HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 01-25-90
.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 6
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
January 25, 1990
NO.
IV.
HEARINGS
1
SUBJECT
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING THE USE OF IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION
TO CREATE EASEMENT RIGHTS FOR PUBLIC SEWERS; ADOPT A
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO RECORD RECEIPT OF
IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DED1CATION
DATE
January 17, 1990
TYPE OF ACTION
APPROVE NEW
EASEMENT POLICY
SUBMIITED BY
uennis Hall
Associate Engineer
INITIA T.lNG DEPT/DIV.
~ngineering Department,
Construction Division
ISSUE: Board approval is required to adopt an ordinance authorizing staff to use
Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for creating easement rights.
BACKGROUND: District Counsel has advised that the District can limit its
liability related to ownership of easements and the construction of sewers by
developers by accepting the easements only after the construction of the sanitary
sewer facilities has been completed and the District is ready to take over
maintenance responsibility.
Presently, District sewer easements are obtained by direct Grants of Easements
from property owners and through the subdivi si on map dedi cati on process. When
di rect Grants of Easements are used, they are reviewed, revised, final ized, and
signed by the property owners prior to the start of construction. The Board of
Directors then accepts each Grant of Easement by a separate resolution which is
then recorded along with the subject Grant of Easement at the County Recorder's
Office. This procedure has been adopted to assure that the District secures the
req ui red easement ri ghts pri or to the start of any sewer constructi on. When
easements are dedicated on subdivision maps, the District's rights to accept the
easements are established when the subdivision map is filed at the County
Recorder's Office. The District technically becomes the legal easement holder
when the District "accepts" the dedication. There presently is no formal process
to accept or reject subdivision map dedications; however, the easement rights on
subdivision maps are effectively accepted when the District accepts the sewer
improvements from the developer.
The present methods of obtaining easements may unnecessarily expose the District
to liability both prior to and during construction of sewer improvements because
the recording of the Grant of Easements or filing of subdivision maps establish
District rights in the land where the sewers are being constructed.
As was originally suggested by Board Member Clausen, it is proposed by staff that
the maj ori ty of future Di stri ct easement ri ghts be created by use of an
"I rrevocabl e Offer of Dedi cati on" instrument or by "I rrevocabl e Dedi cati ons" on
the certificate sheet of subdivision maps. The Irrevocable Offers of Dedication
(non-subdivision related) are proposed to be received and recorded by staff, but
not formally accepted by the District until after the sewer construction has been
completed. The wording on the certificate sheets of subdivision maps will be
revised to indicate that the sanitary sewer easements shown on th maps are
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
lit'
1302A-9/85 DH
JSM
KA
RAB
.IU=
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
JIJfJ
SUBJECT
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING THE USE OF IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION
TO CREATE EASEMENT RIGHTS FOR PUBLIC SEWERS; ADOPT A
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO RECORD RECEIPT OF
IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION
POSITION PAPER
PAGE
DATE
2
OF
6
January 17, 1990
irrevocably offered for dedication. The filing of the subdivision maps will
establish the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of the easements to the District
and clarify that said easements will not be accepted as District property
interests until the District formally accepts the easements by Board Resolution.
An ordinance has been prepared which outlines the use of Irrevocable Offers of
Dedication including the initiation, receipt, and acceptance thereof. A copy of
the proposed ordinance is attached as Exhibit "A" to this position paper.
To lessen the number of times Board action is required, it is suggested that the
Boa rd authori ze the General Manager-Chi ef Engi neer (or hi s desi gnee) to accept
the Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (non-subdivision related) for recording
only. The recording will provide legal notice to any subsequent purchasers of
the encumbered property. Upon satisfactory completion of construction, Staff
will request the Board to officially accept the improvements and the Irrevocable
Offers of Dedication by resolution. The acceptance resolutions will be recorded
at the County Recorder's Office after adoption by the Board. This process will
make clear the exact date when the District is taking over responsibility for the
property. By the use of this procedure, it is intended that the District's
liability related to property ownership will commence only after construction of
the sewers is completed and accepted.
On District-financed projects, staff continues to believe that the present method
of creating easement rights through direct Grants of Easements will be the most
efficient and cost effective process. The proposed ordinance therefore provides
for staff to continue the present practice when the situation warrants its use.
It is anticipated that the new policy can be implemented in March, 1990. This
will all ow time for pri nti ng the requi red new forms and all ow staff time to
notify all affected cities, the county, and engineering firms which do business
with the Di stri ct. In some instances, it may be necessary to accept exi sti ng
Grant of Easement forms for jobs whi ch are now in progress when the processi ng
extends past the above implementation date, or for jobs which have been completed
but lack proper easement rights.
Staff recommends that the best method for creati ng cl arity as to Di stri ct
easement acceptance policy is to adopt an ordinance incorporating the concept of
Irrevocable Offers of Dedication into the District Code. It is further
requested that the Board adopt a resol ution authorizing staff to record the
recei pt of Irrevocabl e Offers of Dedi cati on whil e maki ng cl ear that thi s staff
action does not constitute acceptance.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an ordinance specifying the use of Irrevocable Offers of
Dedication to create easement rights for publ ic sewers; adopt a resol ution
authorizing staff to record Irrevocable Offers of Dedication.
13028-9/85
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
ADDING CHAPTER 9.24 TO THE DISTRICT CODE
The Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sani-
tary District does hereby ordain as follows:
CHAPTER 9.24
ACCEPTANCE OF INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY
CHAPTER 9.24 is hereby enacted and added to the District
Code to read as follows:
Section 9.24.010
Irrevocable Offers of Dedication.
Requirement of Acceptance.
A. When a subdivision map for an area partially or
completely within the District's boundaries, or for an
area which is intended to be annexed to the District
pursuant to the development of that SUbdivision, is sub-
mitted to any local public agency for approval pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code
Section 66410 et seg.), the dedication of an easement or
other interests in real property for sewer purposes on
the map shall be deemed to be an irrevocable offer of
dedication operating in favor of the District.
B. Prior to District approval of sewer plans, in-
cluding sewers proposed to be within easements not pres-
ently owned by the District and not included within a
subdivision map which has been submitted to a local pUb-
lic agency for approval pursuant to the Subdivision Map
- 1 -
Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seg.),
the party seeking approval of the sewer plans shall be
required to satisfactorily demonstrate current ownership
of the servient tenement over arid across which the pro-
posed sewer easements included on the plans will run, and
properly executed irrevocable offer(s) of dedication to
the District from said owner(s) for any such easement(s)
necessary for the sewer lines contained in the proposed
plan.
C. An irrevocable offer of dedication of an ease-
ment or other interests in real property for sewer purpos-
es, including all Subdivision Map Act dedications, shall
be accepted by the District only by resolution of the
Board. No offer of dedication to the District of any
interests in real property is accepted unless or until
accepted by resolution of the Board. Receipt and recorda-
tion by the District of the irrevocable offer of dedica-
tion instrument shall not constitute acceptance of the
irrevocable offer of dedication and shall operate as a
rejection of said offer of dedication unless and until a
resolution of acceptance is adopted by the Board. No
District staff member, employee or agent is authorized to
accept a dedication on behalf of the District.
D. The Board may, by resolution, grant authority to
District Staff to receive offers of dedication for record-
ing. To the extent the Board grants such authorization,
District staff may receive such offers for recording
wi thout further Board action, but the recording of the
- 2 -
offer of dedication does not constitute acceptance of the
offer of dedication. Acceptance of an offer of dedica-
tion only will occur if it meets the terms and conditions
of section 9.24.010, subsection C, herein.
section 9.24.020
Notwithstanding the rights and prerogatives granted
under this Chapter, the District reserves to itself the
power to acquire grants of easements for sewer purposes
when, in its discretion, it determines that it is advis-
able to do so. Said grants of easement shall not be
accepted by the District until accepted by formal resolu-
tion of the Board.
This Ordinance shall be an ordinance and general regula-
tion of the District and shall be published once in the Con-
tra Costa Times, a newspaper of general circulation, pub-
lished and circulated within the Central Contra Costa Sani-
tary District and shall be effective upon the expiration of
the week of publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the District Board of the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District this ____ day of
19 ,by the following vote:
AY:;:S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
- 3 -
COUNTERSIGNED:
Approved as to Form:
President of the Board of Directors,
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa,
State of California
Secretary of the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa,
State of California
KENTON L. ALM
District Counsel
,
- .. -
.
Centra~ ~ontra Costa Sanitar) Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 4
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Januar 25, 1990
NO.
IV.
HEARINGS 2
SUBJECT
DATE
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON iHE
DRAFT 1990 TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP);
APPROVE "THE DRAFT CIP
J anuar 17, 1990
TYPE OF ACTION
CON DU CT PUB LI C
HEARING. APPROVE
CIP
SUBMITTED BY
John J. Mercurio
Administrative Analyst
INITIA TING DEPT.lDIV
Engineering Department/
Planning Division
ISSUE: The Board of Directors has established the date of January 25,1990, to
conduct a publ1c hearing to receive comments on the draft 1990 Ten-Year Capital
Improvement Plan.
BACKGROUND: The draft 1990 Ten-Year Capital Improvement Pl an was submitted to
the Board of Directors' Capital Projects Committee for review on December 5,
1989. This document was submitted to the full Board on December 21, 1989, and a
Board workshop on the draft Plan was conducted on January 11, 1990. It is
appropriate to receive additional comments from the public prior to considering
approval of the Plan. The Board of Directors established January 25,1990, as
the date for this public hearing, and appropriate notices have been published.
The CIP provides the basis for project prioritizing and scheduling and long-range
financi al pl anni ng. Approval of the CIP authorizes staff to use the Pl an's
project priorities and cash flow assumptions as the framework for fee analysis
and for the annual Capital Improvement Budget which will be produced in the
spring. The Capital Improvement Budget provides a detailed presentation of the
schedul es and cost estimates for proj ects proposed for the fi rst year of the
ten-year pl anni ng peri ode
The draft 1990 Ten-Year Capital Improvement Pl an descri bes approximately $244
million (1989 dollars) in capital improvement projects to be pursued over the
next ten years. These projects are needed to meet goals that have been
establ ished for the Trea"bnent Pl ant, Collection System, and General Improvement
Programs. A summary of major goals and costs for each program;s presented in
Attachments 1, 2, and 3.
The CIP has been evaluated by staff and determined to be exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines
Section 17.3 since it is a planning study.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing and receive comments on the draft 1990
Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Approve the draft Capital Improvement Plan.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
~~~
tfffJ
.?;::"
ROGER J. DOLAN
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
1302A-9/85
JMM
JMK
RAB
Page 2 of 4,
,..
... 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
C\ 0 0 0 0 0 0
co 0 .. .. .. .. ..
C\ .. t- o U) 10 0\
r-4 0 01 ~ \0 'O:t
-- ~ \0 01 U) 0\
.. .. .. .. ..
~ .. 'O:t co r-4 C't"l a
'O:t N
V) \0 r-4
8 ... ...
V)
LU
~
.... ..
t:; ...J ~
t- ~ 0 ~ ..
LU ~ .. < :t:
0: X u.. ~ CI)
i ~ :ii! V) f2 t- ! <
<
.... ~ Z LU i u..
0 ~ 0: ~ ~ Cl)V) 0
z f2 ~ LU
I LU C3 t- ~ >~ ~
0:: aJ c! CI) LU 0::.... df3 ....
~ z >- ~ i~ g
f2 (,!' .... V) V) LUV)
Z ~ ~ ....0 0::::;)
~ .... ~ CI) 0::<
t- V) ~ V) c ~u.. o::~ ~
LU LU .... .... ~~
>-Z~ V) ~ ~ 0 ...J u..CI) ~
V) ~ 0 OV) CI)
iffis < :J: < (,!' V) tz~ ~C3 LU
~V) 2; z ~ ~
~ ~ 0 ....V)
::;)~o:: coo: V) V) i ~g: zc ....
V) ~ < ~ .... V) ~ ~~ V) ...J
....... t-i:t- LULU 0 .... ~o: .... 0
I- se>- ~ ....V) .. 0
CI)....~ 0:: 0:: CI).... ~ <LU ~~ ~
z: 8...J...J ~o LU LU V)Z ~~ 0::
w ~ ~ f2 ....LU < ~
::E <~ V)N ffiffi C ....~ ...J
:I: Cl)t- z ~ ~
u ~....t- ::1:;.... LU LU V) 0:: ~o C;;::;) f3
c::( ~z ~~ >>: >>: LU 0::.... LU (,!'
I- o<~ > ~a LU ~~ ~o > ~ Z
I- (,!'o tu tu ~ V) ~ to-ol
c::( ~e ~~ ....~ Q..
~o::< ~ >>: .. ff~ ...J <
<LU ~~ ~8 LU ~ .......J ~8 0:: 0
~~~ t- ~ ~~ ::;).... 0< ~ V)
i ~ ~i <.... ~ 00
~F= z ~V) ~~ u..~ ~CI) ~
:J: V) ...J ~o .... ...J
~ :ii! LLl ~ t- o:: t;V) <~ t; ...J
xt- z 25i ...J ~ "" :J: ~~ f2
0 ffi LU ~~ LU...J LU 25 ~ LU
~ (,!' ~a ~ ~~ ~ OCl) ~
t; m~ ....0 m~ ~
01 ~~ < >.... CI) V) 0::
r-4 ZSLU !I ~~ ffl:5 ~ ~c5 ~f ~m ~ ~ ~
LU WO::
~ o:u.. .... ....5 o(,!' ::;)< "LU ~V) .... ~
a.. . . . . . . . . . . .
V)
~ ~
z ~
ffi F= ~
0: ~
to-ol
m c:J ~
~ CI) ....
0:: ~ Z
>- ~ ~ I
0: ~ V) B
~ 8 V)
V) ~ LU
...J -l :E 0:: g
< ::l ..,
0 fig c 0 LU
(,!' i ~ C
0: ~ Z
0:: LU ~
0 I- ~ :) V)
:2 LLl C 8 V)
~ LU LU
:E < 0: 0::
Page 3. of 4
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 .. .. .. .. ..
.. \0 \0 co N .....
~I 0\ 0 ..... "It \0 tt'\
S3 ..... . LI'I ..... r-I "It
.. .. .. ..
.. tt'\ ..... \0 .....
U'l ..... .....
0\ .....
.... ....
Ul
~ ~~
< ~ Ul
LiJ Vl ~6 >
>- < :z Vl ~ ~
LL ~ Vl Ul Vl Vl 0 C~
:z ~ ~ Vl C Vl
> ~ Vl 0:::-1 Ul Ul ffi~
1-4 -I < Ul~ ~ ::E
LL. 0::: 0::: ~ ~ ~r ~
~ ~ 0:: Ul LiJ
< Ul a:l Z...J
~ Ul ~ Ul ...J
Z ~ Ul ~~ F ~<
~ S@c; ~
~ ~ Ul ~Q a LiJ~
~ Q S@ ~g ~ ::1:0
~ ~~ ~ :':LL.
C is ~ VlN
~ ~Ul ~ U)U)
:z Vl ~~ >- ~~
~ ..-c F ..-c
>- Ul ~ Q ~~ 0::
F ~o ..-c Z~ ~ Q. S~
~ ~ .. 0 ~ffi ZQ.
z Vl ...... ~ ..-c ~
~o Q....... 0 ~~ trlF U)Q..
Q.. ~fia Q 0 8
~o ~ 0 ... Ul ~~ ~ ~~
~!Z~ 8fia .. ~ 0::
<>- ~ ~~ c; <
Iffi~ a:l is ..-c ~(!J ~ Q..~
c;~ 0...... ..... ..J ~~ ..-c ~!
z .. 1-4 ~~< :z:
1-4 ..-c~ ..-c ..... ~ :J: ~
Vl~Q.. ::1:...... ~ffi I ~ ~N ~~Ul 0
.~ Ollt ..-c a:l ~ (f) Z U)LL.
~~::E --ffi --~ -- -I << < Ul 2:Z
(!3 ~ ~~ ffi ~ ~ ~ ~1-4
N 8..-c~ U)> Vl :z ~ 0
~Ul ~t; ~ ~~g ..-c ~~
I- ..J>- :z ~ ..J Vl
z: (f)<(f) ~~ ~ffi Vl ffi ~o::: ..-c < U)1-4
W -I~ ~ ~ 5~ Vl8ee (.) ~ Z
:::E: <..-c~ ffi~ ffia x ~ n
:I: g~~ Ul ~ ~Vl z~..-c <
u >Vl ~~ ..-c ~
~ 0 ~ U)ffi ~ ~ ~!
I- @5o::Ul >- LL. 0 ~ ~~ Vl~ ~ Vl
I- ~(.) ~ < ~E
~ i<-I LiJffi Ul~ ~ ..-c ~Q .....<. ..J
~-I 0 ~~ffi Q.. ~>
~8 ~a ~~ N ~ Q..~ Q.~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ..
I < a: . ~ ..J
Vl W 0 5 Ul~ ~
~ ..J ~ff ~~ ..... ~Q ~Ul oenVl @5~ VlVl
< Ulec; :j~ U) ~
0 ~o ~ ~m <~ 0::% ~t5b
0 (!J ~~ z< <0 Vl ~Q.. g~< ~~
0\ I-4Ul ~ I-4:lUl 0::
0\ b @~ 2:>- -Ifia ~ Ul__ dffiUl ~c~ <
..... ..-cl ~~ ~i Vl~ ~
Ul -10 z~z ~~ Q..~Q..
~ LLlN ..-c ..-c ~
Q.. . . . . . . . . .
U)
~ ~
Z 0:: ~
ffi F LLl
g S
~ ~
1-4
a (!3 F ~
~ ~ 1-4 1-4
. Z
>- ~ ~ ~ I
~ 8
~ :J:
Vl ~
-I ...J ::E ~U) 0
< ::l e<1 t-
o (!3 Q 0
(!3 LLl 0 ZUJ 0
~ ~ ~ 1-4 1-4 :z
0: ~~ 0
0 t- => a..
i I.LJ 0 8~ U)
~ LLl LiJ
< 0: 0:
Page 4 of 4
0 0 0 0
,... 0 0 0 0
4o"t 0 0 0 0
(/) .. .. .. ..
1-0\ 0 rl"\ N U'l
(/)(0 rl"\ 'Ot r-l co
8~ 'Ot N co 'Ot
.. .. .. ..
.-I r-l 0\ N
r-l N
4o"t 4o"t
~t;
LLJ .....
ffi~
~~
zo
I- <
:EO
Z LLJ
LLJ ~~
~ <<
H OCl..
a x
o LLJ .
~ LLJ Z
<0::
...J 0
~ cs ~u.. en
LLJ
..... ~~ !
Q.. Z
>-~~ 0 ~LLJ N
~ ~~ 0:
O::ffi8 LLJ
u..
I~~ 0 Q..Cl.. u..
~ ~
Q..O co
<z
I-i:~ ~ :E< LLJ
0
M (/).....ffi Z ~~ .....
I- 8...J ffi z ~
z (/)~~ (/)LLJ
w ~ (/):E Cl..
::E ...J ..... LLJLLJ
:I: <Cl..i: zen ~
u 0< i: LLJ<
<C C!()..... >LLJ
I- ..... E~ ~
I- O::O::...J
<C 0<< ~
iLLJO:: LLJ..... LIJ
>-LLJ ~ tt~ @s 00
:J:ffi ...J
CI) < LLJHen 0:: ~
~C! ...J (/) LLJ:Z:~ Cl..
< ~
0 LLJ (/)LLJl= ~
0 (!:l c <0::
g: ..... ~~ffi H 0::
t; ~ 8 <
.-I LLJ
LLJ 0:: ~<~ >-
8 Q.. < :J:
c:: ~
Cl.. . . . .
en
~ i
z ~
LLJ
ffi ~
c::
.....
a ~
LLJ .....
c:: Z
>- ~ I
c:: (/)
~ 8
(/) <
-l -l :E ~
< ::> e<l
0 ~ c
(!:l LLJ C
c:: ~ ~
c::
0 I- :::> Cl..
:e LLJ c (/)
LLJ LLJ LLJ
:E: :E c:: 0::
.
Centra ':ontra Costa Sanitar) Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
January 25, 1990
NO.
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR 4
ADVISE lHE BOARD OF CLOSEOUT OF lHE GAS
a-tROMATOGRAPH/MASS SPECTROMETER SYSTEM,
DISTRICT PROJ ECT NO. 10041
DATE
January 18, 1990
TYPE OF ACTION
SUBJECT
INFORMATIONAL
SUBMITTED BY
Bhupinder S. Dhal iwal
Laboratory Superintendent
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Plant Operations Department
ISSUE: All work has been completed on the purchase, installation, and startup of
the Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS) System, District Project No. 10041.
BACKGROUND: The Regional Water Qual ity Control Board requi res the District to
monitor 112 organic compounds, which are designated as priority pollutants in the
treatment plant's influent, effluent, sludge, and ash. Additionally, the District
monitors these same priority pollutants on septage waste and industrial sources to
check compl i ance with its own Industri al Source Control Ordi nance. These priority
pollutants are monitored in very low concentrations, i.e. parts per billion (ppb),
under such programs. The monitoring of these organic pollutants in such low
concentrations requires a GC/MS system.
In January 1988 the District Board of Directors approved the purchase and
installation of the GC/MS System, District Project No. 10041. On June 16, 1988, the
Board of Directors accepted the bid of $233,235 from Kratos Analytical. The total
project budget of $311,000 included the costs for electrical and ventilation
modifications to the laboratory, installation, startup services, and Laboratory
staff training. Kratos Analytical delivered the equipment in October 1988, and the
installation was completed in March 1989.
The Di stri ct has compl eted the startup of the equi pment, and the equi pment is
performing satisfactorily. The total completed project cost is $306,080 resulting
in a return of $4,920 to the General Improvements Program.
RECOMMENDATION:
This matter is presented as information to the Board of Di rectors. No action is
requi red.
tAJVj
RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A-9/85
.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 18
POSITION
PAPER BOARD MEETING OF
January 25, 1990
NO.
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR 5
SUBJECT
SET A RJBLIC HEARING TO BE CONDUCTED ON FEBRUARY 15, 1990,
TO CONSIDER REQUESTS FOR A MID-YEAR REFUSE COLLECTION
RATE ADJ USTMENT BY V ALLEY WASTE MANPGEMENT, ORINDA-MORPGA
DISPOSAL SERV ICE, INC., AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE
DISPOSAL
DATE
January 18, 1990
TYPE OF ACTION
SET RJBLIC
HEARING
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT IDIV
Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer
Administrative/Finance & Accounting
ISSUE: The Board of Directors must set a public hearing to consider requests for a
mid-year refuse collection rate acUustment by Valley Waste Management, Orinda-Moraga
Disposal Service, Inc., and Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal.
BACKGROUND: Requests have been received from the three refuse collection firms for
a mid-year review to increase their collection rates based solely on increases in
disposal fees. These requests are appended to this Position Paper as Attachment I -
Valley Waste Management, Attachment II - Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service and
Attachment III - Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal.
Valley Waste Management -- This refuse collector uses the Acme landfill for all of
its collected refuse. The request for a mid-year review is based on an increase
in the Acme landfill disposal fee of $47 per ton to a $52 per ton transfer
station fee effective December 15, 1989, and the assessment of closure costs in
May 1990.
Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service -- This refuse collector uses the Acme landfill for
resi denti al refuse and the West Contra Costa Sani tary Landfi 11 in Ri chmond for
commercial and drop box refuse. The request for a mid-year review is based on
an increase of Acme landfill disposal fee from of $47 per ton to a $52 per ton
transfer station fee effective December 15, 1989 and the assessment of closure
costs; the Richmond disposal fee was increased from $31.20 per ton to $35 per
ton effecti ve November 1, 1989, and further increased to $36.81 per ton
effective January 1, 1990.
Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal -- This refuse collector uses the GBF landfill
(Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill) for all of its collected refuse. The request
for a mid-year review is based on an increase in the GBF landfill disposal fee
of $38 per ton to $45 per ton effective December 15, 1989.
In establishing the refuse collection rates effective July 1, 1989, the existing
di sposal fees were used because of the uncertai nty regardi ng the future Acme
transfer station fee. The Board, therefore, provided for a subsequent acUustment to
collection rates during the July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990 rate period when the
transfer stati on fee were known, and the resul ti ng forecasted di sposal expense
differed significantly from the disposal expense on which the July 1, 1989
collection rates were based.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
SUBJECT
SET A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE CONIlJCTED ON FEBRUARY 15, 1990,
TO CONSIDER REQUESTS FOR A MID-YEAR REFUSE COLLECTION
RATE AOJ USTMENT BY V ALLEY WASTE MANPGEMENT, ORINDA-tIORPGA
DISPOSAL SERV ICE, INC., AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE
DISPOSAL
POSITION PAPER
PAGE
DATE
2
OF
18
J anuarv 18, 1990
District staff will prepare an analysis of each of the requests for a mid-year
review and determine the change in collection rates required based solely on the
increase in landfill disposal and transfer station fees.
It is necessary to set the date of the publ ic hearing to consider the request for
increases to collection rates at the January 25, 1990 Board Meeting to meet the
requirements for public notice.
RECOMtENDATION: Set a publ i c heari ng to be conducted on February 15, 1990 to
consider requests for a mid-year refuse collection rate adjustment by Valley Waste
Management, Ori nda-Moraga Di sposa 1 Serv ice, Inc., and Pl easant Hi 11 Bay Shore
Disposal based solely on an increase in disposal expenses.
SSS/Pos. Paper #3/Mid-Yr Adj
13028-9/85
ATTACHMENT I
Valley Waste Management
P.O. Box 4007
2658 N. Main Street
Walnut Creek, California 94596
415/935-8900
~
~
A Waste Management Company
January 16, 1990
Honorable Susan Rainey, President
and Members of the Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Members:
On March 31, 1989 our company requested a rate increase, pursuant to the terms of
our agreement with the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ("CCCSD"), in the amount
of 70.64 percent. The most significant reason for the request was the projected cost
of landfill tipping fees in the amount of $89.00 per ton.
During the review of our company's rate request, Price Waterhouse found it was difficult
to project when the Acme transfer station would open, and what the costs of transfer,
disposal, and closure would be. With this in mind, Price Waterhouse and the CCCSD
staff jointly recommended to the Board that our company be allowed to recover
disposal costs at the current rate of $47.00 per ton. When the actual costs of the
Acme transfer, disposal, and closure were known, Valley would be allowed to return
with an interim rate request for relief of those costs. The Board approved these
recommendations at the board meeting of July 20, 1989.
Effective December 18, 1989, Acme Fill Corporation notified Valley Waste Management
of an increase in their gate fee to $52.22 per ton for transfer and disposal (V.3-1). In
addition, the Touche Ross review of Acme closure costs determined an annual
assessment to Valley Waste Management's service area of the CCCSD, effective
December 18 1989, in the amount of $431,400 (V.4-1). Sara Hoffman, the County Solid
Waste Manager, has confirmed to our company that when the "Memorandum of
Understanding" (MOU) is finalized, the County will request payment in full of the Acme
closure assessment retroactive to December 18, 1989.
a division of SAWDCO Cl
Honorable Susan Rainey, President
and Members of the Board of Directors
January 16, 1990
Page 2
Therefore, Valley Waste Management is requesting an increase of 16.89 percent
to recover increased transfer and disposal costs of $215,000, and the Acme closure
assessment of $233,000 from December 18, 1989 through June 30, 1990. These
costs are projected to be recovered over the three-month period of April 1 through
June 30, 1990 (V.1-1). That will raise the single can rate from $15.75 per month to
$18.40 (V.6-1).
Attached to this letter are various supporting documentation. Should you or your
staff have additional questions, we will be pleased to be of assistance.
Very truly yours,
James E. Landa
Controller
-=r~lvt
Jerome M. Kruszka
Acting General Manager
sl
Enclosures
INDEX
Item
Title
Tab Page
1. Rate Increase Required Based on
Transfer, Disposal, and Closure
Costs Effective December 18, 1989 1-1
2. Adjusted Disposal Expense @ $47.00
per Ton From CCCSD Position Paper
dated July 3, 1989 2-1
3. Acme Fill Rate Change Notice 3-1
4. Touche Ross Analysis of Closure
and Post-Closure Cost Collection 4-1
5. Revenue Projection by
Customer Type 5-1
6. Schedule of Current and
Proposed Rates 6-1, 6-1. 1
V. 1-1
VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT
-CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT-
RATE INCREASE REQUIRED BASED ON
TRANSFER, DISPOSAL, AND CLOSURE COSTS
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 18, 1990
(000)
Annual disposal expense projected for
the fiscal period 7/01/89 thru
6/30/90 . $52.22 per ton
((3,564/47.00)*52.22))
3,960
Annual disposal expense projected for
the fiscal period 7/01/89 thru
6/30/90 . $47.00 per ton
(V. 2-1)
3,564
Annual increased cost of disposal
396
6.5/12
Increase in disposal cost 12/18/89
thru 6/30/90
215
Annual Acme closure assessment
(V. 4-1)
431
6.5/12
Acme closure assessment 12/18/89
thru 6/30/90
233
Total revenue increase required
448
---------
---------
Projected annual revenue fiscal
period 7/01/89 thru 6/30/90
(V. 5-1)
10,608
3/12
Projected revenue April thru June 1990
2,652
---------
---------
16.89%
---------
---------
V. 2-1
VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT
AL TERNATE RATE ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS
DISPOSAL EXPENSES BASED ON $47/TON
(000 Omitted. Unless Otherwise Noted)
Pass-Through
Acme Landff1l
Disposal Expense
Without Profit
Margin
Forecasted Unadjusted Revenues for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1990
S 8.700
Forecasted Operating Expenses for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1990
Deduct: Acme Landfill Disposal Expense
10.078
<A><3.564> I
6.514
Forecasted Operating Expenses Adjusted for Acme Landfill Disposal Expense
Forecasted Revenue Required to Produce 94 Percent Operating Ratio
Add: Forecasted Franchise Fee
Acme Landfill Disposal Expense
6.930
85
<A> 3.564
casted Revenues Adjusted for Forecasted Franchise Fee and
Acme Landfill Disposal Expense
10.579
Increase in Forecasted Revenues Required
1.879
Jercent Increase in Forecasted Revenues Required
21.601
Attachment I
Per
District
Analysis
8,700
10,078
10,721
85
10,806
2,106
24.20%
Current
Effect of Alternate Rate Adjustment on Rates
Representative Collection Rates:
Residential - Single Can $ 12.95 S15.75 $16.10
Commercial - Single Can $ 14.75 S17 . 95 $18.30
20-Yard Drop Box $192.95 S234.65 $239.65
SS/Rate Setting 1988-89/VWM Alt Rate
j:-
.=~'~ J :1:"
i..-J:
'I :\_-:' I L 1-,'" ~
r'-.-- :-. :-, r,
V. 3-1 1
'"
1lCHU?/ dJdl, ~
DIRECTORS
Bart Bisio
Clark COlvis
"
PRESIDENT
Boyd M. Olney, Jr.
SECRETARY-TREASURER
George Navone
Deccr::ber 18, 1989
~
Mr. Jerry Kruszka
Valley Waste Management
2658 N. Main Street
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Mr. Kruszka:
**
Effective 12:01 am December 19, 1989 Acme Fill Corporation's
gate fee will be $52.22 per ton.
We wish to thank you for your continued patronage.
Very truly yours,
73~fm~O'
Boyd M. Olney, Jr.
cc: Mr. Gino Scopesi
Mr. Tom Blackman
SMO/ph
** Effective date states December 19, 1989. However, Acme
billed Valley from December 18, 1989.
.....
~:II
a~=~
~ II
0"-
....._"0
-c....,.....
::) II tit
::c..,1I
::C::)II
<0:
(I)
....
(I)
o
U
..,
'"
::)
(I)
o
.....
U
.
....
(I)
o
0..
ci
:z
<
..,
'"
::)
(I)
o
.....
U
w
....
(I)
~
(I)
a
o
'"
<
N
<
:&:
.., .....
u""
~:
<::)
CIllO
N"II_
0.... -
~g;:~
U,II
wo"
....._11
..... . II
8:3=
0- II
.... =
. II
~~II'"
~~ ::~
~UJ:I 0
CX~.....
::)::)11-0
(1)(1)11
g g ::;;
uu ::
o
w
....
<
x
....
'"
w
....
a
:&:
....
3
.....
-
..... ....
=~
.... 0-
::c -
- .
,..,
~-o
0-
-
N
w
>
....
<
:z
'"
w
....
.....
<
N
....
'"
:&:
X
W
II
BE
" .
1111'I
11_
"0
" .
11-
1It1t
II
"
:: ~
II
II~
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
~
0.
11'I
tit
N
W
:z
....
'"
<
x
.....
<
'"
o
0..
'"
o
o
'"
o
U
2
o
U
~
-
i
tit
~
~
'i
,
N
t
.
-
tit
-
11'I
00
,.:
11'I
~
.
11'I
tit
~
11'I
-0
-
o
'"
o
U
2
o
U
Touche Ross
Acme Fill
Closure and Post-Closure
Cost Collection Alternatives
November 7, 1989
~~I-o~' ,.,
,., ~ co . ,.,
....".......0.
--.fO......ao:N
~otltll'l.OO
.......... NliI\
tIttlt tIt.tIt
-~OO"'o#'Ri
~~Ri~:a:,.,
":":i':'::~
~~0=-~:G1
tilt .. lit .....
........ N 1ft
tIttlt tit ..
o~...,.,"".
~&~~:;:
.. .. ... .. ....
0"'-0#0'
~~g~o::
~ ...;c.. ...
- -
.. ..
...."","'0.......
~~~c;~:
.. ... .. lit ....
OO_II'I~N.
11'I0.0 0.'
,.,000 ~.
.. lit... .. .
;;~.. ~
~~~~~
....,.,., 11\0 'lQ
. . . . .
~o.II'IN""
-
w
U
>
'"
w
(I)
w
....
(I)
<
3
.....
w
t.:J
<
CIll
'"
~
.....
>-<
w'"
.....0
..... 0..
<'"
>-
o
.....
<>-
"'w
.... .....
2 .....
w<
U>
w
....
.... .....
W 11'I
>- .....
<
.... 0
< ,..,W
...J~....COt-
,,",wco-ce
w- '"
WOr: :z0
....uwoo..
:u....j~~
:>-:J-a::u
<:z> 2
\..Ir......Jzz-
<<<<2
.....30"'::)
...
~
~
11'I
.
11'I
..
-0
,..,
0.
""
-
~
-
;;
~
11'I
~
,.,
.....
<
....
o
I-
0.....
,., ~ .
"!.~:
-0,.,.
11'I11'I .
....:
0-.
0.....
,., 0# .
";,,,:
-0,.,'
11'I11'I .
.....
&&:00
II'IN.g;
0: ,,-: ..0
N-O.o.
;l;l:~
o.o.co
~r::::~
.. .
NN'In
&8:&
.. ..
;; ;;
~~ ~
00 0
,..,,., -0
w
.....u
<-
(I)>
0'"
o..w
'" '"
ox
o
<'"
t.:J
<0..
"'0
Ca::
xo
......
<<
00
:z %
'" '"
00
<<
t.:Jo
<:z
"'-
0'"
xo
~
0..
o
;;
~
.;
g
.
-
..
.....
<
....
o
....
~N~:;;~:o:n:
<<t~...o..~""..~~: ~
"'O-oOOOIl'l!!i!'
~:;~:l~~M:
.. tit .
~~,.,-o.""o..
NII'\OCO....O.
0#11'I"""'-0""
~.ii'^i~i. :
o-~~"'o# .
.... .... tilt .. .
;; :;
...."',.",................0-0
~~~~tSN~:~
.. .. lit lit lit .. ...
........,."ot-o..,.
0.,.,_,.,-000-0'
=-;; ,.,.:;;t ~ ~;l :
;;
:!~~~~~~:N
,....,o....o-.ococ:o.:Q
0: cO ....,... "," N- an- 0: :
-o,.,...-...,.,~.
oo.:;;t ":.~ N..~ "'? :
.... N .... ......
tit ... ... ...
~~~~~~~
. . . . . . .
II'IOOO_"'N~
.....
<
'"
o
0..
(I)
o
w
'"
o
:&:
'"
>-
<
'"
.....
w
co
<
'"
'"
<
co
co 0
a:: W
o ::>....
w,.....,co<
8~(I)'"
.........0
.... a::: t- a..
z:z::c.......<-o:::
<ou -0..0
(I)....oou U
<>_UJ_t-z
~~~8ffi~;;
o..ucCo:m::a::>
.....
.....
:&:
.....
.....
:&:
....
:z
<
(I)
<
w
.....
0..
.....
11'I
.....
....
o
11'I
...
:!~:~
O~'II'I
. ..
N~ ;:fi
......... N
"'......
N
0:
J:::-
o
11'I
..
-0""
~~:
. ..
O~ .
-,., .
N_ .
. .
--
... ...
J:::.
00
,.,
...
... N .
co,.,.
0000.
. ..
~II'I .
II'I~ .
... 11'I .
......
11'I
11'I
0.
co
...
"'...
N_
11'I"-
'" 0
~~
..;;
~
-
~~
0- -
"-
N
11'I11'I
.....
<
....
o
....
w
....
<I;
co
'"
a::
w
~
o
....
(I)
~
u
uw
-co
..... '"
"'<
~:&:
C>.U
N
'"
11'I
;:fi
N
...
0.
t::
o.
o
,.,
-
..
o
~
N
-0.
~
,..,
...
~
o
-
-
V.4-1
o
o
0.
N
~
;;
0.
!
.
en 11'I
::)00
.....0.
0.._ .
~~~
~~~
- ....
lh5C1t
..,Well:
....,
w ...
'" :I: en
~~3
..... ....
ug..,
~....~
(I) -:z.
w.....o...
-~-o
....-....
-zut.:J
U -::c
o~~;
WN-UJ
:;;,.,~218
-00-, 0
~o. IoU...
w'-o~g
:&:w< 0
....:l:LlJae ..
.... ..,,.,
'" ell:....,.,
000......
.....~.....ccn
cc ..aU>>-
......... ~-'
c(CI>>-c(UJ
cU,tI.A.::).....
"'::c....(I) 0
~~-~:i ~
-z..... U
I--<ocn UJ
::5wi....B ~
::Jozoo .....
o..::JeCwc.: <<.
~ctw=~ wen
::cxu<<",5
CJ-....:z:c-ciil
% 0 U ..
-oout.:J-o.
(l)z....wz:zcow
::>< ",-wo.ell:
wo.gw9C1ll-~
""00 o<O.....z 0:;)
~;()3;.....~~.......
-.........W-ILLlU.,.,Z
.....0<<- '-0-
"'-"'=-....(1)0.
w 0 (1)0_0
XU(I)O::c ..,
~go~u~~g
oowww "'....
C1Ca:....Xac..........-
XU(I)::)U ~
w....WW(l)W(l)
:&: .....(1)0.....<
UO...JCI)_"~LLI
a~8<l;'8~~
....u 0.....
W(l)W (1)0 0""
<..,........o....wen
0%<0.. ....::)
"''''a..... w<x
-o..xagiil~(I)
<w<-'<-o..<
....'" < (I)",W
<<.....UW(l) 0'"
o < ",OU<
(1)::)0::)0..%
....10....%(1) -0
...JZUcCOw:zw
-::)< ....."'::>....
u.&.I... (l)U <
2' Z .....z~
-0 0000-0
w....-wz a..
..........(1)....... cna.:
zuwu<>-wO
wwa::wx<(C)u
U...Jw-,-xzz
ffi5~~~....~;
0.. u-o..w-u:;:)
o
o
o
~
N
co
co.
;;
...
o
o
o
o
en
::)
....
<
....
(I)
-
11'I
N
~
;;
.
(I)
-
en
..
~
(I)
x
....
o
o
o
o
00
o
,..,
'"
...
::c
~
o
o
o
-
.....
<
....
o
....
..........
-N
..........
...............
"'~II'I
..... ..... 'oJ
V. 5-1
V~LLEY W~STE M~NAGEMENT
-CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT-
REVENUE PROJECTION BY CUSTOMER TYPE
FISCAL PERIOD ENDING 06/30/89
(000) (000)
Annual Projected
Revenue Rate Annual
6/30/89 Increase Revenue
Percentage 6/30/90
--------- ---------- ---------
Residential 5,500 21.6% 6,688
Commercial 2,200 22.5% 2,695
Rolloff 1,000 22.5% 1,225
--------- ---------
Totals 8,700 10,608
--------- ---------
--------- ---------
VALLBY WASTB MANAGEMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT
FRANCHISE ZONES 2, 4 AND 5
SCHEDUL~ OF C~RENT AND ~ROPOSED RATES
V. 6-1
Current
Rates
(Effective
7/1/89)
Proposed
Rates
(Effective
4/1/90)
ReQular Service:
1 32-gallon can weekly*
Each additional can weekly
Each additional can -- non-regular
$15.75
7.40
per pick-u 3.85
$18.40
$8.65
$4.50
1 can weekly - Special service (hilly) areas
Zone 2
Zone 4
Zone 5
19.10
15.75
19.10
22.35
18.40
22.35
Multi-Apartment Service:
Each apartment weekly
Each additional can weekly
Each additional can -- non-regular per pick-u
13.05
8.80
4.85
15.25
10.30
5.65
Commercial Service:
One can weekly
Each additional can weekly
Each additional can -- non-regular per pick-u
18.05
7.10
4.55
21.10
8.30
5.30
1 Cubic Yard:
1 time per week 68.00 79.50
2 times per week 116.20 135.85
3 times per week 164.45 192.25
4 times per week 212.65 248.55
5 times per week 258.65 302.35
2 Cubic Yards:
1 time per week 116.20 135.85
2 times per week 212.65 248.55
3 times per week 309.05 361.25
4 times per week 405.60 474.10
5 times per week 502.00 586.80
3 Cubic Yards:
1 time per week 160.35 187.45
2 times per week 308.10 360.15
3 times per week 463.60 541.90
4 times per week 618.20 722.60
5 times per week 762.80 891.65
* Includes two 32-gallon cans of garden trimmings per week and three
refuse clean-ups per year.
These rates exclude curbside recycling.
VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT
FRANCHISE ZONES 2, 4 AND 5
SCHEDULE OF CURRENT AND PROPOSED RATES
V. 6-1.1
Current Proposed
Rates Rates
(Effective (Effective
7/1/89) 4/1/90)
--------- ---------
4 Cubic Yards:
1 time per week 212.65 248.55
2 times per week 404.90 473.30
3 times per week 578.65 676.40
4 times per week 752.15 879.20
5 times per week 926.35 1,082.80
6 Cubic Yards:
1 time per week 303.10 354.30
2 times per week 606.15 708.55
3 times per week 888.95 1,039.10
4 times per week 1,181.90 1,381.50
5 times per week 1,474.90 1,724.00
Compacted Refuse Service~_
Per Cubic Yard 23.65 27.65
Drop Box Service:
7 Cubic Yards (dir t & rocks) 236.25 276.15
20 Cubic Yards 236.25 276.15
30 Cubic Yards 354.35 414.20
40 Cubic Yards 472.75 552.60
These rates exclude curbside recycling.
01/04/90 15:02
tt9441112
LITTLE & SAPUTO
iii 002
ATTACHMENT II
LITTLE & SAPUTO
'ti'rBR T. SAPUTO
OlSI!LLB A. JURICANJN
XnN D. LITTLE
A7TOANfrn AI' LA W
~OO 'YONACIO VALLBY ROAD, SUITE 380
WALNUT CkHSK, CA 94596
January 4, 1990
(415) V4",SOOO
'AC.sIIl'I.~
(415) 944.1112
VIA FACSIMILE
Sue McNulty Rainey, President
Board of Directors
Contra costa Central Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Rate Review Caused By Increase In Tipping Fee.
orinda-Moraga Dispoaal Service, Inc.
Dear President Rainey:
On behalf of Orinda-Moraqa Disposal Service, Inc. ('IOrinda-
Moragall) we submit this request for a mid-year review seeking an
increase 1n rates due solely to an increase in disposal rates
charged. Orinda-Moraga disposes of its collected refuse at both
the Richmond and the Acme Fill dumpsites. Both sitea have recently
increased the tipping tees, Each disposal site has also added
extra charges to the base tipping fee.
The tipping fee at Acme is currently $52.22 per ton which rate
was effective as of December 15, 1989. We have been advi.ed by
County staff that they expect to .SS.8S the closure costs
retroactive to December 15, 1989. That a8sessment should occur
approximately March 15, depending on all of the agreements being
timely prepared and executed. The Board might wish to consider ~
some mechanism to cover that eventuality.
The Richmond disposal charge waa increa8ed to $35 per ton ::-
effective NOVember 1, 1989 (up trom a previous rate of $31.20).
As of January 1, 1990, the following additional charges were added
to the base tipping fee:
a. 9S~ per ton for the Contra Costa County Public Works
Department;
b. 36C per ton for environmental health,
c. sac per ton to cover the State mandated A8939 chargas.
The total disposal charge as ot January 1, 1990, at the Richmond
s1~e i. $36.81.
.
01/04/90 15:02
V94.l .2
LITTLE Be SAPUTC'
lil 003
Sue McNulty Rainey, President
Board of Directors
Contra Costa Central Sanitary D1atrict
January 4, 1990
Page 2
Becaus. Orinda-Moraqa diaposes of ita refuse at two difterent
landfill aites, calculating the new tipping fees is a little more
complicated. The residential refuse is disposed of at A~e, while
the compactor, commercial and box refuse 1s disposed of at
Richmond. Set forth below then is a recalculation of the
torecasted tipping tees:
Incra...d Diapossl Costs - ~ovember and December~ 1989
$ 919,320
45,500
92,400
290.50(2
$1,347,720
This total must then be adjusted tor the tifteen (15) days at the
increaaed rate at Acme for December, 1989.
(Residential)
(Compactor)
(Commeroial)
(Box)
19,560 x $47.00/ton -
1,300 x 35.00/ton-
2,640 x 35.00/ton E
8,300 x 35.00/ton =
(No chanqe)
19,560 X $52.22 - $1,021,423
These figures, plus those above, are on an annual basis and
need to be adjusted for a monthly basis and in the case of the Acme
charges, for the one-half (\) monthly basis.
Increased ni_pasal Costs Commencing J.nua~y 1. 1990
$1,021,423
47,853
97,178
305.52;1
$1,471,977
These figures (which are annualized) should be adjusted to reflect
that they would only be in effect for the next six (6) months.
(Reaidential)
(compactor)
(Commercial)
(Box)
19,560 x $52.22/ton -
1,300 x 36.81/ton.
2,640 x 36.81/ton-
8,300 x 36.81/ton c
~
;::;
The increase in the rate requested should be calculated usinq
the new torecasted dump fees derived above. Presumably, this would
simply be a peroentage increase applied uniformly across all rates.
in accordance with the Board's latest announcement of policy. .
Please schedule this item on the next available Board agenda.
In any event, please notity this firm and/or Orinda-Xoraqa when we
might expect this item to be heard.
V~'V~'~V ~~.vv
.. ~..4 4 460t
..." "...,..., VI hlna """V
"WII Y'y ..
Sue McNulty Rainey, President
Board of Director.
Con~ra Cos~a Central Sanitary Di.trict
January 4, 1990
Page 3
Thank you again tor your cooperation and kind consideration
in this mat1:er.
Very truly yours,
LITTLE &: SAPUTO
XDL/Dlk
CC: Orinda-Moraqa Disposal Service, Inc.
Walter Funasaki
:::-
LITTLE & SAPUTO
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PETER T. SAPUTO
GISELLE A. JURKANIN
KEN D. LITTLE
500 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 380
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(415) 944-5000
FACSIMILE:
(415) 944-1112
January 11, 1990
VIA FACSIMILE
AND REGULAR MAIL
Susan McNulty Rainey, President
Board of Directors
Contra Costa Central Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
~3~\C~u\vf~lC)
JAN 1~ 1990
CCCSO
."r.'~l"l.!,T~"Y (')'" T\-I~ ~.,.-_._-
Re: Rate Review Caused By Increase In Tipping Fees
Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal
Dear President Rainey:
On behalf of Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal ("PHBD"), we
request a midyear review of rates due to yet another increase in
tipping fees. GBF Landfill has just increased its disposal rates.
The increase in tipping fees was effective December 15, 1989.
The tipping fee at the GBF Landfill which was $22.50 in July,
1988 and was subsequently raised in November, 1988 to $25, and
again in March, 1989 to $30, and again August 1, 1989, to $38 per
ton, and is now raisd effective December 15, 1989, to $45 per ton.
This represents an 18.4% increase in tipping fees since the
approval of the new rates. It represents an increase in tipping
fees of 80% in one year. A copy of the letter notifying PIIBD of
the increase is enclosed. Based on the foregoing circumstances,
PHBD has no alternative but to seek to have the rates for
collection and disposal adjusted to reflect the new cost. PHBD
hereby a{>plies for changes in rates based upon these ci r.cumstances.
In its most recent application, PHBD showed total tipping fees
forecasted to be $180,313. Set forth below is a recalculation of
forecasted tipping fees:
Old Dump Fee Per Ton
New Dump Fee Per Ton
Percentage Increase
$38
$45
18.4%
Total Dump Fees In Application
Percentage Increase
New Forecasted Dump Fees
($180,313 x 1.184%)
$180,313
18.4%
$213,491
Susan McNulty Rainey, President
Board of Directors
Contra Costa Central sanitary District
January 11, 1990
Page 2
The increase in rate required should be calculated using the
new forecasted dump fees of $213,491. Presumably this will simply
be a percentage increase applied uniformly across all rates in
accordance with the Board's latest announcement of policy.
Please schedule this item on the next available Board agenda.
Please notify this firm and/or PHBD when it might expect this item
to be heard.
Thank you again for your cooperation and kind consideration
in this matter.
Very truly yours,
LITTLE & SAPUTO
KDL/mk
enclosure
cc: Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal
Walter Funasaki (w/enc.)
~~
{/
;.;
..........,
---
Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill
P.O. BOX 5397
CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94520
(415) 682.9073
December 8, 1989
Pleasant Hill Bay Shore
Disposal Service
P. O. Box 23164
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
ATTN: Boyd Olney, Jr.
RE
.
.
Disposal Fees
Dear Mr. Olney,
Effective December 15, 1989 disposal rates will be
increased at the Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, in Antioch
to $45.00 per ton.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter,
please phone our office.
Sincerely,
-~
sil Garaventa, Sr.
President
SGS:br
cc: Concord Disposal SerJice
Pittsburg Disposal Service
Delta Debris Box Service
Oakley Disposal Service
Brentwood Disposal Service
cJk'v~1J ~ VA1-
IfP7 l 0<:.../ - l,e.L
p. ~ -:)D-L f Ptd-
.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 3
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
January 25, 1990
NO.
VI.
SOLI 0 WASTE
1
SUBJECT
DATE
January 22, 1990
ADOPT A RESOlUTION APPROVING lHE SUBMISSION OF A
PROPOSAL UNDER lHE CALIFORNIA BEVERlGE roNTAINER
RECYC-ING MD LITTER REOOCTION ACT
TYPE OF ACTION
ADOPT RESOlUTION
SUBMITTED BY
Harriette Heibel, Public Inf. Coord.
INITIATING DEPT /DIV
Administrative/Personnel
ISSUE: A formal acti on of th e Boa rd of Di rectors is req ui red s upporti ng th e
submission of a proposal to the California Department of Conservation, Division of
Recycl i ng, for grant funds under the Ca 1 Horni a Beverage Contai ner Recycl i ng and
Litter Reduction Act.
BAa(GROOND: The District has previously applied for and received grant funds from
the California Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling, for implemention
of litter abatement and recycling activities. In 1989, the District was awarded a
total of $54,774.15 for two recycling projects: 1) $47,930.47 for curbside recycling
containers, and 2) $6,843.68 for promotional materials.
In the Ori nda/Moraga areas, the refuser coll ector, Ori nda-Moraga Di sposal, woul d
like to expand the current curbside recycling program to include multi-residential
units, the commercial sector, and St. Mary's College. In order to undertake this
expandsion, Orinda-Moraga Disposal requires another recycling truck. At this time,
Orinda-Moraga Disposal lacks the funds to purchase such a vehicle. Since applicants
for grants are encouraged to submit projects which include expansion of established
curbsi de recycl i ng programs, Di stri ct staff bel i eves it woul d be worthwhil e to
submit a proposal to the Division of Recycling for the purchase of another recycling
truck for Orinda-Moraga Disposal. If secured, the grant funds would offset the bulk
of the costs associated with expanding a curbside recycling program to the
commerci al and mul ti-resi denti al sectors, thereby reduci ng the future cost to
ratepayers.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution approving the submission of a proposal
under the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act.
INITIATING DEPT/DIV.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A-9/85
HH
PM
RESCl.UnON NO. ro
RESQUTION OF "THE CENlRPL CONlRA roSTA SANITARY DISlRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
APPROV ING lltE SUBMISS ION OF A PROPORAL UNDER lltE CAL IFORN IA ,
BEVERNJE CONTAINER RECYQ ING AND LITTER REOOCTION N:r
WHEREAS, the Legisl ature of the State of Cal iforni a has enacted the
Cal ifornia Beverage Container Recycl ing and Litter Reduction Act which
provides funds to certain entities for 1 itter abatement and recycl ing
activities; and
WHEREAS, the Division of Recycl ing has been delegated the
responsibility for the administration of the program, setting up
necessary procedures governing the submission of proposals by various
organizations and local agencies under the program; and
WHEREAS, said procedures establ ished by the Division of Recycl ing
req ui re the proposer to certify by resol uti on local approval of the
proposal prior to submission of said proposal to the state;
N()/ "THEREFORE, BE IT RES<X...VED that the Board of Directors of the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District:
1. Approves the submission of a proposal for funding under the
Div i s i on of Recycl i ng' s Litter Abatement and Recycl i ng
Activities Contracts Program; and
2. Fully supports all projects within said proposal; and
3. Certifies that the proposed projects do not replace previous
District budgeted projects; and
4. Authorizes the Deputy General Manager as agent of the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District to conduct all negotiations,
execute and submit all documents incl uding but not 1 imited to
proposals, contract agreements, amendments and payment
requests, which may be necessary for the completion of the
aforementioned program.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of January, 1900, by the District
Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the foll CN ing vote:
AYES: Members:
NOES: Members: None
MSENT: Members:
President of the Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary of the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District,County
of Contra Costa, State of California
Approved as to Form:
Kenton Al m, District Counsel
.
Centra~ ~ontra Costa SanitarY...Iistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Januar 25 1990
NO.
VII.
EtlGINEERING
1
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE AIR TOXICS POOLED
EMISSION ESTIMATING PLAN
DATE
Januar 18 1990
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY
David R. Williams
Engineering Division Manager
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering Department
Engineering Division
ISSUE: Authori zat i on by the Board of Di rectors is requ i red for the General
Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with another
public agency.
BACKGROUND: The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987,
enacted by the California legislature, became effective July 1, 1988. The act
requires facilities meeting certain statutory criteria to prepare and submit
comprehensive air emission inventory plans and reports once every two years. The
California Air Resources Board (CARB) has published regulations required by the
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Act. Under these regulations, affected facilities must
submit an air toxic emission inventory plan to their local air quality management
district or air pollution control district. The plans outline how toxic air
emissions from the facility will be estimated. An air toxics emission inventory
report for each of these facilities must then be submitted to the air district
approximately ten months later. The report discloses the quantities of toxic
emissions from each facility.
Approximately 50 publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) will be affected during
the first two years of this program. The regulations require that for POTWs the
gaseous emissions from three specific unit processes (headworks, chlorinator
discharges, and incinerators) must be directly source tested as part of the
emission inventory process. For quantifying all other gaseous emissions, the
regulation allows either direct source testing or any acceptable emission
estimation method.
A typical POTW may have many unit processes whose air emissions consist of high
volume air flow rates released from large uncovered tanks. These emissions often
contain air pollutants at very low concentrations. In many cases, the
concentration of the air pollutants are near the detection limits when employing
state-of-the-art sampling and analytical procedures. Direct source testing is
therefore not always feasible nor cost effective for inventorying these types of
emissions. Emission estimating procedures are therefore more suitable for many
POTWs. Unfortunately emission estimation factors for POTW unit processes are not
well developed.
INITIV&;IV.
f)f!W
ECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A-9/85
DRW
RAB
KLA
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE AIR TOXICS POOLED
EMISSION ESTIMATING PLAN
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 2 OF 2
QATE
January 18, 1990
Accordingly, a Pooled Emission Estimating Plan (PEEP) Program has been developed
by a large number of California agencies operating POTWs. The purpose of the
PEEP Program is to provide participating agencies with estimates of their
releases of air toxics from typical unit treatment processes found at most POTWs.
Specifically, this program is being prepared in accordance with the provisions
set forth by the CARB. The program will involve approximately 470 field tests
which will require the analysis of approximately 1,400 liquid samples (wastewater
or sludge) along with the analytical analysis of approximately 2,000 gas samples.
As a result of the testing and analysis, emission factors will be developed which
can be used to estimate emissions from specific unit processes commonly found at
most POTWs. County Sanitation District No.2 of Los Angeles County (CSD No.2)
has volunteered to be the administrative agency for the PEEP Program. CSD No. 2
wi 11 admi ni ster the funds for the program and enter into contracts with
consultants for performance of the required work.
After revi ewi ng the proposed PEEP Program, staff feels that it woul d be
beneficial for the District to participate in the program. Individual POTW costs
for participation in the PEEP Program is based on the number of unit processes
at the POTW and the flow through each unit process. Central San's participation
in the program requires the District to enter into a JPA with CSD No.2. Cost
to the District is estimated to be approximately $30,000 to $50,000 but would be
limited to a maximum expenditure of $75,000. Staff estimates that it would cost
approximately $500,000 if the District chose to develop the emission factors
independent of the PEEP Program. The District's total cost for compliance with
AB 2588 during the first two years of the act is estimated to be between $250,000
and $300,000. This includes not only the cost for the PEEP Program but also the
cost for development of the emission inventory plan, specific source testing not
covered by the PEEP Program, plus preparation of the emission inventory report
to be submitted to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Funding for
compliance with AB 2588 was not budgeted for FY 1989-90, and thus the Plant's
Technical Services budget will be used to pay for AB 2588-related work. The
Board of Directors has been apprised of AB 2588 via past GM-CE reports.
Staff is aware that the use of a JPA-type of agreement is not mandatory, and that
a more standard contract form would suffice. However, staff has been assured by
Counsel that the District does not incur greater liability by use of the JPA
format, .and this format is generally favored by the other participants in the
program. Therefore, staff feels a JPA is the appropriate instrument to use for
this work.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a Joint
Powers Agreement with the County Sanitation District No.2 of Los Angeles County
for the purpose of complying with AB 2588 Air Toxic "Hot Spots" Information and
Assessment Act of 1987.
13028-9/85
.
Centra~ ':ontra Costa Sanitarv Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1
OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
NO.
SUBJECT
VII 1.
COLLECTION SYS.
1
DATE
.AJJTHORIZE $16,200 FROM THE GENERAL IMPROVHENT
PROGRAM CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT FOR THE RJRa-tASE OF
SIX (6) RESCUE/WORKER SUPPORT UNITS
Authorize Funds To
Replace Deficient
Safety Equipment
SUf3MITTED BY
Yvonne Brown
Operations Support Supervisor
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Coll ecti on
ISSUE: Board authorization is required to purchase equipment items which exceed the
delegated authority limit of $2,000.
BACKGROUND: Rescue/Worker Support Units, consisting of a tripod and a winch, are
used on a weekly basi s by CSOD, POD, and Source Control personnel to lower workers
into manholes, tanks, and other Confined Spaces. The six units currently in use,
most of which were purchased over five years ago, were the only ones on the market at
that time. The Rescue/Worker Support Units are specifically required to be used for
Confined Space entries both under District Safety Directives and State Law.
The Rescue/Worker Support Units currently in use have recently come under question
due to their involvanent in a series of injury accidents that occurred in Southern
California. Testing by an independent engineering laboratory has shown that they do
not meet current Underw riter's Laboratory Standards nor Cal OSHA req ui ranents for
lifting or supporting personnel. Specifically, they do not anploy a wire rope, the
method of attachment of the rope to the winch drum does not prevent fraying and
subsequent loss of strength, and their rate of descent can exceed the allowable rate
of 35 feet per minute. The existing units cannot be economically modified to comply
with the appl icabl e requi rements.
All six Rescue/Worker Support Units are recommended for repl acement at this time
because of the continuing work under Confined Space conditions and the known safety
deficiencies in the existing equipment. This authorization would increase the amount
of the 1989/90 Equipment Budget by $16,200. There are adequate funds available in
the General Improvanent Program Contingency Account to cover this authorization.
RErotlENDATION: Authorize $16,200 from the General Improvanent Program Conti ngency
Account for the purchase of six (6) Rescue/Worker Support Unit.
1302A-9/85
YB
cJ~/
JL
ECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
RJIB
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
'b
PI1i