project history. Since the mid-1980's, there has been a CCCSD Board committee that has been involved in discussions between the District and TWA. However, there are now two new CCCSD Board Members. Also, some recent events warrant Board discussion. Mr. Dolan stated that staff will provide a brief overview of the project, discuss some recent events, and share some observations and opinions. Mr. Dolan introduced Mr. Robert A. Baker, Deputy Chief Engineer, who stated that over two years ago TWA once again asked CCCSD to investigate the feasibility of a joint project. After an initial round of engineering studies done in 1986 and 1987 at District expense, TWA pursued other options. Therefore when TWA returned, CCCSD asked, and TWA agreed, to pay for future engineering work. Engineering studies were performed to determine the expand ability of facilities on a technical basis. Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) conducted two studies looking into the capacity of the District's facilities. It was found that the constraints of the system were for wet weather, not dry weather. The biggest constraint is the 125 mgd capacity at the north end of the San Ramon Valley Interceptor. The CDM study was done to determine the capacity available in the pipeline 01 07 93 8 01 07 while still maintaining the current District standard which is one overflow every 20 years. The study found that up to 40 mgd peak wet weather capacity could be allocated if the District decided to provide services to TWA. The available capacity in the pipeline has two sources: 1 ) The pipeline was sized to serve the Dougherty Valley at the originally proposed .17,000 unit density; and 2) Conservative engineering criteria available at that time were used in sizing because today's more sophisticated models had not been developed. The current District standard, which was used to evaluate the capacity available in the San Ramon Valley Interceptor, is no more than one wet weather sewer overflow in 20 years. Mr. Baker stated that the capacity of the outfall is just big enough for District requirements. There will be a 140 mgd capacity when current outfall projects are completed. It would be necessary to build a 40 mgd booster pumping station at Waterfront Road to increase flow if capacity is sold to TWA. Mr. Baker stated that District staff has been working with Mr. Bob Whitley, of TWA, to develop a terms and conditions document to try to form a concept of what the cost to TWA would be and what the savings to CCCSD ratepayers would be. TWA has hired Bartle and Wells to prepare a financial report which should be completed in February or March 1 993. At that time, TWA will consider the matter and if TWA decides to pursue the CCCSD option, the report will be formally submitted to the District for consideration. Mr. Dolan recommended that if TWA does select the District as the preferred option, that the District hire an independent third party to evaluate environmental and economic issues. The Regional Board, because the whole San Francisco Bay system is thought to be sufficiently contaminated by man's activity, has said they will prohibit further release of contaminants. These mass emission limitations are in the development stages now. The first contaminant to be dealt with is copper. Other contaminants will be addressed in the future. TWA has been working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board on approaches to deal with this issue. They have been making some progress. However, the mass emission issue remains one which must be satisfactorily resolved before the TW A project could proceed. A water quality impacts analysis was done at the Mallard Slough Intake. Mr. Baker reviewed the results of the study and stated the impact on the quality of the municipal water supply at the Mallard Slough Intake would be negligible. Mr. Baker and Mr. Dolan briefly discussed some of the changes which have recently occurred in eastern Alameda County that might affect TWA's proposal. Conceivably, TWA could drop or seriously modify their proposal. Mr. Baker stated that he felt a consensus of opposition to the project was developing among mayors and councilmembers within the District service area. Mr. Dolan stated that letters have been received from cities in Contra Costa County objecting to the proposed TWA project. He expressed concern for the relationship between the cities and the District. Mr. Dolan stated that there is no doubt in his mind that all the work done in sizing the pipe and all of the work done so far with regard to the proposed TWA project has been done in a very professional and responsible way. He expressed an interest in providing all of the information available and responding to any concerns or interests of the Board Members. Mr. Dolan requested guidance from the Board with regard to the current direction of staff concerning this proposed project. Mr. Dolan asked if the Board wished to have staff continue with their efforts on this project. President Clausen indicated that it would not be appropriate for the Board to make that 93 , b. c. d. 9 decision at this time, but the matter could be calendared for decision at a future Board meeting if that is the wish of the Board. Mr. Dolan stated that staff will continue until such time the Board directs otherwise. In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Bob Whitley, of TWA, described the contract between Livermore Amador Valley Wastewater Management Authority (LA VWMA) and East Bay Dischargers Association (EBDA) and the capacity that exists in the EBDA pipeline. In closing, Mr. Whitley stated that if the CCCSD option were selected, TWA would commit to large capacity overflow reservoirs and protection in the Valley to make sure the peak flow is limited to the terms agreed upon with CCCSD. The TWA service area is based on the natural drainage basin and not political boundaries, so TWA would actually serve a portion of Contra Costa County. There has been a shift in the political leadership in the Valley. Mr. Whitley stated that he does not know at this time whether TW A will submit a proposal to CCCSD, but that he intends to recommend that a proposal be prepared and submitted to CCCSD. This matter is not calendared for consideration by the TWA Board of Directors in January 1993. The earliest that such a decision could be made would be February 1993. There being no further questions or comments, Mr. Dolan indicated that staff will continue to work with TWA until the Board directs otherwise. 4) Mr. Dolan announced that recent wet weather flow into the Treatment Plant has ranged from 50 mgd to 100 mgd, with an average of 70 mgd in the last two days. COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT 1 ) Following discussion, the Board of Directors approved an agreement tolling the statute of limitations with regard to the claim for indemnity filed by Francise Fiorentino relating to the lawsuit entitled Acme Landfill Corporation v. Althin CD Medical, Inc., CCCSD, et al. SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT None BOARD MEMBERS 1 ) Member Rainey reported on the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority meeting held on January 6, 1993, at which County membership in the Authority, the County Materials Division Ordinance, and solid waste disposal destinations, were discussed. 2) Member Dalton reported that backyard composting was the main topic of discussion and the subject of a demonstration at the January 6, 1993 Recycling and Household Hazardous Waste Advisory Committee meeting. 3) Member Rainey invited anyone interested to attend the Fiscal Unity Conference scheduled for January 16, 1993. 4) Following discussion, President Clausen made the Board Committee assignments for 1993 as follows: Budaet and Finance Committee * Mario M. Menesini Barbara D. Hockett 01 07 93 10 CaDital Projects Committee .Barbara D. Hockett John B. Clausen Personnel Committee .Susan McNulty Rainey William C. Dalton CCCSD/CCWD Water Reclamation Committee . Mario M. Menesini William C. Dalton Recyclina and Household Hazardous Waste Advisory Committee .William C. Dalton Barbara D. Hockett Tri-Vallev Wastewater Authoritv (TWA) Committee .Susan McNulty Rainey Mario M. Menesini Solid Waste Committee & ExDort ReDresentative .Susan McNulty Rainey John B. Clausen Board Liaison to Cities and Countv Concord, Pleasant Hill, Pacheco' Danville, Alamo, San Ramon Lafayette, Walnut Creek Martinez, Contra Costa County Orinda, Moraga Mario M. Menesini John B. Clausen Barbara D. Hockett William C. Dalton Susan McNulty Rainey Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authoritv Susan McNulty Rainey John B. Clausen William C. Dalton - Alternate Contra Costa Solid Waste Authoritv Susan McNulty Rainey John B. Clausen - Alternate Sanitation and Water Aaencies of Contra Costa Countv Barbara D. Hockett AB 939 Task Force Susan McNulty Rainey . First named Member will serve as Committee Chair. 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS Member Rainey stated that she received a telephone call concerning an overflow on Timothy Lane. The caller was very pleased with the speed and efficiency of the response from the District. Member Rainey commended CSO for their efforts in this regard. 01 07 9ð 11 President Clausen announced that he recently met Mr. Bob Andrews, Plant Manager at Shell Oil Company. Mr. Andrews thanked the District for the emergency treatment service provided to Shell last January. Member Menesini suggested that the sign announcing the entrance to the District be repaired or replaced. Mr. Dolan indicated that staff would take care of the problem. 12. CLOSED SESSION None 13. ACTIONS RESULTING FROM DISCUSSIONS IN CLOSED SESSION None 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, President Clausen adjourned the meeting at the hour of 7:02 p.m. ~~ President of the Board of Directors, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: t S c et ry of the Central Co ra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California 0-1 07 93