HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 12-19-91
PAGE 1 OF 2
December 19,1991
NO.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR b.
DATE
December 16,1991
BOARD MEETING OF
SUBJECT
APPROVE THE CLYDE PUMP STATION
RENOVATION PROJECT, DP 4766
TYPE OF ACTION
APPROVE PROJECT
SUBMITTED BY
Jade A. Sullivan
Assistant Engineer
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.Engineering Department/
Engineering Division
ISSUE: Board of Directors' approval of the Clyde Pump Station Renovation Project is required
prior to the filing of a Notice of Exemption under the District's California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) guidelines.
BACKGROUND: The Clyde Pump Station is located in the town of Clyde.
The Watershed 44 Facilities Plan, completed in 1984, called for consolidation of four pump
stations. The plan was to first upgrade the Concord Industrial and Bates Avenue pump
stations and then abandon the Port Chicago and Clyde pump stations. The two pump station
upgrades were completed in 1988, and the Port Chicago Pump Station was abandoned in
1989.
The Clyde Pump Station Improvements Project was included in the North Concord/Clyde
Sewage Collection Improvement Project Negative Declaration, August 1985. The Negative
Declaration and the project to abandon the Clyde Pump Station was approved by the Board
at that time.
A predesign report was recently completed which concluded that the Clyde Pump Station
should not be abandoned due to technical problems and the high cost of a gravity sewer
replacement project. Staff recommends the renovation of the existing pump station.
A description of the Clyde Pump Station Renovation Project appears in the 1991-92 Capital
Improvement Budget beginning on Page CS-66. The total project cost is estimated to be
$353,000.
Staff has concluded that renovation of the pump station is not addressed by the Negative
Declaration and that the renovation project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act under District CEQA Guidelines, Section 18.3, since it involves replacement or
reconstruction of an existing sewerage facility involving negligible or no expansion of capacity.
The Board of Directors' approval of this project will constitute a finding of agreement with this
conclusion. If the project is approved, staff will file a Notice of Exemption with the County
Clerk's office.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A-7/91
fr;rcws
DRW
RAB
fJRuJ
,()4J
m
SUBJECT
POSITION PAPER
APPROVE THE CLYDE PUMP STATION
RENOVATION PROJECT, DP 4766
PAGE
DATE
2
OF
2
December 16, 1991
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Clyde Pump Station Improvement Project (DP 4766) with
a finding that the project is exempt from CEOA under District CEOA Guidelines Section 18.3.
so that a Notice of Exemption may be filed.
1302B-7/91
PAGE 1 OF 1
NO.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR c.
SUBJECT
ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE CLOSEOUT OF THE PROPERTY
ACQUISITION - LAGISS, D.P. 20065
DATE
December 13, 1991
TYPE OF ACTION
INFORMATIONAL
SUBMITTED BY Ken F. Laverty, C.P.M.
Purchasing and Materials Officer
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Ad m i nistrative/Purc hasing
ISSUE: All work has been completed on the Property Acquisition - Lagiss Project, and the
project can now be closed out.
BACKGROUND: This project was to acquire the Lagiss property, a 49-acre parcel at the north
end of Blum Road in Martinez for buffer zone purposes. The initial project was completed and
closed out at the January 3, 1991 Board Meeting.
In May 1991, the District received a Supplemental Tax Bill from the County Assessor's Office
in the amount of $12,998 for the Mt. Diablo Unified School District Mello-Roos financing for
the 1990-1991 tax year. The District entered into discussions with the School District to try
to reach agreement on two major issues. The first being that as a public agency the District's
property is exempted under the School District's Mello-Roos procedures. Secondly, that the
tax was levied based upon the ownership of the property as of March 1, 1990; and the District
did not own the property until April 22, 1990. Had the District known of the tax levy, it would
have deducted it from the amount paid to the previous owner during the ownership change.
The District reached a negotiated settlement with the School District under which the District
would pay $12,998, and thereafter the parcel would be removed from the tax rolls for
subsequent years. Expenses for legal services by District Counsel in the amount of $3,999
were incurred to reach agreement. The Board was notified at the November 6, 1991 Board
Meeting of this matter. Subsequent to this meeting, project 20065 was reopened.
The General Manager-Chief Engineer authorized $17,000 to be added to the previously closed
property acquisition project budget to cover this real property transaction for the negotiated
settlement payment and legal fees. The total project budget was thereby increased to
$5,293,290 and the total completed project cost is $5,293,287. Staff is closing out the
project, which will result in $3 being returned to the General Improvement Program.
RECOMMENDATION: This item is presented to the Board for information only. No action is
necessary.
'~ DEPT.I IV.
1302A-7/91 KFL PM
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
PAGE OF 3
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL
OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE COGENERATION
PROJECT, DP 10069
NO.
5. HEARINGS a.
DATE
December 13,1991
TYPE OF ACTION
PUBLIC HEARING;
NEG. DEC. AND
PROJECT APPROVAL
SUBMITTED BY
Russell B. Leavitt, Planning Assistant
INITIATING DEPTJOIV.
Engineering Department/Planning Division
ISSUE: Board approval of appropriate CEQA documentation is required prior to approval of the
Cogeneration Project.
BACKGROUND: The proposed project involves construction of a new cogeneration facility to
produce electrical power and steam for use in the District's wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
operations. The project will consist of a 3,300 kilowatt (kW) gas-fueled turbine electrical
generator and a heat recovery steam generator. The project will be housed in approximately
6,300 square feet of the WWTP's existing Solids Conditioning Building. Fuel for the project will
consist of compressed landfill gas from Acme Landfill (via Getty Synthetic Fuels) and natural gas
from PG&E.
This project is included in the 1991-92 Capital Improvement Budget beginning on page TP-37.
The estimated total project cost is $5.25 million.
As Lead Agency, the District has conducted an Initial Study of the proposed project to determine
if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Staff has concluded that the
Initial Study adequately, accurately, and objectively evaluates the environmental impacts of the
proposed project, and that a Negative Declaration is the appropriate document to address the
environmental effects of the project. The Initial Study is included as part of the proposed
Negative Declaration which has been distributed separately to the District Board of Directors in
early November 1991.
The proposed Negative Declaration finds that there is no substantial evidence before the District
that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and that no mitigation measures
are needed other than those measures already incorporated into the project description. These
measures are discussed in the proposed Negative Declaration and address construction and
operational noise and air quality issues.
Staff also has concluded that Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 regarding a mitigation
monitoring program is not applicable to this project since no changes or conditions of project
approval are required to mitigate potentially significant effects.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
RBL
DR
JMK
RAB
1(BL
#1
tvL
)1JD
INITIATING DEPTJDIV.
1302A-7/91
-.----------,.-.---.----.-----....--....--.-..-.-------.--.- -'.'--"-'."'..'---"-
SUBJECT
.................................-.................................,.........
IlilmJlllilllfl
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL
OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE COGENERATION
PROJECT, DP 10069
PAGE
DATE
')
OF
3
December 13, 1991
In compliance with the District's CEOA Guidelines, a legal notice was published on November 5,
1991, in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the
proposed project. The legal notice announced the District's intent to adopt a Negative Declaration
and the availability of the document for a 30-day public review period. Additionally, the proposed
Negative Declaration was mailed to affected public agencies and community organizations. One
non-substantive comment on the proposed Negative Declaration was submitted by the Contra
Costa County Community Development Department (attached).
Before the proposed project can be approved, the Board must consider any comments received
during the 30-day public review process and the public hearing, then consider approval of the
appropriate CEOA documentation (a Negative Declaration is recommended in this case). If the
proposed Negative Declaration is approved, a Notice of Determination will be filed with the County
Clerk.
RECOMMENDA TIONS
1. Conduct a public hearing on the Negative Declaration (a suggested agenda is attached).
2. Approve the Negative Declaration.
3. Approve the Cogeneration Project, DP 10069.
13028-7/91
...._._-----,.__._----_._.._,.~-'-_._----,--..~_.~~.^ .-. ...,._-_._.-,.._--,~....,..~..--,._-----------_.._---"
Community
Development
Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Phone: (510) 646-2035
Ca1tra
Costa
County
Harvey E. Bragdon
Director of Community Development
November 1, 1991
m
tIW - 6 1991
~m
CCCSD PLANNING
Mr. Russell Leavitt
Environmental Coordinator
CCCSA
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Russell,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Negative Declaration for the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District Co-generation Project. It appears that your Districts approach is to utilize a
Mitigated Negative Declaration rather than just a Negative Declaration. The proposed mitigation
measures listed in Negative Declaration are necessary to mitigating the environmental impacts
to a level of significance.
Please insure that I am notified in a timely fashion if it appears the District is not going to
approve the proposed mitigation measures as part of the project.
Sincerely yours,
~~ 4< &/4
James W. Cutler
Assistant Director of
Comprehensive Planning
m-jwclmllleavitt.ltr
..----.--..--.--.---.---...-------------,.-..................-..--------..---------..-.---.......-....-...........---..-..-.....--......--
PAGE 1 OF 4
AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO PERFORMANCE
.MECHANICAL, INC. AND AUTHORIZE ALLOCATION OF $50,000
FROM TREATMENT PLANT PROGRAM CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT
FOR LANDSCAPE POND RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (DP 10090)
NO.
6. BIDS AND AWARDS a.
DATE
December 10, 1991
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE AWARD
AND CONTINGENCY
ALLOCATION
SUBMITTED BY
David J. Reindl, Associate Engineer
INII.lt\TING ~PTJOIV.
Plant uperations Department/Maintenance
Engineering
ISSUE: The Board of Directors' authorization is required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer
to allocate more than $25,000 from the Treatment Plant Program Contingency Account. Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District has advertised and received bids (Bid Request No. B0362T) for the
Landscape Pond Reconstruction. The Board of Directors must authorize Award of Contract or
reject all bids within 45 days.
BACKGROUND: The Treatment Plant Landscape Phase I project as originally designed included the
landscape pond with a flat, structural concrete pond bottom, a jet fountain, and chemical
treatment equipment located at the treatment plant access road. However, to reduce project cost,
the redesign eliminated the structural concrete bottom and the chemical treatment equipment. A
polyethylene liner was selected as the least cost alternative for the pond bottom.
The Plant Operations Department (POD) has experienced pond cleaning and maintenance
requirements that were much higher than anticipated and has recently experienced a failure of the
pond bottom liner. This failure appears to be a result of water migration to the underside of the
liner. The water migration occurred when the pond liner edge connection failed as a result of
movement caused by repeated draining and cleaning cycles.
The Staff has evaluated the options of replacing the existing polyethylene liner, or using a concrete
or "gunite" pond bottom. The poor performance of the existing material and the difficulties
experienced with cleaning due to poor drainage lead to the selection of concrete or gunite as the
best, least costly, long-term repair. The project will replace the existing polyethylene pond liner
with a concrete slab or gunite, regrade the bottom to improve drainage, and provide for the
addition of chlorine solution to control algae growth.
1302A-7/91
RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
DJR
CWB
I ...---...-..---.----...--.----.-.........-- --..-....-----....-...........-.-. --------.---.--
~'tJf{RORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO PERFORMANCE
MECHANICAL, INC. AND AUTHORIZE ALLOCATION OF
$50,000 FROM TREATMENT PLANT PROGRAM CONTINGENCY
ACCOUNT FOR LANDSCAPE POND RECONSTRUCTION
PROJECT (DP 10090)
111111&11111111111111111111111111
2 4
PAGE OF
DATE
December 10, 1991
Three bids were received and publicly opened on November 1 9 and are listed on Attachment 2 -
Tabulation of Bids. The lowest responsible bidder is Performance Mechanical, Inc. with a bid of
$41,400 for the work involved in the cast-in-place pond bottom. The engineer's estimate for the
work is $45,000.
A cost breakdown for this project is provided in Attachment 2. An initial $10,000 contingency
allocation has been approved by the General Manager-Chief Engineer to prepare the specifications
and bid documents. The total cost for this project is estimated at $60,000.
Staff has determined that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Ouality Act
(CEOA) under District CEOA Guidelines Section 18.2 since it involves alterations to existing plant
facilities with no expansion of capacity. Board of Directors' approval of this project will constitute
a finding of an agreement with this determination unless otherwise indicated.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Award of Contract to Performance Mechanical, Inc. for $41,400
and authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to allocate $50,000 from the Treatment Plant
Contingency Account to the Landscape Pond Reconstruction Project, DP 10090.
13028-7/91
!-._..._,.,,--'-------~--._""._----_..._-'_.._._"~-,.._-_.~.._-- ,---_._-_._.._-_.~--,--_._--,-_._--,-," .-...----------
ATTACHMENT lA
Page 3 of 4
-
.
...... :
.... ~ ~
N
\0 -
M ~
0 ~
c:c -r- . :=
= c;
; ...... a: .; ~ ....
t N ~ Q
~ i ~ \0 l : ......
t:; ! M c:c
::: 0
j i 2: c:c ~ 0
z
i :
~ 5 c; . ~ s;
ev
u ~ ~ ~ ~
c ....
Itl .::::: N i :
E \0
~ :: M
~ 0 :;; ~
c:c
~ -,...
a. :
~ :
:;
~
Q
Z <(
0 u
Cl..
.. ~
I.J.J 0 .
Cl.. :3:~ ~ Q
<( "'C +J
U ~~ ...... ev 0
(/) ;:::.- C Q 0
Q .... : ...... 0
z c--' ...... N c:c I.C'l
<( .s::. \0
--' OC M 0 N
r-::l~ S? Z o::t
~ U.
0
.... -
Q,. ~
5 z
...... "'C "'C
~ Q . C C
Q ~ g g
~ ~ ~ ~ .
a: ~ ffi 0 2 :
uJ I.J.J 8 ... ~ i ~ ev ~
!< 0:: I ~ al l!l "" +J
z d c a: kI ev
~ ~ ..: S t!! Itl Itl
U ~ U
~ 11'I U 11'I
"'C C "'C
C 0 C
Itl U Itl ~
...... ......
ev
. 4- U 4-
(/) ev 0 Itl 0 g
...... ~ 0.
c ..0 g g 8
Cii ';; -,.. a
11'I - -,.. c -,..
I.L -~ C "'C 0,.. "'C ~
0 g Itl Itl
~ ~ +J 6 or-
Z 11'I ~ g 11'I C
0 ~ Q) ItS Q) :::l
fi ~ 0 0:: U 0:: 0
--'
+J ~
...... 11'I ...... +J +J
:::>> Q) ...... i 0 0
m ~ ~ ...... ......
i! 0 . ...... ......
--'
i ~
..> 0 -
I, ...
r~ i ~ -
... ...... N
a: a:~ If:
i
:b
~
--r--".___'_~__"_"_.__'_~~'_M'__~."_~_'W'_~____"_""_'_,-_..~--_..._-,~."_...-.._----_._,,-._,.._.._---_._~-----..-----~-
Page ~ of ~
ATTACHMENT 1 B
LANDSCAPE POND RECONSTRUCTION
DP 10090
Construction Contract
(Performance Mechanical)
$ 41 ,400
District Force Account
4.000
SUBTOTAL:
$ 45,400
Project Contingency (10 Percent)
4.600
General Manager-Chief Engineer Authorization
for Bid Preparation
10,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$ 60.000
----*.--.---r.--..~---'---..---..~-...~--.~."...,..-.---._.~~."_.,---,~"---~,,-----~-_.._---,~.._~--_.",_._-"
~J Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
11111111111:1::.111'111111 BOAR~~~:~Gb:r 19, 1991
SUBJECT
PAGE 1 OF 8
NO.
7.
SOLI 0 WASTE a.
DATE
DOPT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE DISTRICT AND THE CITIES OF DANVILLE,
LAFA VETTE, ORINDA AND MORAGA FOR AB 939
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
December 11, 1991
TYPE OF ACTION
ADOPT MOU
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPTJDIV.
Elaine Jacobs, Assistant Engineer
Administrative/Solid Waste
ISSUE: At the request of the cities/towns of Danville, Lafayette, Orinda and Moraga (CITIES) a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was negotiated by District staff and the staff from the
CITIES for AB 939 planning and implementation.
BACKGROUND: Assembly Bill 939 (California Public Resources Code ~ 41823) allows that" A city
or county may enter into a memorandum of understanding with another city, county, regional
planning agency, agency formed under a joint exercise of powers agreement, or district established
to manage solid waste for the purpose of preparing and implementing source reduction and recycling
elements or a county-wide integrated waste management plan."
From the onset of the passing of AB 939, the District has assumed the responsibility to prepare and
implement the required Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SR&RE) and Household
Hazardous Waste (HHW) Elements on behalf of the CITIES. The CITIES concurred because the
District, as the franchiser, has the necessary rate-setting and level-of-service authority to implement
the required waste reduction programs for the CITIES.
However, franchising sanitary districts have little responsibility and authority under AB 939
legislation. Therefore, the District has requested and received written approval from the CITIES by
letter or adoption of a resolution for the following items in order for the District to meet AB 939
requirements on their behalf:
. Conduct a regional waste characterization study
. Implement a regional HHW program
. Designate the District as the agency responsible for preparation of the SR&RE
. Designate the hauler as the exclusive franchised recycler
In order to avoid the frequent need to request each city council's approval each time a new program
is implemented, District staff drafted an MOU (See Attachment I) which was negotiated between
the District and the CITIES' staffs and describes the responsibilities of each agency for the purpose
of complying with AB 939.
The Board considered the subject MOU at the August 15, 1991 Board Meeting. On that same day,
staff received a fax from Danville, Lafayette, and Orinda's staff indicating their opposition to the
E V/E WED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
~
INITIATING DEPTJDIV.
1302A-7/91
_,.._____.__._____._______',__.--,--._n_.._.'_~__'____._>__._k__........._"__...._..mn_.._.....___.___....__.__.___..__...__.,.______._.,.,_..___._.._._.__..__
SUBJECT
ADOPT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE DISTRICT AND THE CITIES OF DANVILLE,
LAFAYETTE, ORINDA AND MORAGA FOR AB 939
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
1:1:lllllllill::::::IIIIII:::
PAGE
DATE
2
OF
8
December 11, 1991
added language in the MOU that required the CITIES to direct all AB 939 fees to the District and
negotiate with the District the amount that should be reimbursed for their costs incurred. The Board
directed staff to meet with the CITIES and recalendar consideration of this MOU after the method
for disbursing the AB 939 funds is resolved. As directed by the Board, staff met with the CITIES
on September 18 to discuss this issue and concluded that the following method for disbursing AS
939 fees would be acceptable to all parties involved:
1 . Any monies reimbursed to the CITIES by the County will be forwarded to them directly.
Note: Public Resources Code ~41901 authorizes a city, county, or city and county to impose
fees for AS 939 plan preparation, adoption, and implementation. The County is currently
collecting $.95 per ton at Acme Transfer Station for planning costs. The County has decided
to retain $.15 per ton to cover their AB 939 planning costs incurred, and to reimburse cities
$.80 per ton or reduce tipping fees by that amount to compensate the cities for their AS 939
planning costs.
2. The CITIES will retain that portion of AS 939 fees not to exceed their costs incurred for AS
939 planning and implementation.
3. Any excess amount of AS 939 fees will be rebated to the DISTRICT to offset our costs
incurred for AS 939 planning and implementation on behalf of the CITIES.
4. Documentation for funds received by the CITIES from the County and for justification of
costs incurred by the CITIES will be discussed with CITIES' staff.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached MOU between the District and the CITIES for AS 939
planning and implementation, and direct staff to send District executed copies to each of the four
cities for which we franchise garbage collection services, requesting them to consider the MOU.
ADS/PosPap#2/MouAS93 9. pp
13028-7/91
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA
SANIT ARV DISTRICT AND THE TOWN OF DANVILLE,
THE CITY OF LA FA VETTE, THE CITY OF ORINDA,
AND THE TOWN OF MORAGA
FOR AB 939 PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION ASSISTANCE
This memorandum of understanding ("MOU") is made and entered into between the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, a public agency formed pursuant to California
Health & Safety Code Section 6400, et sea. (hereinafter "DISTRICT") and the Towns of
Danville and Moraga and Cities of Lafayette and Orinda, each a separate political
subdivision of the State of California (collectively "CITIES" and individually "CITY").
RECITALS
A. DISTRICT is a regional public waste management agency providing solid
waste and wastewater management, resource recovery and disposal services and facilities
to the public, as well as businesses, within the CITIES and unincorporated areas of
Central Contra Costa County.
B. Residents of CITIES utilize the services of DISTRICT.
C. Assembly Bill 939 (Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989) codified in Public
Resources Code Section 40000, et sea., hereinafter referred to as AB 939, requires
CITIES to, among other things, develop and adopt Source Reduction and Recycling
Elements ("SRREs") and submit them to the County of Contra Costa on or before July 1,
1991. AB 939 also mandates the diversion of 25% of identified CITY solid waste from
landfill or transformation facilities by January 1, 1995 and the diversion of 50% by
January 1, 2000. Cleanup legislation known as Assembly Bill 2707 (Chapter 1406,
Statutes of 1990), hereinafter referred to as AB 2707, requires a submittal of a separate
Household Hazardous Waste Element, hereinafter referred to as "HHWE", to the County
on July 1, 1991. (Chapter 1406 adds or modifies Public Resources Code Sections
41003,41303,41500,41510,41750,41793,41802, 41823, 41825, and 41903.)
AB 2092 of 1991, which will be considered in 1992, would provide for an extension of
that submission date to May 1, 1992, if an EIR is being prepared for the submission by
the submitting agency.
D. CITIES desire to utilize the services of DISTRICT in meeting AB 939 and AB
2707 requirements (and other implementing legislation and regulations related thereto)
including the preparation of a waste characterization component, and the preparation and
development of final SRREs and HHWEs on a timely basis, and achievement of the
mandated 1995 waste diversion goals. DISTRICT desires to provide such services to
CITIES.
- 1 -
F:\DMS\KLA.DIR\000991 0.09
E. DISTRICT desires to provide such additional services related to recycling,
source reduction, and other similar activities which may be required by such new
legislation as may be adopted during the term of this Agreement, if practical. CITIES and
DISTRICT may desire, in the future, to utilize the services of the DISTRICT meeting such
new legislative requirements. To the extent that provision of such additional related
services by the DISTRICT in the future is appropriate and practical, the DISTRICT and the
CITIES desire to negotiate amendments to this Agreement, or enter into such new
agreements as may be appropriate and practical to allow for the DISTRICT to provide such
additional services to the residents of CITIES.
F. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 41823, DISTRICT and CITIES
may enter into an MOU providing for the rendering of such AS 939 and AS 2707 services
by DISTRICT.
G. DISTRICT and CITIES enter into this MOU to define their respective scope
of work and obligations hereunder.
ARTICLE 1: RETENTION OF DISTRICT
1.1 Services. DISTRICT shall provide the services described in Article 2 below and
"Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein, on the terms and conditions
hereinafter set forth.
1.2 CITY Authority. It is acknowledged and agreed that CITIES presently have the
exclusive responsibility for compliance with all aspects of the obligations set forth in AS
939 and AS 2707 within the incorporated areas; however, the CITIES may delegate such
authority as they may have for carrying out the compliance with the obligations of AS
939 and AS 2707 (and other implementing legislation and regulations related thereto) to
another agency pursuant to provisions of Public Resources Code Section 41823.
1.3 CITY Deleaation of Authority. The CITIES hereby delegate such authority
they may have for carrying out of the compliance obligations of AS 939 and AS 2707
(and other implementing legislation regulations related thereto) to the DISTRICT in order
to empower the DISTRICT to carry out the programs which may be necessary for said
compliance through the DISTRICT's statutory authority in solid waste matters and such
authority as the DISTRICT may have through its franchise agreements with solid waste
collectors. The DISTRICT shall provide such assistance as is described in this MOU and
in accordance with the scope of work.
1.4 Indeoendent Contractor. It is acknowledged and agreed that DISTRICT's
relationship to CITIES pursuant to this MOU is one of an independent contractor and
DISTRICT is not, and shall not be deemed, an employee of CITIES for any purposes, nor
shall DISTRICT employees or consultants be deemed employees of the CITIES. It is
acknowledged that the DISTRICT and CITIES share a unique and mutually beneficial
relationship which shall be reflected in the cooperative efforts of involved project staff.
- 2 -
F:\DMS\KLA.DIR\000991 0.09
! . ____~__.__,~__. ~__._._....__________.__4'__"_'___'______"_
ARTICLE 2: SCOPE OF DISTRICT SERVICES
2.1 Waste Characterization Studv. DISTRICT shall provide CITIES with an initial
Waste Characterization Study, structured to comply with the legislative requirements of
AB 939, with regard to the preparation of CITIES' final SRREs. In its performance of this
task, DISTRICT may employ the services of consultants and other resources.
2.2 Source Reduction and Recvclina Elements ("SRRE") and Household
Hazardous Waste Elements ("HHWE") Preoaration.
A. DISTRICT shall prepare a jurisdictional final SRRE and HHWE for each of the
CITIES in a manner specified by the final AB 939 and AB 2707 regulations. DISTRICT
may employ the services of competent consultants and other resources in preparation of
the draft and final SRREs for CITIES.
B. DISTRICT shall submit preliminary draft SRREs and HHWEs to CITIES for
review on or before October 25, 1991. DISTRICT shall thereafter assist CITIES in staff,
council and public review of the draft SRREs and HHWEs, including the incorporation of
revisions which may result from the review process. DISTRICT shall provide CITIES, upon
request, all available information relevant to the completion of the CITIES' draft SRREs
and HHWEs.
C. DISTRICT shall be responsible for required annual reports to the County's
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
D. The Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA), of which the
DISTRICT is a member, shall be responsible as a lead agency for compliance with CEOA,
including the preparation of appropriate environmental review documents and timing the
completion of the review process so as to insure compliance with the proposed May 1,
1992 deadline, for submission of the final SRRE to the County of Contra Costa.
DISTRICT shall provide, upon request, all available information relevant to the completion
of the appropriate CEOA documents. Each CITY shall be a Responsible Agency with
regard to the CEOA process and shall review the environmental documents prepared for
it by the DISTRICT.
E. DISTRICT will be the liaison between the CITIES, the AB 939 local Task
Force, and the California Integrated Waste Management Board during the SRRE and
HHWE approval process.
2.3 Source Reduction and Recvclina Element Imolementation.
A. The Source Reduction and Recycling Element shall contain an
implementation schedule. The DISTRICT will, working through refuse franchise
agreements, adhere to the implementation schedule to the greatest extent possible in
order to achieve the mandated diversion of 25% of all identified CITY solid waste from
permitted landfill or transformation facilities by January 1, 1995 and to plan for the
achievement of the mandated diversion of 50% of all identified CITY solid waste by
January 1, 2000.
- 3 -
F:\DMS\KLA.DIR\000991 0.09
B. DISTRICT's Board of Directors shall consider all programs which may be
required for the implementation of the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements. The
Board of Directors shall have the authority to implement such programs through the refuse
franchise agreements as may be required to meet said mandated diversion requirements.
2.4 Coordination of Services. In order to ensure that services are coordinated,
DISTRICT staff shall be available to meet and confer jointly with the staffs of each CITY
on a as-needed basis. The purpose of the meetings will be to provide opportunity for
multi-jurisdictional information sharing and exchanging of technical expertise.
2.5 Staffina Resoonsibilities. District accepts the responsibility for providing all
staffing as may be required for the carrying out of the scope of DISTRICT services to be
provided as set forth herein.
ARTICLE 3: SCOPE OF CITIES' RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 Provision of Information and Materials. CITIES shall provide DISTRICT
information and materials specific to their jurisdictions, not readily available from other
sources, relating to the carrying out of this MOU and shall provide such assistance and
policy direction as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the CITIES' responsibilities.
Each CITY shall undertake such reasonable actions as may be required to promote
adopted resource recovery and waste reduction programs, such as but not limited to,
publishing articles in CITIES' newsletters regarding implementation of the programs and
coordinating with DISTRICT staff to maximize exposure of DISTRICT's educational
efforts.
3.2 Adherence to Imolementation Schedule. The CITIES will adhere to the
implementation schedule to the greatest extent possible in order to support the
DISTRICT's efforts in achieving the mandated diversion goals.
3.3 Use of CITIES' Municioal Powers. CITIES agree to use their best efforts to
provide for the implementation of recycling and source reduction objectives through
appropriate use of CITIES' land use authority and other municipal powers as may be
appropriate to accomplish the effective implementation of the adopted source reduction
and recycling program.
3.4 Direction of Wastestream and/or Recvclables. CITIES hereby agree to
delegate all such authority otherwise retained by each CITY with regard to the direction
of the wastestream and/or recyclables, if any, to a site or sites as may be directed by the
DISTRICT.
3.5 Use of Comoost and Recvclables. CITIES agree that they shall make
reasonable efforts after due consideration to aid the DISTRICT in developing markets for
any usable compost or other usable recycled materials which are produced from the
CITIES' wastestream as a result of the DISTRICT's implementation of the Source
Reduction and Recycling Element. The responsibility of each CITY shall include each CITY
making reasonable efforts to use said products for CITY services to the extent practicable.
- 4 -
F:\DMS\KLA.DIR\000991 0.09
ARTICLE 4: AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERMINATION
4.1 Effective Date. This MOU shall be deemed effective as to each CITY upon
execution by DISTRICT and said CITY and shall remain in full force until February 29,
1996, which is the date when the current term of the existing DISTRICT solid waste
collection franchise expires.
4.2 Termination bv CITY. This MOU may be terminated by any individual CITY
as to said individual CITY's participation at any time with or without cause by said
individual CITY giving DISTRICT written notice. Such termination will be effective ninety
(90) days following receipt by DISTRICT of the written notice of termination.
4.3 Termination bv DISTRICT. This MOU may be terminated by DISTRICT as to
each or all of the individual CITIES at any time with or without cause by DISTRICT giving
said individual CITY or CITIES written notice. Such termination shall be effective not less
than one hundred eighty (1 80) days following receipt by CITY of the written notice of
termination, unless otherwise agreed to in writing between the CITY(lES) and DISTRICT.
ARTICLE 5: FUNDING
5.1 DISTRICT Fundina. The DISTRICT, at its sole expense, shall provide the
funding for the provision of services by DISTRICT under this MOU. Such funding will be
recovered through refuse "franchise fees". CITY does not assume and shall not be liable
for the direct payment of any salary, wages, or other compensation to any DISTRICt
personnel performing services hereunder.
5.2 Additional Fundina. It is anticipated that barring the occurrence of
extraordinary circumstances (Le., substantive regulatory changes, etc.) the franchise fees
available for this purpose will be sufficient to cover all expenses incurred. In the event
of such extraordinary circumstances or if parties desire provision of services beyond those
identified in the Scope of Work, the parties agree to consult regarding methods of funding
such services.
5.3 Grant and/or AS 939 Funds. CITIES shall commit to cooperating with the
DISTRICT to apply for grant funds or other AS 939 funds available to CITIES for programs
applicable to facilities and services provided by the DISTRICT for the purposes of
compliance with AS 939 and AS 2707, if any, in order to minimize costs which would
otherwise be borne by the rate payers. CITIES shall direct such funds, and the proportion
of AS 939 fees collected by the County at disposal facilities and reimbursed to the
CITIES, in excess of costs incurred by the CITIES for AS 939 planning and
implementation, to the DISTRICT for deferring costs incurred by the DISTRICT in the
carrying out of the services provided by the DISTRICT pursuant to this agreement.
- 5 -
F:\DMS\KLA.DIR\0009910.09
~----_._---~-_.~-,._---,.-~..-
ARTICLE 6: INSURANCE. INDEMNITY. FINES AND ALLOCATION OF LIABILITY
6.1 Insurance and Indemnitv. DISTRICT agrees to require its contractors and
consultants to provide insurance and indemnification in favor of the CITIES in the same
manner and to the same extent as such insurance and indemnification is procured to
protect the DISTRICT, to the extent such is legally permissible under the existing
franchise agreements. Neither CITIES nor DISTRICT shall, as a condition of the execution
of this Agreement, be required directly to provide insurance coverage or protection to the
other, or to contractually indemnify the other against damages to any person or property
not a party to this Agreement, other than as specifically set forth herein and in Article 6,
Section 6.2 below.
6.2 ResDonsibilitv for Fines. DISTRICT and CITIES agree that, to the extent that
an individual CITY carries out fully the responsibilities set forth in this Agreement for said
CITY, the DISTRICT shall be responsible for any fine imposed by the State, or any of its
subdivisions, for failure of that CITY to meet applicable AB 939 and AB 2707 deadlines
and reduction requirements, as these requirements may be amended. In the event that
the CITY upon which the fine or penalty is imposed fails to fully carry out its
responsibilities as provided for in this Agreement, the DISTRICT shall not be compelled
by the terms of this Agreement to be responsible for such fine or penalty imposed on that
CITY.
6.3 Allocation of Liabilitv. CITIES and DISTRICT agree that as to any liabilities not
covered by insurance provided under Article 6, Section 6.1 or fines or penalties covered
by Article 6,Section 6.2, the DISTRICT and CITIES agree that each entity shall be
responsible for any joint liability on the basis of the proportionate fault of each individual
entity which is party hereto.
ATTEST:
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA
SANITARY DISTRICT
By
Secretary of District
By Date
President, Board of Directors
ATTEST:
TOWN/CITY OF
By
By
Date
Town/City Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Counsel for Town/City
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Counsel for the District
- 6 -
F:\DMS\KLA.DIR\000991 0.09
~ Ct::ntral Contra Costa Sanitdry District
, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
:::I:::::::::::ji!ii:I}:::::::::.I.:::iiii.I..:.:iHi::i::::::...:::::::::ritS.::.:.:.::::ii:Bi: BOARD MEETING OF
.:::::::i::iB:::;.::::::::::::.:::!:jj::::::.:!M!j:jj:i::j:::::m:::::::::::::e.fil! December 1 9, 1 991
SUBJECT
PAGE 1 OF
NO.
8.
LEGAL/LITIGATION a.
DATE
DENY CLAIM OF CALRECOVERY INCORPORATED
D mber 17 1991
TYPE OF ACTION
DENY CLAIM
SUBMmED BY
INITIATING DEPT JDIV.
Bonnie Allen, Risk Manager
Administrative/Risk Management and Safety
ISSUE: CalRecovery Incorporated (CRI) has filed a claim for $64,053.20 plus interest against
the District and the Central Contra Costa Cities. The District's portion of the unpaid amount
claimed by CRI is $18,954.40. Claim denials require action by the Board of Directors.
BACKGROUND: The District and the Central Contra Costa Cities (Walnut Creek, San Ramon,
Martinez, Pleasant Hill, and Concord) entered into an agreement with CRI (Agreement No.
C0051 A, dated August 22, 1990), for preparation of a joint Solid Waste Generation Study
(SWGS). AB939 regulations require all cities and counties to prepare a Source Reduction and
Recycling Element. The SWGS is one of the nine required components of this document, and
the remaining eight components are based on information developed in the SWGS. The Scope
of Work of the Agreement required CRI to prepare a final SWGS in compliance with AB939
regulations and incorporate comments from representatives from each of the participating
agencies, referred to as the Joint Cities Committee (Committee). CRI failed to comply with the
terms of the Agreement.
The Committee subsequently sent CRI a Notice of Intent to Terminate and consulted with CRI
as required in the Agreement. After consultation, CRI expressed desire to comply with the terms
of the Agreement in order to expedite the process in an attempt to meet the State-mandated
deadline of July 1, 1991, the Committee eliminated the less substantive comments and provided
CRI with a list of comments that must be incorporated in a final SWGS. CRI agreed to
incorporate these comments.
Even though the Committee allowed CRI an opportunity to comply after consultation, CRI again
failed to comply with the terms of the Agreement. Consequently, the Committee unanimously
decided to terminate the Agreement. CRI alleges that the District and the Central Contra Costa
Cities have failed to pay all sums due and owing under the Agreement. CRI claims that a
principal sum of $64,053.20, plus interest, is owed under the Agreement. The total Agreement
amount is $128,000. The District's portion of the total Agreement is $37,232. CRI has been
paid $18,277.60 for the work completed for the District.
The staff recommends that the claim be denied.
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the claim from CalRecovery Incorporated alleging that the District
failed to comply with Agreement No. C0051 A and refer to staff for further action as needed.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
V0Lc..
1302A-7/91
BA
PM
KLA
C:\WP51 \Bddir\CaIRecov.PP