The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 01-30-92 ~ centr;';g~:~g~~~R~~~b~s District PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD Jci~TI~~yF30, 1992 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR a. SUBJECT AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 92-2 (MARTINEZ) TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT DATE January 22, 1992 TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT ANNEXAllON FOR PROCESSING SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT/DIV. Engineering Dept.llnfrastructure Division Parcel No. Area Owner/Address Parcel No. & Acreage Remarks Lead Agency 92-2 Martinez (10A6) Rodney Faulkner, et ux 550 Brackman Lane Martinez CA 94553 Existing house with a failing septic system; must connect to the public sewer system. Project is exempt from CEQA. CCCSD RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 92-2 to be included in a future formal annexation. 1302A-9/85 0 H JSM DtvU ~"RAB REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION NJ( INITIATING DEPT/DIV. PROPOSED ANNEXATION P .A. 92-2 ~ Centrr. ;g~~~ g~~~R~~~ba~s District PAGE 1 OF 4 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF January 30, 1992 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR b. SUBJECT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORMALLY ANNEX 1 0 SEPARATE AREAS UNDER THE TITLE OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION 120 DATE January 22, 1992 TYPE OF ACTION INITIATE ANNEXA 1lON D.A. 120 SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer INITIA TING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Department/Infrastructure Div ISSUE: The District has received petitions for annexation for 10 parcels as shown on the attached tabulation and maps. It is appropriate to initiate formal annexation proceedings with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). BACKGROUND: LAFCO has requested that the District submit no more than 10 separate areas under anyone proceeding to avoid overloading their schedule. The subject areas are generally located in Alamo, Danville, and Orinda. LAFCO has indicated that they may add adjoining unannexed parcels to the separate areas we submit to eliminate islands or straighten boundary lines. The District will have to hold a public hearing to consider annexation of any parcel added by LAFCO. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution of Application for the annexation of properties to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District under District Annexation 120. INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. ~( fill 1J/4J REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 DH JSM l''RAB -.---..-. ----.-.--...----.-.... ---'---'-'" .--.-----.--.-----,-------.---...-.--....- --....-..----..... DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 120 Tabulation of Parcels P.A. No. Owner Address Date Approved Lead & Area Parcel No. & Acreage by Board and Remarks Agency 1 89-1 3 J. E. Cleymaet, et ux May 4, 1989 CCCSD Orinda 37 Los Altos Road Orinda CA 94563 Notice of Exemption by 263-040-003 (1.15 AC) CCCSD 2 89-17 Lawrence B. Emery May 18, 1989 CCCSD Alamo 2769 Danville Blvd. Alamo CA 94507 Notice of Exemption by 191-030-019 (0.41 AC) CCCSD 3 89-25 Richard A. Cordes November 1, 1 989 CCCSD Alamo 1490 Cedar Lane Alamo CA 94507 Notice of Exemption by 192-030-049 (0.38 AC) CCCSD 4 90-5 Errol J. Davidson April 5, 1990 CCCSD Alamo 1331 Danville Blvd. Alamo CA 94507 Notice of Exemption by 198-040-009 (0.5 AC) CCCSD 5 90-2 Marvin B. Starr, et ux February 15, 1990 CCCSD Alamo 160 Patricia Lane Alamo CA 94507 Notice of Exemption by 198-050-010 (0.49 AC) CCCSD 6 90-6 W. Dinsmore April 5, 1990 CCCSD Alamo 271 South Avenue Alamo CA 94507 Notice of Exemption by 198-093-008 (0.5 AC) CCCSD 7 89-28 J. R. Dewar November 16, 1989 CCCSD Alamo 193 Hemme Avenue Alamo CA 94507 Notice of Exemption by 198-131-020 (0.50 AC) CCCSD 8 90-1 0 Syl and Karen Enea July 1 2, 1 990 CCCSD Danville 1450 Enea Circle, Suite 400 Concord CA 94520 Notice of Exemption by 196-050-012 (0.864 AC) CCCSD 9 91-9 Jodene L. Goude September 5, 1991 CCCSD Danville 145 EI Dorado Avenue Danville CA 94526 Notice of Exemption by 208-033-011 (0.34 AC) CCCSD 10 90-11 Wayne T. Forsell, et ux July 12, 1990 CCCSD Danville 122 Sonora Avenue Danville CA 94526 Notice of Exemption by 208-042-005 (0.45 AC) CCCSD "I 'C). y , /' r~-~ " CENTRAL CC oRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT DISTRICT ANNEXATION 120 -r'.- rr::'--. , , 2, \. g 3-- ;; <5 ~, <.;;,", >, " 'l: ,1,' "" , ~--- ,,\ '.~",~~ ' / r Bear . tr~ek- ,"'I ! ._-<~- p~ ..... \~. . : :-~ : ~,-'''' ~ 2(~;' -4., ~ '".' -,~~~"~~~ --:::t.;. ~J '":' :.::~)__' t:l~"'; , .~.' of'.\ , ' , <e~ A" .:; f' O~'/' , . .,... 'j "~ , ----," 120 .~'. ." ..-~/ \ ) \ /- ;: o ....... . ........ . ~'+- .......... C~e , , . \ . ,..... ......, ., . 5 ' . pnr:9s ., ., . ...... - :,~ J~ PAGE 1 OF 1 BOARD MEETING OF NO. January 30, 1992 3. CONSENT CALENDAR c. DATE SUBJECT CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS FROM THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN Januar 21, 1992 TYPE OF ACTION CONSIDER EMERGENCY WITHDRAWAL SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPTJOIV. Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer Administrative/Finance & Accounting ISSUE: Authorization by the Board of Directors is required for emergency withdrawal of funds from the Deferred Compensation Plan. BACKGROUND: Randy W. Covey, Maintenance Technician III, has requested an emergency withdrawal from the Deferred Compensation Plan based on extreme financial hardship caused by a medical disability. The Deferred Compensation Plan Advisory Committee has reviewed the request and determined that it meets the requirements for emergency withdrawal in the amount of $7,700. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request by Randy W. Covey for an emergency withdrawal of $ 7,700. from the Deferred Compensation Plan, as recommended by the Deferred Compensation Plan Advisory Committee. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-7/91 .,;J-~ INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. WNF PM --------------,-------- ---- -------- ----------,--------------------------.----- ~ Centr\.1 ~d~"1k Contra Costa Sanitar. District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING 3~nuary 30, 1992 SUBJECT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REGISTRATION DIFFERENTIAL FOR ANDREW ANTKOWIAK, ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED BY Curtis Swanson, Principal Engineer PAGE 1 OF 1 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR d. DATE January 24, 1 992 TYPE OF ACTION PERSONNEL INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Department/Infrastructure Div. ISSUE: Payment of a registration differential requires approval by the Board of Directors. BACKGROUND: Andrew Antkowiak is an Assistant Engineer in the Engineering Department/Infrastructure Division. This classification does not require registration as a professional engineer. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the District and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Employees' Association, Public Employees' Local No.1, provides for payment of a registration differential for employees who achieve registration while employed by the District in a position not requiring such registration. Mr. Antkowiak has passed the California Engineering Registration Examination and is now a registered Civil Engineer. Mr. Antkowiak has consistently demonstrated an ability to assist in the accomplishment of District activities requiring a professional level of skills and experience normally expected of a registered engineer. Mr. Antkowiak was notified of his successful completion of registration requirements in a letter dated December 20, 1991. RECOMMENDATION: Grant Andrew Antkowiak a 5-percent salary increase effective January 13, 1992, for professional registration differential provided for in the MOU. INITIATING~T./DIV. f11B 1302A-9/85 CWS JSM RAB DR ..-.-.---....--.-T---........ ....... .-..-...-------..--r-.. PAGE 1 OF 1 SUBJECT NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR e. DATE January 17, 1992 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REGISTRATION DIFFERENTIAL FOR B. THOMAS GODSEY, ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN THE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT TYPE OF ACTION PERSONNEL SUBMITTED BY BA T. THAN, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER INITIATING DEPT./DIV. COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS ISSUE: Payment of a registration differential requires approval by the Board of Directors. BACKGROUND: B. Thomas Godsey is an Assistant Engineer in the Collection System Operations Department Collection System Programs Section. This classification does not require registration as a professional engineer. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the District and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Employees' Association, Public Employees' Local No.1, provides for the payment of a registration differential for employees who achieve registration while employed by the District in a position not requiring such registration. B. Thomas Godsey has passed the California Engineering Registration Examination and is now a registered Civil Engineer. Mr. Godsey has consistently demonstrated an ability to assist in the accomplishment of District activities requiring a professional level of skills and experience normally expected of a registered engineer. Mr. Godsey was notified of his successful completion of registration requirements in a letter dated December 20, 1991. RECOMMENDATION: Grant B. Thomas Godsey a 5-percent salary increase effective December 20, 1991, for professional registration differential provided for in the MOU. INIT~~G DEB~T 1302A-7/91 -----,---------------.--,------- .-..--..--....-.-..----.--.......-.....-.----............ ........--.--.....- -...------- PAGE 1 OF 1 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR f.. SUBJECT DATE January 24, 1992 AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF CONFINED SPACE ENTRY SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF $4,500 FROM THE 1991/92 EQUIPMENT BUDGET CONTINGENCY TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE SAFETY EQUIPMENT PURCHASE SUBMITTED BY JOHN LARSON, MANAGER INITIATING DEPT./DIV. COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS ISSUE: Board authorization is needed to purchase equipment items from the Equipment Budget Contingency when the cost exceeds $2,000. BACKGROUND: Manholes and other underground collection system structures, known cOllectively as "confined spaces," represent a significant hazard to the safety of collection system workers due to the potential for explosive gases and toxic gases to accumulate, and for oxygen to be depleted. Rigorous safety precautions, which are required by CaIOSHA, must be taken to enter confined spaces. They include continuous atmospheric testing and the employment of self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) for entry and/or emergency rescue. A District-wide inspection of all safety equipment was performed in accordance with the Cal- OSHA Injury Illness Prevention Program (IIPP). Based on that inspection, the confined space entry equipment currently in use by CSO needs to be upgraded. Specifically, one replacement 30 minute SCBA and one four-range, digital gas monitor are needed immediately to ensure worker safety. The SCBA will replace a 1 5 minute unit that is not suitable for rescue service due to its limited duration and the digital gas monitor will allow effective calibration of each sensor (the current gas monitors do not have digital readouts for toxic or explosive gases). The total cost of both equipment items is $4,500. It would be in the best interest of the District to purchase this safety equipment now to comply with the basic requirements for confined space operations. The remainder of the confined space entry equipment that is required will be requested as part of the 1992/93 Equipment Budget. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the purchase of one self contained breathing apparatus and one gas monitor from the 1 991/92 Equipment Budget Contingency. " RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON < '-'_._--'""--_.'--~-___---r--_K__,__._----~"..__._m._'_'-,-.-....---.----,,--..--~--------."'-~....-,.<.'..-.~.-,-.---.,----.,..--- PAGE 1 OF 2 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR g. ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE PURCHASE OF PHASE II EQUIPMENT FOR THE WELLNESS PROGRAM DATE Januar 27 1992 TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT REPORT SUBMITTED BY Bonnie Allen, for District Wellness Program Committee INITIATING DEPTJDIV. Administrative/Risk Management ISSUE: This position paper is to advise the Board of Directors of the purchase of the Phase II equipment for the District Wellness Program. BACKGROUND: On March 19, 1990, the Board of Directors approved a District Wellness Program with the objectives of encouraging employee healthy lifestyles, reducing injuries, and containing health care costs. One phase of the program was to establish exercise facilities at both the CSO and the Treatment Plant. An amount of $25,000 was included in the 1990-91 equipment budget; the Board approved the purchase of the first increment of equipment on February 21, 1 991. The second increment of $25,000 for equipment was approved in the 1991-92 equipment budget. The Wellness Program is beginning its second year and is enjoying a high level of employee participation. The success of the program is primarily due to the efforts of the Wellness Committee, currently chaired by John Mercurio, Administrative Analyst, with representatives from all sections of the District working with the consultant, Barbara Pelletreau, of the John Muir Medical Center. After two years' experience the Committee will report to the Board on the progress made against the objectives originally set for the Wellness Program. Over the past several months, the Wellness Committee surveyed the exercise equipment usage, assessed the needs of participants, and developed recommendations of additional equipment for each facility. Attached is the proposed list of equipment to be purchased from the 1991-92 equipment budget at a cost of $23,818. RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report and, if desired, provide input to staff. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION v'" ;; PM INITIATING DEPTJDIV. 1302A-7/91 B .....---.--.------,-----........ .---......-.--.,.. ...--..........-.................. \ ". .,-,_.,.~..-,-,---_..~.__.."-~--_._-".._'.._-",.._---'-..-. ,-~_._.~_._._---~._._'...-,._--- Page 2 of 2 REQUESTED EQUIPMENT PURCHASE For Exercise Facilities at Walnut Creek and Martinez Reauested Eauioment: Quantitv Cardiovascular Eauioment Stationary Bicycle - Model: Precor S.Ssp, (with power drive) 2 Treadmill - Model: Precor 9.5 Electronic, (with handrail kit) 2 Weiaht Eauioment Freestanding Vertical Knee Raise/Vertical Knee Raise Deep Station - Model: Catalina 1 Hyperextension/Abdominal Crunch Bench - Model: Catalina 2 Pacific Fitness Machine - Model: Zuma 1 Flat/Incline/Decline Bench - Model: Catalina 1 Dumbbells (10 various weights) 1 Dumbbell Rack 1 Single Handle, Row Attachment, & Quick Clips 1 Other Eauioment Steps 10 Height/Weight Scale 1 VCR/TV 2 Single Hand Weights (sets) 6 Jump Ropes 2 1991-92 Budget Total (including sales tax) $23,818 Note: Equipment will be distributed per Committee recommendations between both locations. Revised 1/22/92 C:\WP51 \BdDir\EqpmtBud.Cht PAGE 1 OF 35 January NO. 4. HEARINGS a. DATE January 27, 1992 TYPE OF ACTION CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPTJDIV. Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer Ad m i nistrative/Fina nce ISSUE: Public hearings will be cpnducted on January 30, 1992 to consider the applications for rate adjustments submitted by two of the three refuse collection companies franchised by the District. Following the public hearings, the refuse collection rates to be effective January 1, 1992 are scheduled to be established by the Board of Directors. BACKGROUND: Applications for refuse collection rate adjustments effective January 1, 1992 were submitted by Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. District staff analyses of the rate applications have been provided to the Board of Directors, the cities of Lafayette and Orinda, the towns of Danville and Moraga, and the refuse collectors. Written or public comments from the city and town councils have been requested for the Board's consideration during the public hearings. Written comments from the Town of Danville, and cities of Lafayette and Orinda have been received for the Board's consideration and are provided as Attachments I, II, and III, respectively. The staff analyses of the rate applications were presented at a Board Workshop on January 9, 1992. The refuse collectors were provided an opportunity to address the Board with comments related to the staff analyses. Each of the refuse collectors addressed a number of issues at the Board Workshop, which have subsequently been summarized in written form in letters to the Board of Directors. The letter from Valley Waste Management dated January 17, 1992 is provided on Attachment IV; the letter from Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. dated January 10, 1992 is provided on Attachment X. The issues raised by the refuse collectors are reviewed in the following sections in the order presented in their letters. Vallev Waste Manaaement I. Do Not Implement the Staff-computed Rate Decrease for 1992 The refuse collector filed a rate application for 1992 in which a 2.18 percent rate decrease was computed, but applied for the continuation of the existing rates. The staff analysis determined a rate decrease of 3.98 percent. In its January 17, 1992 letter, the refuse collector requests that the existing rates not be decreased. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPTiDIV. ( - 1302A-7/91 WF PM --.-----..-..-.T-.-. ........---.....-..,.. SUBJECT CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE COLLECTION RATE ADJUSTMENTS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., AND TO ESTABLISH REFUSE Y iij:llllllillji::illlililiij PAGE DATE 2 OF 35 January 27, 1992 District staff recommends that the rate decrease be implemented. If not implemented, the forecasted revenues and expenses for 1992 presumes that the refuse collector will realize excess operating income. II. Issues Related to the Automated Collection Program The refuse collector has raised the following questions and issues related to the implementation of the automated residential curbside collection and separate yard waste collection program: A. . Clarification is sought as to whether the automated program is to be District-wide, including the City of Lafayette. B. Concern is expressed regarding the eight year depreciation period used for the capital equipment, in view of the base period of the franchise agreement expiring in 1996. C. The refuse collector contends that the Two-Year Treasury Note yield used to calculate the Capital Use Charge is not equivalent to the interest paid on borrowed funds and is too low. District staff recommends the following in addressing the foregoing issues: . The automated program is recommended to be implemented District-wide, including the City of Lafayette. The rate decrement of $1.45 per month per household described in the staff analysis is based on District-wide implementation. The computation of the $1.45 rate decrement is shown on Attachment VIII. . The franchise agreement is for a period of ten years from March 1, 1986 to February 28, 1996, with an option for five additional years exercisable at the discretion of the Board of Directors. If the Board is to take action regarding the option to extend, such action must be taken and notice given to the refuse collector of such action prior to March 1, 1994. District staff recommends that the District commit to a procedure whereby, if the option to extend the franchise is not exercised by March 1, 1994, a determination of the difference between the market value and net book value of the capital equipment be projected as of February 28, 1996, and the 1995 collection rates adjusted for the projected loss, if any. The market value would include the transfer value to any other Waste Management operation. 13028-7/91 "_.__I'_"__'__.___~'____'_'""U'~__'~'__"_"~'____'_ .,'".. 1'"'.--.-..--.".<'----.-.-.-m--'----"--__.___'~...._~_..____._,..~_____~,,_" __..____ SUBJECT I:::IIIIIIIIIIII:!IIIIII!III CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE COLLECTION RATE ADJUSTMENTS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., AND TO ESTABLISH REFUSE RY 1 1 92 PAGE DATE 3 OF 35 January 27, 1 992 . In calculating the Capital Use Charge in the 1 990-1 991 rate-setting period, the yield for a Two-Year Treasury Note was established as the interest rate which would be applied to the Net Tangible Fixed Assets. The 1990 Position Paper describes the rate as follows: "This rate is not proposed on the basis of the cost of borrowed capital. Rather, it is proposed as a realistic rate of income which the Franchisee could expect to realize from an alternative secure investment." III. Consider Increasing the Refuse Collector's Profit The refuse collector asserts that the 1991 balancing account value of $118,000 calculated in the staff analysis is overstated by $81,500. This amount is calculated by the refuse collector to be composed of $61,500, which is the portion of $123,000 of excess operating income attributable to the period January 1, 1991 through June 30, 1 991, and franchise fees paid in the 1 990-1 991 rate year which exceeded the amount forecasted by $20,000. The $123,000 of excess operating income for 1990-1991 includes the $20,000 of higher than forecasted franchise fees paid to the District. The refuse collector also contends that the Profit Per Residential Customer Equivalent Unit used in calculating Allowable Profit should be based on a Residential Customer Equivalent Unit number which is incremented by 14,686 residential recycling customers; if separate yard waste collection is implemented as a part of the automated collection program, it is contended by the refuse collector that the customer base should additionally be increased by the number of customers receiving this service. District staff believes that no adjustment to the 1 991 balancing account amount of $118,000 is required. The $123,000 of excess operating income for 1990-1991, which includes the $20,000 of higher franchise fees paid, was proposed as the balancing account value, if the balancing account were implemented in the 1991-1992 rate-setting. The Board declined to implement the balancing account, and wished to consider the concept anew in the next rate-setting process. The refuse collector has interpreted the Board's action as approving an additional $123,000 during the 1991-1992 rate process. The staff computation of Allowable Profit and the Capital Use Charge is based on the method approved by the Board of Directors and implemented in the 1990-1991 rate- setting year. Staff recommends that the computation be consistently determined and, short of adjusting one or more of the two modification factors to a value other than 1 .00, that the request for increasing the Allowable Profit be denied. 13026-7/91 -~~'_."'-""-_.'"-'-~'---~'"-r"-'"'"''.~"'-'-''-'--''''' ..-----'"--.....-"-.-..----.-..-r"~. ...~.... . . ....-----*-..,-..,.---.-..--...'-.~-.y.,-".-.------..<---.----.--~..----_._---------_..- SUBJECT CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE COLLECTION RATE ADJUSTMENTS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., AND TO ESTABLISH REFUSE Y 1 1 11::11111111111111:111111111 PAGE DATE 4 OF 35 January 27, 1 992 IV. Intercompany Charges The refuse collector contends that the chart prepared by staff in summarizing amounts provided by the refuse collector to indicate expense reductions achieved through corporate services understates the expense reduction. The understatement is due to the insurance expense of the predecessor company's 1987 base year insurance expense not being adjusted for inflation, nor for changes in the level of service activity. District staff has revised the summary by incrementing the 1987 insurance expense by the annual percentage increase in total number of customers to provide for growth in the refuse collector's operation. Insurance premiums have been stable during the intervening years. The revised summary is presented on Attachment IX. V. General Comments A. The refuse collector recommends eliminating the separate amount on the customers' statement for the Acme Transfer Station Fee because it causes confusion. District staff would not disagree with this recommendation. B. The refuse collector requests changing from quarterly to bimonthly billing for residential customers. The additional expense for billing six times instead of four times per year would be $51,000, or $1.72 per customer annually. The effect of this change on the percentage increase in revenue requirement and the resultant collection rates are presented on Attachments V, VI, and VII. District staff would not disagree with this request. Orinda-Moraaa DisDosal Service. Inc. I. Changes Requested to Staff Analysis A. It Was Proposed to Negate the Staff Adjustment Reducing Meals, Travel and Entertainment by $6,000. The refuse collector asserts that the staff adjustment reducing the $27,000 forecasted in 1992 for Meals, Travel and Entertainment by $6,000 should be rescinded because it was arbitrary. 13028-7/91 .-.--.------T---..--......-....----....--....-.,--...--...-------.....-........--. --'--. SUBJECT l:j:IIIIIIIIII:I::IIIIIIII: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE COLLECTION RATE ADJUSTMENTS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL PAGE DATE 5 OF35 COLLECTION RATES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1992 The staff adjustment was based on a review of the travel expenses forecasted for the two stockholders, D. Lomow and R. Sliepka. Because of D. Lomow's ownership interests in refuse collection companies in Idaho and Chico, California, and R. Sliepka's residence in Southern California, travel expenses for this refuse collector are higher than usual for a company of its size. The staff recommends that the $6,000 adjustment be retained. B. It Was Proposed to Negate $20,000 of the $34,000 Staff Adjustment Reducing Outside Professional Fees In the staff analysis, Outside Professional Fees forecasted for 1992 were reduced by $34,000 from $72,000 to $38,000. The refuse collector asserts that $20,000 of the $34,000 reduction should be rescinded to provide for potential legal expenses which may be incurred to defend against the Acme Landfill Corporation lawsuit. As the recently filed lawsuit against the County of Contra Costa, cities and other franchising entities, refuse collectors, and other depositors of waste involves the liability for closure costs, which issue has been under review for some time between the County and franchising jurisdictions, it is unlikely that direct legal expenses will be incurred by the refuse collector; staff recommends that the $20,000 provision for legal expenses be denied, but that if a mid-year rate adjustment in 1992 is required because of a disposal fee adjustment or closure cost assessment, a further determination of the likelihood for incurring legal expenses by the refuse collector be made. C. It Was Requested That Allowable Profit or Capital Use Charge be Increased by $48,000 The refuse collector requests consideration for an additional $48,000 in Allowable Profit or in the Capital Use Charge. The staff computation of Allowable Profit and the Capital Use Charge is based on the method approved by the Board of Directors and implemented in the 1 990-1 991 rate-setting year. Staff recommends that the computation be consistently determined and, short of adjusting one or more of the two modification factors to a value other than 1 .00, that the request for an additional $48,000 in Allowable Profit or Capital Use Charge be denied. 1302B-7/91 - , -----,-------------------.----.---------.---- SUBJECT CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE COLLECTION RATE ADJUSTMENTS SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., AND TO ESTABLISH REFUSE COLLECTION RATES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1 992 ................................................................................... ................................................................................. 11111111111111111::111111111111 PAGE 6 OF 35 DATE January 27, 1992 I. Request for a Rate Increase of 14.71 Percent for Each of the Next Two Years The refuse collector proposes that the Board grant a rate increase of 14.71 percent for 1 992 and another 14.71 percent increase for 1993. If the two-year rate increase were granted, the refuse collector would waive any rate adjustment until 1994, except for changes in disposal fees, level or types of service, and franchise fees. The District staff recommends that the collection rates continue to be established for the single 1992 calendar year. It would be inappropriate to commit to a high rate increase for two years, in view of the likelihood that the disposal fee at the Acme Transfer Station would be decreased when the in-county landfill is operational in 1992. III. Request to Change Residential Billing Frequency and to Delay Implementation of Fully Uniform Rates A. Change From Quarterly to Bimonthly Billing The refuse collector requests that the current quarterly billing for residential customers be changed to a bimonthly billing. The additional expense for billing six times instead of four times per year would be $18,000, or $1.72 per customer annually. The effect of this change on the percentage increase in revenue requirement and the resultant collection rates are presented on Attachments XI, XII, and XIII. District staff would not disagree with this request. B. Delay Implementation of the Third and Final Year of Conversion to Uniform Rates The refuse collector requests a delay in the implementation of the third and final year of the three-year phased program to uniform residential collection rates. District staff recommends the scheduled implementation of the conversion to fully uniform rates in 1992. Notices of the public hearings were published in the Contra Costa Times and San Ramon Valley Times on January 1 and January 20, 1992, in the Tri Valley Herald on January 3 and January 20, 1992 and in the Contra Costa Sun on January 1 and January 22, 1992; the notices will also be published in the four newspapers on January 29, 1992. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearings on January 30, 1992 to consider the applications for refuse collection rate adjustments submitted by Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., and establish their refuse collection rates effective January 1, 1992. 13028-7/91 --.--..-------r---.---.-.----'^--.--~.---_.,......_.,._----'~----,..------.-----~-,~- ATTACHMENT I January 22, 1992 Mr. Parke Boneysteele, President and Members of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. ~ ~ On behalf of the Danville Town Council, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the rate proposal issues contained in Valley Waste Management's (VWM) rate application that you will consider at your January 30 Public Hearing. As you know, the current franchise agreement expires in February, 1996, unless Central San exercises its option to extend the contract another five years. The Danville Town Council plans to examine the issue of whether and when the Town should take control of the franchise. As the Council may ultimately decide to take control of the franchise in four years (1996), we strongly believe that it is inappropriate for this, or any decision, to be made based on the assumption that the agreement will be extended. The Central San staff analysis ofVWM's rate application assumes that the existing contract will be extended beyond 1996 and recommends that the capital equipment to support automated collection be depreciated over an eight year period - five years beyond the existing agreement. We strongly oppose the use of the assumption that the agreement will be extended. We support the establishment of the 1992 rates based on the remaining time on the existing agreement. The Danville Town Council realizes that depreciating the equipment over fewer years will result in smaller savings to the rate payers, but will preserve the Town's options with regard to any decision that may be reached on taking over the franchise. We request that the impact of spreading the depreciation costs over five years be calculated by Central San staff, and that we be provided with information on the impact "balloon" or one-time cost that ratepayers would experience in the event that the Board elects to base depreciation on an eight-year period and Danville does take over the franchise at the end of the current agreement. This is the most significant area of concern in the current rate app~ication. Outlined below is a summary of our other concerns and/or positions on the issues to be considered. 510 La Gonda Way . Danville, California 94526-1740 (510) 82~337 ,-- Mr. Boneysteele Page 2 VWM's 1992 Rate Application I. Closure and Post Closure Assessments for Acme Landfill Valley Waste has included $407,000 of closure cost assessments for January 1, 1992 - December 31, 1992. We support your staff recommendation that this cost be excluded at this time. However, we differ with the staff recommendation that the cost should be addressed at mid-year, should it become a reality. As a philosophical matter, we would prefer that Danville ratepayers experience lower garbage collection rates for as long as possible and that the number of increases be kept to a minimum. Our residents are EXTREMELY unhappy with the rates, and the dissatisfaction is exacerbated with each increase. Should these costs become a reality, the Council feels that they should be addressed in the rate review for calendar year 1993. II. Transfer Station Fee Increase On December 9, 1991, the County approved a 10.1 percent increase in the fee, taking it to $65.69. Although the disposal fee at Acme was increased by the Board of Supervisors just last month, the County Solid Waste Manager has recommended that the Board of Supervisors consider a further adjustment in the tip fee based on an application to be filed (by Acme) by March 1, 1992. We agree with the Central San staff recommendation that the current rates should not include any further costs. The fee change cannot reasonably be calculated, as a rate application has not been submitted. As above, should the increase become a reality, we prefer that the increase be reviewed as part of the 1993 rate review in order to minimize the number of rate increases that residents must experience. III. Inter-Company Charges As recommended by Central San's staff, we support allowing the $250,000 claimed for inter-company charges, with the condition that Valley Waste Management be required to provide appropri~te justification for the a..-nount claimed. IV. Town-wide Implementation of Automated Pick-up With the successful completion of the automated pick-up pilot program, the economic soundness and productivity gains of automated collection were confirmed. We were pleased to have been the pilot community, and are excited that our rate payers will in fact realize savings from the program. It is our understanding that the $657,000, reduction in VWM's operating expenses will result in an average monthly saving of $1.95 per household. We understand and accept that because of the five-month lead time required for delivery of the automated collections vehicles and yard-waste containers, only part of the $657,000 will be realized in 1992 (averaging $1.45 in 1992). The rate decrease would be applied Mr. Clausen Page 3 VWM's 1992 Rate Application effective January 1, 1992 for the 7,350 accounts in the pilot program, who already have automated collection, and phased-in to the balance of the customer base July - September 1992 on a route-by-route, or neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. v. Allowable Profit With regard to allowable profit, the Town Council defers to your Board, and accepts whatever modification factors the Board selects. You and your staff have developed what we believe is a reasonable and objective system to evaluate Valley Waste on their performance. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on these issues. Sincerely, ~~~ytV Beverly Lane Mayor cc: Town Council George A Sipel Caluha Barnes Paul Morsen Walt Funasaki ATTACHMENT II Uf:A F -- J DRAFT LETTER, AS FINAL COPY NOT AVAILABLE AS OF JANUARY 28,1992. FINAL LETTER TO BE AVAILABLE BY JANUARY 30, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING. January 28, 1992 Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez CA 94553 Dear Members of the Board: The City Council of the City of Lafayette has reviewed and discussed the CCCSD staff response to the Valley Waste Management Rate Adjustment application and offers the following comments: * The City supports the staff recommendation of a reduction in collection rates of 2.18% * The City opposes the extension of the franchise agreement for five years and tbe proposed reduction in the depreciation period from 8 years to 5 years if the francbise extension is not approved. The City believes that drop box rates should allow for full cost recovery, inCluding allocated profit and all other indirect items. The City strongly believes that intercompany charges, in the absence of supporting documeptation that shows services rendered by the partner company and the standard cost (per hour, per unit, etc.) of delivery for that service, should be denied in total. We request that substantial justification for the continued increase in General and Administrative costs (now over 20% of the total costs) be obtained. Short-term alternatives to the current rate setting process must be explored immediately. While Valley Waste Management clearly has the ability to substantially reduce costs through alternative disposal programs, they have not economic incentive to do so. While Valley Waste and Waste Management Inc. have valuable expertise to share in compliance efforts re: AB939, no efforts are being made to tap that expertise. .. . . III --------------------,-----------.------------------.-------_._._- --.--- JAN 28 '92 12:24 TO 6767211 FROM CITY OF LAFAYETTE T-851 P.02 * The cover letter to Bob Adams from Paul Morsen states that "the central issues in this rate.setting process involve escalating disposal fees, the Acme Landfill closure and post-closure assessment, and full-scale implementation of automated residential collection service:' OUr Council has gone on record as being opposed to making the automated service mandatory or raising rates to those who choose not to use it. Lafayette residents spend over $3,000,000 per year on garbage collection, and the per-unit rates are as much as twice those in neighboring cities. We encourage you to focus on the reasons behind the recent escalation in collection and disposal costs. While we recognize the difficulties inherent in rate setting based on costs analysis, we recommend strongly that the CCCSD Governing Board devote resources during 1992 to analyzed the operating efficiency of Valley Waste Management's operation relative to other lower-cost garbage collection operation in the general area. We thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Donald Tatzin Mayor DK:ks - --.-------,---.----------.-------......-.--.--...-----.-.----. ATTACH~1ENT I I I ..- ORINDR 26 orinda way . orinda . california 94563 · 510. 254-3900 January 17, 1992 Parke L. Boneysteele, President Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Boneysteele: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the pending rate application submitted to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by Orinda/Moraga Dispose-All. The orinda City council took this matter under consideration and forwards the following comments on the application. First, we do not have any comment on the closure cost assessment. Second, we wish to point out, and are sure that Board recognizes that the rates for refuse collection and disposal in Orinda are among the highest in the Bay Area. We understand that topography, service, disposal costs and the increasing regulatory environment contribute to rising rates. However, knowing that refuse disposal costs will continue to have upward pressure, we believe that the Board should exercise its authority to prevent rates from increasing beyond justifiable costs and a reasonable rate of return. We urge you to continue to seek ways to minimize the rate increase. Third, we have reviewed the rate increase proposal and the analysis by staff, and we want to indicate 'our support for the staff recommendation. We cannot express support for a rate increase in excess of the staff recommendations. Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this matter. ~. Richa Mayor '- . Heggie RGH/TS:nh Printed on Recvcled Paper ATTACHMENT IV Valley Waste Management 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 20 , P.O. Box 4007 Walnut Creek, California 94596 510/935-8900 IQ \eJ A Waste Management Company January 17, 1992 Honorable Parke Boneysteele, President and Members of the Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Dear President Boneysteele and Board Members, Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on some of the issues in our 1992 Rate Application. Summarized below are the items Valley Waste Management presented at your work session. 1. .00 not adjust regular rates this calendar year. . This is the Board's first year with the balance account. Normal inflation may eliminate the surplus in the balance account by year's end, resulting in a general rate increase for 1993. . A rate decrease will 'still occur if the Board approves automated service. . Our automated service proposal assumes a 35% diversion of yard waste. If this is not achieved, total disposal costs will be higher causing the balance account to deplete sooner. By not adjusting regular rates this year, it will provide an extra cushion during the transition to automated service. We recommend that the Board approve a rate decrease only for customers who will come on-line with automated service this calendar year. 0 2. Clarify Automated Service and approve with changes In depreciation, capital use charge, and a Franchise extension. . It is not clear whether the District intends to include Lafayette in the automated program. We made two proposals with different savings: one including Lafayette and one excluding Lafayette. They are distinctly different. If Lafayette is included, there is substantially more capital involved and the rate decrease will be smaller. . Depreciation - Staff has calculated depreciation over eight years. Our Franchise will have only four years remaining once the program is implemented. We are at risk for $1,000,000 of unused capital. a division of SAWDCO . _____.__.____--,.._____._0______,... ......_....__._..__.u_.____.._........... . Honorable Parke Boneysteele. President and Members of the Board of Directors January 17. 1992 Page 2 ~ ~ A Waste Management Company If the District wants to use eight year depreciation over the useful life of the equipment. we recommend that the District: a. Exercise your option to extend our franchise for five years. or b. Indemnify Valley Waste Management if we cannot sell or transfer the equipment. As we have mentioned before. Waste Management is moving towards the WMS system. The automated service selected by the District is dated technology. In addition. five-year old equipment is expensive to maintain and will be difficult to transfer. Its primary use will be as spare equipment. The market is limited for this type of used equipment. . Capital use charge - currently Valley receives the average of the two-year T -Bill rate. This index is for investing. not borrowing. There is no incentive for us to borrow $4.5 million to implement the automated program and lose about 2 percentage points. or $90.000 annually. in the transadion. The eight-year depreciation with only four years remaining on our Franchise and the low capital use charge gives Waste Management no incentive to implement automated service. We recommend the Board exercise its option to extend our Franchise for five years. We also recommend the Board adopt the 1-10 year Corporate High Quality Bond Index for use in calculating the Capital Use Charge. 3. Consider Increasing our profit. . First we must establish the allowable profit for Calendar Year 1991. We believe profit is understated by S81.5OO. During the 1991-1992 rate hearings in July and August, 1991. the Board approved an additional amount of $123.000. This was due to efficiency gains and the fact that there was no balance account. In the staff calculation to convert to a calendar year from a fiscal year. 50 percent or $61.500 was eliminated. This amount should be included since it was approved by the Board in 1991. In addition. $20.000 of increased Honorable Parke Boneysteele, President and Members of the Board of Directors January 17, 1992 Page 3 ~ ~ A Waste Management Company Franchise fees paid to ceese in November 1990 need to be allowed recovery in this rate setting period. This amount was apparently overlooked by Staff. . We at Valley Waste Management have diligently worked to control our costs. We have no control over disposal or franchise fees. But the costs we can control have increased slightly less than inflation over the last four years (see attached Chart). . The work we perform today and in the Mure is more complex and more demanding. It deserves a higher profit margin. When the District first entered into a Franchise with Valley, and up .until a few years ago, things were simple: pick up the garbage, go to the dump. Today we touch our customers' lives twice. We send one truck to pick-up garbage, then a second one to pick up recyclables. With the advent of separate yard waste collection, we will touch their lives a third time. It takes a lot of time, effort, and care not to disturb our customers and to get the job done to their satisfaction. The profit Staff has used in determining the -Profit Per Residential Customer Equivalent Unit- base was from profits prior to Valley Waste Management's involvement with residential and commercial recycling services. Thus, for all the added capital and increased services currently provided, Valley is, in essence, performing those services for nothing. Valley requests that in computing the -Residential Customer Equivalent Unit- . a customer number of 44,057 be used, reflecting the additional 14,686 residential recycling customers we are now serving. This better reflects our current activity and realizes profit for those additional services. This computation translates to a 94% operating ratio. When separate yard waste collection is implemented, we would expect the customer base to increase to reflect the additional customers we serve. I .--------..--------....------..-...----...--.-.-- Honorable Parke Boneysteele. President and Members of the Board of Directors January 17. 1992 Page 4 IQ ~ A Waste Management Company Since 1987. Valley has invested $4.785,000 in capital. The Corporate borrowing rate has averaged approximately 2% above the interest rate used by Staff to compute the Capital Use Charge. This results in a current net deficit to Valley of $68.600 annually. We believe that controlling our costs. and providing three times the level of service that we did when profit margins were initially set. are grounds for increased profit. 4. Intercompany Charges . The Staff Report computes insurance cost savings in relation to the actual insurance cost incurred by Valley Disposal Service in 1987. We believe the 1987 insurance costs should be adjusted annually for inflation when computing the cost savings. In addition. Valley has added more people and equipment since 1987 due to the addition of residential and commercial recycling services. We believe the insurance savings in the Staff Report are understated. (Please see attached Schedules A and B.) Using the base year adjusted for inflation. the insurance savings for 1991 will be $359,800. Added to discounts, interest, and itemized Corporate . Services, a savings of $514.800 would be realized in 1991. We recommend the District use the new insurance base to calculate costs savings to the ratepayer and to approve our intercompany charge of $250.000 for 1992. 5. General . We agree with staff recommending a mid-year rate adjustment for disposal only. We would not file a complete rate application but would file only for rate relief for disposal. . If a general rate adjustment is approved. we recommend making it effective January 1. 1992. spreading it over 12 months in 1992. In the past, 12 months' rates were collected in 11 months due to the timing of rate approvals. The varying amounts on customer invoices has prompted numerous calls. This may be one of the factors for dissatisfaction when customers complete the District's Customer Satisfaction Survey. .,-.------ Honorable Parke Boneysteele. President and Members of the Board of Directors January 17. 1992 Page 5 ~ \eJ A Waste Management Company . We recommend the Board eliminate the line item on our invoice calling attention to the Acme Transfer Fee. We conducted two surveys after bills were sent out. The results indicated that 20% of our inquiries were related to this line item. This may also be a source of customer dissatisfaction. . We support the concept of bimonthly billing. However. there will be an additional cost for sending six invoices per year instead of four invoices per year. We estimate about $1.50 to $2.00 per customer per year. In summary, we request the Board to: 1. Hold general rates for the 1992 Calendar Year. 2. Approve automated service (clarify if Lafayette is included) exercise your option to extend the franchise five years allow for eight years depreciation use the 1-10 year Corporate High Quality Bond Index in computing the Capital Use Charge reduce rates to the automated customers as they a.re brought on-line 3. Adjust the 1991 allowable profit calculation by $81,500, and increase our 1992 profit by using a custo.mer number of 44.057 when computing the .residential Customer Equivalent Unit.. This number better reflects our current service to customers. 4. Approve Actual Intercompany Charges of $250,000 for 1992. based on the justification of insurance cost savings attached. 5. General allow mid-year rate review for disposal (only if needed) if a rate adjustment is approved. it should be effective 1/1/92 for the full 12 months eliminate the Acme Transfer Fee line item from our invoices approve bimonthly billing ..----------------,----------,.------------.-----.----------------------------- - . Honorable Parke Boneysteele, President and Members of the Board of Directors January 17, 1992 Page 6 IQ ~ A Waste Management Company Again, thank you for the chance to present our views at the Board workshop. We believe it will enhance the rate review process and benefit the District ratepayers. Sincerely . r"'i<~ ~1'0 I&.. Ronald J. Proto General Manager sl enc cc: Roger Dolan / Walter Funasaki Paul Morsen . --,---.--.----~-.----.~.._r_-.---.--'-------..--__,_.--.....--,-_._-- Schedule A Valley Waste Management Intercompany Charges 1iH 1Hi mQ 1W. Total Discounts On Capital Acquisitions $92,000 $93,000 $93,000 $140,000 $418,000 Capital Use Charge Savings Due To Discounts $0 0 16,000 20,000 36,000 Depreciation Expense Reduction Resulting From Purchase Discounts 12,000 24,000 36,000 54,000 126,000 Reduction in Insurance Expense (see attached Schedule B) 214,100 421,400 366,700 359,800 1,362,000 Additional Itemized . Services Provided ByWMI 0 0 0 81,000 81 ,000 TOTAL $226,100 $445,400 $418,700 $514,800 $1,605,000 CLAIMED $352,000 $0 $232,000 $311,000 $895,000 APPROVED $0 $0 $232,000 $250,000 $482,000 NET SAVINGS TO RATE STRUCTURE AFTER DEDUCTION OF CORPORATE CHARGES $226,100 $445.400 $186,700 $264,800 $1,123,000 ~ ._.___... ___._.__.____.__.._...._...'.....,......-____..___..._._..h .,_..___ ."~ ..~'~..'m-.~-.-....,._.."1'"'-.--.,_.--~'_.,.~._'---.-.,,--'--'-"-"-"'-^'--'~'" -"-_._,~,.,_.._. ."----.-.~ ... c ~ ~ .!a &c_ ca ca ca c 5 c: caCl)< :E.5C1) (1) (1) C 'tiS 'ta .S: ~ s.8l '-'tiS >'00 ~oo ~ ! !I ;\ 0) co 0) ..... . . ~I ;\ -g. - ..... ~ cf. ..... II) ~ -g. o 0) ~ cf. C\I ~ ~ o o II) in ..... 0) - - a: Q. )( CD 'C .E ~ i: 0.. ... CD E :s (I) C o o CDe (I) I c8. !.(I) ~o ~~ c- !"ii :s::;- (1)- c as - :s :at) CD< >F:' CD co ~O) m::. 8 - ~ ('I) ~ 8 ('I) g .-:, - - ~ cD .... ..-:, .... - o o lit co co C!, .... - 8 CQ f15 ..... C!, .... - a: o >- ~ 'C CD 1ii :s :e' < ... as ~ 31 as m . -'-'~_._."_.__.~-------'---r-----""~"'-'w'-'--'-'---~-"'r,.~~---.'----_._-- 8 .-:, - - o Cfi ~ g CD 8 g ..... o o - ~ o o II) t co --;;- c CD CDQ E ... &! asO i ~ :::i c CD e 1ii :s as (I) 3tC >-as CD :s =t) as< >- 8 ~ CQ ~ - - 8 CD m ('I) - ~ cD CQ ('I) - 8 'lit .... C\I ~ 8 ..... ~ .... C\I - - E c as (I) CD ... QEg' c CD ... "$ 5fo.. ascCD (/)aso ~ :::i i c CD ... as;;i ... as c :s:>- (I) :> CD .E.ca; -Q'" as:s8. Ee... c .c 0 <~o >- c as c.. E o o - c CDcf. Eo &11) asQ c c as';:; :::i! !i~ as c 3t ~ as!. - )( o CD (I) c E.2 em g'c a.!. ~E .!8 = (I) ... o CD -~ CD 0 -a- (l)Q QC ci: "$ CD as - (/).2 . Schedule B en co - .... o - CQ E ! Q e 0.. ~ C ! :s (I) .E ~ 8. ... o o o - C o ';:; as - C CD E CD D. E - o ... as t. ;; ... i! . . r ~ ...... ~ ~ ~ N C\I 0 .~ m i ~ m ...... "'-t; I~ Q. r-....~ ~ COO ., ~~ ~ ~~ ...... E >~ 8 z :...J(f) . ~ ~ 0 <(8 i ~~ 0 c.. ~ ~ O't 0 .....8 ...... .t + 81 ~ ~ ::E ~ gg 8 8 O't ...... ~ ffi ~ ~ T + ~ ...... .. ~ ...... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ...... ~ ...... ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... ~ ~ , ':Ell~ =- .Cl[:::>~X -..- ~x.:L.~~s:.-..:r~:::> > I- Z w :2 I U <t: l- I- <t: N en en ~ I- Z w ~ w ~ <I: Z <t :! w I- (I) <I: 3: > W ...J ...J <I: > ^~ Z<l:M 2va> I-cp..c <[VIE ...J c: Cp ;:)cpU UQ,Cp ><0- ...Jw 0 <I: C)w UC)C: c: .- I- I-="C~ Z.- c: -=:: w!:awo&:: -=:: >- ... 0 0&::_10 I-J:cpo (1)"'>0 ;:)g...e .., E 10 0.- -g <[!:acp wll)(ij I-~U <I::::J"C a:-cp u... c: II) =10 U Cp ... o u. ~~ ro Cp VI 0....... E :;] VI VI 0 OOU YUCP ... ... Cp "C :;] +oJ c: VI .=ro.Q VlVIU Cp Cp I "C 0) +oJ :;] ... VI _roo u.c:o.. EU VI Cp E o U VI Q,) VI a> VI C a> >< w a> .c ro ~ o <t: >. C+oJ ro VI 0.0 Eo.. 0"C U C . ro ... Q,) a> ... +oJ :;] C VI 0)0 .!: U "CO) :;] C U .- c"C -.2 , u .!Q >< VI w VI ~"Ct) ro c 0 Crou <t: II) _a>a> - 0) ... ro ... :::J +oJ ro VI (I).c:.Q ...uu a> a.. 0') ~ (0 M ~ .(/)- 0') ~ (0 , M ~ .(/)0 0') ~ (0 M ~ .(/)0 ~ Lt) ~ Lt) ~ Lt) ^ <t: V a> VI c Cp 0. >< W 0) C OJ >- .c: +oJ c o E OJ o (0 N l o 0 co M N 0') , M ~ a> 0) ... ro .c: U a> II) ::) ro .1: 0. ro U ..,..- o M 0') , M ~ o M 0') , M ~ ^ o Lt) N V VI a> 0) ... ro .c: U > c ro 0. E o U I ... a> +oJ c: +oJ U :;] "C a> o " o v VI +oJ VI o U a> ... :;] VI .Q U I +oJ VI o a.. "C c ro a> ... :::J II) o U "C "C <t: " M M V ~ o to co , M ~ o M 0') M ~ VI Cp II) c a> 0. >< W a> :0 ro ~ o <t: ro +oJ o I- N ~ (0 N ~ co N ~ (0 .~ - o ... a.. a> .c ro ~ o <t: ^ to ~ ~ v ^ to ~ ~ V ^ to ~ ~ v +oJ C :;] o u u <t: 0) c u c ~ ro OJ a> VI c a> 0. >< W "C c: ro a> :::J c a> > a> 0: ~ M to ..j ~ v " ~ , v ~ V N V -.i ~ a> +oJ ro 0: "C a> .!::: :;] 0- Q,) 0: a> :;] c Q,) > a> 0: ro +oJ o I- +oJ :;] o .c: .1: ~ a> :;] c a> > a> 0: "C a> Q,) +oJ VI II) ro ro a> u ... a> U CS.E u. ~ ~ ~ ^ to M ~ v .(/)- ^ Lt) 0') " V .(/)0 ^ Lt) v Lt) V .(/)0 a> VI ro a> ... U a> o a> :::::l c: a> > a> 0: "C Q,) .!::: :;] 0- a> 0: ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ '#. ~ "C a> .!::: :;] 0- Q,) 0: a> :;] c a> > Q,) 0: c a> II) co a> ... U a> o '5' <( Q) ..... co 0: :E ~ M 'l:I: Q) Cl co .0 ia ~ -- (/) Cl <( +oJ C Q,) U ... a> a.. 1- VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT FRANCHISE ZONES 2, 4 AND 5 SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES (Includes Bimonthly Billing Expense) Current Rates Staff CalpJted Requested Rates Unifonm Rates (-3.64%) Rates RESIDENTIAL SERVICE: 1 32-gal. can weekly * S 18.45 18.45 17.80 16.95 2 32-gal. can weekly * 34.20 34.20 32.95 33.90 3 32-gal. can weekly * 50.00 50.00 48.20 50.85 4 32-gal. can weekly * 65.80 65.80 63.40 67.80 5 32-gaL. can weekLy * 81.60 81.60 78.65 84.75 6 32-gaL. can weekly * 97.40 97.40 93.85 101.70 7 32-gal. can weekLy * 113.20 113.20 109.10 118.65 8 32-gal. can weekLy * 128.95 128.95 124.25 135.60 Each additional can--non-regular 5.00 5.00 4.80 4.80 (rr pick-up) 22.65 1 can weekly - Specia service 22.65 21.85 20.30 (hilly) areas 38.40 38.40 37.00 ' 2 can weekly - Special service 37.25 3 can weekly - Special service 54.25 54.25 52.30 54.20 4 can weekly - SpeciaL service 70.00 70.00 67.45 71.15 1 45 gal. can 30.05 30.05 28.95 25.40 2 can 54.75 54.75 52.75 50.85 1 supercart 50.85 50.85 49.00 50.85 1 supercart-Danville 47.60 47.60 45.85 47.85 1 can townhouse 16.90 16.90 16.30 15.50 2 can 32.70 32.70 31.50 32.45 3 can 48.45 48.45 46.70 49.40 MULTI-APARTMENT SERVICE: Each apartment weekly 17.95 17.95 17.30 Each additional can weekly 12.05 12.05 11.60 Each additional can - non re~ular 6.65 6.65 6.40 (per pic -up) COMMERCIAL SERVICE: one can weeklr 24.80 24.80 23.90 Each aditiona can weekly 9.80 9.80 9.45 Each additional can -- 6.25 6.25 6.00 non-regular One Cubic Yard: One time per week 93.45 93.45 90.05 Two times per week 159.75 159.75 153.95 Three times per week 226.05 226.05 217.80 Four times per week 292.35 292.35 281.70 Five times per week 356.95 356.95 343.95 Two Cubic Yards: one time per week 159.75 159.75 153.95 Two times per week 292.35 292.35 281.70 Three times per week 424.95 424.95 409.50 Four times per week 557.70 557.70 537.40 Five times per week 690.15 690.15 665.05 Three Cubic Yards: One time per week 220.40 220.40 212.40 Two times per week 423.60 423.60 408.20 Three times per week 637.40 637.40 614.20 Four times per week 849.90 849.90 818.95 Five times per week 1,048.75 1,048.75 1,010.60 Four Cubic Yards: one time per week 292.35 292.35 281 .70 Two times per week 556.65 556.65 536.40 Three times per week 795.50 795.50 766.55 Four times per week 1,034.05 1,034.05 996.40 Five times per. week 1,273.65 1,273.65 1,227.30 Six Cubic Yards: one time per week 416.75 416.75 401.60 Two times per week 833.35 833.35 803.00 Three times per week 1,222.20 1,222.20 1,1n.70 Four times per week 1,625.00 1,625.00 1,565.85 Five times per week 2,027.75 2,027.75 1,953.95 COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE: Per cubic yard 32.45 32.45 31.25 DROP BOX SERVICE: Seven cubic yards (dirt and rocks) 303.40 303.40 292.35 Twenty cubic yards 303.40 303.40 292.35 Thirty cubic yards 455. 10 455.10 438.55 Forty cubic yards 606.95 606.95 584.85 ATTACHMENT VI Automated Collection Rates 15.50 32.45 49.40 66.35 83.30 100.25 117.20 134.15 49.40 46.40 14.05 31.00 47.95 * Includes two 32-gaLlon cans of garden trimmings per week and three refuse cleanups per year. -;-- > I- Z W w enw '#, :2: ~en I w~ ~ .... N 00 .... en 10 U a:w 0 00: U) 10 ... 0 N N ('t) <( w ZO .... I- .... -w - I- ~ '#,0 <( :! 0 .... ::> ~ ~I 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 en 10 ~ ~ ('t) ('t) N N w .... 10 N en U) ('t) 0 r-- ~ .... ('t) v U) 00 0 .... 0: -0 .... ... - W > UJ ....I ::I: w wZ .... enw '#, 2 ~en I-a:W 0 w~ .... en .... r-- 0 en V 00 Z:JQ. :! o:w 00 e ('t) ('t) ~ v 00: ... WI-X ~ :! 20 - 0: -w ~CJW W '#,0 2 0 u. w:J~ 2 a:ZN ::> 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 ~I--cn ~I en en 00 00 " " U) <tUJ:jcn U) ('t) 0 r-- ''It ... 00 .... ('t) 10 U) 00 0 .... ZW-t"'" -0 ... ... <ta:m .. :!:w>t"'" 0 wl-..J> w 1-<t:I:a: u.....en 0 10 0 0 10 10 0 LL::>W 00 en N ~ U) 00 ... UJa:I-<t <Q..... ....:E~ r-- N 00 ('t) 00 ('t) en <t..JZ:J ... ('t) ''It U) r-- en 0 enoO: -0 .... ~<tOZ 0 -~<t >1-- wzm'" ....> 1ii :i! WI ..JwUJ 0:........ 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..JCw o:Z~ ~ N ~ 00 U) ~ N <t-c ::>00: 00 od- 0 10 ... " ('t) .... ('t) 10 U) 00 en .... >ffi:J O:! -0 .... a:..J 0 .... -I 2 ~I Z wu.~ '#, U) - 00.... 0 ('t) ('t) .... - 2 0: 0 U) 0 w .... ~ Q. ::> m LLen 0: 00: .... w en v 10 U) ~ .... en a::! 0 0 ... .r:. C Wo U) N 0 V N u ~ "!. q ... lli a: m.... .... ::Eel) .... 0 ... al W a: :! ::l::l .... ... ~ 0 20 ~ .... ~ en M 0:0 'll:: ::> ll) 0 w2 Cl m~ al N ('t) ''It 10 U) " ..c :!o ... ... al ::>u. e" -- 20 en 0 <( - .-"-------~~.____,._-~----.--__r_-..---.------.---.,--'-.--.....,_.,._..-.._--,.-_.--_._,-.-_._~.,--",_..- ._~._-"._.,.._-,..,."------------- VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT FORECASTED ANNUAL NET EXPENSE REDUCTION FROM AUTOMATED CURBSIDE COLLECTION WITH SEPARATE YARD-WASTE COLLECTION IMPLEMENTED DISTRICT-WIDE IN 1992 Exoense Decreases Reduction in Drivers and Helpers expense from the elimination of five routes Reduced truck operating expenses from the elimination of five trucks Reduced truck maintenance expenses from the elimination of five trucks Reduced insurance expense computed on the basis of payroll expense reduction Remove depreciation expense on WMS (POD) equipment and three rear-end loaders . Reduced disposal expense from yard-waste disposal at Waste Fibre Recovery at $9.90 per ton compared to $65.69 per ton at the Acme Interim Transfer Station Total Expense Decreases Exoense Increases Depreciation expense on 17 Auto-Rapid Rail trucks Depreciation expense on 22,900 garbage containers and 22,900 yard-waste containers Container maintenance expense Capital Use Charge: Vehicles Containers $1,289,000 2,198,000 $3.487,000 @ 6.8% Start-up cost amortization - container delivery, container hangers, and brochures Total Expense Increases Annual Net Expense Reduction Monthly Reduction Per 28,000 Residential Customers, As Automated Service Provided Monthly Reduction Effective January 1, 1992 For 7,400 Pilot Program Residential Customers, And Remaining Residential Customers, As Automated Service Provided ADS/Garbage#2/VWM.8 ......,--- ATTACHMENT VIII $ 480,000 62,000 120,000 92,000 252,000 631 ,000 1.637,000 291,000 275,000 137,000 238,000 39,000 980,000 $ 657,000 $1.95 $1 .45 Attachment IX VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT INTERCOMPANY CHARGES 1988 1989 1990 1.9ll Discounts Claimed on Capital Aquisitions $ 92,000 93,000 93,000 140,000 Capital Use Charge Savings Due to Discounts $ 16,000 20,000 Depreciation Expense Reduction Resulting from Purchase Discounts 1 2,000 24,000 36,000 54,000 Claimed Reduction in Insurance Expense 200,000 400,000 312,000 278,000 Additional Itemized Services Provided by WMI 81 ,000 Total $212,000 424,000 364,000 433,000 Claimed $352,000 232,000 311.000 Approved $ 232,000 250,000 ADS/Garb #2/lnterco.vwm I ..----------.-------.------.------.-- , Central Contra Costa Sanitary District January 10, 1992 Page 2 3. Customer Service Recommendations We would make two recommendations to you, for consideration: 1. Switch to bi-monthly billing from quarterly billing. We estimate the cost to send 6 bills per year versus the current 4 to be an additional $2.00 per customer, per year, or an overall .0083% increase. This is to cover extra stationery, postage and handling labor; 2. Delay the implementation of the next phase of the uniform can rate program to the 1993 rate year. Both of these suggested changes, we bel ieve, posi tive impacts upon our customers in the climate. have significant current economic In summary, we believe that our rate request is reasonable, and our proposal and recommendations are meant to be thoughful and helpful. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to discussing these issues with you further on January 30th, 1992. Yours truly, Orinda Moraga Disposal ~ce. ~ Doug ~w President 7 cc: City of Orinda Town of Moraga .----------,--- - 1- DISPOSE · ALL . ATTACHMENT X Orinda Moraga Dispose-All I Northwood Drive, Ste. 4 P.O. Box 659 Orinda, CA 94563 January 10, 1992 Mr. P.L. Boneystee1e, President and The Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553-4392 R!cegY!Q JAN 1 3 199! CCCSD t;~~.r:.,~::,;._~~!:'- -~.-- Re: Summary of Rate Application Workshop Presentation Dear Mr. President and Board Members: This letter is to summarize our presentation to you at yesterday's Board Workshop, as follows: 1. Rate Application We ask the Board to consider an 11.01% increase for the 1992 rate year, a 1.5% increase over the staff recommended 9.51%. This 1.5% or $74,000 increase is for: Travel, Meals and Entertainment $6,000; Professional Fees (particularly legal associated with the Acme Fill lawsuit) $20,000; and an increase in Allowable Profit, or in the Capital Use Charge, by at least $48,000. The $48,000 increase sought, is essential: to allow us to borrow capital for much needed new equipment at competitive terms and rates; to allow us to "weather the storm" if continued implementation of uniform can rates and overall economic conditions stretch out collections and reduces revenues and cashflow; and as a "borrower" of capital, the increase in either profit margin or capital use charge will provide us the funds necessary to pay the real interest rate charged on the borrowed capital (still c.ll%). 2. Two Year Rate Proposal We propose to the Board, the option of awarding us a rate now for 1992 and 1993. The rate that we propose is 14.71%, being 11.01% as requested, plus 3.7% for inflation over the coming 24 months. If awarded such an increase now, we would waive our right to request any other rate adjustment until the 1994 rate year, except for changes in disposal, level or type of service and franchise fees. We believe that such an option has significant benefits for our customers, the District and the company. . . . 2 . Leadership In Integrated Waste Management · ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1 SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES (Includes Bimonthly Billing Expense) ATTACH~1ENT XI I Page 1 of 4 Staff Coq:lUted Current Requested Rates Uniform Rates Rates 9.87% Rate --------..--- ............--...--- ...--.....------ ----..------ ORINDA - FULL SERVICE ----------------------------------- REGULAR SERVICE: 1 can $ 19.35 23.45 21.25 20.30 2 can 35.95 43.60 39.50 40.60 3 can 52.55 63.70 57.75 60.90 4 can 69.15 83.85 76.00 81.20 5 can 85.75 104.00 94.20 101.50 6 can 102.35 124. 10 112.45 121.60 One can - Senior Citizen 16.35 20.45 18.25 17.30 Extra can on route 4.50 5.45 4.95 4.95 Special pick-up - 1 can 12.70 15.40 13.95 13.95 Special pick-up - each add'l can 4.50 5.45 4.95 4.95 MINIPACKER SERVICE: 1 can 26.10 31.65 28.70 27.00 2 can 42.70 51.80 46.90 47.30 3 can 59.30 71.90 65.15 67.60 4 can 75.90 92.05 83.40 87.90 ODD SERVICE: 1-45 gal. can 27.35 33.15 30.05 30.45 1-45 gal. can and 1-32 gal. 43.95 53.30 48.30 50.75 1-45 gal. can and 2-32 gal. 60.55 73.40 66.55 71.05 2-45 gal. can 52.55 63.70 57.75 60.90 COMMERCIAL SERVICE: One can weekly 25.60 31. 05 28.15 Each additional can weekly 10.75 13.05 11.80 MULTI-APARTMENT SERVICE: Per unit per week 16.15 19.60 17.75 Each additional pick-up per week 2.60 3.15 2.85 COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE: Per cubic yard 31.45 38.15 34.55 BULK SERVICE: ONE YARD: Once per week 94.50 114.60 103.85 Twice per week 165.55 200.75 181.90 Three times per week 235.95 286. 10 259.25 Four times per week 306.40 371.55 336.65 Five times per week 377.45 457.70 414.70 TWO YARD: Once per week 165.55 200.75 181.90 Twice per week 306.40 371.55 336.65 Three times per week 447.90 543. 10 492. 10 Four times per week 589.25 714.50 647.40 Five times per week 731. 00 886.40 803.15 SPECIAL: One yard 18.85 22.85 20.70 Two yards 37.80 45.85 41.55 -,--------,..-- ATTACHMENT XI ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. RATE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATION (Includes Bimonthly Billing Expense < A> ) Forecasted Calendar Year Ending December 31, 1992 Closure and Post-Closure Costs Allowable Exoenses Excluded Included Per Staff Analysis, Excluding Closure and Post-Closure Costs $5,319,000 $5,319,000 Bimonthly Billing Expense < A > 18,000 1 8,000 Capital Use Charge 78.000 78.000 5,415,000 5,415,000 Add: Closure and Post-Closure Costs 147.000 Total Allowable Expenses 5,415,000 5,562,000 Allowable Profit 202,000 202,000 Revenue and Expense Balancing < 38.000. > <38.000.> Account Total Revenue Required 5,579,000 5,726,000 Forecasted Revenue Without Rate Increase 5.078.000 5.078.000 Required Revenue Increase $ 501.000 $ 648.000 Percent Increase in Revenue Required 9.87% 12.76% ADS/Garbage#3/RateAdj. Cht ----I -'-------,-' ATTACHr'1ENT XI I. Page 2 of 4 ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1 SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES (Includes Bimonthly Billing Expense) Staff COIIp.It ed Current Requested Rates Uniform Rates Rates 9.87% Rates ............-................... ----------- ----------- -.......------- DROP BOX SERVICE: Twenty cubic yards $ 311. 75 378.05 342.50 Five yards - dirt and concrete 311. 75 378.05 342.50 Sixteen yard school box ** 249.35 302.35 273.95 ORINDA - NO BRUSH SERVICE -------------------_...........-...--------- REGULAR SERVICE: 1 can 16.50 20.00 18.15 17.60 2 can 33.10 40.15 36.35 37.90 3 can 49.70 60.25 54.60 58.20 1 can-Senior Citizen 15.00 18.50 16.65 16.10 MINIPACKER SERVICE: 1 can 23.25 28.20 25.55 24.30 2 can 39.85 48.30 43.80 44.60 3 can 56.45 68.45 62.00 64.90 4 can 73.05 88.60 80.25 85.20 1-45 gal. can 31. 15 37.75 34.20 36.45 1-45 and 1-32 gal. can 50.75 61.55 55.75 60.75 * Includes one 32-gallon can of garden trimmings per week and three refuse cleanups per year ** A charge of $29.95 per week applies for each week not serviced --r--..-..------------...----.-- ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1A SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES (Includes Bimonthly Billing Expense) ATTACHMENT XII Page 3 of 4 Staff C~ted Current Requested Rates Uniform Rates Rates 9.87% Rate -------............ .........-------... ----------- --......-----..- MORAGA - FULL SERVICE -----..-----------..--..-------.......---- REGULAR SERVICE:. 1 can $ 17.40 21.10 19.10 18.15 2 can 32.30 39.15 35.50 36.30 3 can 47.15 57.15 51.80 54.45 4 can 62.05 75.25 68.15 72.60 5 can 76.95 93.30 84.55 90.75 6 can 91.85 111.40 100.90 108.90 Extra can on route 4.50 5.45 4.95 4.95 Special pick-up - 1 can 12.70 15.40 13.95 13.95 Special pick-up - each add'l can 4.50 5.45 4.95 4.95 MINIPACKER SERVICE: 1 can 25.70 31.15 28.25 26.40 2 can 40.60 49.25 44.60 44.55 3 can 55.50 67.30 61.00 62.70 4 can 70.40 85.35 77.35 80.85 5 can 85.25 103.35 93.65 99.00 000 SERVICE: One can - 45 gal. 24.85 30.15 27.30 27.25 One can - 1/45 and 1/32 gal. cans 39.75 48.20 43.65 45.40 One can - 1/45 and 2/32 gal. cans 54.65 66.25 60.05 63.50 COMMERCIAL SERVICE: One can weekly 25.60 31.05 28.15 Each additional can weekly 10.75 13.05 11.80 MULTI-APARTMENT SERVICE: Per unit per week 16.15 19.60 17.75 Each additional pick-up per week 2.60 3.15 2.85 COMPACTED REFUSE SERVICE: Per cubic yard 31.45 38.15 34.55 BULK SERVICE: ONE YARD: Once per week 94.50 114.60 103.85 Twice per week 165.55 200.75 181.90 Three times per week 235.95 286. 10 259.25 Four times per week 306.40 371 .55 336.65 Five times per week 377 .45 457.70 414.70 TIolO YARD: Once per week 165.55 200.75 181.90 Twice per week 306.40 371.55 336.65 Three times per week 447.90 543.10 492.10 Four times per week 589.25 714.50 647.40 Five times per week 731. 00 886.40 803.15 SPECIAL One yard 18.85 22.85 20.70 Two yards 37.80 45.85 41.55 ---,--~_.__..._......._------_._._--_._--_.._---_... .-----.-. I' ATTACHMENT XII Page 4 of 4 ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. FRANCHISE ZONE NO. 1A SCHEDULE OF CURRENT, REQUESTED, AND COMPUTED COLLECTION RATES (Includes Bimonthly Billing Expense) Staff COll1'lIt ed Current Requested Rates Uniform Rates Rates 9.87% Rate ----...------- ------...---- ----------- ----------... DROP BOX SERVICE: Twenty cubic yards $ 311. 75 378.05 342.50 Five yards - dirt and concrete 311. 75 378.05 342.50 Sixteen yard school box ** 249.35 302.35 273.95 MORAGA - NO BRUSH SERVICE ----------------------------------- REGULAR SERVICE: 1 can 14.90 18.05 16.35 15.80 2 can 29.80 36.15 32.75 33.95 3 can 44.70 54.20 49.10 52.10 ODD SERVICE: 2-45 gal. can-small truck 37.65 45.65 41.35 39.60 * Includes one 32-gallon can of garden trimmings per week and three refuse cleanups per year ** A charge of $29.95 per week applies for each week not serviced ----r----....----.----.--.....--------.--.- '#. w '#. w V) C") ~ It) ~ V) 0) 0) 0) ~ <C ~ N It) ..... <C w X w lilt N It) ..... ~ 'I"'" 'I"'" 'I"'" ~ 'I"'" 'I"'" 'I"'" 0 I- 0 Z Z !; w :E '#. ~ :E '#. ~ :J: ~ V) 0 U V) 0 W &L <( W &L I- Z l- I- Z <C I- <C :;) a: :;) <2: a: > > ..... ..... ~I 0 0 0 0 :J: w It) 0 It) 0 :J: C'1 CQ 0) N l- I- 'I"'" C'1 ~ CQ I- 0 Z <C CD Z 0 0 'I"'" CQ lilt N 0 N lilt CQ CD 0 ~ 'I"'" C") It) ..... '0 :E '0 :E ~ ~ 0 W Z Z Z V) -:'WZ 0 It) 0 0 W~W W It) 0 0 0 0 It) ~:;)~ l- N It) ..... 0 W 'I"'" It) ~ 'I"'" &L~V) ai &LI-V) >I-w &La.w 'I"'" ..... CQ &L~w 0) It) 'I"'" CD ~O <C:EI- N C") It) ..... <C <Ca.1- 'I"'" C") It) CO W:;)CJN I-O<C '0 CJ I-:E<C '0 (/)~!;O) <C V)O~ <C V)O~ .....1-.....0) 0 a: 0 <C~:::!'I"'" Z 0 eI)~m . a: :E o >'1"'" 0 a. w..... > &L 5Q1-::I:~ &L 0 w O<CI-e( 0 w Z I- ~Z > I- I-<C <C.....O:;) 3: CJ<C:EZ I- I-<C Z~ 0 0 It) It) <Ci=-<C 0 Z~ It) It) It) It) 0 w> ~ C") 'I"'" 0 a:zm-' w> C'1 0) It) 'I"'" ... a:..... ..... N ..... N a:..... 0) It) a::J: 'I"'" C") lilt CO OW(/) ~:J: N m :)1- '0 :Ecw 'I"'" C") It) CO OZ ~I- '0 '-0 OZ 0 <C(/):;) OW..... 0 :E Z~o :E a: Z 0 - ~I ~I '#. 1-..... '#. a 1-..... 'I"'" ,I z<C 'I z<C CO CQ C") wI- N C") It) wI- C") 00 CQ C") 00 ~I- ~I- W&L Z w Z a.o 0 a. 0 i= i= :;) ~ 10 10 &Lei) CO CO C") ~I ~~ a: &LV) CD CQ 3 ~I !~ a: o~ CD lilt CQ I- o~ N 0) I- w N eI) w ..... It) 'I"'" ~:E lilt CD ~:E eI) M . is N . is Wo 'I"'" Wo 'I"'" l: 101- ~ 101- 0 a: ::Eel) w ::E(/) N w :;):;) :E :)~ . :E Zo 0 Zo .. III 0 ... a: I- eI) ~ eI) :;) 6 ~ 0 N 0 a:eI) ,... a:(/) . wz wz at me( lilt me( 'I"'" N C") lilt ~ :EO 'I"'" N C") :EO III ~&L ~ :;)&L - Zo Zo en 0 cc I ~~ 590 Silverado Drive Lafayette, CA 94549 January 17, 1992 Mr. Parker Boneysteele Board of Directors Central Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 ~I!CISYYrEIO JAN 2 1 1992 CCCSD ~~-f"~. ~.... ,...,.-..,.- ...,..--.-- Dear Mr. Boneysteele: We have been Lafayette resiuents since 1981 and have seen our garbage collection rates shoot up far in excess of the rise in inflation. I would like to point out that the overall increases in utilities charges have qone a long wcy towards eroding the consumers" financial .....0; ~;;;J' Jlf'JI' j,uu Le tv tile economy. We are seniors in' this family,and are committed environmentalists. We recycle everything that we can. Our weekly garbage is seldom if ever one- half a can and yet we pay full price for l-can service. Valley Waste Management will not permit us the use of a mini-can. Unlike Walnut Creek, we have never been offered either the use of a mini-can or the senior rate. I don1t understand this kind of dis- crimination between communities since we are under the same monopoly of Valley Waste Management. I believe it is time for your Board of Directors to address this discrepancy and see to it that some people are not more equal than others. Very truly yours, ~~~~ ;:~L~~ Miriam Pecherer P.S. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Contra Costa Times. PAGE OF 2 AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH JAMES M. MONTGOMERY ENGINEERS FOR A FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION OF UV DISINFECTION NO. 6. ENGINEERING a. DATE January 24, 1992 TYPE OF ACTION EXECUTE AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPTJDIV. Lynne B. Putnam, Senior Engineer Engineering Dept.lPlanning Div. ISSUE: Board authorization is required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer, (GM-CE) to execute professional services agreements for more than $50,000. BACKGROUND: In March 1991, the Board authorized the GM-CE to enter into an agreement with James M. Montgomery Engineers (JMM) for the preparation of a Disinfection Facilities Plan. The draft plan has been completed and includes an evaluation of the capacity of existing facilities, establishes disinfection demands, identifies near-term improvements to the chlorine system to address safety concerns, identifies alternative disinfection processes, and reports the results of bench-scale testing of the alternatives. The plan has shown that the existing disinfection system does not have adequate capacity for anticipated wet weather flows, and does not conform with the latest chlorine provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. This means that the District must upgrade the chlorine system or replace it with another technology. In addition, the costs for regulatory compliance are expected to increase yearly in the foreseeable future. The Disinfection Facilities Plan identifies Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection as the most practical alternative to continued chlorine use and recommends a large-scale pilot test to confirm planning assumptions and to establish design criteria. The estimated annual costs for chlorine and UV are comparable. UV disinfection consists of high-intensity UV light, created by lamps immersed in the wastewater, which destroys pathogehs~ The advantages of UV are simplicity of operations, increased safety, and low administrative costs. The disadvantages are that UV is not a common technology in California (although it is used elsewhere in the U.S. and Europe) and must be approved by regulators. For the above reasons, it is desirable to perform a feasibility investigation of UV before pilot testing. It is anticipated that the feasibility investigation will be completed in three months. If UV disinfection appears feasible, pilot testing is expected to begin immediately and continue for six months. The pilot test will establish design criteria and confirm the effectiveness of UV to disinfect secondary effluent and consistently meet the District's permit requirements under actual field conditions. O&M requirements, in particular the frequency of lamp fouling, will be investigated further. Once the UV pilot is completed, capital and O&M costs for UV can be more fully defined and the project can proceed to design. ------,---.----. -- I .------..-. _.._n',.._,'." ....----... .-... -_._-- .------.-- REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPTJDIV. D,,(J LBP DRW IO~ fz7~AB SUBJECT ................................................................."...........-. ..............................................................................-.... :11~liJII:mleiB AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH JAMES M. MONTGOMERY ENGINEERS FOR A FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION OF UV DISINFECTION PAGE ~ OF DATE ? January 24, 1992 A scope of work for $85,000 has been developed with JMM to perform a feasibility investigation which includes the following tasks: 1 . literature review 2. visit ongoing UV operations of comparable size to the District 3. prepare a detailed experimental plan and testing protocols for the pilot test program 4. meet with regulators to obtain approval of the experimental plan Staff recommends that JMM continue to work as the consultants on this project based on their satisfactory performance in developing the Disinfection Facilities Plan. The estimated total cost for this project (including planning, design, and construction) is $17 million. The project appears in the Capital Improvement Budget on pages TP-5 through TP-7. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the GM-CE to execute an agreement with JMM for $85,000 for a feasibility investigation of UV disinfection. 13028-7/91 ------------;--------------------r------- PAGE 1 OF 2 NO. 6. ENGINEERING b. AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE A GRANT CONTRACT WITH STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH LARRY WALKER AND ASSOCIATES FOR A WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING STUDY DATE January 27, 1992 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AGREEMENTS SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT JOIV. Barton L. Brandenburg, Associate Engineer Engineering Dept./Planning Div. ISSUE: Board authorization is required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a grant contract with the State Water Resources Control Board. Board authorization is also required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute an agreement in excess of $50,000. BACKGROUND: Residential wastewater is believed to be a major source of toxic pollutants, such as trace metals, in the CCCSD wastewater. CCCSD serves an area which is almost exclusively residential and commercial in nature. Residential sources of toxics may be sufficient to cause discharges to violate water quality objectives for toxic pollutants. Residential areas may contribute these pollutants through any number of means, including the domestic water supply, corrosion from water piping and fixtures, common household products, food products, human wastes, illicit disposal of toxic materials, etc. We are hoping that implementation of toxic source reduction measures will allow CCCSD to comply with proposed water quality objectives for toxic pollutants without having to resort to costly and environmentally questionable, end-of-pipe treatment. This project will provide information on the concentrations and sources of toxic pollutants present in untreated residential wastewater, and it will develop a source reduction program for residential wastewater. The emphasis of the project will be on trace metal pollutants. The project will benefit CCCSD by identifying practical means of reducing what is believed to be a major source of toxic pollutants in the District's wastewater. A grant request package to conduct a Water Quality Management Planning Study was submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in May 1990. The SWRCB accepted the grant request in April 1991. Five engineering firms were requested to submit proposals for the project. After review of the proposals and formal interviews, Larry Walker and Associates was selected as the consultant for this project based on their experience working on related projects and their approach to this project. The consultant's scope of work includes project management, quarterly reports to SWRCB, assisting in public participation, literature review, sampling program design, data analysis, development of source reduction measures, development of an institutional and financial plan, and a final report at a cost of $122,500. The District's standard engineering services contract will be used. Of the $122,500, $113,250 will be reimbursed by the SWRCB. The remaining $9,250 will be paid by the District. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPTJDIV. ;St.;! fJdu IJA:? 1302A-7/91 BLB DRW ~"'RAB .--.--.--.-....,.----."--- I AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE A GRANT CONTRACT WITH STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH LARRY WALKER AND ASSOCIATES FOR A WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING STUDY . . ........................................................................ ................................................................................... ....lls.'m'.III......ml.lI.m.m..... SUBJECT PAGE ') DATE OF ') January 27, 1992 The District will provide project management, public participation, and sample collection and analysis. The grant contract calls for $113,250 grant funds and $127,750 in funds or in-kind services from the District for a total project cost of $241,000. The project will produce six reports: 1) a technical memorandum which characterizes the sources and quantities of trace metal and other toxic pollutants observed by other agencies in residential wastewater, including a summary of any source reduction measures employed by other communities to reduce trace metal constituents in residential wastewater; 2) a technical memorandum which summarizes the results of the data analysis, including a summary of data, description of analytical method, discussion of results, and statement of conclusions; 3) a technical memorandum which summarizes the results of the source identification, control measure identification, and program recommendations; 4) an institutional and financial plan which describes the plan for implementing the recommended source reduction program; 5) an implementation evaluation checklist; and 6) a final report which describes the results of the study. To receive reimbursement for costs associated with the study, the District must execute a State of California Standard Agreement with the SWRCB. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a Grant Contract with the SWRCB for the residential metals study. Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute an agreement with Larry Walker and Associates with a cost ceiling of $122,250 for a Water Quality Management Planning Study. ~ 13026-7191 .-----.~----_._~-..__..,-_._"--,.--~--r-'._--_._-----_...-.-" I Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 111111111:::1..11\11:11 BOARD MEETING OF January 30,1992 SUBJECT NO. 7. LEGAL/LITIGATION a. DATE DENY CLAIM OF CALRECOVERY , INCORPORATED Januar 27, 1992 TYPE OF ACTION DENY CLAIM SUBMmED BY . INITIATING DEPTJOIV. 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 amount claimed by CRI is $18,954.40. Claim denials require action by the Board of Directors. BACKGROUND: In August of 1990 the District and the Central Contra Costa Cities (Walnut Creek, San Ramon, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, and Concord) entered into an agreement with CRI for preparation of a joint Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS) under the direction of a Committee of Staff from the District and Cities. CRI failed to comply with the terms of the Agreement in that services were both not performed and where performed were inadequate. As a result the Committee terminated the Agreement. CRI alleges that the District and the Central Contra Costa Cities have failed to pay all sums due and claims a principal sum of $64,053.20, plus interest, is still owed of the original Agreement amount of $128,000. The District's portion of the total Agreement is $37,232, of which $18,277.60 has been paid for work completed for the District. The staff recommends that the claim be denied. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the claim from CalRecovery, Incorporated and refer to staff for further action as needed. BA PM KLA REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPTJOIV. €>.A. .--....,---.....-..-.. - .-...------,----..-.-----..-..-...---....-------....---.----.-- .-.-....-..-----------.--..-