Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 02-22-90 35 MINUTES OF THE ADJ OJRNED REGULAR BOAAD MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOAAD OF THE CENTRAL roNTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD ON FEBRUAAY 22, 1990 The District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened; n an adj ourned regul ar meet; ng at ; ts regul ar place of meeti ng, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, at 3 p. m. on February 22, 1990. Presi dent Carl son call edthe meeti ng to order and requested that the Secretary call roll. I. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Members: Boneysteele, Dalton, Clausen, Rainey, Carlson ABSENT: Members: None II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None III. HEAAINGS 1. CONDUCT CONTINUED PUBLIC HEAAINGS TO CONSIDER REQUESTS FOR A REroNSIDERATION OF REFUSE COLLECTION RATES WITH IN THE. QJRRENT RATE-SETTING PERIOD SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT, OR IN DA-MORAG A DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., ,AND PLEAS,ANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL Presi dent Carl son stated th at the purpose of these publ i c heari ngs is to receive public comments regarding the requests for a reconsideration of refuse collection rates within the current rate-setting period submitted by Valley Waste Management, Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., and Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal. Mr. Roger J. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that prior to the rate-setting hearing in July 1989, the three companies which we franchise had requested increases for permissible operating expenses based on the probabi lity that di sposal fees woul d go up at Acme Fi 11 when export began. At that time, the rates were uncertain and the time of any increase ,was uncertain. Because it was speculative, the Board set the rates on the current di sposal charge and permitted the compani es to come back for a mi d-year correction when the rates were known. Shortly thereafter, a small rate i ncrease was granted to Pl easant Hill Bay Shore Di sposal for an increase in disposal charges at GBF Landfill. Since that time, the District has requested the County to conduct a study of the rates at the transfer station. The firm of Deloitte & Touche conducted such a study, and the transfer station rates were set by the County. These rates went into effect on December 18,1989. The three franchised refuse collectors have requested a reconsideration of refuse collection rates based on significant increases in disposal expenses at the Acme transfer station, GBF Landfill in Antioch, and the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in Richmond. Mr. Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer, stated that the 87 percent increase in disposal fees to $47/ton at Acme Fill was the primary cause of the large increase in refuse collection rates effective July 1, 1989, even though this increase was allowed on a straight pass through basis with no profit margin. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the increases in disposal fees at the three landfills in the County and described the Acme Fill Cl,osure and post-closure cost assessment which have been calculated by the County for each communi ty and whi ch win be assessed agai nst each of the coll ector compani es. Theïse co'sts will be assessed over a ten-year period and will be billed by the County quarterly. Billings will begin after the Memorandum of Understandi ng and appropri ate trust agreements are executed i n approximately April or May of thi s year. The County has advised that the assessments must be made retroactively to December 1989. The projected assessments are based on estimates since the closure costs are not known at this time. Member' Cl ausen stated that he will not be ready to vote on the closure cost issue until all the agreements are prepared and executed and all the i nformati on is known. o~ 22 90 36 Ms. Sara Hoffman, Contra Costa County Soli d Waste Manager, stated that at the February 15, 1990 Di stri ct Board meeti ng, two i ssues were raised: 1) the rates at Altamont landfill and the negotiation of those rates, and 2), the closure and post-closure assessments and the process used i n determi ni ng the assessments. Ms. Hoffman reported that the export agreements with Al ameda and Sol ano Counti es were developed by a negotiating committee of elected officials. The agreement with Solano County is an inter-county agreement. Alameda County placed conditions on the Land Use Permit. Both these agreements were negotiated openly. The 1 andfill di sposal rates were private agreements negoti ated between the landfill owner and Acme Fill. Contra Costa County was not a party to the discussion as to the substance of those agreements. In response to a q uesti on from Member Cl ausen, Ms. Hoffman stated . that there was not a representative of the public at any negoti ati ons setting the disposal fee, and the County did not take any part in trying to negoti ate the fee si nce the negoti ati ons were between two private compani es. Mr. Dolan recounted his recollection of the negotiation of disposal feeS at Al tamont and the uncertai nty that the coll ectors woul d be obligated to use the Acme transfer station, or whether another transfer stati on woul d be sited, or the POD autanated transfer system woul d be used. Mr. Dolan discussed the question of affiliation of Valley Waste Management and the Waste Management-owned Altamont landfill. Mr. Dolan related discussions with Valley Waste Management concerning negotiation 'of disposal rates and the assurances made by Valley Waste Management. Mr. Dolan indica~edthat Waste Management interrupted the negotiations with Central Contra Costa Sanitary District on the Altamont disposal charge at the time they began negoti ati ons with Acme fill. Offici al s representi ng Waste Management i ndi cated to Mr. Dol an at that time that they were willing to negotiate a reduced rate for the custaners of Valley Waste Management. Since that time Valley Waste Management has chosen to renege on that pranise. Member Boneysteele reviewed his experience with the Public Utilities Commission and the history leading to the accepted principle that you cannot regul ate the affiliate, but you can regul ate the util ity and disallow items detenmined to be unreasonable. Ms. Hoffman reported that in December 1989, Deloitte & Touche made a presentation to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board analyzing the process for determining closure and post-closure assessments. Ms. Hoffman stated that fran an engi neeri ng perspective, the $41.5.million closure and post-closure figure was appropriate and in accordance with exi sti ng regul ati ons. It was found that over time Acme had generated profits within the industry norms. Changes in closure and Post-closure costs over the years were due to changes in the regulatory environment. The Board of Supervisors made the determination that it was in the public's interest to close the landfill properly. The Board of Supervisors considered an alternative to get those closure and Post-closure funds fran the transfer station, but it was decided that the rate shock woul d be excessive. Other al ternatives were consi de red, and it was deci ded to recoup the money over a ten-year peri od based on historical use. Ms. Hoffman stated that after reviewing the data, Del oi tte & Touche bel ieves that Acme will be abl e to handl e the enti re hazardous closure costs for both closure and post-closure mai ntenance. Deloitte & Touche is still reviewing the non-hazardous closure and Post-closure costs. Ms. Hoffman stated that a pledge of revenue must be given to the California Waste Management Board for post-closure. ~osure funds must be handled up front. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is required between the County and the franchising agencies which details the arrangement. An agreement is requi red with Acme Fill to control transfer of assets out of the company and into the trust fund. The trust fund must be set up. Ms. Hoffman reported that these documents are in the draft stage now. It is anticipated that the draft documents will be available for review in April or May 1990. Ms. Hoffman stated that once the agreements are in place, the County will back bill the haulers to the opening date of the transfer station to meet the obl igations to the State. The County must provide a continuous pledge of revenue. 02 22 90 37 Discussion followed concerning the requirements for continuous coverage from the date of openi ng of the transfer station and the positi on of the County that the publ ic shoul d pay the bill rather than having the private, unregulated company go bankrupt. Mr. Kenton L. Alm, Counsel for the District, briefly reviewed the potential responsible parties should Acme Fill be declared a superfund si tee In response to a questi on from Member Cl ausen, Ms. Hoffman stated that the Board of Supervi sors determi ned that the miti gati on fee was publicly negotiated and so no profit was allowed on that. The disposal, rate was a privately negotiated agreement and therefore, it was appropriate to allow profit on the privately negotiated rate. Member Cl ausen asked if the Board of Supervisors was aware that that determi nati on woul d encourage the private compani es to set the ,rate as high as possible. Ms. Hoffman stated that she did not know if the rates were as high as they could pos~ibly be. Member Cl auseh asked the purpose of the pl anni ng fee coll ected by the County. Ms. Hoffman repl ied that the Local Enforcement Agency has included a charge for monitoring of regulations. The County has included a charge to offset the cost of establ ishing the transfer station rate including the Deloitte & Touche work. Ms. Hoffman stated that a franchise fee was not included. The County has just collected the costs for processing the application. Mr. Dol an stated that it i s troubl esome that the basi s of these closure costs remai n secret and encouraged publ ic di scl osure of the records. Ms. Hoffman stated that Acme is a private corporation. Deloitte & Touche reviewed all the records and used them as the basis for their report. Ms. Hoffman stated that this procedure is not unique from a public policy standpoint. Presi dent Carl son thanked Ms. Hoffman for appeari ng before the Board. President Carlson requested the staff report. Mr. Funasaki stated that Valley Waste Management used the Acme landfill through December 18,1989, and the Acme interim transfer station since that date for all its collected refuse. Valley Waste Management has requested a reconsideration of rates based on an increase in disposal fees from $47 per ton to $52.22 per ton. This request represents a 16.89 percent increase based on recovering the costs over the last three months of the rate-setti ng peri ode Mr. Funasaki di scussed the issue of the appropriateness of the $52.22 transfer station fee charge and indicated that because of the fact that Valley Waste Management has recently refused to negotiate a reasonable disposal rate at their affiliated Altamont landfill, staff is unable to recommend specific rate adjustments for this collector, but has provided rate adjustments based on four' disposal fee alternatives as set forth in Attachment I-A to the position paper. Mr. Funasaki stated that the fees shown do not i ncl ude the $.95 per month recycling charge. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the effect on rates of the disposal fee and closure cost assumptions. In conclusion, Mr. Funasaki recommended that if the Board determi nes that closure and Post-closure assessments shoul d be i ncl uded in coll ecti on rates, that such funds be deposited in a District-controlled trust account until such time as satisfactory MOUs and trust fund agreements are signed. At 4:16 p.mol President Carlson opened the public hearing with regard to the request of Vall ey Waste Management for reconsi deration of refuse collection rates within the current rate-setting period based on significant increases in disposal expenses. Receipt of correspondence from'Ms. Jan McDonald, Dr. Stanley F. Lorencki, Mayor Don Ritchey of the Town of Danville, and Vice-Mayor Gayle B. Uilkema of the City of Lafayette was acknowledged and by reference incorporated into the mi nutes. Mr. Jerome M. Kruszka, Acti ng General Manager of Valley Waste Management, addressed the Board stating that Valley Waste Management has been unable to negotiate lower rates at the Altamont landfill because of political reasons. Mr. Kruszka stated that a legal issue would be raised by giving advantageous pricing to Waste Management customers that could 0-2:' 2'2 90: 38 create some very serious. anti trust compli cations for the company. For those reasons, it was impossi bl e to negoti ate lower rates for those communi ti es served by the Distri ct. Mr. Kruszka requested that the Board consi der approval for a rate increase to $52.22 which includes a $21.25 disposal fee and not the weighted average used in the staff presentation. Mr. Kruszka stated that the $21.25 rate is reasonable based on rates at nearby landfills. Mr. Kruszka stated that in the spirit of cooperation Valley Waste Management is continuing to pursue alternatives to the transfer station ~uch as the POD automated transfer system. Valley has gone to significant effort and expense to implement a curbside recycling program. In cl osi ng, Mr. Kruszka requested that the Board approve the requested rate, stating that it is a reasonable rate based on other rates in the area. Members Rainey and Boneysteele requested additional information with regard to the $6.93 and $8.13 rates charged to San Franci sco and Al ameda County cities at the Altamont landfill. That information was not immedi ately avail abl e to staff or the representatives of Valley Waste Management present. In response to questions from Member Clausen, Mr. Kruszka stated that Acme did not ask Valley Waste Management to participate in negotiations with .Altamont landfill. The negotiations were conducted between Acme and Al tamont. 'Mr. Kruszka stated that Waste Management, Inc., and Valley Waste Management have the same Board of Directors overseeing operations. , Mr. Dolan asked if Mr. Kruszka believed that the relationship between Valley Waste Management and Acme for use of the interim transfer station constitutes a legally binding right to use the Altamont disposal site? Mr. Kruszka stated that it does not. Valley Waste Management has no control of where the waste goes after it goes to the Acme transfer station. Mr. Dolan asked if it is possible to obtain a legally binding rate to di spose of Valley Waste Management refuse for the term of the franchise agreement. Mr. Kruszka stated that Valley Waste Management coul d negoti ate a contract for the 1 ength of time that Acme has a contract to operate the transfer station and access to a disposal site. Mr. Kruszka stated however, that he did not know if either Acme or Valley Waste Management would be willing to do that. Presi dent Carl son decl ared a recess at the hour of 4 :37 p. m. , reconvening at the hour of 4:43 p.m. with all parties present as previously designated. At this time, President Carlson indicated that the Board would accept comments from members of the public. Mr. Stephen Mi nton, 3471 Bl ackhawk Road, Lafayette, addressed the Board representing the Springhill Valley Association. Mr. Minton spoke in favor of removing the transfer station and tipping fees from the profit margin. Mr. Minton urged the Board to adjust the collection rates based on a computed ti ppi ng fee, i. e. the lower of the San Franci sco ori gi nal contract rate adj usted for i nfl ati on duri ng the peri od from contract si gnature to date or the current San Franci sco rate. In addition, Mr. Minton requested that the Board direct Valley Waste Management to enter into a revised tipping fee price negotiation to establish a fair and equitable rate. ' On a related subject, Mr. Minton stated that some time ago the Board di scussed the issue of si ngl e can versus mul ti-can rates. It appeared that single can rates were subsidizing multi-can rates. Mr. Minton stated his understanding that staff was to study this issue and develop rates that refl ected current coll ecti on and di sposal costs. Mr. Mi nton indicated his interest in the status of that work. Mr. John R. Tulley, 3486 Springhill Court, Lafayette, stated that in trying to justify the constant increases in garbage rates over the last 02.: 2.'~, 9:0 39 two years, he reviewed newspaper arti cl es duri ng that time. Mr. Tull ey recapped those newspaper articles. Mr. Tulley stated that since Waste Management assumed ownership of Valley Disposal in 1988, there have been constant rate increases. Mr. Tulley urged the Board to deny this latest request. In addition, Mr. Tulley asked that the Board require Valley Waste Management to' provide a breakdown on their billings as to the costs for single can service, disposal fees, closure costs, recycling charges, and any other separate fees. There being no further comments from members of President Carlson requested any additional staff comments. the publ i c, Mr. Funasaki stated that he believed the di sposal rates charged by in-county landfills used by Mr. Kruszka for comparison with the $21.25 Altamont tipping fee represent a biased comparison because the in-county fees are abnormally high since these landfills are either closed or are reaching capacity and will be closed in one or two years. These fees are high to provide for closure and post-closure costs in a short period of time. Mr. Funasaki referred to the survey done as part of the staff analysi s i n May 1989, stati ng that woul d be a more fai r compari son. Discussion followed concerning closure costs at the landfills in the survey and dates the tipping fees were established. In response to a questi on from Member Boneysteel e, Mr. Funasaki expl ai ned how he got the $8.13 ti ppi ng fee charged to Al ameda County cities. Member Boneysteele requested additional details as to the source of that figure, and Mr. Funasaki stated that he would get the i nf ormation. There being no further comments, President Carlson closed the public hearing at the hour of 5:12 p.m. and returned the matter to the Board for del i berati on. Member Rai ney recommended that the deci si on be del ayed until March 1,1990, to allow staff to gather the additional information requested by the Board. Member Boneysteele stated that the $8.13 rate is extremely significant. Member Boneysteele requested that staff verify whether the $8.13 figure is an internal figure and whether the $6.93 figure is subj ect to escal ati on. Member Cl ausen stated that before deal i ng with the closure and post-closure costs, 1 egal questi ons must be answered. Member Rainey questioned additional information concerning the continuous coverage issue. Member Boney steel e recommended that the Board tackl e the hazardous waste and post-closure i ssues now rather than wai ti ng. Because of the fact that peopl e move i nto and out of the County all the time, thi s i ssue shoul d not be put off undul y. The Board shoul d make a reasonabl e estimate as to the cost of closure and post-closure. The cost of closure of the hazardous waste portion of the landfill should be passed on to the customer only as a last resort. Member Boneysteele ,reserved judgment on that issue until all the information is available. Members Clausen and Dalton agreed. Member ~ausen stated that he is not ready to act on the hazardous waste and closure issues until all the agreements are executed. President Carlson stated that action would be deferred on the hazardous waste and post-closure assessment issue at thi s time. President Carlson requested that this item be calendared for discussion at the next Board meeti ng. In response to a questi on from Mr. Dol an, Ms. Hoffman stated that the Board of Supervisors has adopted a policy statement with regard to closure and post-closure assessments. The non-hazardous portion will be assessed in proportion to use. The hazardous portion will be paid by Acme based on the EPA Letter of Credit and proceeds from the Acme transfer stati on. Mr. Dol an requested a copy of that pol icy statement prior to the March 1, 1990 Board meeting. Ms. Hoffman stated that she woul d prov i de a copy. Mr. Alm asked if it is the County's position that they can require the franchising agencies to contribute to the trust fund with or without our consent, or is the County requesting the franchising agencies to contri bute based on vol untary parti ci pati on? Ms. Hoffman stated her '02 ' 22 90 40 , understandi ng that the Board of Supervi sors has the ri ght to establ ish transfer station rates and has the right to include closure or post-closure costs for 1 andfill sin those rates. However, the Board of Supervisors felt a cooperative agreement to collect these costs over a long term would be better from everyone's perspective. It was moved by Member Rai ney and seconded by Member Boney steel e, that the decision regarding reconsideration of the refuse collection rate increase requested by Valley Waste Management be continued to March 1, 1990, to allow staff to secure the additional information requested to assist the Board in their decision making. In the discussion that followed, Member Boneysteele withdrew his second to the above motion. Following further discussion, Member Boneysteele reinstated his second, and Presi dent Carl son call ed for a roll call vote on the above motion. The motion failed to pass on the following vote: AYES: Members: Rainey, Boney steel e NOES: Members: Da 1 ton, Cl ausen, Carl son ABSENT: Members: None Discussion followed with regard to the issue of the multi-can rate. It was the consensus of the Board that noti ce had not been given that restructuri ng of the rates woul d be consi de red at th i s time. The i ssue will be considered during the annual rate-setting process. In the di scussi on that foll owed, Member Cl ausen stated that staff did a good job in showing that other rates which may be more reasonable coul d have been establ i shed at Acme transfer stati on. However, the County failed to requi re Acme to set a more reasonabl e rate and this Di strict does not have the authority to do it. The Di strict cannot regulate Acme indirectly. Acme, not Valley Waste Management, has the right to dispose of the garbage once it is taken to the transfer station. Member Clausen stated that this Board has no alternative but to pass through the rate. It was moved by Member Clausen and seconded by Member Carlson, that Resol uti on No. 90-030 be adopted, approv i ng a 4.72 percent increase in refuse collection rates for Valley Waste Management effective February 1, 1990, based on pass through of the $20.90 per ton tipping fee assessed by Altamont landfill. . In the discussion that followed, Member Rainey requested that the i nformati on requested be brought to the Board for consi derati on i n the next rate-setting process. Member Rainey suggested as well that prior to the next rate-setting process, a master plan and procedures be developed to address the constant rate increases. Member Rai ney called for the questi on. The above moti on to adopt Resolution No. 90-030 approving a 4.72 percent increase in refuse collection rates for Valley Waste Management effective February 1, 1990, was approved on the following role call vote: A YES: Members: Cl ausen, Ca rl son, Dalton, Ra i ney NOES: Members: Boneysteel e PBSENT: Members: None President Carlson thanked the members of the public for their input and requested staff to work with Valley Waste Management to address Mr. Tulley's request for a better explanation and breakdown of costs on the garbage bi 11 s. President Carlson declared a recess at the hour of 6:06 p.m., reconveni ng at the hour of 6: 13 p. m., with all parti es present as previously designated. .. :O~, .22 .'90 41 President Carlson indicated that the staff presentation with regard to Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., and Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal will be made, and a public hearing will be conducted to consider those requests. . Mr. Funasaki stated that Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., used the Acme landfill for residential refuse through December 18, 1989, and the Acme i nterim transfer station si nce that date. Commerci al and drop box refuse is di sposed of at the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in Richmond. The request for reconsideration of collection rates is based on an increase in disposal fees from $47 per ton at the Acme landfill to $52.22 per ton at the Acme transfer station, and 1 andfill di sposal fee increases at the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill from $31.20 per ton to $35 per ton effective November 1,1989 and to $36.81 per ton effective January 1, 1990. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the effect of these disposal fee increases on the representative disposal rates for Orinda-Moraga Disposal Serv ice, Inc. Mr. Funasaki stated that Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal used the Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in East County for all of its collected refuse. The request for reconsideration of its August 1, 1989 schedule of collection rates is based on an increase in the landfill disposal fee . of $38 per ton to $45 per ton effective December 15, 1989. Mr. Funasaki reviewed the effect of this disposal fee~increase on the Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal rates. At 6:22 p.m., President Carlson opened the public hearing concerningl the requests of Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., and Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal for reconsideration of refuse collection rates within the current rate-setting period based on significant increases in disposal expenses. Mr. Ken Little, attorney representing Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., and Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal, addressed the Board. Mr. Little stated that the one truck that was taking commercial waste to the landfill in Richmond has been refused because the city of Richmond does not consider that to be a commercial account. Consequently, the 200 tons per month is now going to Acme, and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service; Inc. woul d request readj ustment of the figures presented to accommodate this change. Mr. L ittl epoi nted out the disparity between the residential and commercial rates in Pacheco and the rates in other areas of the County. Mr. Little requested that this issue' be considered during the next rate-setti ng period. Mr. Little requested that the disposal rates be passed through to the generator of the waste rather than the collector who simply provides the collection service. Mr. Leroy McCloskey, 1000 Carter Drive, Moraga, addressed the Board, indicating that he computed the cost per can based on weight and disposal fees, and i t woul d appear that the costs are bei ng passed th rough incorrectly. Mr. Dolan stated that in concept his approach was valid, but that there are a nllTlber of factors including the cost of recycling whi ch must be taken i nto account in order to arrive at the correct figure. The Board indicated as well, that the issue of multi-can rates coul d cause a di screpancy. Those rates w ill be consi dered duri ng the annual rate-setting process. Mr. McCloskey recommended that the investments of the blind trust be conservative. Mr. McCloskey raised the issue of a possible violation of antitrust laws should Valley Waste Management negotiate a lower rate for its customers at Altamont. President Carlson thanked Mr. McCloskey for his comments. There bei ng no further comments from members of the public, Presi dent Carl son requested additional staff comments. Mr. Funasaki stated that Mr. L ittl e requested that some adj ustment be made because of the diversion of waste from Richmond to Acme. The rate analysi s was performed on the fi gures submitted by the coll ector. The information on the change was received too late for incorporation in the analysi s. Mr. Funasaki suggested that the Board act on the figures presented in the report. If the Board wishes to make an adj ustment, that could be included in the next regular rate-setting process. 02';'.22.' '90 42 There bei ng no further comments, Presi dent Carl son closed the publ i c hearing at the hour of 6:42 p.m. It was moved by Member Dal ton and seconded by Member Rai ney, that Resolution No. 90-031 be adopted, approving a 5.66 percent increase in refuse collection rates for Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., effective February 1,1990, based on pass through of tipping fees assessed by Altamont landfill and West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill; and that Resol uti on No. 90-032 be adopted, approving a 6.96 percent increase in refuse collection rates for Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal effective February 1,1990, based on pass through of tipping fees assessed by Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. Motion unanimously approved on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Members: Dalton, Rainey, Boneysteele, Clausen, Carlson Members: None PBSENT: Members: None IV. SQID WASTE 1. CONSIDER DRAFT LEmR CONCERNING SUPPORT FOR APPROV AL OF L~DFILLS Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, letters were included in the Board packet. stated that two draft Board and staff discussion followed with regard to the merits of the Keller Canyon Landfill site and the Marsh Canyon Landfill site. During the discussion, modifications were made to the first letter incorporating the District's position that future capacity must be found within the County si nce we cannot expect to rely on export for the long term, recommendi ng that the County require reasonable traffic mitigation requirements, and requesting that the Board of Supervisors take positive action to encourage further studies leading to the opening of more facilities in the future. It was the consensus of the Board, that draft 1 etter No.1 be approved as modified. V. REPORTS 1. GENERAL MANPGER-QiIEF ENGINEER a. Mr. Dolan, General Manager-Chief Engineer, reported that arrangements will be made for aerial inspection of the landfill sites. Mr. James Kelly, Planning Division Manager, will provide information concerning the three proposed sites during the inspection. b. Mr. Dolan announced that there were overflows during the recent storm in Martinez, Pleasant Hill~ Orinda, and Lafayette. c. Mr. Dolan announced that there was a leak in the natural gas line to the Headquarters Office Building noticed during the storm. Work is proceeding to repair the leak. This matter will be placed on the March 1, 1990 Board agenda. d. Mr. Dolan announced that he will be out of town and unable to attend the March 15,1990 Board meeting. VI. ANNOJNCEMENTS Member Boneysteel e announced that he will be out of town from March 9, 1990 through March 24, 1990 and will miss the March 15, 1990 Board meeti ng. VII. QOSED SESSION None VIII. ACTIONS RESULTING FROM DISQJSSIONS IN QOSED SESSION None 0~:;:;:~22, ,:,90 '0'. 43 IX. ADJ OJRNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, President Carlson adjourned the meeting at the hour of 7:17 p.m. /1~ President of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of Cal1forni a COUNTERSIGNED: ,t ,', , ,. , 7 i).', ""L'~'; ¡ ('I: ,y~, ,. .~ 1." u Lt 'I"'" '.' t_i 1.,1~ ./ SeEr~ta¡j of the Centr 1 Contra Co$..1ia Sani tary Di stri ct, County of Contra Costa, State of California ;';. ~ ø 2 t \2 2 ~~,~' .~9 0 ... ..