Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 04-21-72 61 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOARD CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD APRIL 21, 1972 The District Board of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in a Regular Session at its regular place of meeting located at 1250 Spring- brook Road, Walnut Creek, County of Contra Costa, State of California, on April 21, 1972, at 8:00 o'clock P.M. The meeting was called to order by President Allan. I. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan ABSENT: Members: None President Allan expressed his great pleasure and that of the Members of the Board of Directors in awarding certificates of proficiency from the California Water Pollution Control Association to Mr. Roy E. McDowell, Mr. J. Keith Packwood and Mr. Theodore B. Smith, employees of the District. Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated the District has the largest number of employees in the State holding Certificates of Proficiency for operation of water treatment plant facilities. Mr. Horstkotte commended Mr. David Niles, Superintendent of Plant Operations, for his program for in- creasing operator efficiency. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting of April 6, 1972. After comments by Members Mitchell and Boneysteele, it was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Rustigian, that the Minutes of the meeting of April 6, 1972, be approved after making the following changes: Under "VII. NEW BUSINESS, MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR", add the following to the penultimate paragraph: "Mr. Bohn will report back to the Board. To be continued." Under "VIII. REPORTS, GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER", delete the last paragraph and substitute the following: "After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte, and discussion by staff and Members of the Board, it was the consensus of the Board that present Petty Cash Fund procedure be referred to the District Auditor for review and com- ment. It was then moved by Member Boneysteele, seconded by Member Mitchell, that authorization to increase the monthly Petty Cash Fund from $300.00 to $500.00 be approved. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None" Under "VIII. read: REPORTS, COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT", change paragraph to "Mr. Bohn reported receipt of a check in the amount of $5,831.50 for the District as a result of the Western Pipe litigation." Motion changing Minutes of the meeting of April 6, 1972, carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitèhell, Rustigian and Allan None None 04 21 72 62 III. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES None. IV. HEARINGS DISTRICT REVENUE PROGRAM President Allan welcomed persons in the audience and then reopened the hearing on the proposed District Revenue Program from the April 13th meeting. Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated staff had met with Mr. Norman Alumbaugh, President of the Homebuilders Association of Contra Costa and Solano Counties and Mr. Dean LaField, Executive Vice Presi- dent of the same organization who were present in the audience. Mr. Horstkotte stated that, as a result of that meeting, staff was recommending certain amend- ments to Chapter 11, Fees and Charges, of the District Code. Mr. Horstkotte clarified the issue of intensity (number of people per acre) as vs. density (number of units developed per acre) and then suggested that Mr. LaField report on a Federal Housing Administration regional study on planned units develop- ments as compared to residential developments. Mr. LaField apologized that the FHA study was not available at this time as it would have illustrated current trends in housing construction with numbers of people per dwelling unit. Mr. LaField then presented the Board Members and staff with four prepared papers which depicted the impact of the proposed fee schedule on a per capita basis for various types of living units. Board Members and staff queried Mr. LaField and discussed various aspects of his analysis on fee charges with Members Gibbs and Boneysteele requesting clarification from staff on the applicability of the density multiplier to the minimum and unit fixture charge. After ex- planation, it was suggested by Member Boneysteele that staff revise Section 11-306 of Chapter 11 to more clearly reflect the procedure for computing fixture charges. Mr. LaField presented a detailed explanation to the Board Members as to why he and the organization he represented were opposed to the proposed fixture charges delineated in Chapter 11, Fees and Charges. Mr. LaField urged the Board Members to base the fee schedule on a per capita basis, claiming this was more equitable than being based upon number of fixtures being connected to the sewage system. Mr. LaField stated as justification for his position that the current and foreseeable trend was toward a land use intensity philosophy in home development and that the average family occupancy ratio should not exceed two persons. Board Members and staff queried Mr. LaField throughout his presentation and various aspects of his proposal were discussed at length. The proposal of the staff, and this was supported in general by several Board Members, was that the fee schedule should be predicated on number of fixtures connected to the sewage system. The premise for adopting this position was that, historically, data delineating actual number of fixtures connected was directly related to total usage of the sewage system, indirectly reflected size of popula- tion and was, therefore, an accurate guage for projecting capacity requirements for the collection system and treatment facilities. It was noted by some Board Members that utilizing population figures as criteria as proposed by Mr. LaField for projecting capacity requirements could be fal- lacious as they are subject to fluctuation. The District could exert no control over this population fluctuation. Board Members, staff and Mr. LaField briefly discussed the impact population density can have on existing sewage facilities, particularly in regard to capacity. Mr. Norman Alumbaugh addressed the Board. Mr. Alumbaugh supported Mr. LaField and emphasized that the fee schedule should be predicated upon people and not number of fixtures connected to the sewage system. He cited as examples that there were several building developments in California wherein the average occupancy ratio was less than two persons; that the current trend was toward smaller families; school population was diminishing; and that in his personal development Sky West, up to 80 per- cent of the three bedroom units had to be converted to two bedroom units because the occupancy ratio was below two persons. Mr. Alumbaugh stressed that persons per acre was declining with the advent of the new building construction trend toward land use intensity and, therefore, while there may be more fixtures, their use would be less because of fewer people. 04 21 72 63 Board Members and staff commented on Mr. Alumbaugh's remarks with Members Mitchell and Gibbs in agreement that basing the fee schedule on number of fixtures connected to the sewage system was a more responsive method for depicting usage and capacity requirements for treatment faci- lities. Mr. LaField invited the attention of Board Members to the fact that his association was also concerned with the proposed increases in annexa- tion and inspection fees, which had not been discussed but which were pro- posed to increase 50 percent. He commented that the housing industry had a basic requirement to provide adequate housing and suggested that alterna- tive approaches could be jointly explored by staff and his organization, given sufficient time. Member Gibbs moved adoption of Chapter 11, Fees and Charges, to the District Code subject to future amendment. After com- ment by Mr. Horstkotte that Chapter 11 would not become effective until July 1, 1972, Member Gibbs withdrew his motion. Mr. Ray Klauff addressed the Board. Mr. Klauff, a local home de- veloper, stated he tended to favor a reduction in fixture charge mini- mums as being more equitable. In addition, he commented that it was his opinion that, with density of population, the burden upon the District to service the concentration of people would be less because of fewer lat- eral sewage lines. Mr. M. K. Carter addressed the Board. In his remarks, Mr. Carter expressed his appreciation for the cooperation extended by staff and congratulated the District on receiving approval of its expansion program by the Association of Bay Area Governments. Mr. Carter then presented, with aid of a prepared paper, a concise statement which indicated that District revenue requirements for the expansion program could be best met by raising the current tax rate of 43 cents to 61 cents, vice esta- blishment of an Environmental Quality Charge of $24.00 per year. Mr. Carter emphasized that greater benefit would accrue to the District taxpayer if the Members of the Board would abandon the Environmental Quality Charge in favor of a higher rate of taxes. Mr. Horstkotte corroborated the accuracy of Mr. Carter's analysis. Board Members, staff and Mr. James Carniato, representing Mr. Bohn, Counsel for the District, discussed at length Mr. Carter's proposal. A major point of discussion was whether the District could abandon the Environmental Quality Charge, resort to increased taxes, impose special sewage service charges upon industrial and commercial users, and still meet State and Federal requirements for grant fund approval. Mr. Carniato indicated that in his opinion the District could abandon the Environmental Quality Charge in favor of a higher tax rate and still impose special sewer ser- vice charges on industrial and commercial users. However, imposition of the special sewer service charge would require an individual ruling in each case by the Board with multi-family units being exempt from this charge. Mr. Horstkotte stated staff had explored this matter with the District's Special Counsel, the consequence of which was that imposition of a sewer service charge to residential users was not necessary. Mr. Horstkotte then read from a resume made by the Library of Congress of the Blatnik Bill No. 11896, Section 206, which pertains to conditions necessary in order to qualify for grant funds after June 1, 1973. Mem- ber Mitchell noted that Board Members have historically favored the ad valorem tax as opposed to an Environmental Quality Charge as advocated by staff. Mr. Horstkotte commented that Board Members could accept Mr. Carter's proposal at present but that, in his opinion, establishment of an Environmental Quality Charge will be necessary in the future. In support of this position, Mr. Horstkotte cited the newly adopted State of California Uniform Accounting System for Sanitary Districts, and read excerpts from the State Water Resources Control Board Revenue Program Guidelines for waste water agencies and the Clear Water~ant Program Regulations which pertain to user service charges. Mr. M. K. Carter responded to Mr. Horstkotte's comments by stating the basic decision before the Board was whether to establish the Environ- mental Quality Charge in anticipation that such a charge may eventually become a requirement or accept the comments of the Counsel for the District that imposition of such a charge was not yet mandatory. Mr. Carter sug- gested that, by postponement of the Environmental Quality Charge, if only for a one year period, the Board Members would be doing the District tax- 04 21 72 -----------'----------'----------------------- - --------.--...--------------------------.---------------.----------------------.---...---- - ---..-------.------ 64 payers a great service. Further, Mr. Carter stated that in the event, at some future date, establishment of the Environmental Quality Charge for residential users became a requirement, he would be the first to ap- pear before the Board and urge its adoption. President Allan commented that, in the event the Watson Amendment was to be approved, the stringent restrictions imposed upon special district's authority to levy taxes would require immediate establishment of fue En- vironmental Quality Charge. Assuming the passage of the Watson Amendment, Board Members briefly discussed how and when the Watson amendment would be implemented and its possible impact upon the District. Member Gibbs commented that personally he has for many years opposed user service charges primarily because of income tax considerations. How- ever, the Board has been advised that as the Environmental Quality Charge is planned to be collected on the tax rolls, Member Gibbs suggested there is a good reason to believe the charge will be considered tax deductible. Member Gibbs cited as precedent for establishment of user service charges, the many sanitary agencies within the State, including East Bay Municipal Utility District, which impose this type of charge in conjunction with the ad valorem tax. He noted that the Sanitary District is probably one of the few Districts that currently rely on the ad valorem tax as its major source of revenue. Member Gibbs suggested therefore that adoption of the Environmental Quality Charge by the Sanitary District would not be a unique action. But rather, that perhaps to some extent, it would be re- flective of the current trend throughout the State to provide some form of relief for the property taxpayer by substitution of user service charges. He noted that Board Members have given considerable thought for at least seven years to the question of user service charges and that basically, because only people who use the service pay the charge, the element of equity does exist. Member Boneysteele noted that his interpretation of the current income tax instructions is that one can deduct taxes that are based upon value of property, but that, as an example, a charge for registration of an automo- bile is not deductible. Member Boneysteele stated that therefore he is by no means assured that District taxpayers could deduct the Environmental Quality Charge. Member Boneysteele noted that his interpretation of the current income tax instructions is that one can deduct taxes that are based upon value of property, but that, as an example, a charge for registration of an automo- bile is not deductible. Member Boneysteele stated that therefore he is by no means assured that District taxpayers could deduct the Environmental Quality Charge. Member Mitchell noted that he had originally thought it feasible for the County tax collector to incorporate the Environmental Quality Charge into the total taxes assessed but that he now recognized that taxes assessed and the Environmental Quality Charge would have to be shown separately on the tax bill. Mr. Horstkotte commented that the County tax collector actually has the option of either billing the Environmental Quality Charge separately or including the charge on the tax bill. Member Mitchell observed that if Member Boneysteele's interpretation was valid that charges based upon value were tax deductible, then it was unlikely the Environmental Quality Charge would qualify as a deductible item even though not related to service. This led to further discussion by Board Members and staff with Mr. Horstkotte stating the District had no choice in the matter of levying a user service charge upon industry. This was mandatory. Mr. Horstkotte indicated to Board Members that staff's decision to propose establishment of an Environmental Quality Charge was made after analyzing the use of the sewer service charge by agencies in over 5,600 communities throughout the United States. He then noted that the Sanitary District was fortunate that alternative methods were available to finance operations of the District. Mr. Horstkotte congratulated Mr. Carter on his presentation but stated, while the District could finance its operations by use of the ad valorem tax, he suggested the Environmental Quality Charge to receive sewer service would be more equitable, citing as example the owner of a two bathroom home appraised at a value of $80,000.00 vs. the owner of a two bathroom home appraised at a value of $10,000.00. A brief 04 21 72 b) discussion followed concerning the matter of equity in levying charges and/ or taxes upon District residents. Member Mitchell expressed his appreci- ation to Mr. Carter for his analysis of the revenue program. He noted that only owners of homes appraised in value that exceeded $40,000.00 would be paying a disproportionate share for sewer service whereas others owning homes appraised at lesser value would in fact achieve a savings. It was Member Mitchell's opinion that adoption of the ad valorem tax method to finance the District's expansion program would in general be more equitablero all residents of the District. Member Mitchell expressed his concern regarding staff's proposal to establish the Environmental Quality Charge rate at $2.00 per month and indicated he did not think it prudent to reduce the current District's tax rate. Mr. Horstkotte stated his guidance to staff in the preparation of the proposed revenue program took cognizance of previous Board's policy in adopting declining tax rate over a period of years. Board Members, staff and Mr. Carniato, acting Counsel for the District, discussed various ramifications of imposing an Environmental Quality Charge vs. resort to the use of the ad valorem tax. As a result of the discussion, Mr. Horstkotte recommended that the Board consider resort to the ad valorem tax method for the next fiscal year versus the Environ- mental Quality Charge and that in the interim, staff would obtain the views of the grant administrator for the State Water Resources Board as to whether such a course of action was acceptable. Mr. Horstkotte noted that another Board Meeting would be necessary prior to May 1, 1972. Mr. Richard Correl1i, a resident of Martinez, California, addressed the Board. Mr. Correlli commented on the Watson amendment and its possible impact upon the District's financial program. A brief discussion followed. Mrs. Margaret Coney, a resident of the District, addressed the Board. Mrs. Coney stated she recognized the need for expansion of the District's treatment facilities and expressed her support for the use of the ad valorem tax method and an industrial user service charge to finance the program. Concerning the schedule for fixture charges, Mrs. Coney reported the results of a personal survey she had conducted regarding her local area wherein the medium population density was approximately three persons per acre. Mr. Lew Coney, a resident of the District, addressed the Board. Mr. Coney stated that, in his opinion, the Board had adopted the correct ap- proach in basing fees and charges on number of fixtures connected to the sewage system. He further commented that population density was not an adequate criteria to project burden or capacity requirements for treat- ment facilities. There being no other persons in the audience who wished to address the Board, Mr. Horstkotte indicated to Board Members that the District required an approved revenue program prior to May 1, 1972, in order to qualify for grant funds. Board Members, staff and Mr. Carniato, representing Mr. Bohn, Counsel for the District, discussed at length the manner and administrative procedure for implementing the proposed revenue program. Upon advice of Mr. Carniato, it was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Gibbs, that Ordinance 86, Chapter 11, Fees and Charges, as proposed by staff and as amended by the Board to reflect a zero cost for the Environmental Quality Charge, be adopted. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None It was recommended by Member Mitchell, with concurrence of Member Rustigian, that the Board adopt a Resolution stating that, as a matter of policy, it was the intention of the Board that, for fiscal year 1972-73, revenue necessary to finance the District's expansion program, and as not provided by other revenue sources, will be provided by resorting to the ad valorem tax; establishment of the tax rate to be determined by the Board after receipt of the District's assessed valuation from the County of Contra Costa. 04 21 72 ób RESOLUTION NO. 72-22. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT ESTABLISHING DISTRICT POLICY WITH REGARD TO THE OBTAINING OF MONIES NECESSARY TO COMPLETE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT EXPANSION AND WASTE WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member _Rustigian, that Resolution No. 72-22 be adopted. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None President Allan closed the public hearing. V. BIDS None. VI. OLD BUSINESS AUTHORIZATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR ENGINEERING STUDY FOR DISTRICT SEWERING PROJECT 2121 (NEGOTIATION OF RIGHT OF WAY WITH EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT) After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, it was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Boneysteele, that authorization in the amount of $2,000.00 from Sewer Construction funds for Engineering Study for District Sewering Project No. 2121 be approved. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None RESCIND APRIL 6. 1972 AUTHORIZATION FOR $41.800.00 FOR ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR DISTRICT SEWERING PROJECT NO. 1997, SAN RAMON CREEK. WALNUT CREEK After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, that the Flood Control District was no longer going forth with its project, it was moved by Member Rustigian, seconded by Member Gibbs, that Board action of April 6, 1972, authorizing additional deposit of $41,800.00 to the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District be rescinded. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None DISTRICT ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SOFT WATER REGENERATION DISCHARGES At request of Mr. Carniato, representing Mr. Bohn, Counsel for the District, item was continued to meeting of May 10, 1972. DISTRICT ORDINANCE EXTENDING REBATE RECOVERY PERIOD At request of Mr. Carniato, representing Mr. Bohn, Counsel for the District, item was continued to meeting of May 10, 1972. APPROVAL OF DISTRICT CONTRACTUAL FORM TO REPLACE PETITIONS FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROCEDURES After explanation by Mr. Carniato, representing Mr. Bohn, Counsel for the District, that further coordination was necessary between offices of Counsel for the District, Special Counsel for the District, and with the County, item was continued. '.".. 41: U 21 ~t ,,'} l -.(.¿ 67 REPORT BY REPRESENTATIVES OF BECHTEL CORPORATION Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, introduced Mr. George Sawyer and Dr. Clark Weddle. Mr. Sawyer stated the Water Renovation pilot plant project was nearing final completion and that a final report by Bechtel Corporation would be forthcoming. Mr. Sawyer then provided Board Members with a study prepared by Bechtel Corporation for use by the District's Negotiating Committee with Contra Costa County Water District on water reclamation. Mr. Sawyer explained in detail the results of the study and the manner in which Ks analyses on allocation of costs were derived for water reclamation facilities. Board Members and staff posed questions throughout Mr. Sawyer's presentation and various aspects of the study were discussed. Member Gibbs, as Chairman of the District's Negotiating Committee, gave a detailed report on the progress of the Committee's ne- gotiations with the Water District to finalize a contract for the sale of reclaimed water. Member Boneysteele made additional comments on the con- duct of negotiations. Board Members, staff and Mr. Sawyer discussed at length various aspects of the proposed contract, its contents and obli- gations imposed upon the District. Mr. Sawyer gave further explanation of his analyses on water reclamation costs, particularly as related to the proposed contract. Discussion by Board Members and staff followed. After suggestion by Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, that staff from both the Water District and Sanitary District, together with District Counsel meet in a further attempt to resolve points of conflict in the contract, it was agreed that the Board would meet on April 26, 1972, to consider the matter further. CONSENT ITEMS VII. NEW BUSINESS ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS AT NO COST TO THE DISTRICT It was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Rustigian, that easem~nts, at no cost to the District, from Castle Hill Court Associates, Job 2095, Parcell, Laird Bickmeyer and Judith F. Bickmeyer, Job 2127, Parcell, and James C. McCarthy and Alice McCarthy, Local Improvement District No. 51, Parcel 8, be accepted and their recording ordered. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian andAllan None None RESOLUTION NO. 72-18. A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT FROM MAY 4, 1972, TO MAY 10, 1972 It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Boneysteele, that Resolution No. 72-18 be adopted. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneystee1e, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None RESOLUTION NO. 72-19, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING ELIGIBLE LIST. ENGINEERING AID I After brief discussion by Member Mitchell, Chairman of the Personnel Committee, it was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Boneysteele, that Resolution No. 72-19 be adopted. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None RESOLUTION NO. 72-20, A RESOLUTION APPOINTING DALE A. OHDA AND JAMES R. RUETENIK. ENGINEERING AID I It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Boneysteele, that Resolution No. 72-20 be adopted. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None 0 4 Ii ~ 21 68 APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY SUMMER HELP. 1972 After comment by Members Mitchell and Boneysteele, and explanation by Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, regarding the scope of the temporary summer help program, it was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Boneysteele, that the proposed Temporary Summer Help 1972 be approved. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None RESOLUTION NO. 72-21, A RESOLUTION APPOINTING JASPER GREEN, PLANT MAINTENANCE FOREMAN AND CHESTER GRAHN, PLANT MAINTENANCE MAN After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, it was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Rustigian, that Resolution No. 72-21 be adopted. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT AND CALL FOR EXAMINATION FOR POSITION OF ASSISTANT PLANT OPERATOR. RANGE 41 It was moved by Member Rustigian, seconded by Member Gibbs, that authorization for advertisement and call for examination for position of Assistant Plant Operator, Range 41, be approved. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS AT NO COST TO THE DISTRICT AND RE-RECORDING It was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Mitchell, that easements from Florina Fiora and Olga Bresso, Job 1924, Parcel 2, Felix Valenzano, et al, Job 1924, Parcel 3, Fred Bugnatto and Rena M. Bugnatto, Job 1927, Parcel 4, and E. Pordon and Rose Pordon, Job 1924, Parcel 5 be accepted and their re~recording ordered. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None AUTHORIZATION FOR TREATMENT PLANT PERSONNEL TO ATTEND LOCAL INDUSTRIAL SAFETY CONFERENCE AT A TOTAL COST OF $38.50 After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, that staff proposed attendance by additional personnel of the Maintenance Department for an additional cost of $27.50, it was moved by Member Rustigian, seconded by Member Boneysteele, that authorization for staff personnel from the treatment plant and the Maintenance Department to attend a local Industrial Safety Conference at a total cost of $66.00 be approved. Carried by the fol- lowing vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None OTHER BUSINESS ADDED BY SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA AUTHORIZATION FOR PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY TO EXECUTE RECLAIMED WATER CONTRACT WITH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Item continued. 04 21 72 69 AUTHORIZATION FOR $5,000.00 FOR ENGINEERING AND RIGHT OF WAY COSTS, DISTRICT SEWERING PROJECT 2187. PACHECO AREA After explanation by Mr. Best, Office Engineer, it was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Mitchell, that authorization in the amount of $5,000.00 from Sewer Construction fund for engineering and right of way costs for District Sewering Project 2187 be approved. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None AUTHORIZATION FOR PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR RELOCATION OF FACILITIES NEAR STATE ROUTE 680, DIABLO ROAD INTERCHANGE. JOB 2120 It was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Boneysteele, that authorization for President and Secretary to execute agreement with State of California for relocation of facilities near State Route 680, Diablo Road Interchange, be approved. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None AUTHORIZATION TO EMPLOY HARRY WHARTON. TEMPORARY PAINTER'S HELPER AT $4.04 PER HOUR After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, that District personnel had currently been doing all interior painting for Office Building Expansion 1972, it was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Boneysteele, that authorization to employ Harry Wharton, temporary painter's helper, at $4.04 per hour be approved. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None ACCEPTANCE OF $1,000.00 DEPOSIT FROM DEVELOPERS FOR DISTRICT NEGOTIATION OF RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION, PRIVATE JOB NO. 2113, ORINDA AREA After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, it was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Mitchell, that acceptance of $1,000.00 deposit from developers for District negotiation of right of way acquisition, private Job No. 2113, Orinda area, be approved. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None Members Rustigian and Boneysteele commented that resort to the sup- plemental agenda should be reserved for items of an emergency nature. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Member Boneysteele stated Mrs. Kris Hiller of the District's Advisory Committee on Solid Waste had desired to attend the Board Meeting. In her absence, Member Boneysteele explained the matters that were of concern to her particularly in relation to plant incineration of sludge as opposed to proposals by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency for a program of land distribution of sewage sludge. A brief dis- cussion between Board Members followed. Staff was requested to obtain a copy of the Army Corps of Engineers report. Member Boneysteele commented on a meeting held by the Association of Bay Area Governments which he and staff had attended on April 20,1972. Member Boneysteele commended Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chieffugineer, 04 21 72 -----------.-- -------.---------. ------.--- 70 for his excellent presentation on behalf of the District's proposed expansion program before the executive committee of ABAG. A brief discussion followed. VIII. REPORTS COMMITTEES Member Boneystee1e noted that Board Members had received a copy of the Advisory Committee on Solid Waste minutes of the meeting of April 5, 1972. Member Gibbs indicated he planned to attend the next Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for April 25, 1972. GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte that he and Mr. Niles, Superintendent of Plant Operations, proposed a three day trip to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to monitor progress on the Sharples vertical centrifuges planned for instal- lation in the expanded treatment plant, it was moved by Member Boneysteele, seconded by Member Gibbs, that authorization for the trip with per diem of $32.00 for Mr. Horstkotte and Mr. Niles be approved. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte, it was moved by Member Boneysteele, seconded by Member Gibbs, that authorization to pay Mr. Mark Ivory salary for twenty-five days of accumulated vacation be approved. Carried by the fol- lowing vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte, it was moved by Member Boneysteele, seconded by Member Gibbs, that authorization to pay Mr. Robert Hedgecock salary for ten days of accumulated vacation be approved. Carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan None None COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT None. SECRETARY None. IX. ADJOURNMENT At 11:52 o'clock to 8:00 o'clock P.M., P.M., President Allan adjourned the regular meeting Wednesday, APri~6'- 1972,- ' - ~~ ~\" ~ President of the District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District of Contra Costa County, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: ç-; - (\1 - - L, f-- L~l-\Js Secretary of the District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District of Contra Costa County, State of California 04 21 72