Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 01-09-92 1 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD ON JANUARY 9, 1992 The District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in an adjourned regular session at its regular place of meeting, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, at 3:00 p.m. on January 9, 1992. President Boneysteele called the meeting to order and requested that the Secretary call roll. 1. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Members: Dalton, Starita, Rainey, Boneysteele ABSENT: Members: Clausen Member Clausen had indicated previously that he would be unable to attend this meeting and had requested that he be excused. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR 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. Resolution No. 92-001 accepting work and Offers of Dedication from J. Curtiss Taylor and Jean T. Taylor, Job 4808, Parcel 1, was adopted and recording was authorized. Motion approved on the following vote: AYES: Members: Rainey, Dalton, Starita, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Clausen b. Resolution No. 92-002 accepting work and Offers of Dedication from Dame Construction Co., Inc., Job 4700, Parcel 1, was adoPted and recording was authorized. Motion approved on the following vote: AYES: Members: Rainey, Dalton, Starita, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Clausen c. Resolution No. 92-003 was adopted, concurring with Local Agency Formation Commission's (LAFCO's) finding that District Boundary Reorganization 122 (formerly the K&M Investments property and the RMC Lonestar property) is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and ordering the completion of District Boundary Reorganization No. 122. 01 ()9 92 2 Motion approved on the following vote: AYES: Members: Rainey, Dalton, Starita, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Clausen d. Authorization was given for P.A. 92-1 (Danville) to be included in a future formal annexation to the District. Motion approved on the following vote: AYES: Members: Rainey, Dalton, Starita, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Clausen 4. BIDS AND AWARDS a. CONSIDER RESPONSIVENESS OF BIDS FROM D' ARCY & HARTY CONSTRUCTION CO.. INC.. D.W. YOUNG CONSTRUCTION CO.. INC.. AND RANGER PIPELINES. INC. TO CONSTRUCT THE MT. DIABLO SLlPLINING PROJECT. DP 4535B; CONSIDER AWARD AS TO LOWEST RESPONSIVE BID: AND AUTHORIZE A CONTINGENCY ALLOCATION OF $159.000 President Boneysteele stated that this hearing is to consider the responsiveness of bid proposals from D' Arcy & Harty Construction Co., Inc., D.W. Young Construction Co., Inc., and Ranger Pipelines, Inc. on the Mt. Diablo Siphon Sliplining Project, DP 4535B. President Boneysteele opened the hearing at the hour of 3:02 p.m. Mr. Roger J. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that a complete position paper with regard to the bidding complications that have arisen on this project was provided. Mr. Dolan introduced Mr. Jay S. McCoy, Engineering Department Infrastructure Division Manager. Mr. McCoy briefly summarized the history, purpose, and design of the project to slipline approximately 380 linear feet of existing 42-inch diameter siphon pipe with a 24-inch diameter liner pipe at Mt. Diablo Boulevard in Walnut Creek. The slipliner will be a temporary facility, which is expected to be operational about seven to ten years at which time flows will have increased to the point where the slipliner will no longer be needed and will be removed. Extreme stresses will be placed on the 24-inch liner pipe both when it is inserted and when it is removed. In addition, the site constraints of the project will place additional stresses on the liner pipe. The first three apparent low bidders (D'Arcy & Harty Construction Co., Inc., D.W. Young Construction Co., Inc., and Ranger Pipelines, Inc.) all listed a pipe supplier whose product does not in conform with the bid request documents. Mr. Akhtar Hamid, Vice President of James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. (JMM), introduced Mr. Bob Woodhouse, the JMM project manager on the Mt. Diablo Sliplining Project. Mr. Hamid described the stresses on the liner pipe and the necessary qualities for the liner pipe required in the specifications. The liner pipe must be resistant to bending and kinking because the liner pipe must be bent and twisted to go through the siphon. The liner pipe must have a high resistance to slow crack growth because cracks may cause the liner pipe to break when it is pulled out. The liner pipe must have high resistance to axial creep/strain due to pull loads so the liner pipe will not be excessively elongated when it is pulled into place. Mr. Hamid stated that James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers feels that the pipe specifications in the contract documents are necessary for the project and that the product proposed to be furnished by the pipe supplier listed by the three low bidders is not adequate for the project. In response to a question from Member Rainey, Mr. Hamid stated that the pipe was specified by cell classification numbers in the bid documents; but to the best of his knowledge, the pipe is produced by only one company. Mr. Tad Pilecki, Senior Engineer, stated that all the bidders were present at the pre-bid conference at which this information was provided. Discussion followed concerning use of the specified pipe in 01 09 92 3 other projects, differences in methods or costs for installing the types of pipes, the qualities of the specified pipe, and the means of fastening or restraining the liner pipe. Mr. McCoy stated that this hearing is to speak to the responsiveness of the bids received. Staff has concluded that the difference in the pipe products set forth by the three apparent low bidders and the specifications is material and consequential. Staff has concluded that the three apparent low bids are non-responsive because 1) the pipe set forth does not meet the specifications, 2) the pipe set forth is inadequate to meet the requirements of this project application, and 3) the difference between the pipe set forth and the pipe specified is material. The fourth low bidder met the specifications and its bid is responsive. Mr. Mike D'Arcy, of D'Arcy & Harty Construction Co., Inc., addressed the Board with regard to the question of whether the pipe listed in the D' Arcy & Harty bid meets the specifications. Mr. D' Arcy stated that he believes the pipe listed by D' Arcy & Harty is equal or better than that specified. Mr. D' Arcy stated that his company is prepared to do the project at the bid price. President Boneysteele stated that D' Arcy & Harty Construction Co., Inc. was the contractor on the Brown Avenue Project, a very difficult project from the public relations standpoint. President Boneysteele stated that the Brown Avenue Project was very successful and commended D' Arcy & Harty for their work on the project. Mr. Dave Young, of D.W. Young Construction Co.. Inc., addressed the Board as the second low bidder on the Mt. Diablo Sliplining Project. Mr. Young expressed his support for the D' Arcy & Harty proposal and stated that he listed the same supplier as D' Arcy & Harty. Mr. Young stated that the District did not adequately clarify whether there was only one supplier when questioned at the pre-bid conference. The test data available shows that the only difference in the pipes is the melting point. Mr. Bruce Papenhause, of P & F Distributors, described pipe classifications and the ranges within classifications and stated that the only difference between the two pipes in question is the melting index. Mr. Papenhause stated that the issue is one of being competitive. The three low bidders selected the most competitive supplier. Mr. Don Wescott, of Mascall Robbins, Inc. distributor for Driscopipe, stated that a multitude of physical properties are contained within the ranges of pipe classifications. Mr. Wescott described the properties of the liner pipe contained in the specifications. In response to a question from President Boneysteele, Mr. Hamid of JMM, described his education, background, and experience. Mr. Kenton L. Aim, Counsel for the District, stated that in his judgment, the law does not require a responsiveness hearing in this matter. Mr. Aim advised the Board of the requirements and responsibilities under the law with regard to this issue. Discussion followed with regard to the issue of sole source and the information provided at the pre-bid conference. There being no further comments, President Boneysteele closed the public hearing at the hour of 4:21 p.m. Discussion followed both regard to the integrity of the bidding process and potential cost savings to the District ratepayers. It was moved by Member Starita and seconded by Member Rainey, that all bids received to construct the Mt. Diablo Sliplining Project, DP 4535B, be rejected and that staff be authorized to rebid the project. Following further discussion, the motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Starita, Rainey, Dalton, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Clausen 01 09 92 ..---.---.------.-------.----.--.---.-- .."....-"".""..-... ""..."".".-.--.""".-". "."..--.-----.----.-. 4 CALL FOR REQUESTS TO CONSIDER ITEMS OUT OF ORDER None At 4:34 p.m., President Boneysteele declared a recess, reconvening at the hour of 4:39 p.m., with all parties present as previously designated. 5. SOLID WASTE a. RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSES OF REFUSE COLLECTION RATE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE. INC. AT A BOARD WORKSHOP Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that a position paper and supplemental analyses have been presented to the Board. A workshop will be conducted today followed by a public hearing on January 30, 1992. The collectors have been asked to make brief, informal comments. Through this process, staff hopes to increase everyone's knowledge and information. Mr. Dolan introduced Mr. Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer. Mr. Funasaki stated that the Board of Directors last set refuse collection rates effective July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992. At that time, the Board was advised that a mid- year rate adjustment may be required as it was likely that the Acme transfer station fee would be increased by the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Directors indicated an interest in converting the fiscal rate setting period to a calendar year basis during the mid- year rate-setting. Consequently, the collectors were asked to submit applications. Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. submitted applications, Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal did not. Mr. Funasaki stated that an Acme transfer station rate increase of 10.1 percent, to $65.69 per ton effective December 9, 1991, did occur. The 1992 disposal expenses have been adjusted in both staff analyses based on the new Acme transfer station fee. The rate applications and staff analyses have been provided to the Danville, Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga Councils and their comments have been requested for consideration at the January 30, 1992 public hearing. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the issues common to both rates applications; namely, disposal expense, the Acme landfill closure cost assessment, uniform refuse collection rates, and revenue and expense balancing account. The rate adjustment is based on existing non- automated service except for the pilot area in Danville. The reduction for the rest of the service area has been computed on a per household basis when the automated service is implemented. Mr. Funasaki reported that on December 18, 1991 when the agreement with Altamont landfill expired, Acme stopped hauling to Altamont. Acme continues to haul 240 tons per day to Potrero Hills landfill and some solid waste is going to GBF landfill in Antioch. The County does not intend to lower rates, but intends to accept another rate application from Acme transfer station on March 1, 1992 and presumably act on it mid-year. On December 5, 1991, a civil suit was filed by Acme Corporation against the County, cities, collectors, and other users of the landfill. The suit was filed shortly after the Board of Supervisors set the $65.69 Acme transfer station fee which did not allow an additional $5 for closure costs. Mr. Funasaki summarized the closure and post-closure cost assessment with an unfunded allocation of $21,152,000. The County intends that the closure and post-closure assessment be assessed over a ten-year period. The annual amount for Valley Waste Management will be $407,000, and the annual amount for Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. will be $147,000. Mr. Funasaki stated that the uniform refuse collection rate program was implemented to encourage ratepayers to reduce solid waste production and to recognize increased disposal rates. Based on public input, the Board of Directors decided to phase implementation of the program over a three-year period. Unless the Board directs otherwise, the 1992 residential rates will be adjusted to conform to the third and final phase-in year, making rates for each can for a multi-can residential customer the same. Given the uncertainties inherent in the solid waste field, precision in projecting operating revenues and expenses cannot be expected. Therefore, in last year's rate-setting process, 01,09 92 5 staff recommended implementation of a revenue and expense balancing account. Differences between prior year's actual and forecasted operating income will be carried forward to the current year's rate-setting process as an increase or decrease in the current year's revenue requirement. Last year, Valley Waste Management achieved a $118,000 surplus and Orinda-Moraga Disposal achieved a $38,000 surplus. It is proposed that these amounts be decreases in the revenue requirements for the two companies in the 1992 calendar year. Mr. Funasaki turned to the staff analysis of the Valley Waste Management rate application. The Valley Waste Management rate application reflects a 2.18 percent rate decrease. In the current year, Valley Waste Management claimed $250,000 in intercompany charges. This is the level approved by the Board of Directors last year. Mr. Funasaki briefly described the automated residential curbside collection and separate yard waste collection pilot program completed by Valley Waste Management during March 11, 1 991 through September 11, 1 991. The pilot program was very satisfactory and showed promise for operating expense reductions and customer satisfaction. The collector was asked to provide a proposal for providing automated curbside collection for the balance of the service area. Based on that proposal, staff has calculated a decrement to customers in the Danville pilot program since they have continued to receive automated collection and a decrement to the balance of the customers when the service is provided. Valley Waste Management has stated that containers and vehicles should be obtained by June 1, 1992. It is anticipated that service will be provided to the remainder of the customers in the July, August, September 1992 timeframe. A decrement of $1.45 per month per household has been calculated. Mr. Funasaki reported that Valley Waste Management has requested that the drop box rates be restructured since disposal expenses may now exceed the drop box rate. The City of Walnut Creek implemented a mini-can service January 1, 1991. When that program was implemented, the District received requests from customers near Walnut Creek for the same service. They were told it would be considered in the next rate- setting process. Because it is likely there will be an immediate reduction in rates as of January 1, 1 992, and a further reduction if the Board implements automated collection during the 1 992 calendar year, staff proposes that the need for a mini-can service be considered by the Board after the automated program is implemented. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the rate adjustment calculation alternatives, the allowable profit calculation, the Capital Use Charge, and the residential rate restructuring for Valley Waste Management. Mr. Funasaki summarized the staff recommendations with regard to Valley Waste Management as follows: 1 ) Consider a mid-year collection rate adjustment if a mid-year disposal fe,e adjustment occurs in 1992. 2) Defer consideration of the closure cost assessment of $407,000 until the County implements the assessment program. 3) Consider whether the intercompany charges of $250,000 should be allowed, or disallowed, in whole or in part. 4) Implement automated curbside collection and yard waste collection program by routes beginning July 1992 assuming receipt of equipment by June 30, 1992. 5) Review restructuring of drop box rates during the next rate-setting process, after the mid-year adjustment to the transfer station fee. 6) Determine whether the quality of service modification factor of 1.00 is appropriate. 7) Determine whether the cost of service modification factor of 1.00 is appropriate. 01 0,9 92 6 In response to a question from Member Rainey, the rounding convention used in the uniform can rates was discussed. Following discussion, staff was directed to review the calculation to ensure that the cost for the second can is exactly twice the amount of the first. Member Rainey questioned Mr. Funasaki with regard to the Board of Supervisor's intention not to reduce the rates at Acme transfer station even through Acme is no longer hauling to Altamont landfill. Mr. Funasaki stated that Ms. Sara Hoffman, Contra Costa County Solid Waste Manager, indicated that the $65.69 Acme transfer station rate would not be lowered but would be considered in March 1992 when the next rate application is submitted by Acme. Mr. Funasaki stated that when he asked Mrs. Hoffman about the excess profits that would generated, she indicated that she was not aware of any excess profits. Member Rainey objected to the District's ratepayers paying for a service that is not being utilized. Member Rainey requested that a letter of inquiry be sent to the County Board of Supervisors since they are the regulating body for the interim transfer station. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board of Directors that a letter to the Board of Supervisors be drafted for President Boneysteele's signature. Discussion followed with regard to the transition to automated collection, the allowable profit calculation, the cost of service and quality of service modification factors. At this time, Mr. Funasaki proceeded to the staff analysis of the unique issues relating to the Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. rate application including the green waste composting program, the 1992 capital additions program, the request to reduce frequency of seasonal cleanups, and the request to pay the franchise fee in installments. Mr. Funasaki stated that Orinda-Moraga Disposal has requested a 21 .62 percent rate increase. Mr. Funasaki stated that during the 1990-1991 rate-setting process, the profit per residential customer equivalent unit for Orinda-Moraga Disposal was adjusted upward to the level of profit realized by Valley Waste Management for purposes of computing the allowable profit. In the current rate analysis, the 1990-1991 base year was incremented by the Consumer Price Index. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the rate adjustment calculation alternatives, Capital Use Charge calculation, and residential rate restructuring for Orinda- Moraga Disposal. Mr. Funasaki summarized the District staff recommendations with regard to Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. as follows: 1 ) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Consider a mid-year collection rate adjustment if a mid-year disposal fee adjustment occurs in 1992. Defer consideration of the closure cost assessment of $147,000 until the County implements the assessment program. Review actual capital equipment acquisition in 1 992 compared to forecasted. Continue current frequency of three seasonal cleanups. Authorize installment payments of franchise fee, but consider assessing a penalty for delinquent payments. Determine whether the quality of service modification factor of 1.00 is appropriate. Determine whether the cost of service modification factor of 1 .00 is appropriate. In response to a question from Member Rainey, Mr. Funasaki stated that computerization of the billing system and implementation of the corporate identification program were completed by Orinda-Moraga Disposal during 1991 and those expenses were accounted for in developing the balancing account of $38,000. Mr. Ronald J. Proto, General Manager of Valley Waste Management, addressed the Board concerning the Valley Waste Management rate application and staff analysis. Mr. Proto made the following recommendations: 01 ,09 92 7 1 ) That the regular rates not be adjusted downward. but that the Board approve a rate decrease only for customers who will come on-line with automated service during the 1992 calendar year. 2) That the Board clarify implementation of automated collection service with regard to the Lafayette service area, and that the program be approved with changes in depreciation, Capital Use Charge, and extension of the franchise agreement. 3) That the Board consider increasing the profit margin allowing Valley Waste Management to share in 50 percent of the savings from efficiencies and efforts to control costs while implementing new services. 4) That a new insurance base be used to calculate savings and that intercompany charges of $250,000 be approved. 5) That a mid-year rate review be for disposal only. 6) That new rates be approved effective January 1, 1992 for a full 12 months to help eliminate the many calls from customers. Valley Waste Management would delay billing until the rates are set. 7) That the separate Acme transfer station line item on Valley Waste Management invoices be eliminated since it seems to cause customer dissatisfaction. Mr. Proto thanked the Board for this opportunity to provide input into the rate-setting process. President Boneysteele declared a recess at the hour of 6:24 p.m., reconvening at the hour of 6:32 p.m. with all parties present as previously designated. President Boneysteele stated that District Counsel has advised that he must leave the meeting. For that reason, President Boneysteele departed from the order of the agenda to consider Item 11.b., Reports. b. 11. REPORTS COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT Mr. Kenton L. Aim, Counsel for the District, reported that a letter has been received from Mr. Charles Williams, attorney for the Cities of Lafayette and Orinda and the Town of Moraga. Mr. Williams requested that the District accept a tender of defense of the action Acme Landfill Corporation versus Althin CD Medical, Inc., et ai, on behalf of those agencies since they do not franchise the collection or disposal of solid waste. Mr. Aim stated that the expense would not be substantially greater than for the District alone. Mr. Aim requested authority to work out an arrangement with the Cities of Lafayette and Orinda and the Town of Moraga in this regard. The matter would be brought back to the Board for approval. The Board agreed. Mr. Aim left the meeting at the hour of 6:33 p.m. At this time, President Boneysteele reverted to the order of the agenda. Mr. W. Douglas Lomow, President of Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., addressed the Board concerning the Orinda-Moraga Disposal rate application. Mr. Lomow stated that a 21 percent rate increase was requested and he felt it was justified. However, a significant portion of that request was for the green waste program. Therefore, Mr. Lomow requested that the Board approved an 11.01 percent rate increase, 1.5 percent over the staff recommendation. This 1.5 percent, or $74,000, is comprised of travel, meals and entertainment of $6,000; professional fees of $20,000; and an increase in the allowable profit or Capital Use Charge of $48,000. Mr. Lomow proposed that the rate be set for two years, 1992 and 1993. In the second year, Mr. Lomow proposed that a modest inflation factor of 3.70 percent be added to the 11.01 percent. For that consideration, Orinda-Moraga Disposal would waive its right to request any rate increase 01 .09 92 8 for 24 months, other than for disposal fees and franchise fees. Mr. Lomow requested that Orinda-Moraga Disposal be allowed to switch to bi-monthly billing from quarterly billing. This would cost about $2 per customer per year or .009 percent. In closing, Mr. Lomow recommended that the Board delay implementation of the uniform can rate at least until the next rate year, January 1 993. There being no further comments, President Boneysteele concluded the workshop to receive the staff analyses on the refuse collection rate applications submitted by Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. 6. ENGINEERING a. AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH JAMES M. MONTGOMERY ENGINEERS. INC. FOR FINAL DESIGN OF THE PLEASANT HILL RELIEF INTERCEPTOR. DP 4717 Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that the Board is familiar with the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor Project, particularly through the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) process. During the EIR process, the Pleasant Hill City Council, the Pleasant Hill Parks and Recreation District, and a number of citizens requested that a reclaimed water line be constructed as part of the District project. Since the conveyance and distribution of reclaimed water comes under the purview of Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), a meeting has been scheduled with CCWD to discuss their participation in the project. Discussion followed concerning the merits and economies of the reclaimed water line when constructed in conjunction with the District project. Following discussion, it was moved by Member Rainey and seconded by Member Starita, that the General Manager-Chief Engineer be authorized to execute a cost reimbursement agreement with a cost ceiling of $1,377,200 with James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. for final design of the Pleasant Hill Relief Interceptor, DP 4717, with the understanding that the District would not proceed with the reclaimed water line without supplemental authorization from the Board of Directors. The motion was approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Rainey, Starita, Dalton, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Clausen 7. CORRESPONDENCE a. NOTE RECEIPT OF LETTER FROM MS. HARRIETTE HEIBEL. VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYCLING MANAGER. CONCERNING COUNTY DRAFT RECYCLABLE PLASTICS LANDFILL BAN ORDINANCE Following discussion, receipt was noted of the letter from Ms. Harriette Heibel, Valley Waste Management Recycling Manager, concerning the County draft Ordinance banning recyclable plastics from the landfill, and the draft response was approved as modified. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. MINUTES OF DECEMBER. 1991 It was moved by Member Rainey and seconded by Member Starita, that the minutes of December 5,1991, be approved as presented. There being no objection, the motion was approved with Member Clausen being absent. 9. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES a. EXPENDITURE LIST DATED JANUARY 9. 1992 Member Starita, member of the Budget and Finance Committee, stated that he reviewed the expenditures and found them to be satisfactory. '01 09 92 9 It was moved by Member Star ita and seconded by Member Rainey, that the Expenditure List dated January 9, 1992, including Self-Insurance Check Nos. 100573-100577, Running Expense Check Nos. 64931-65284, Sewer Construction Check Nos. 10558- 10609, and Payroll Check Nos. 26207-26498, be approved as recommended. There being no objection, the motion was approved with Member Clausen being absent. None a. 10. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS REQUIRING BOARD ACTION 11. REPORTS GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER 1 ) Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that the Board authorized an emergency response to erosion damage discovered in late fall on the St. Mary's right-of-way. It was hoped that by bringing a contractor in quickly, damage to the creek could be prevented. Mr. Dolan introduced Mr. Bill Whitten, Senior Engineering Assistant, who showed slides and described the repair. All of the work was completed on December 19, 1991, in just 14 days. The rains began immediately after the work was completed. Mr. Dolan commended the Collection System Operations Department for identifying the program and taking care of it so quickly. 2) Mr. Dolan reported that discussions with Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA) are continuing. Board Members Rainey and Clausen attended the last meeting on December 19, 1991. The TWA Administrative Draft EIR is out. District staff will comment on the EIR. The TWA EIR hearing is scheduled for February 19, 1992. The District will hold a hearing following the TWA hearing. It is recommended that two information workshops be held in Contra Costa County the week of February 10, 1992. 3) Mr. Dolan reported that the District's Household Hazardous Waste Plan is proceeding through the approval process by the AB 939 Task Force Public Information and Household Hazardous Waste Subcommittee. However, the County is unwilling to cooperate with the District on a cooperative co- venture on a Household Hazardous Waste Program. Mr. Paul Morsen, Deputy General Manager, briefly described the District's Household Hazardous Waste Plan for a mobile collection unit and a hub facility, and the County's plan for mobile collection in the unincorporated areas. Mr. Dolan reviewed some of the risks and alternatives available to the District. Mr. Dolan stated that unless the Board objects, staff will proceed through the approval process with the District's proposed Household Hazardous Waste Plan and will continue to maintain a professional, supportive position. The Board agreed. 4) Mr. Dolan announced that the District is currently advertising for bids for Pumping Stations Improvements in Orinda and Moraga. The engineer's estimate for the work is approximately $600,000. 5) Mr. Dolan announced that Pacific Bell and PG&E have filed suit about the State Board of Equalization alleging excess assessed valuation oJ real estate for purposes of ad valorem taxes. The impact on the District could be as much as $624,000 and there would be some reduction in future revenues. On a parallel note, staff has just learned of Governor Wilson's plan for revenue enhancement which includes taking ad valorem tax revenue from special districts. This equates to approximately $8.1 million or about $70 more per household on the Sewer Service Charge. 6) Mr. Dolan announced that Mr. David Williams, Planning Division Manager, will be attending the January 16-18, 1992 California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) meeting. Mr. James Kelly, Plant Operations Division Manager, will be attending as well, to take part in a panel discussion on improving effluent quality through source control. 01 09. 92 10 7) Mr. Dolan announced that he will be unable to attend the February 20, 1992 Board meeting because of a conflict with the Water Environment Federation Long Range Planning Committee meeting. b. COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT This item was taken out of order earlier in the agenda. c. SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT None d. BOARD MEMBERS Member Rainey reported that the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority and Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority meetings both scheduled for January 9, 1992 were cancelled. 12. ANNOUNCEMENTS President Boneysteele announced that he will be out of town during the month of August 1992 and for the first Board Meeting in September 1992. 13. CLOSED SESSION None 14. ACTIONS RESULTING FROM DISCUSSIONS IN CLOSED SESSION None 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, President Boneysteele adjourned the meeting at the hour of 7:56 p.m., to reconvene at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 23, 1992, at the Velvet Turtle, 100 Chilpancingo Parkway, Pleasant Hill, California, for a meeting of the Sanitation and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County to discuss areas of mutual concerns. President of the Board of Dire ors, Central Contra Costa Sanitar District, County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: Sed- ary of the Central ontra C.østa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California 01' 09 92