HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 12-17-92
220
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING
OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OF THE
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
HELD ON DECEMBER 17, 1992
The Secretary of the District administered the Oath of Office to William C. Dalton, Barbara
D. Hockett, and Mario M. Menesini who were elected to the Board of Directors at the
election held on November 3, 1992. At the conclusion of the ceremony the Secretary
was joined by Board Members and District staff in congratulating Member Dalton on his
reelection to the Board of Directors and welcoming newly elected Board Members Hockett
and Menesini.
The District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in regular
session at its regular place of meeting, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, County of Contra
Costa, State of California, at 3 p.m. on December 17, 1992.
President Pro Tem Dalton called the meeting to order and requested that the Secretary
call roll.
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Members:
Menesini, Clausen, Hockett, Rainey, Dalton
ABSENT:
Members:
None
a.
ELECTION OF DISTRICT BOARD PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT PRO TEM
It was moved by Member Hockett and seconded by Member Menesini, that Member
Dalton be elected to serve as President Pro Tem of the District Board of Directors for
1993. Member Dalton was elected by unanimous acclamation.
It was moved by Member Rainey and seconded by Member Menesini, that Member
Clausen be elected to serve as President of the District Board of Directors for 1993.
Member Clausen was elected by unanimous acclamation.
President Pro Tem Dalton turned the meeting over to newly elected President Clausen.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
4. AWARDS AND COMMENDATIONS
ADOPT RESOLUTION COMMENDING DIRECTOR JOSEPH M. STARITA FOR HIS
OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
a.
ADOPT RESOLUTION COMMENDING DIRECTOR PARKE L. BONEYSTEELE FOR HIS
OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
b.
It was moved by Member Dalton and seconded by Member Rainey, that Resolution No.
92-092 and Resolution No. 92-093 be adopted commending Directors Joseph M. Starita
and Parke L. Boneysteele for their outstanding service to Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District. Motion unanimously approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Members: Dalton, Rainey, Menesini, Hockett, Clausen
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
12
17
92
221
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Member Rainey and seconded by Member Dalton, that the Consent
Calendar, consisting of Items a. through f., be approved as recommended, resolutions
adopted as appropriate, and recordings duly authorized.
a.
Resolution No. 92-094 accepting work and Offer of Dedication from Peter
Cole Jensen, et ux, Subdivision No. 7331, Job No. 4833, Parcel I, was
adopted and recording was authorized.
Motion unanimously approved on the following vote:
AYES: Members: Rainey, Dalton, Menesini, Hockett, Clausen
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
b.
Grant of Easement from Contra Costa County, Job 4888, Parcel Nos. 2, 3,
and 4, was approved, the President of the District Board of Directors and
the Secretary of the District were authorized to execute said Grant of
Easement, authorization was given that the Grant of Easement not be
recorded, and Resolution No. 92-095 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
c.
Grant of Easement from the McPeak Family, Job 1541, was approved, the
President of the District Board of Directors and the Secretary of the District
were authorized to execute and records said Grant of Easement, and
Resolution No. 92-096 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
d.
Resolution No. 92-097, a Resolution of Application for the annexation of ten
separate areas to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District under the title of
District Annexation 124, was adopted.
Motion unanimously approved on the following vote:
AYES: Members: Rainey, Dalton, Menesini, Hockett, Clausen
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
e.
Quitclaim Deed to Mr. Stephen A. Dunning, et ux, Job Nos. 2609 and
4476, Lafayette area, was approved, the President of the District Board of
Directors and the Secretary of the District were authorized to execute and
record said Quitclaim Deed, and Resolution No. 92-098 was adopted to that
effect.
Motion unanimously approved on the following vote:
12
17
9~
222
AYES: Members: Rainey, Dalton, Menesini, Hockett, Clausen
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
f.
A Leave of Absence Without Pay was authorized for Ruth Bennett,
Engineering Applications Technician II, effective December 2, 1992 through
March 31, 1993.
Motion unanimously approved on the following vote:
AYES:
Members:
Rainey, Dalton, Menesini, Hockett, Clausen
NOES:
Members:
None
ABSENT:
Members:
None
6. HEARINGS
a.
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT
AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE. INC. EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1. 1993
Mr. Roger J. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, briefly explained the refuse
collection rate-setting process and indicated that a workshop was conducted on
December 3, 1992. Mr. Dolan described new environmental regulations impacting solid
waste collection rates. The cost of landfill disposal is going up both because of
environmental costs and increased fees. Recycling, green waste composting, household
hazardous waste, and home composting programs implemented to comply with new state
regulations have increased costs. The proliferation of bureaucracies responsible for solid
waste regulatory and planning activities has increased, multiplying costs. Finally, the
present state of the economy has resulted in diminished construction and commercial drop
box use and the recycling program has allowed many residential customers to decrease
the number of cans. Both of these factors have resulted in a decline in revenues.
Mr. Dolan introduced Mr. Paul Morsen, Deputy General Manager, who described the
refuse collection and disposal process and costs from 1984 through 1992. The process
has become more complex and costs have escalated from 1984 when the total one-can
residential rate was $8.50 to 1992 when the one-can residential rate is $18.30. Mr.
Morsen summarized extraordinary increases in garbage costs as follows:
1 )
Landfill disposal-related costs for environmental controls, royalties/finder
fees, allowed profit, and transfer costs;
2)
Waste diversion-related costs for recycling, green waste, and household
hazardous waste;
3)
State-mandated costs for preparation of household hazardous waste, source
reduction and recycling plans; and
4)
Local fees including Contra Costa County and Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District fees.
Mr. Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer, stated that Valley Waste Management (Valley)
and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. (Orinda-Moraga) have filed timely rate
applications for the 1993 calendar year. Copies of the rate applications and staff
analyses were distributed to the affected cities of Orinda and Lafayette and towns of
Danville and Moraga with requests that City and Town Council comments be provided for
Board consideration at today's public hearings.
Mr. Funasaki reviewed the issues common to both rate applications; namely, disposal
expense, the Acme landfill closure cost assessment, uniform refuse collection rates, and
the revenue and expense balancing account.
12
17
92
223
Mr. Funasaki stated that disposal expense is currently the largest single operating expense
for refuse collectors operating in the County. Mr. Funasaki summarized the disposal
expense for each collector by tonnage, disposal facility, and cost per ton. On November
24, 1992, the Board of Supervisors reduced the Acme Interim Transfer Station fee from
$77.07 per ton to $75.97 per ton effective November 1, 1992. All of the charts used
in Mr. Funasaki's presentation reflect the lower transfer station fee. Contra Costa
County fees comprise 20 percent of the transfer station fee and are projected to be $5.3
million in 1993. In the last rate-setting, the Board of Directors was dissatisfied with the
County documentation for the County fees included in the interim transfer station fee and
so set the collection rates for 1 80 days on an interim basis, and the refuse collectors
were directed to seek alternative disposal facilities.
Mr. Funasaki stated that the County has discontinued its efforts to assess Acme landfill
closure and post closure costs against the refuse collectors because the necessary
agreements could not be obtained. No provision was included in the District staff
analyses for the closure and post closure assessments. On December 5, 1991, a civil suit
was filed by Acme against the County, franchising jurisdictions (including Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District), refuse collectors, and commercial companies to close the
hazardous waste section of the Acme Landfill. Legal expenses related to the lawsuit were
claimed by Valley and Orinda-Moraga in 1992, and major legal expenses are projected for
1993 by both companies.
In the 1990-1991 rate setting, the Board implemented a phased restructuring to achieve
uniform residential refuse collection rates over a three-year period. The final achievement
of uniform automated collection rates will not occur until this rate-setting process is
concluded. A significant shortfall in 1992 revenues was experienced by both collectors,
as customers decreased their numbers of containers.
The revenue and expense balancing account was implemented during the last rate-setting
process. The difference between the actual and forecasted operating income is carried
forward in setting the following year's rates, final adjustment is made to the balancing
account based on audited financial statements in the year following. The balancing
account provides a disincentive to the collector to overestimate expenses and
underestimate revenues. Significant shortfalls in revenues in 1992 have produced large
deficits in the balancing accounts for both collectors. The application of the entire deficit
to the 1993 revenue requirement will require a major increase in collection rates.
Application of the balancing account deficit over two years to the 1993 and 1994
revenue requirements was presented for Board consideration.
Mr. Funasaki proceeded to review the Valley Waste Management rate application. Valley
applied for a 22.91 percent increase in its service area, excluding the City of Lafayette,
and a 45.05 percent increase in the City of Lafayette. As the City of Lafayette declined
to participate in the automated residential curbside collection program implemented in the
rest of the Valley service area, it was necessary to establish the City as a separate rate-
setting entity with a separate service level and schedule of collection rates. A significant
rate increase resulted as expected.
Mr. Funasaki stated that Valley has requested that the drop box rates be restructured,
since disposal expense now exceeds drop box rate for certain container sizes.
Mr. Funasaki stated that Valley has requested that the allowable profit be calculated by
return to the operating ratio method used by the District two years ago. Staff believes
that the current method provides adequate profit and reduces the incentive to distort
forecasted operating results.
Mr. Funasaki stated that Valley has claimed $275,000 in intercompany charges in the
1993 rate application for services the company obtained from its corporate and regional
offices. This Board has required, in the absence of supportable documentation,
measurable offsetting expense reductions each time the refuse collector requests
intercompany charges. The collector claims savings due to discounts in capital
purchases, reduced depreciation expenses, and reduction in insurance expenses. In the
rate adjustment calculation, District staff has computed rate increases both including, and
excluding, the $275,000 as an allowable expense. District staff recommends that it
would be appropriate to include intercompany charges in the amount of $250,000, or
12
17
92
224
perhaps slightly less than that amount. At President Clausen's request, Mr. Funasaki
described the study commissioned by the Alameda County Joint Refuse Rate Review
Committee and joined by the Cities of San Ramon and Walnut Creek and the District. The
study was conducted by Price Waterhouse to assess the reasonableness of intercompany
charges included in the rate application of another subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc.
The opinion of Price Waterhouse was qualified but the consultant found that
approximately 75 percent of the intercompany charges was supportable.
Mr. Funasaki stated that 7,400 residential customers successfully completed the
automated residential curbside collection pilot program in 1991 and the Board authorized
full-scale implementation, except in Lafayette, in 1992. Implementation was completed
last month. The $9.90 favorable rate at Waste Fibre Recovery was limited to the pilot
area and did not accrue to the expanded area. An issue before this Board is whether
nonautomated separate green waste collection should be implemented in the City of
Lafayette. By the year 1995, approximately 60 percent of the green waste must be
com posted to meet diversion requirements mandated by Assembly Bill 939 for 25 percent
waste diversion. As a result of the expanded automated program, rear end loader trucks
are now available that can be used in Lafayette. Were the decision to be made in 1994-
1995, the cost for the trucks would undoubtedly be higher.
In October 1992, Valley advised the Board there were customers in difficult-to-access
areas that were not being charged the rate for such service. The Board directed Valley
to notify those customers and draft letters have been included in the agenda packet for
consideration by the Board.
Mr. Funasaki reviewed the rate adjustment calculations, the computations of allowable
profit, and the Capital Use Charge calculations both including, and excluding, the City of
Lafayette. Mr. Funasaki stated that the interest rate used in the Capital Use Charge
calculations is the Ten-Year High Quality Corporate Bond Rate, a decision which was
agreed upon between the District and Valley. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the decision points
for the Board for the January 1, 1993 rate-setting for Valley Waste Management as
follows:
10)
11 )
12
1 )
If a mid-year disposal fee increase, or decrease, occurs in 1993, determine
whether a mid-year collection rate adjustment should be made.
2)
Determine the allowability of the Contra Costa County fees included in the
disposal fee.
3)
Direct that continued efforts be made by Valley to obtain alternative
disposal sites.
4)
Allow collection of legal expense related to the Acme lawsuit on an
impound basis.
5)
Determine whether the balancing account should be fully applied in 1993,
or applied equally in 1993 and 1 994.
6)
Determine whether intercompany charges of $275,000 should be allowed,
or disallowed, in whole or in part.
7)
Consider Valley's request to index intercompany charges using an annual
inflation rate.
8)
Implement nonautomated separate green waste collection in the City of
Lafayette.
9)
Deny request to restructure drop box rates, increasing drop box rates by the
across-the-board increase.
Retain the present rate-setting allowable profit calculation methodology,
denying the request to return to the operating ratio methodolo.gy.
Approve issuance of the draft letters for difficult-to-access customers.
17
92
12)
13)
225
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 the matter of
whether to pay legal fees for the defense of the Acme lawsuit from the impound account,
and, if so, how much, has yet to be determined. District staff would recommend that the
Board approve the concept; and when more information is available, make a determination
with regard to the procedure for approval of release of funds.
Discussion followed concerning the percentage of disposal cost that is applicable to
transfer, and the viability of incineration and cogeneration as an alternative to landfill
disposal.
At 4:48 p.m., President Clausen opened the public hearing to receive public comments
regarding the application for increase in refuse collection rates submitted by Valley Waste
Management.
President Clausen noted receipt of the following correspondence and written comments:
10)
11 )
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
1 )
Mr. Robert F. D. Adams, City Manager of the City of Lafayette, dated
October 16, 1992.
2)
Mr. Mike Shimansky, Mayor of the Town of Danville, dated December 16,
1992.
3)
Ms. Patricia M. Course, Danville, dated December 7, 1992.
4)
Mrs. Carol Dana, Walnut Creek, dated November 27, 1992.
5)
Mr. John R. Douglas, Danville, dated November 24, 1992.
6)
Mrs. Bernice M. Ely, Lafayette, dated November 24, 1992.
7)
Mr. Roger Jackson Evans, Jr., Danville, dated December 2, 1992.
8)
9)
Mrs. E. B. Farhart, Danville, dated December 1, 1992.
Mr. J.R. "Russ" Guild, Lafayette, dated December 4, 1992.
Mr. Norman T.R. Heathorn, Danville, dated December 4, 1992.
Ms. Cynthia Henmann, dated November 28, 1992.
Mr. Fred Jaksche, Lafayette, dated December 4, 1992.
Mr. and Mrs. Warren Marshall, Lafayette, dated December 1, 1992.
Mr. Bob McDonald, Lafayette, dated December 4, 1992.
B. K. Parady, Danville, received November 30, 1992.
Ms. Miriam Pecherer, Lafayette, dated November 23, 1992.
Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lynn Price, Lafayette, dated December 7, 1992.
Mr. John C. Riordan, Lafayette, dated December 7, 1992.
Mrs. W. Russell, Lafayette, not dated.
Mr. James H. Schuppert, Alamo, dated November 24, 1992.
12
17
92
226
21 )
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31 )
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
37)
38)
39)
40)
41 )
42)
43)
44)
45)
46)
47)
48)
49)
50)
51 )
52)
12
17
Mr. and Mrs. Jud Scott, Danville, dated November 25, 1992.
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Shelton, Walnut Creek, dated November 23, 1992.
Ms. Beulah Wilde, Walnut Creek, dated December 3, 1992.
Mr. Samuel M. Abbott, Danville, not dated.
Ms. Margaret Anderson, Lafayette, not dated.
A. L. Axelson, Lafayette, not dated.
Mr. and Mrs. L. Burkhart, Danville, not dated.
Mr. John Cline, Danville, not dated.
Mr. Will Cullen, Lafayette, not dated.
Ms. Sally Devor, Lafayette, not dated.
Ms. Linda Elwood, Danville, not dated.
Mr. Robert Engelken, Alamo, not dated.
Mr. and Mrs. Ken Hufford, Lafayette, not dated.
Mr. David Lane, Lafayette, not dated.
Ms. Edna Larke, Alamo, not dated.
Mr. Roy E. Lee, Walnut Creek, not dated.
Ms. Patricia B. Michels, Lafayette, dated November 22, 1992.
Mr. Gerald Mitosinka, Lafayette, not dated.
Mr. Phillip G. Mosley, Lafayette, dated December 1, 1992.
Mr. James Paizis, Danville, not dated.
Mr. Michael Payne, Danville, not dated.
Mr. Frank R. Rinker, Danville, not dated.
Ms. Susan Smith, Danville, not dated.
J. Springer, Walnut Creek, not dated.
Mr. George Tobias, Lafayette, not dated.
Mr. Joseph Turkovich, Walnut Creek, not dated.
Mr. Alexander Vraciu, Danville, not dated.
Mr. Paul Wible, Alamo, not dated.
Mrs. Jasper Woodruff, Lafayette, not dated.
Mr. Robert A. Zeman, Alamo, not dated.
Mr. Gordon L. Ziegler, Lafayette, not dated.
Ms. LaVora D. Copley; Walnut Creek, dated December 4, 1992.
92
57)
58)
59)
60)
61 )
62)
227
53)
Mr. Claude P. Benedix, Danville, dated December 9, 1992.
54)
Mr. Alan Fraser, Lafayette, received December 9, 1992.
55)
Mr. Kathleen Goodrich, Lafayette, dated December 7, 1992.
56)
Mr. and Mrs. Larry Leedham, Danville, dated December 10, 1992.
Ms. Arlene Reed, Diablo, dated December 10, 1992.
Ms. Catherine Scarborough, Danville, dated December 10, 1992.
Mr. Richard O. Buxton, Alamo, dated December 16, 1992.
Mr. William D. Olofson, Lafayette, dated December 10, 1992.
Mr. and Mrs. John Heilbronner, Walnut Creek, dated December 13, 1992.
Name Withheld Upon Request, dated December 1, 1992.
Mr. Ivor Samson, City of Lafayette Councilmember, addressed the Board in opposition to
the rate increase requested by Valley Waste Management, stating that the staff analysis
does an adequate job in describing costs but does not explain the basis for allowing or
disallowing the costs. Mr. Samson expressed the following areas of concern:
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
1 )
General and administrative expenses of 1 9 percent are not justified or
explained and there is no information in the rate application that would
allow a third party to review the costs. The burden of proof is on the utility
to justify the expenditures. A thorough operational review should be
conducted to determine the reasonableness of costs.
Allocation of intercompany charges is fundamentally improper and should
be disallowed unless they are proven to be equal to or less than the service
provided by others.
Legal fees have not been justified and no litigation budget or justification for
cost increases have been presented. The idea of paying all proposed legal
fees is troublesome since it would eliminate the risk to the utility and
transfer it to the ratepayers.
The City of Lafayette requests that the balancing account deficit be applied
in a one-year period rather than spread over two years.
Approximately 45 percent of the proposed increase in Lafayette's rates is
attributable to the Lafayette City Council's decision not to participate in the
automated collection program. The City Council was aware that the
subsidy from commercial to residential accounts would be lost and an
increase in accounting and bookkeeping costs would result; however,
insufficient information was provided to determine the magnitude of the
increase.
The cost plus method of rate setting without a detailed explanation of
operating expenses and audit to ascertain the reasonableness of the costs
is not appropriate.
Mr. Samson stated that until and unless the Board can state that the costs are justified
and reasonable, the Lafayette City Council requests that the rate application be 'denied.
Mr. John Wolfe, representing the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, addressed the
Board, concurring with Mr. Dolan's introductory remarks that it is very difficult to change
State mandates. The reason refuse collection rates have increased 11 5 percent in eight
years is due to the increased complexity of the process and industry. Three trucks are
now needed instead of one. Different categories of waste must be kept separate. The
public should question whether or not these are really good programs in that the increased
12
17
92
228
costs may be producing diminished returns. Many of the regulations promulgated at the
federal, state, and local levels are made with incomplete information. Mr. Wolfe stated
that, we, the members of the public, all bear the responsibility when a new regulation is
adopted. We should question whether the benefit to the environment justifies the cost.
At 5: 12 p.m., President Clausen declared a recess, reconvening at the hour of 5: 19 p.m.
with all parties present as previously designated.
Mr. Ronald J. Proto, General Manager of Valley Waste Management, addressed the Board,
stating that Valley would hope that the Board would pass through the Contra Costa
County fees since disallowing the fees puts a burden on the collector. Mr. Proto stated
that Valley will continue efforts to obtain alternative disposal sites. Mr. Proto requested
that intercompany charges of $275,000 be allowed, that the Board consider indexing
intercompany charges using an annual inflation rate, that consideration be given to
restructuring drop box rates for the seven-yard container to allow recovery of disposal
costs, and that the operating ratio method be used in calculating profit. Mr. Proto stated
that although the garbage collection and disposal process is now much more complex,
controllable costs (excluding disposal, legal fees, franchise fees, and recycling) have been
kept under the level of inflation. Mr. Proto stated that additional profit is justified solely
by the many additional programs and activities now done by the collector. Mr. Proto
stated that Waste Management has taken a leadership role in the Acme lawsuit because
of its expertise in this area. Mr. Proto asked that the legal fees be passed through and
stated that the company has no objection to the use of an impound account. In closing,
Mr. Proto requested that the Board consider the service provided by Valley Waste
Management and approve a rate increase that reflects a fair and equitable rate of return
for the effort put forth.
Mr. Phil Weismehl, of Walnut Creek, expressed opposition to the requested rate increase,
indicating that he believes the service does not justify an increase. Mr. Weismehl stated
there are problems with collection, recycling, and the change in the billing cycle. Mr.
Weismehl requested that the Board deny the requested rate increase. Mr. Weismehl
suggested that the Board consider making extra cans more expensive than single cans
and reducing the weekly recycling collection to twice a month.
Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, requested that Mr. Funasaki respond to
comments made by Mr. Samson, Lafayette City Councilmember. Mr. Funasaki described
the review of the rate applications and accounting records, and indicated that audited
financial statements are required. Mr. Funasaki stated that he and his staff person
conduct a very detailed review. The thrust of the review is to determine whether
expenses are reasonably stated or not. If it is found that expenses are not reasonably
stated, adjustments are made. Mr. Funasaki stated that he believes that the review is
adequate and appropriate. In the City of Lafayette, there was close coordination with Mr.
Dennis Krentz, of the Lafayette City Council Solid Waste Committee. After Mr. Krentz'
initial involvement in establishing separate accounts for Lafayette, he has not been
available to review the rate application, although he had been invited to do so.
Ms. Caluha Barnes, Assistant to the Town Manager of the Town of Danville, submitted
a letter dated December 16, 1992, from the Danville Town Council and signed by Mayor
Shimansky. Ms. Barnes read the letter for the record.
Mr. Ron Gatti, of Danville, addressed the Board, opposing the constant refuse collection
rate increases and stating that the large rate increase requested just compounds the
impact of the current recession. Mr. Gatti suggested that depreciation period for vehicles
and equipment be extended since the useful life is normally longer than five years, that
negotiations begin immediately for export of solid waste to East Carbon, Utah, that
franchise agreements be negotiated for 20 years rather than 10 years, that maximum
increases be tied to the Consumer Price Index, that the ratepayers not be required to
subsidize garbage company legal fees, that no increase be granted unless all necessary
documents are released for review, and that a discount rate of 3 percent be used to
compute interest rather than the corporate bond rate which was used.
There being no further comments from the public, President Clausen closed the public
hearing at the hour of 6: 15 p.m. Board and staff discussion followed concerning the
uniform refuse collection rate structure.
12
17
92
229
At this time, Mr. Funasaki proceeded to the staff analysis of the Orinda-Moraga Disposal
Service, Inc. rate application, stating that the common issues in the public hearing on
Valley Waste Management apply as well to the review of the application of Orinda-
Moraga. Mr. Funasaki stated that Orinda-Moraga has applied for a 29.33 percent across-
the-board rate increase. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the unique issues of the Orinda-Moraga
rate application including automated residential curbside collection, request to reduce the
frequency of seasonal cleanups, and affiliated entities transactions.
Mr. Funasaki stated that Orinda-Moraga has proposed implementation of an automated
residential curbside collection program, which would require capital expenditures in excess
of $1.3 million. As the current franchise agreement terminates February 28, 1996, it
would be customary to depreciate the capital equipment for the remaining length of the
franchise agreement. This would have the impact of overstating expenses.
Mr. Funasaki stated that Orinda-Moraga has requested that the frequency of seasonal
cleanups be reduced from three times a year to two times a year.
Mr. Funasaki stated that during review it was determined there were transactions with
entities owned by the two stockholders of Orinda-Moraga that District staff regarded as
inappropriate to be recorded in the company's books. Those transactions have been
excluded as allowable expenses. The collector has agreed that in the future these types
of transactions will not be processed through Orinda-Moraga books.
Mr. Funasaki reviewed the rate adjustment calculation, computation of allowable profit,
and the Capital Use Charge calculation. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the decision points for
consideration by the Board with regard to the Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. rate
setting.
1 )
If a mid-year disposal fee increase, or decrease, occurs in 1993, determine
whether a mid-year collection rate adjustment should be made.
2)
Determine the allowability of the Contra Costa County fees included in the
disposal fee.
3)
Direct that continued efforts be made to obtain alternative disposal sites.
4)
Allow collection of legal expense related to the Acme lawsuit on an
impound basis.
5)
Determine whether the balancing account should be fully applied in 1993,
or applied equally in 1993 and 1994.
6)
Defer consideration of automated residential curbside collection until the
March 1, 1994 notification date, as to whether the franchise agreement will
be extended for five years beyond the February 1996 termination date.
7)
Direct that the current frequency of three seasonal cleanups be continued.
8)
Direct that the company's operations and payments be separately
maintained from those of affiliated entities.
9)
Determine whether the Quality of Service modification factor of 1.00 is
appropriate.
10)
Determine whether the Cost of Service modification factor of 1 .00 is
appropriate.
Discussion followed concerning potential savings from elimination of one seasonal cleanup
and implementation of bi-weekly recycling collection.
At 6:28 p.m., President Clausen opened the public hearing to receive public comments
regarding the application for increase in refuse collection rates submitted by Orinda-
Moraga Disposal Service, Inc.
12
17
92
230
Receipt of the following correspondence and written comments were noted:
10)
11 )
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21 )
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
1 )
Mr. William J. Dabel, Mayor of the City of Orinda, dated December 11,
1992.
2)
Mr. Randall Kiser, attorney representing Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service,
Inc., dated December 2, 1992.
3)
Ms. Roz Edelstone, Moraga, dated November 15, 1992.
4)
Dana Isherwood, Ph.D., Orinda, dated November 16, 1992.
5)
Mr. Richard A. Nishkian, Orinda, dated November 9, 1992.
6)
Dr. and Mrs. Brian Sheaff, Moraga, dated November 2, 1992.
7)
D. C. Young, Orinda, dated November 26, 1992.
8)
Ms. Phyllis Christopher, of Orinda, dated December 10, 1992.
9)
Mr. Thomas R. Vinzent, Orinda, dated December 9, 1992.
Mr. and Mrs. Wallace Dodson, Orinda, dated December 13, 1992.
Mr. Terry Reichardt, Moraga, dated December 11, 1992.
Mr. Gary G. Gallaher, Orinda, dated December 13,1992.
Ms. Mary Slitzer (sp.), address unknown, dated December 15, 1992.
J. P. Van Gelder, Orinda, not dated.
Mr. and Mrs. Gary Gorman, Orinda, not noted.
Mr. and Mrs. Mark W. Zuercher, Orinda, dated November 1, 1992.
C. W. Bittner, address unknown, dated November 6, 1992.
Mr. Kurtz, no address or date included.
Mr. Allen Long, address unknown, dated December 5, 1992.
Mr. George Buehler, Orinda, not dated.
Mr. Don Wharton, Orinda, not dated.
Mr. Charles Talerton, Orinda, dated October 31, 1992.
Ms. Dolly Long, Orinda, dated December 9, 1992.
Mr. Craig Peterson, Moraga, dated November 2, 1992.
Ms. Sally Small, Orinda, not dated.
Unknown, no address or date included.
Unknown, no address or date included.
Mr. Mike Medvedoff, of the Town of Moraga, addressed the Board on behalf of the
Moraga Town Council. Mr. Medvedoff stated that the Moraga Town Council is concerned
that any savings that may result from use of alternative disposal sites or export
agreements be returned to the ratepayers.
12
17
92
231
President Clausen assured Mr. Medvedoff that any savings would be returned to the
ratepayers.
Mr. John Matheny, Controller of Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., agreed that the
Contra Costa County mitigation fees are high, but indicated that if the fees are not passed
through, Orinda-Moraga will not be able to pay them. There may come a time when the
company's trucks will not be able to dispose of garbage until an alternative disposal site
is found. Orinda-Moraga is vigorously pursuing alternative disposal sites and would join
with the District in trying to resolve this issue with the County. With regard to legal fees
to defend the Acme lawsuit, Mr. Matheny stated that it is absolutely necessary that the
company defend itself in this matter. Mr. Matheny expressed concern regarding the
impound account for legal fees because of the lack of procedure for release of funds. Mr.
Matheny requested that the balancing account deficit be applied in 1993 since these
funds are needed to pay vendors. Mr. Matheny stated that Orinda-Moraga has cut costs.
They are 25 percent below last year with the exception of disposal fees and legal fees.
Controllable operating expenses are down over the last two years since the acquisition
of the company. In closing, Mr. Matheny requested the Board's fair and objective
consideration of the rate increase request.
Discussion followed concerning reduction in the number of seasonal cleanups and
recycling collection.
Mr. Bill Brobeck, of Moraga, addressed the Board, stating that it is a sign of the times that
everything is now stressed beyond capacity, land, water, roads, and now garbage. In a
positive light, if the Board approves the requested rate increase, garbage will have a
higher value and people will throw less away. On the negative side, more garbage will
be dumped along the roads. Mr. Brobeck stated that the cost for one can service should
remain the same, increasing at the rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPl). The cost for
extra cans should be increased significantly. People must realize they cannot continue
to waste water, gasoline, and precious landfill capacity. Open competition and alternative
methods of garbage collection should be investigated and encouraged. Mr. Brobeck
stated that he lives in Bollinger Canyon. He and 12 of his neighbors bring their garbage
down to the bottom of the canyon. Since he and his neighbors do most of the work, Mr.
Brobeck stated that he does not feel they should have to pay more. In closing, Mr.
Brobeck stated that he believed that a rate increase is valid based on higher landfill costs.
Mr. Duane Norgren, of Orinda, addressed the Board on behalf of the retired sector of the
community in Orinda. Mr. Norgren stated that he lives modestly, producing approximately
43 pounds of garbage a month, which equates to $1.69 per month for disposal. Mr.
Norgren stated that, using his garbage production figures, it costs 60 cents per pound for
garbage collection and disposal. By comparison, it costs 60 cents per pound for cherries,
59 cents per pound for apples, 21 cent per pound including all taxes for gasoline, and 67
cents per pound for international air freight from the United States to Europe. Mr.
Norgren stated that the collectors are well monitored but charges are very high because:
1 )
service is non-competitive;
2)
the cost plus percentage price structure does not control costs; and
3)
there is excess service frequency.
Mr. Norgren stated that Orinda-Moraga's service has been excellent but there is too much
of it. The frequency of pickups should be reduced and mandatory curbside collection
should be implemented. If individual customers wish to have backyard service, they
should pay for the service. Mr. Norgren stated that he observed operations at the
recycling center in Moraga. The operation is inefficient. Good planning and some capital
improvements would result in significant improvement to the operation.
President Clausen thanked the members of the public for their comments. There being
no further comments, President Clausen closed the public hearing at the hour of 7:02
p.m.
At 7:02 p.m., President Clausen declared a recess, reconvening at the hour of 7: 13 p.m.
with all parties present as previously designated.
12
17
92
232
At this time, President Clausen directed the Board's attention to the decision points
relating to the Valley Waste Management rate application.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that the resolution setting rates
include language that would permit the Board of Directors to call a public hearing to
consider a mid-year collection rate adjustment if and when a change in the disposal fee
occurs.
Discussion followed concerning the allowability of the Contra Costa County fees included
in the disposal fee. Member Menesini requested that a matrix be developed showing the
County fees and the purpose for which each is levied. It would then be possible for the
Board to consider the fees in terms of some strategy of action.
Member Rainey expressed serious concern with regard to the $55 charge for the Acme
Demonstration Compost Project, indicating that justification of the charge has been
requested repeatedly, but nothing has been received. Mr. Lee Walton, General Manager
of Acme Fill Corporation, stated that the $55 per ton charge for green waste at the Acme
Demonstration Compost Project is an estimate. It was reduced from $78 per ton to
encourage recycling of green waste. Acme is working with the County and providing
them with costs and figures.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that the Contra Costa County
fees included in the disposal fee be passed through, that the collector be directed to pay
said fees under protest, and that District Counsel brief the entire Board in closed session
in the near future on the legal issues relating to the various fees.
It was the consensus of the Board that Valley Waste Management be directed to continue
efforts to obtain alternative disposal and transfer sites.
Discussion followed concerning the legal expense related to the Acme lawsuit, and the
need for a coordinated defense. District Counsel will brief the Board on the Acme lawsuit
in closed session in the near future.
It was the consensus of the Board that collection of legal expense related to the Acme
lawsuit be allowed on an impound basis.
Based on the input from the Town of Danville and the City of Lafayette, it was the
consensus of the Board that the balancing account should be fully applied in 1993.
Following discussion of the state of the economy and its impact on business and
ratepayers, it was moved by Member Rainey and seconded by Member Dalton, that
intercompany charges of $150,000, rather than $275,000, be allowed. Motion approved
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Members: Rainey, Dalton, Menesini, Hockett
NOES: Members: Clausen
ABSENT: Members: None
It was the consensus of the Board that the request of Valley Waste Management to index
the intercompany charges using an annual inflation rate be denied.
Following discussion of the AB 939 source reduction and recycling requirements and the
fines for not meeting the requirements, it was the consensus of the Board that
nonautomated separate green waste collection be implemented in the City of Lafayette.
It was the consensus of the Board that the rate for the seven-yard drop box be
recalculated on a break even basis, to eliminate subsidy from other customer categories.
It was the consensus of the Board that the request of Valley Waste Management to revert
to the operating ratio methodology be denied and that present rate-setting methodology
for calculation of allowable profit be retained.
12
17
92
233
It was the consensus of the Board that draft letters to the difficult-to-access customers
be approved for issuance with minor modification.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that the Quality of Service
modification factor be set at 1.00.
Member Menesini requested that staff develop alternative methods of measuring Quality
of service for consideration at the next rate setting.
It was the consensus of the Board that the Cost of Service modification factor be set at
1.00.
In looking for opportunities for cost savings and reductions to the rates to pass through
to the ratepayers, Member Rainey stated that the District's franchise fee came under
consideration. Recognizing that the franchise fee is simply a pass through of actual costs
and recognizing that some areas of savings have already been identified, Member Rainey
requested that staff review the anticipated activities and expenditures for the coming year
in an effort to cut expenditures further while meeting AB 939 requirements. Mr. Dolan
stated this item will be reviewed and a recommendation presented to the Board at the
January 7, 1993 Board meeting.
President Clausen proceeded to the decision points with regard to the Orinda-Moraga
Disposal Service, Inc. refuse collection rate application.
It was the consensus of the Board that the resolution setting rates include language that
would permit the Board of Directors to call a public hearing to consider a mid-year
collection rate adjustment if, and when, a change in the disposal fee occurs.
It was the consensus of the Board that the Contra Costa County fees included in the
disposal fee be passed through, that the collector be directed to pay said fees under
protest, and that District Counsel brief the Board in closed session in the near future on
the legal issues relating to the various fees. The Board will make a decision on future
actions based on the matrix of the various fees to be developed by staff.
It was the consensus of the Board that Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. be directed
to continue efforts to obtain alternative disposal and transfer sites.
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.
It was the consensus of the Board that collection of legal expense related to the Acme
lawsuit be allowed on an impound basis. District Counsel will brief the Board on the
Acme lawsuit in closed session in the near future.
It was the consensus of the Board that the balancing account should be fully applied in
1993.
It was the consensus of the Board that consideration of the proposed automated
residential curbside collection program be deferred until the March 1, 1994 notification
date, as to whether the franchise agreement will be extended for five years beyond the
February 28, 1996 termination date.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that the current frequency of
three seasonal çleanups be reduced to two seasonal cleanups of the same total volume
previously allowed for three.
President Clausen requested that during the coming year, District staff review the current
recycling program and frequency to determine whether it would be appropriate to
restructure the recycling program during the next rate-setting process.
12
17
92
234
It was the consensus of the Board that Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc.'s operations
and payments be separately maintained from those of affiliated entities.
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 that the Cost of Service modification factor be set at
1.00.
Member Rainey requested that the same review and reduction of the Orinda-Moraga
Disposal Service, Inc. franchise fee be done as for Valley Waste Management.
7. CALL FOR REQUESTS TO CONSIDER ITEMS OUT OF ORDER
None
8. BIDS AND AWARDS
a.
AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO MONTEREY
MECHANICAL COMPANY. INC. FOR THE SLUDGE STABILIZATION PROJECT (DP
20098)
Following explanation by Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, it was moved by
Member Menesini and seconded by Member Dalton, that award of a construction contract
be authorized to Monterey Mechanical Corporation, Inc. in the amount of $498,500 for
the Sludge Stabilization Project, DP 20098. There being no objection, the motion was
unanimously approved.
b.
AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO GELCO SERVICES.
INC.. AUTHORIZE $944.000 FOR THE COLLECTION SYSTEM PROGRAM
CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT AND AUTHORIZE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR THE
CURED-IN-PLACE PIPE REHABILITATION PROJECT. DP 4889
Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, recommended that award of contract in the
amount of $768,034 be authorized to GELCO Services, Inc. Discussions with GELCO
representatives have identified several areas where the overall cost of the project could
be reduced. Discussions to date have produced an indication that the overall cost can be
reduced as much as $200,000. Staff will negotiate a deductive change order which is
expected to substantially reduce the cost of the project.
It was moved by Member Dalton and seconded by Member Rainey, that award of contract
be authorized to GELCO Services, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of
$768,034 for the construction of the Cured-in-Place Pipe Rehabilitation Project, DP 4889;
that $944,000 be authorized from the Sewer Construction Fund to the Collection System
Contingency Account; and that the General Manager-Chief Engineer be authorized to
allocate these funds for the project. There being no objection, the motion was
unanimously approved.
c.
AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO MANUEL C. JARDIM.
INC.. AND AUTHORIZE ALLOCATION OF $87.000 FROM THE COLLECTION
SYSTEM PROGRAM CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT FOR THE NEAR COURT
SLlPLINING PROJECT. DP 4535A
It was moved by Member Dalton and seconded by Member Rainey, that award of a
contract be authorized to Manuel C. Jardim, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder in the
amount of $51,356, for the construction of the Near Court Sliplining Project, DP 4535A
and that the General Manager-Chief Engineer be authorized to allocate $87,000 from the
Collection System Contingency Account for the project. There being no objection, the
motion was unanimously approved.
12
17
92
235
9. ENGINEERING
a.
AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR DESIGN OF THE
ORINDA/MORAGA PUMPING STATIONS -WETWEATHER DIESELS PROJECT. DP
~
Mr. Dolan explained that this project will provide redundancy and wet weather capacity
for the Orinda/Moraga Pumping Stations which are in a sensitive watershed area.
It was moved by Member Menesini and seconded by Member Hockett, that the General
Manager-Chief Engineer be authorized to execute a cost reimbursement agreement with
a cost ceiling of $251,000 with John Carollo Engineers for design services related to the
Orinda/Moraga Pumping Stations - Wet Weather Diesels Project, DP 4898. There being
no objection, the motion was unanimously approved.
10. CORRESPONDENCE
a.
NOTE RECEIPT OF LETTER FROM MR. MICHAEL MENESINI. MAYOR OF THE CITY
OF MARTINEZ. OPPOSING THE DISTRICT RECEIVING EFFLUENT FROM THE TRI-
VALLEY AREA: CONSIDER DRAFT RESPONSE
Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that this let~er is very similar to a letter
received from the City of Concord and contains reference to city funds which is more
applicable in the case of Concord. The City of Concord is actually billed for a portion of
the cost of operating shared facilities, which is primarily the Treatment Plant. The City
of Martinez, on the other hand, is part of the District service area and is treated in the
same way as all the other areas within the District. A draft response has been prepared
for the Board's consideration.
Member Menesini expressed concern about the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA)
proposal to pass its sewage through the District's pipelines. In addition, Member
Menesini expressed concern about the amount of planning and work the District is doing
in terms of planning for the proposed TWA project. Member Menesini indicated that he
would like to explore this matter further. Mr. Dolan stated that a presentation on the
proposed TWA project will be made at the January 7, 1993 Board meeting. Staff will try
to cover several of the critical issues.
In response to a request from a member of the audience, President Clausen departed from
the order of the agenda to consider Item 14.d.1).
14. REPORTS
d.
BOARD MEMBERS
1 )
Member Rainey summarized the Contra Costa County proposal relative to
the County joining the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority. This proposal
was provided to the Board in the agenda packet. Ms. Avon Wilson,
Executive Director of the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCSWA),
stated that the tentative points of the agreement are currently being
reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. They are scheduled to consider this
matter on January 12, 1993. Ms. Wilson stated that it appears that the
County does not wish to join the Authority but would rather enter into a
contractual arrangement. Ms. Wilson requested input from the Board with
regard to the elements of the proposed agreement.
Member Rainey stated expressed concern that the County may wish to be
considered a separate entity and equal partners with the Authority rather
than one member of the Authority. Member Rainey requested direction
from the Board on this issue.
President Clausen stated that the County must face up to the fact that they
must cooperate with other public agencies. Perhaps this agreement is a
small step in that direction.
12
17
92
236
Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that it would be
unacceptable if the County demands 50 percent representation.
At this time, President Clausen reverted to the order of the agenda.
10. CORRESPONDENCE
b.
NOTE RECEIPT OF LETTER FROM MR. LEE WALTON. GENERAL MANAGER OF
ACME FILL CORPORATION. REGARDING THE ACME DEMONSTRATION
COMPOST PROJECT
Mr. Paul Morsen, Deputy General Manager, stated that he will tour the Acme
Demonstration Compost Project at 11 a.m. on Friday, December 18, 1992. Mr. Morsen
invited Board Members to accompany him.
11. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES
a.
EXPENDITURE LIST DATED DECEMBER 17. 1992
Member Dalton, member of the Budget and Finance Committee, stated that he and
President Clausen reviewed the expenditures and found them to be satisfactory.
It was moved by Member Dalton and seconded by President Clausen, that the Expenditure
List dated December 17, 1992, including Self-Insurance Check Nos. 100649-100652,
Running Expense Check Nos. 72129-72587, and Sewer Construction Check Nos. 11807-
11885, be approved as recommended. There being no objection, the motion was
unanimously approved.
12. BUDGET AND FINANCE
a.
RECEIVE NOVEMBER 1992 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that expenditures for the five months
ended November 30,1992 were 8.1 percent less than budget. Mr. Dolan referred to the
Board to the report of temporary investments distributed to the Board with the November
1992 financial statements.
President Clausen declared that the November 1992 Financial Statements were duly
received.
13. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS REQUIRING BOARD ACTION
None
14. REPORTS
a.
GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
1 )
Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that the 1992-1993
Capital Improvement Plan includes a program for the issuance of debt.
There are a number of debt instruments to be considered, one of the most
attractive of which is the Certificate of Participation (COP). Since the
Capital Improvement Plan was adopted, major changes have occurred on
both the revenue and expenditure sides of the ledger. Thirty-five percent
of the District's ad valorem tax revenue, the largest single component of the
capital revenue stream, has been lost. With the continuing state budget
problems, there is reason to believe that the remainder is in jeopardy.
On the expenditure side of the ledger, a significant number of large capital
projects have been added to the Capital Improvement Plan. Staff is working
diligently to cut and defer projects to enable the District to present a
practical set of alternatives to the Board. Staff will be working with the
Budget and Finance Committee and the Capital Projects Committee in that
12
17
92
b.
c.
d.
237
regard. The District will soon distribute a Request for Proposals for a
financial advisor to work with staff to develop the options.
2)
On December 16, 1992, Acme Fill Corporation was fined $126,300 by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for failure to meet the
RWQCB-imposed deadlines for cleanup of their leachate problem. One of
Acme's defenses was that the District had not agreed to accept pretreated
leachate into the District's system. The District's position has always been
that Acme could treat their effluent to discharge standards and discharge
into the District's outfall. However, the District objects to accepting Acme
leachate into the plant because it is so saline it could adversely affect the
District's reclamation activities. District staff is working with Acme to
identify the lowest overall cost and best solution.
3)
Mr. Dolan announced that Mr. Boyd Olney no longer has any connection
with Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal. It is clear that the franchise
agreement has been breached. Staff will review the options and meet with
the Board Solid Waste Committee.
4)
Mr. Dolan announced that a Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration
for the Collection System Operations Yard Reconfiguration Project will be
published in the near future.
5)
Mr. Dolan announced that the District is currently advertising for sale of
surplus property. It is expected that $5,000 to $10,000 income to the
District will be generated from this sale.
6)
Mr. Dolan stated that a year ago he discussed with the Board the fact that
he was being considered for candidacy for the Presidency of the American
Academy of Environmental Engineers. At that time the Board supported
that activity. If the Board has no objection, Mr. Dolan indicated that his
name would be placed in nomination. The election will be in the spring of
1993. If elected, Mr. Dolan would become Vice President in November
1993. Mr. Dolan stated that there would be some work that goes along
with this post, but the level of commitment will be far less than the
Presidency of the Water Environment Federation. The Board endorsed Mr.
Dolan's candidacy.
COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT
1 )
Mr. Kenton L. Aim, Counsel for the District, announced that he has been
asked to serve as Counsel for the Crockett Varona Sanitary District. The
Board expressed their approval of Mr. Aim's appointment.
SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT
None
BOARD MEMBERS
1 )
This item was taken out of order earlier in the agenda.
2)
President Clausen announced that the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste
Authority interviewed candidates for the Authority's part-time Executive
Director contract position.
3)
Member Rainey announced that the Second Annual Fiscal Unity Conference
will be held Saturday, January 1 7, 1 993.
15. ANNOUNCEMENTS
President Clausen announced that he will send proposed committee assignments to the
Board Members for their review prior to the next Board meeting.
12
17
92
238
16. CLOSED SESSION
None
17. ACTIONS RESULTING FROM DISCUSSIONS IN CLOSED SESSION
None
18. ADJOURNMENT
Thèi"e being no further business to come before the Board, President Clausen adjourned
the meeting at the hour of 9:24 p.m.
---~/ /2~/!/
, . .;Ø/!k::~-d -£ ' ~ <- -<.. ~.
President6f the Board of Directors,
Centra+-t:ontra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
12
17
92