Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 01-30-92 14 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD ON JANUARY 30, 1992 The District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in an adjourned regular session at its regular place of meeting, 501 9 Imhoff Place, Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, at 3:00 p.m. on January 30, 1992. President Boneysteele called the meeting to order and requested that the Secretary call roll. 1. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Members: Clausen, Starita, Boneysteele ABSENT: Members: Dalton, Rainey Member Rainey entered the meeting at the hour of 3:02 p.m. and Member Dalton entered the meeting at the hour of 3:03 p.m. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Roger J. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, requested that Items d. and e. be pulled from the agenda because of some confusion in the language in the position papers. These items will be recalendared for Board consideration at the February 6, 1992 Board meeting. The Board concurred. Member Rainey entered the meeting at the hour of 3:02 p.m. It was moved by Member Clausen and seconded by Member Starita, that the Consent Calendar, consisting of Items a. through g. excluding Items d. and e., be approved as recommended, resolutions adopted as appropriate, and recordings duly authorized. a. Authorization was given for P.A. 92-2 (Martinez) to be included in a future formal annexation to the District. Motion approved on the following vote: AYES: Members: Clausen, Starita, Rainey, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Dalton b. Resolution No. 92-004, A Resolution of Application for the Annex~tir>n of Properties to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District under the title District Annexation 120, was adopted. Motion approved on the following vote: AYES: Members: Clausen, Starita, Rainey, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Dalton c. The request of Randy W. Covey for an emergency withdrawal of $ 7,700 from the Deferred Compensation Plan, was approved as recommended by the Deferred Compensation Plan Advisory Committee. 01 30 92 15 Motion approved on the following vote: AYES: Members: Clausen, Starita, Rainey, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Dalton d. The request for approval of registration differential for Andrew Antkowiak, Assistant Engineer in the Engineering Department was pulled from the agenda and will be recalendared for Board consideration on February 6, 1992. e. The request for approval of registration differential for B. Thomas Godsey, Assistant Engineer in the Collection System Operations Department was pulled from the agenda and will be recalendared for Board consideration on February 6, 1992. f. The purchase of one self-contained breathing apparatus and one gas monitor was approved and the expenditure of $4,500 from the 1991-1992 Equipment Budget Contingency was authorized. Motion approved on the following vote: AYES: Members: Clausen, Starita, Rainey, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Dalton g. The Board was advised of the purchase of Phase II equipment for the District Wellness Program. This report was provided for the Board's information. No action was taken. CALL FOR REQUESTS TO CONSIDER ITEMS OUT OF ORDER None Member Dalton entered the meeting at the hour of 3:03 p.m. 4. HEARINGS a. CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE COLLECTION RATE ADJUSTMENTS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE. INCH AND TO ESTABLISH REFUSE COLLECTION RATES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1. 1 992 Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, introduced Mr. Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer, who stated that the Board last set refuse collection rates effective July 1, 1 991 through June 30, 1992. At that time the Board was advised that a mid-year rate adjustment may be required because 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 year rate-setting period to a calendar year basis during the mid-year rate setting. The collectors were requested to submit applications. Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. submitted applications, Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal did not. During the staff analysis, the anticipated Acme transfer station fee increase did occur. Transfer fees were increased 10.1 percent to $65.69 per ton effective December 9, 1991. The 1992 disposal expenses have been adjusted in both staff analyses based on the new Acme transfer station fee. Both analyses were presented for initial review at the workshop held on January 9, 1992, and are the subject of public hearings today. The rate applications and staff analyses were provided to the Danville, Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga Councils and their comments were requested for consideration today. Written comments have been received from all the Councils and have been provided to the Board. 01 30 92 16 Mr. Funasaki reviewed the issues common to both rate applications; namely, disposal expense, the Acme landfill closure cost assessment, uniform refuse collection rates, and revenue and expense balancing account. Mr. Funasaki reported that on December 18, 1991 when the short-term export agreement to use Altamont landfill expired, Acme stopped hauling to Altamont. Acme continues to haul to Potrero Hills landfill in Solano County and GBF landfill in Antioch. An agreement has been reached to accept a higher daily rate at Potrero Hills beginning February 1, 1992. Mr. Funasaki stated that the Board of Supervisors does not intend to reduce the transfer station fee but does intend to receive another rate application on March 1, 1992. When a fee is established on that application, it should reflect disposal expenses at Keller Canyon landfill which is scheduled to be in operation by spring of 1992. 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 $5.92 closure cost component. That $30 million claim was recently amended to $40 million. 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 cost 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 will be $147,000. The Board of Directors may wish to consider a mid-year rate adjustment if the Board of Supervisors does establish a closure cost assessment that the Board of Directors can support. Mr. Funasaki stated that the uniform refuse collection rate program was implemented to encourage ratepayers to reduce solid waste production and to respond to increased disposal rates. Based on public input, the Board of Directors decided to phase implementation of the program over a three-year period. The 1992 residential rates will be adjusted to conform to the third and final phase-in year, making the rate for each can for a multi-can residential customer the same. In 1991 both collectors realized higher than forecasted operating income which is proposed to be used to offset the 1992 revenue requirement. Valley Waste Management achieved a $118,000 surplus and Orinda-Moraga Disposal achieved a $38,000 surplus. Mr. Funasaki proceeded to the staff analysis of the Valley Waste Management rate application. In the current year, Valley Waste Management claimed $250,000 in intercompany charges primarily for discounts for capital purchases and insurance expense savinOgs and claim reductions. The 1 987 insurance expense has been incremented by a growth factor which is based on the increase in the number of customers. In the current application, the collector has claimed the amount that was approved last year. Mr. Funasaki described the automated curbside collection and separate yard waste collection pilot program completed by Valley Waste Management for 7,400 residences in Danville for a six month period. Based on the favorable results of that program, the Board asked Valley Waste Management for a proposal for providing automated collection for the remainder of the service area. Based on the proposal submitted, staff has calculated a decrement of $1 .45 to the rates effective January 1, 1992, for customers in the Danville pilot program since they have continued to receive automated collection. The balance of the customers will receive the decrement of $1.45 when the service is provided. It is anticipated that the service will be provided to the remainder of the customers in the July, August, September 1992 timeframe. 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. It is recommended that the drop box rates be reviewed in the next rate-setting process because of the anticipated changes in transfer station fees and the opening of the Keller Canyon landfill. The City of Walnut Creek implemented a mini-can service in January 1 991. 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. As no mini-can container is currently available for automated service, it 01 .~ 30 ... ' 92 17 is recommended that this service not be considered until after automated collection is implemented in 1992. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the rate adjustment calculation alternatives for Valley Waste Management. At the Board workshop, it was proposed that the present quarterly billing system be changed to a system where bills are sent out on a bi-monthly basis. If that change were implemented, it would make the percent decrease slightly smaller. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the allowable profit calculation which produced an allowable profit of $612,000; the Capital Use Charge computation based on a 6.8 percent interest rate based on the yield of a two-year Treasury bill; and the residential rate restructuring resulting in a 3.98 percent rate decrease. 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 fee 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. Mr. Funasaki summarized the collector's requests and proposals raised at the Board workshop on January 1, 1992, and the staff analysis of each as follows: 1 ) Valley requested that a rate decrease not be implemented; staff recommends implementation. 2) Valley questioned whether the City of Lafayette is included in the automated collection program. Staff recommends that it be included. 3) Valley requested that purchase of equipment for the automated collection program be depreciated over the remaining franchise term. Staff recommends alternatively that any difference between the 1996 salvage value and book value be included in the final year of the franchise term. 4) Valley asserts that the two-year note yield is too low. Staff finds that index was established by the Board in the 1990-1991 rate-setting process. 5) Valley contends that the 1991 balancing account is overstated by $81,500. Staff's position is that the account is not overstated. 6) Valley requests that the allowable profit be increased for new programs. Staff finds that the allowable profit was established by the Board in the 1990-1 991 rate-setting process. 7) Valley requests that intercompany charges be indexed to chart inflation. Staff recommends that intercompany charges be indexed for service level increase. 8) Valley requests that the transfer station fee line item be removed from the billing. Staff does not disagree with that request. ~O 1. . .,.3 0 92 18 9) Valley requests that the current quarterly billing system be changed to a bi- monthly billing system. Staff does not disagree with that request. Discussion followed concerning the computation of residential customer equivalent units, depreciation of equipment purchased for the automated collection program, implementation of the automated collection program in the City of Lafayette, impact on the rate decrease if the City of Lafayette is not included in the automated collection program, and the use of the two-year note as the interest rate in computing the Capital Use Charge. At 3:46 p.m., President Boneysteele opened the public hearing to receive public comments regarding the application for adjustment in refuse collection rates submitted by Valley Waste Management. Receipt of correspondence was noted from Ms. Beverly Lane, Mayor of the Town of Danville, Mr. Donald Tatzin, Mayor of the City of Lafayette, and Ms. Miriam Pecherer, Lafayette resident. Mr. Ronald J. Proto, General Manager of Valley Waste Management, addressed the Board with regard to the Valley Waste Management refuse collection rate adjustment. Mr. Proto asked that if a mid-year rate adjustment is considered, that it be for disposal only; that Valley Waste Management be allowed to implement a bi-monthly billing system effective July 1, 1992; that the Acme transfer station fee item be eliminated by the billings or that it be identified as disposal rather than Acme transfer station fee; and that the overstatement of allowable profit by $86,000 be corrected. Mr. Jim Landa, Accountant for Valley Waste Management, addressed the Board explaining the $86,000 overstatement of allowable profit which was made in computing the changes from a fiscal year to a calendar year rate setting. Mr. Funasaki responded to Mr. Landa's comments summarizing the decisions made by the Board of Directors in the 1 991 rate-setting process, explaining the conversion from a fiscal year to calendar year rate setting, and maintaining the accuracy of the calculations made. Further discussion followed in which Mr. Proto argued that Valley Waste Management should be entitled to savings achieved through efficiencies such as securing a lower disposal fee for yard wastes. Mr. Proto stated further that the intercompany charges claimed are the same as granted by the Board last year. Mr. Proto requested that an interest rate of 8.0 percent be used in computation of the Capital Use Charge rather than the two-year note yield. Mr. Proto disagreed with the District staff proposal with regard to depreciation of equipment purchased for automated collection, stating that it provides no incentive for the company to buy the equipment and implement the service. Mr. Proto asked that if the Board elects not to extend the franchise, the remaining depreciation be spread over the remainder of the contract. Mr. Proto requested that the Board consider recalculation of the residential customer equivalent units by including the residential recycling set outs of 14,686 per week which is 50 percent on any given day. Mr. Proto asked that the Board recognize the work that Valley Waste Management does on behalf of the ratepayers and the District. Although the garbage business is becoming more complex, Valley Waste Management's controllable costs have been below inflation in the last four years. Mr. Proto disagreed with the quality of service and cost of service modification factors, stating that when disposal costs, which Valley cannot control, are excluded, Valley Waste Management rates are very competitive. Mr. Proto thanked the Board for its consideration. Mr. Funasaki responded to the comments made by Mr. Proto. Discussion followed concerning depreciation of automated collection equipment and use of retained earnings for financing equipment purchases. There being no further comments, President Boneysteele closed the public hearing on the refuse collection rate adjustment application submitted by Valley Waste Management. At 4:45 p.m., President Boneysteele declared a recess, reconvening at the hour of 4:50 p.m. with all parties present as previously designated. 0 1 1. " ~3 0 92 19 Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that a request for mid-year collection rate adjustment be considered if a disposal fee adjustment occurs in 1992. It was the consensus of the Board that consideration of closure and post-closure cost assessment of $407,000 be deferred until the County implements the assessment program. Determination of the appropriate level of intercompany charges was discussed. Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that the staff analysis indicated that the intercompany charges exceeded the $250,000 claimed by Valley Waste Management. Based on the benefit derived from the parent company association, it was the consensus of the Board that intercompany charges of $250,000 be allowed. The comments of the Lafayette City Council concerning implementation of the automated residential collection program were discussed. It was the position of the Board that it is impractical to implement automated collection on a case by case basis. The Lafayette City Council must decide whether the City should be included or excluded from the program. The impact on the decremental rate by excluding the City of Lafayette was discussed. Mr. Dennis Krentz, Chairman of the Lafayette Solid Waste Advisory Committee, addressed the Board. Mr. Krentz agreed that there is a certain amount of confusion in the Lafayette City Council's letter as it relates to implementation of the automated collection program. Mr. Krentz stated that he would bring this matter before the Lafayette City Council at their next meeting and request that the Lafayette City Council advise the District of their position by February 25, 1992. It was the consensus of the Board that the automated curbside collection and yard waste collection program be implemented by routes beginning July 1992, with the understanding that the Lafayette City Council must advise the District by February 25, 1992 if they wish to opt out of the program. It was the consensus of the Board that restructuring of drop box rates be reviewed during the next rate-setting process, after the mid-year adjustment to the transfer station fee. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that the use of the two-year note yield in computing the Capital Use Charge continue for the present time, but that staff reexamine the concept of capital cost and profit to determine if a modification is warranted in the next rate-setting process. Depreciation of equipment purchased for the automated collection program was discussed, but no consensus was reached. It was the consensus of the Board that the 1991 balancing account was not overstated. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that the request to increase the allowable profit for new programs be denied since the costs of the new programs are recovered in the rates. It was the consensus of the Board that the quality of service modification factor be set at 1.00. The cost of service modification factor was discussed. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board, with Members Rainey and Boneysteele dissenting, that the cost of service modification factor be set at 1.05. At 6: 12 p.m., President Boneysteele declared a recess, reconvening at the hour of 6: 19 p.m. with all parties present as previously designated. President Boneysteele summarized the actions taken by consensus of the Board. It was moved by Member Starita and seconded by Member Dalton, that the refuse collection rates for Valley Waste Management be set effective January 1, 1992, based on the actions taken by the Board of Directors as set forth above, and that staff be directed to prepare a resolution confirming said rates for adoption at the February 6, 1992 Board meeting. There being no objection, the motion was unanimously approved. -01'30 92 20 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 reviewed the rate adjustment calculation alternatives, the computation of allowable profit, the 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 as follows: 2) 3) 4) 1 ) 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. 5) Authorize installment payments of franchise fee, but consider assessing a penalty for delinquent payments. 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. Mr. Funasaki summarized the issues and proposals made by Orinda-Moraga Disposal at the January 9, 1992 Board workshop as follows: 1 ) Orinda-Moraga Disposal proposed that the staff adjustments reducing meals, travel and entertainment by $6,000 and professional fees by $20,000 be negated. Staff recommends that adjustments be retained. 2) Orinda-Moraga Disposal requested that the allowable profit or Capital Use Charge be increased by $48,000. Staff disagrees, stating that the Board established those calculations in the 1990-1991 rate-setting process. 3) Orinda-Moraga Disposal proposed that a 14.71 percent rate increase be granted covering the next two years. Staff recommends that the Board continue to set annual rates. 4) Orinda-Moraga Disposal proposed a change to bimonthly billing from the present quarterly billing system. Staff does not disagree with this proposal. 5) Orinda-Moraga Disposal proposed that implementation of the final year conversion to uniform rates be delayed. Staff recommends implementation. At 6:40 p.m., President Boneysteele opened the public hearing to receive pubHc comments regarding the application for refuse collection rate increase submitted by Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. Ms. Judy Hoffman, a resident of Moraga, addressed the Board requesting that notification of public hearings on rate increases be included as inserts in the refuse collection bills or as separate mailings to the ratepayers. Ms. Hoffman spoke in opposition to the requested rate increase, referencing significant rate increases granted in recent years. President Boneysteele thanked Ms. Hoffman for her comments, but explained that with the quarterly billing process that has been in place until this point, it has been impossible to get notices to the ratepayers in a timely way and separate mailings would be costly. ,.01"':30 92 21 Member Rainey and Mr. Aim, Counsel for the District, provided a brief explanation of the changing regulations regarding closure and the increasing disposal costs because the County landfills are at or near capacity. Mr. W. Douglas Lomow, President of Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., addressed the Board reiterating the requests and proposals made by Orinda-Moraga during the January 9, 1992 Board workshop and as listed earlier by Mr. Funasaki. There being no further comments, President Boneysteele closed the public hearing to consider the refuse collection rate application of Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. at the hour of 7:07 p.m. Discussion followed concerning management compensation and the Capital Use Charge calculation. It was the consensus of the Board that a mid-year collection rate adjustment be considered if a mid-year disposal fee adjustment occurs in 1992. It was the consensus of the Board that consideration of the closure cost assessment of $147,000 be deferred until the County implements the assessment program. It was the consensus of the Board that the actual capital equipment acquisition in 1992 be reviewed in comparison to forecasted. It was the consensus of the Board that the current frequency of three seasonal cleanups be continued. It was the consensus of the Board that installment payment of the franchise fee be authorized, but that a penalty be assessed for delinquent payments. It was the consensus of the Board that the $6,000 District staff adjustment to travel expense be retained. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that the $20,000 District staff adjustment to professional fees be retained. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that the request to increase the allowable profit or Capital Use Charge by $48,000 be denied, but that the indexes used in computing the Capital Use Charge be reviewed during the next rate-setting process to determine whether a change is warranted. It was the consensus of the Board that the request for a 14.71 percent rate increase for the next two years be denied, and that the annual rate-setting process continue. It was the consensus of the Board that the request to change the current quarterly billing system to a bi-monthly billing system be approved. It was the consensus of the Board that the request to delay the final year conversion to uniform rates be denied. It was the consensus of the Board that the quality of service modification factor be set at 1.00. It was the consensus of the Board, with President Boneysteele dissenting, that the cost of service modification factor be set at 1.00. It was moved by Member Starita and seconded by Member Clausen, that the refuse collection rates for Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. be set effective January 1, 1992, based on the actions noted above, and that staff be directed to prepare a resolution confirming said rates for adoption at the February 6, 1992 Board Meeting. There being no objection, the motion was unanimously approved. It was noted for the record, that President Boneysteele's affirmative vote is not to be construed as an affirmative vote for the cost of service modification factor set by the Board. .01 .30 92 --------------- 22 President Boneysteele thanked the members of the public for their participation and indicated that efforts would be made to use a billing insert to notify ratepayers of upcoming public hearings in the future. At 7:44 p.m., President Boneysteele declared a recess, reconvening at the hour of 7:52 p.m. with all parties present as previously designated. 5. SOLID WASTE ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE THE COUNTY'S DRAFT ORDINANCE BANNING PLASTICS FROM LANDFILLS a. Member Clausen proposed that the first paragraph on page two be amended by adding language encouraging the County Board of Supervisors to direct their staff to work cooperatively on solid waste matters with other jurisdictions. It was moved by Member Starita and seconded by Member Clausen, that Resolution No. 92-005, opposing the County's draft ordinance banning plastics from Contra Costa landfills, be adopted as amended. Motion unanimously approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Starita, Clausen, Dalton, Rainey, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None a. 6. ENGINEERING AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH JAMES M. MONTGOMERY ENGINEERS FOR A FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION OF UV DISINFECTION Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that a complete position paper has been provided. The very early cost estimate for this project is $17 million. Disinfection is a major issue at the District. It was moved by Member Rainey and seconded by Member Dalton, that the General Manager-Chief Engineer be authorized to execute an agreement with James M. Montgomery Engineers for $85,000 for a feasibility investigation of UV disinfection. There being no objection, the motion was unanimously approved. b. AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE A GRANT CONTRACT WITH STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH LARRY WALKER AND ASSOCIATES FOR A WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING STUDY Following discussion, it was moved by Member Dalton and seconded by Member Starita, that the General Manager-Chief Engineer be authorized to execute a Grant Contract with the State Water Resources Control Board for the residential metals study; that Resolution No. 92-006 be adopted to that effect; and that the General Manager-Chief Engineer be authorized to execute an agreement with Larry Walker and Associates with a cost ceiling of $122,250 for a Water Quality Management Planning Study. Motion unanimously approved on the following vote: AYES: Members: Dalton, Starita, Clausen, Rainey, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None 0.1 30 92 23 7. LEGAL/LITIGATION a. DENY CLAIM OF CALRECOVERY INCORPORATED This matter was held pending discussion in closed session. a. 8. CORRESPONDENCE NOTE RECEIPT OF LETTER FROM MR. JOHN PETRAK REGARDING SEWER SERVICE CHARGES FOR CREEKSIDE GLEN APARTMENTS AND RESPONSE FROM DISTRICT COUNSEL Mr. Kenton L. Aim, Counsel for the District, stated that this matter has been discussed previously with the Board and a letter has been drafted to Mr. Petrak. It was moved by Member Dalton and seconded by Member Starita, that receipt of the letter from Mr. John Petrak regarding Sewer Service Charges for Creekside Glen Apartments be noted, and that District Counsel to authorized to reply consistent with the draft letter. There being no objection, the motion was unanimously approved. 9. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19. 1991 a. It was moved by Member Rainey and seconded by Member Starita, that the minutes of December 19, 1991, be approved as presented. There being no objection, the motion was unanimously approved. b. MINUTES OF JANUARY 9. 1992 It was moved by Member Starita and seconded by Member Rainey, that the minutes of January 9, 1992, be approved as presented. There being no objection, the motion was unanimously approved. 10. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES a. EXPENDITURE LIST DATED JANUARY 30. 1992 Member Clausen, member of the Budget and Finance Committee, stated that he and Member Starita reviewed the expenditures and found them to be satisfactory. It was moved by Member Clausen and seconded by Member Starita, that the Expenditure List dated January 30, 1992, including Self-Insurance Check Nos. 100578-100579, Running Expense Check Nos. 65285-65728, and Sewer Construction Check Nos. 10610- 10691, be approved as recommended. There being no objection, the motion was unanimously approved. 11. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS REQUIRING BOARD ACTION None 12. REPORTS a. GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER 1 ) Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, reported that emergency treatment service was provided for Shell Refinery recently when they suffered some process complications due to the discharge of acids and bases into their wastewater process effluent. Plant Operations Department staff met the challenge of providing the service and protecting the environment. Mr. Dolan introduced Mr. Charles W. Batts, Plant Operations Department Manager, who described the problem at the Shell Refinery and the steps taken by District staff. Approximately 1 8 million gallons of Shell Refinery effluent was accepted by the District over a six-day period. Shell will be billed for the cost using the District's rates. '.0.1 :,30 92 24 2) 3) 4) b. Due to the lateness of the hour, the report on the alternative fuel vehicle plan was deferred until February 6, 1992. Mr. Dolan stated that at the last Board meeting, Deputy Chief Engineer Robert Baker advised the Board of his work with Concerned Citizens for Improved Quality Water and their interest in both the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority project and Delta water quality. It was suggested that the District join that organization and become more involved in the process. Dues are $75 per month. It was the consensus of the Board, that the District join the Concerned Citizens for Improved Quality Water organization. Due to the lateness of the hour, the report on the proposal to cooperate on wastewater technology issues with St. Petersburg Russia was deferred to February 6, 1992. 5) Mr. Dolan announced that the District is currently advertising for the M-4 Parallel Force Main Project and a Sewer Rehabilitation Project for Soares/South Trail/Dalewood. 6) Mr. Dolan announced that the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA) Draft EIR is out. Informal meetings have been scheduled in Walnut Creek on February 10, 1992, and in Dublin on February 11, 1992. 7) Mr. Dolan announced that Mr. Robert Baker, Deputy Chief Engineer, has been selected to be part of a California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) group to meet with legislators and regulators concerning development of water quality standards. If the Board has no objection, Mr. Baker will attend the meeting in Washington, D.C. on February 24, 1992. The Board voiced no objection. 8) Mr. Dolan announced that the District is beginning the process to select a new auditor. A Request for Proposals (RFP) is being prepared and will be sent out in the near future. 9) Mr. Dolan announced that the District's telephone system was out on Wednesday, January 29, 1992. The service is still somewhat limited, but staff hopes to have it fully operational soon. COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT Mr. Kenton L. Aim, Counsel for the District, reported that Pacific Bell and PG&E have filed suit against the State Board of Equalization alleging excessive assessed valuation of real estate. The State Attorney General's Office is handling the litigation. If Pacific Bell and PG&E are successful in the lawsuit, they will be entitled to a refund. The District's share in that repayment could be approximately $500,000 to $600,000. c. None d. (i! SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT BOARD MEMBERS 1 ) Member Rainey reported that Member Clausen was elected Vice Chair of the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority. 2) Due to the lateness of hour, a full report of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) meeting was not presented. President Boneysteele did report, however, that a reorganization of CASA has been proposed. 3) It was moved by Member Rainey and seconded by Member Dalton, that Member Starita be authorized to attend the 1992 Special District Board 30 92 25 Management Institute on February 21-23, 1992 in Marina Del Rey. There being no objection, the motion was unanimously approved. 4) President Boneysteele announced that Member Starita was elected Vice Chair of the Sanitation and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County. President Boneysteele appointed Member Starita as the District's representative to that group. 13. ANNOUNCEMENTS None At 8:25 p.m., Member Rainey left the meeting. Member Rainey had indicated previously that she would have to leave the meeting and had requested that she be excused. 14. CLOSED SESSION a. SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b), a point has been reached where in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District on the advice of its Counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the District. The title of the litigation was not identified because to do so would jeopardize the Board's ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage. At 8:25 p.m., President Boneysteele declared the closed session to discuss litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b). At 8:35 p.m., President Boneysteele concluded the closed session and reconvened the meeting into open session. 15. ACTIONS RESULTING FROM DISCUSSIONS IN CLOSED SESSION At this time, President Boneysteele reverted to Item 7, Legal/Litigation. 7. LEGAL/LITIGATION DENY CLAIM OF CALRECOVERY. INCORPORATED a. It was moved by Member Clausen and seconded by Member Starita, that the claim from CalRecovery, Incorporated be denied and referred to staff for further action as needed. There being no objection, the motion was approved with Member Rainey being absent. At this time, President Boneysteele reverted to the order of the agenda. 1 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the adjourned the meeting at the hour of 8:38 p.m. £ Board, President Boneysteele President of the Board of Directors, Central Contra Costa Sanitary Dis ct, County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: .~' , (t.. I Sec~e r of the Central C ntra Cost Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California 01 30 92 '. ", ------......----.-...-...----.------------------..---....--.-- ..,-----