Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 09-16-92 171 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 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 p.m. on September 16, 1992. President Boneysteele called the meeting to order and requested that Mr. Paul Morsen, the Secretary Pro Tem, call roll. 1. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Members: Clausen, Dalton, Rainey, Starita, Boneysteele ABSENT: Members: None 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Member Starita and seconded by Member Dalton, that the Consent Calendar, consisting of Items a. through c., be approved as recommended, resolutions adopted as appropriate, and recordings duly authorized. a. Resolution No. 92-074 accepting work and offers of dedication from Subdivision 7355, Diablo Ranch Development Company/Broadmore Properties, Inc., Job 4761, Parcel 2, was adopted and recording was authorized. Motion unanimously approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Starita, Dalton, Clausen, Rainey, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None b. Resolution No. 92-075 was adopted establishing the Sewer Construction Fund appropriations limit in the amount of $14,559,079 for the 1992-1993 fiscal year, in accordance with Article XIII B of the California Constitution and the change in the local assessment roll due to local nonresidential construction, instead of the change in California per capita personal income, for use in computing the appropriations limit. Motion unanimously approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Starita, Dalton, Clausen, Rainey, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None c. Purchase of an explosion-proof refrigerator and expenditure of $2,200 from the 1992-93 Equipment Budget Contingency was authorized. Motion unanimously approved on the following vote: 09 16 92 172 AYES: Members: Starita, Dalton, Clausen, Rainey, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None 4. CALL FOR REQUESTS TO CONSIDER ITEMS OUT OF ORDER None 5. BIDS AND AWARDS a. Mr. Roger Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that this project will provide maintenance and upgrades to the Filter Plant. The bidding climate is especially favorable now as is apparent from the tight cluster of bids. It was moved by Member Clausen and seconded by Member Dalton, that award of construction contract to Auburn Constructors, Inc., as the lowest responsible bidder in the amount of $812,300, be authorized for construction of the Filter Plant Rehabilitation Project, District Project No. 20095; and that the General Manager-Chief Engineer be authorized to execute a cost-reimbursement agreement with CH2M Hill, with a cost ceiling of $127,300 for construction engineering services and software programming. Motion unanimously approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Clausen, Dalton, Rainey, Starita, Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None a. 6. SOLID WASTE ORAL PRESENTATION BY MS. HARRIETTE HEIBEL OF VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT. TO INFORM THE BOARD OF THE STATUS OF AUTOMATED COLLECTION IN THE CCCSD SERVICE AREA Ms. Harriette Heibel, of Valley Waste Management, presented a report on the status of the forthcoming Automated Curbside Collection Program, its current schedule, hard-to- serve customers, billing corrections, current green waste market options, and a new clean-up schedule. There has been a delay in the start of the automated curbside collection program due to a problem in receiving all of the necessary equipment. The collection trucks have been received, but the 32 gallon (small) containers are still in transit from Europe. A six-week implementation period is planned, with the program being put in place on a one route per week schedule. Ten days prior to container delivery, customers will receive a letter stating the date of automated collection start-up for their route. Informational letters have also been sent to Homeowners' Associations. The containers will be delivered one week prior to start up. Barring complications in receipt of the 32-gallon containers, delivery will begin October 5, 1992. Green waste is currently being taken to Waste Fibre Recovery in Hayward, California. There is now a problem because Waste Management Inc.'s contract with Waste Fibre Recovery stipulates that, due to moisture content limitations, loads are to contain a maximum of 25 percent green waste. Up to the present, the green waste from the 7,000-home pilot project has fallen well below this limit. The Hayward facility has recently experienced lead contamination due to old paint on wood construction debris; Waste Fibre Recovery has had to stop accepting painted wood waste which has reduced 09 16 92 173 their volume of wood to a great degree. Because of the reduced volume of wood, the maximum allowable Quantity of green waste from Valley Waste Management has also been reduced. Hence, Waste Fibre cannot accept any further green waste from Valley Waste Management. Valley Waste is attempting to expand its wood recycling efforts with Waste Fibre Recovery in order to maximize the green waste they can deliver. Waste Fibre will decide on a week by week basis whether or not it will accept additional loads from Valley Waste. The only other option for separately collected green waste at this time is the Acme Pilot Compost Project which has a capacity for green wastes. However, the current rate Quoted to Valley Waste for green waste is the same as the transfer station tipping fee. Valley Waste is attempting to negotiate a more favorable rate. Mr. Roger Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that at that rate it would cost approximately $82 per ton to take green waste to the Acme Compost Project. CCCSD staff will meet with Valley Waste Management staff to discuss this situation. Since Waste Fibre Recovery is not able, with certainty, to take additional green waste from Valley Waste, the question becomes one of whether green waste should be separately picked up as originally planned. Other options for composting green waste need to be examined. If other options are not viable, consolidated collection of green waste may have to be considered. Ms. Heibel expressed Valley Waste's desire to reduce its fleet of rear-load packer trucks. In the future these trucks will be used only three times per year on designated Saturday clean-up days. Each community is now served over two to three consecutive Saturdays. Overtime must be paid to workers who collect clean-up material. Valley Waste proposes to operate clean-up collections three times per year (the same as before) but on the same day as garbage pick-up. This change would minimize the size of the rear-loader fleet and reduce overtime. This is prepared to begin in 1993. There are 800 "hard-to-serve" or "hilly" customers in the Danville/Unincorporated area that are currently being serviced by the special small trucks. Of these, 570 customers must continue to be serviced by a small truck as automated equipment cannot service their houses. Most of these customers are not currently being charged the "hilly rate." 230 of the them can be serviced by the automated truck. Valley Waste proposes that these customers be given the option of automated or small truck service. If they choose to remain on small truck service, with the higher level of backyard service, they will be charged the "hilly rate." The Board indicated that they wished to review a draft of any letter to be sent to the customers affected, making it clèar that they must place their garbage at the curb, and if they do a lower rate could be realized if they choose automated collection. The Board would formally consider this matter at a future Board meeting. There are 1,050 "hilly" customers in the Lafayette service area currently served by the special small trucks. 800 of the customers must continue to be served by the special small truck. A problem similar to the one in Danville exists in that a route audit has revealed that most of these customers are not being charged the "hilly rate." Ms. Heibel requested direction from the Board in advising these customers of the raising of their rates. After discussion, the Board directed staff to work with Valley Waste Management on the issues raised and return to the Board at the October 1, 1992 Board meeting with recommended Board action. The Board further indicated a preference that no customers are to receive rate increases until January 1993, when new rates come into effect. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. MINUTES OF AUGUST 27. 1992 It was moved by Member Clausen and seconded by Member Starita, that the minutes of August 27, 1992, be approved as presented. There being no objection, the motion was approved with Member Boneysteele abstaining because he was not present at the meeting of August 27, 1992. 09 16 92 174 b. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 3. 1992 It was moved by Member Rainey and seconded by Member Starita, that the minutes of September 3, 1992, be approved as presented. There being no objection, the motion was unanimously approved. 8. EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE LIST DATED SEPTEMBER 3. 1992 a. Member Starita, member of the Budget and Finance Committee, stated that he and Member Dalton reviewed the expenditures and found them to be satisfactory. It was moved by Member Starita and seconded by Member Dalton, that the Expenditure List dated September 16, 1992, including Self-Insurance Check Nos. 100630-100633, Running Expense Check Nos. 70283-70560, and Sewer Construction Check Nos. 11477- 11516, be approved as recommended. There being no objection, the motion was unanimously approved. 9. BUDGET AND FINANCE RECEIVE AUGUST 1992 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS a. Mr. Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer, reviewed the results of operations and maintenance expenses for the month of August 1992, noting that actual O&M expenses were $218,000 less than budget, representing a 9.1 percent favorable variance. For the two months ended August 31, 1992, actual O&M expenses were $486,000 less than budget, representing a 10.3 percent favorable variance. Mr. Funasaki reported that the District's temporary investments were held in Treasury Bills, Treasury Notes, and the District's Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) account with interest ranging from 4.195 percent to 8.097 percent. The latest interest rate was 5.878 percent as of August 31, 1992. The average yield for the LAIF account through July 31, 1992, was 5.235 percent. Mr. William Brennan, Plant Engineering Division Manager, reported on the Mt. Diablo Siphon Project, showing slides and describing the project. President Boneysteele thanked Messrs. Funasaki and Brennan for their reports and noted that the August 1 992 financial statements were duly received. 10. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS REQUIRING BOARD ACTION None 11. REPORTS a. GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER 1 ) Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, introduced Mr. Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer, who reported on the Keller Canyon Landfill fee cost components, using overheads and describing each of the cost components. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors set the interim Keller Canyon Landfill rate in May 1992. The final gate rate of $49.08 was set by the Board of Supervisors on August 11, 1992, based on capital cost components and required revenues reviewed by Deloitte and Touche, the County's consultant. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the capital cost components totaling $70,361,126, which included site acquisition cost of $35,741,472, initial site development cost of $24,129,761, site closure cost of $5,430,281, and site post closure cost of $5,059,612. The sum of the annual capital cost amortization, operations and maintenance expenses, and interest and profit produced a total required annual revenue of 09 16 92 175 $22,013,071. This required revenue amount is the basis for the Board of Supervisors' action in setting the final Keller Canyon Landfill rate. The County has committed to having an audit performed of the capital costs of the Keller Canyon Landfill. This audit will be performed by Deloitte and Touche within six months from the final landfill rate-setting. If costs vary significantly, the Board of Supervisors has indicated that it will change the capital cost component of the landfill rate. Payments to the County included in the $6,569,303 annual landfill site operations and maintenance expenses include a County resource recovery fee of $200,000, a County resource recovery management fee of $100,000, Landfill Development Coordinator cost of $15,000, and property tax expense of $209,000. Member Rainey asked if the solid waste being taken to the old Acme landfill is being monitored and will monies set aside for closure be used for closure? Mr. Kent Aim, Counsel for the District, replied that this is an area where something positive might be accomplished by District intervention. With the $85 per ton charge for green waste composting and solid waste that is not going through the transfer station, all residual profit from those monies could be put into a fund for closure. Kent Aim will look into this. This item may be handled through the existing lawsuit. There have been no closure costs collected by Acme since the interim transfer station was opened. The only increase in closure monies has been interest on monies in existence three years ago. The components of the $49.08 per ton gate rate set by the Board of Supervisors were reviewed. The landfill base rate of $38.48 per ton was comprised of $25.43 per ton for acquisition and site development costs, $.15 per ton for closure, $.14 per ton for post-closure maintenance, and $12.76 per ton for site operations and maintenance. The addition of the State fee of $.75 per ton and three County mitigation charges of $2.00 each and the County surcharge of $3.85 produced the total landfill gate rate of $49.08 per ton. The portion of the gate rate paid to the County totaled $10.87 per ton, including the $6.00 of mitigation fees, $3.85 County surcharge, and the payments to the County which are included in the landfill's operations and maintenance expenses and are equivalent to $1.02 per ton. The $10.87 per ton paid to the County is 22.1 percent of the gate rate. The Acme Interim Transfer Station fee was last increased in May 1992 when the Board of Supervisors approved an increase from $65.69 per ton to $77.07 per ton. The increase was made without a review of a rate application by the transfer station being performed, despite significant operational changes which occurred since the $65.69 fee was set. The $77.07 per ton was obtained by incrementing the existing fee by the differential in the new interim landfill rate, the State mandated fee, and the County mitigation fees and County surcharge. While the Board of Supervisors set the final landfill gate rate of $49.08 per ton in August 1992, the transfer station fee is still $ 77 .07 per ton. The District's Board of Directors has urged the Board of Supervisors to perform a long overdue transfer station rate review before a further change to the transfer station fee is made. President Boneysteele thanked Mr. Funasaki for his informative report. 2) Mr. Dolan indicated that the District and the County have had had informal discussions concerning the possibility that the County might take over franchising the Pleasant Hill Bayshore service area. The District may soon be in more formal discussions with the County as the County has drafted a solid waste franchising MOU and is currently reviewing it at the staff level. Accordingly, it was felt to be appropriate to ascertain the wishes of the residents of Pacheco prior to discussing any possible changes in solid 09 92 16 176 b. 09 waste franchisor. Mr. Paul Morsen, Deputy General Manager, reported that he recently attended a Pacheco Town Council Meeting where approximately 50 residents were present. There are two advisory groups in Pacheco. One is the Municipal Advisory Commission (MAC) which is chartered by the County and consists of 6 to 8 individuals who represent the interests of the Pacheco residents to the Board of Supervisors. The other group is the Pacheco Town Council, comprised of residents of Pacheco. Mr. Morsen informed the Board that he made a presentation to the Pacheco Town Council outlining the situation. The Chairman of the Council indicated that while the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Commission would formally notify the Board of Supervisors of the Council's opinion, he requested those present to take a "straw vote" to see how they felt. It was unanimous that those attending wished to remain with Central San as solid waste franchisor. The MAC will communicate this position to their County Supervisor. 3) Mr. John Larson, Collection Systems Operation Manager, reported that under the new clean air regulations CCCSD's vehicle fleet is large enough to require alternative fuel vehicles. The State requires that by 1996, 20 percent, or 30 vehicles, be fueled by alternative fuel. Staff has evaluated alternative fuels and recommends compressed natural gas (CNG). It is planned to retrofit four vehicles for CNG and purchase one filling station. Gasoline can be used as a back-up fuel. The $45,000 start up cost is planned to come from the General Improvement Program Contingency Fund. The District may receive $6,000 in grant funds from the State, but this is not certain. One fueling station will cost $20,000 to install. The cost to convert one vehicle is $2,000 to $4,000. Staff would like to begin this program on October 1, 1992. In 1996 it will be necessary to purchase additional fuel stations and retrofit more vehicles to meet the 20 percent State requirement. By proceeding now on a smaller scale the District will have the benefit of experience and knowledge of what methods will work best for the District. 4) Mr. Roger J. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, announced that there is a Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA) meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 22, 1992, at 7:30 p.m., at Park Place in Walnut Creek. Mr. Dolan and Mr. Robert Baker, Deputy Chief Engineer, will not be attending this meeting. Mr. Paul Morsen - Deputy General Manager, Mr. Dave Williams - Planning Division Manager, Mr. Jarred Miyamoto-Mills - Principal Engineer, and Mr. Russell Leavitt - Planning Assistant will be in attendance. Board Members Clausen and Starita indicated they will also be in attendance. Member Boneysteele indicated that he had a schedule conflict, but that he would attend if he could. Board Members Boneysteele and Clausen stated to staff that the TWA issue is not a Board issue yet and the Board is neither advocating nor objecting to it since it has not been brought before the Board as a formal issue. If Board members do speak at this meeting it will be as an individual, not on behalf of the Board. COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT 1 ) Mr. Kenton L. Aim, Counsel for the District, reported on recent case law concerning the Brown Act. This case law is not yet final. While this decision could be redrafted or taken to the Supreme Court; it is the intention of this new law that all standing committees of the Board be handled under the Brown Act rules for noticing and posting. As well, any members of the public may attend. Mr. Aim will be looking into this further and reporting back to the Board when finalized. 2) Mr. Aim reported on case law regarding the exclusive franchising of recyclables. The decision in a case involving Waste Management of the Desert and the City of Palm Springs clarifies an area of law that was in dispute. This case deals with commercial, not residential waste. The decision stated that when the solid waste is in the hands of the waste generator the generator can do whatever he chooses to do with it. Waste 16 92 177 generators cannot be forced to subscribe to services of a particular recycler. Once the waste is put out as trash, the public agency/franchisor can control it. This case will probably go to the Supreme Court. c. SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT None d. BOARD MEMBERS None 12. ANNOUNCEMENTS None 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 5:35 p.m. President of the Board of Director Central Contra Costa Sanitary Di rict, County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: e r ary of the Central C tra sta Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California 09 16 92