No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 02-22-90 . ( ( , Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 34 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF February 22, 1990 NO. HI. HEARINGS 1 DATE e ruary 13, 1990 SUBJECT CONOOCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER REQUESTS FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF REFUSE COLLECTION RATES WITHIN THE CURRENT RATE-SETTING PERIOD SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANPGEMENT, ORINDA-MORPGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL TYPE OF ACTION CONOOCT PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT.lDIV Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer Administrative/Finance & Accountin ~: Public hearings are to be conducted to consider requests for a reconsideration of refuse collection rates within the current rate-setting period by each of the District's three franchised refuse collectors based on significant increases in disposal expenses. BACKGROUND: Basis for Reconsideration of Collection Rates The Board of Directors last set the refuse collection rates for the three franchised collection companies on July 20, 1989 for the July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990 period, following the District's established annual rate-setting procedures. The following rate increases granted reflected the significant increases in disposal fees imposed by the three in-county landfills, particularly at the Acme landfill, which was then nearly at its maximum capaci ty and schedul ed to cease operati ons within a few months: Valley Waste Management, 22.45 percent; Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, 18.56 percent; and Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal, 4.10 percent. Because of the pervasive uncertai nty regardi ng di sposal expenses to be incurred duri ng the rate-setting period due to the unavailability of the transfer station fee which was yet to be established by the County Board of Supervisors for implementation when the Acme landfill ceased operations, a departure from the District's customary annual rate-setting procedures was considered appropriate, i.e. the collection rates, established using the then existing disposal fees on a cost reimbursement basis, may be reconsi dered duri ng the rate-setti ng peri od, if a si gnificant change to the forecasted disposal expense is warranted on the basis of the transfer station fee, or changes to landfill disposal fees. On July 27, 1989, Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal requested a reconsideration of the July 1, 1989 collection rates based on a 26.67 percent increase in disposal fee from $30 to $38 per ton effective August 1, 1989 by Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. A 6.51 percent increase in collection rates was approved by the Board effective August 1, 1989. Effective December 19, 1989, the $47 per ton Acme landfill di sposal fee was supplanted by a $52.22 per ton transfer station fee. The disposal fee charged by the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in Richmond was increased from $31.20 per INITIA TlNG DEPT IDIV. ./2.' _ . ,#: tLk~~h-'./<..J 1302A-9/85 WNF PM REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION SUBJECT CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER REQUESTS FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF REFUSE COLLECTION RATES WITHIN THE CURRENT RATE-SETTING PERIOD SUBMITTED BY V ALLEY WASTE MAN PGEMENT, ORINDA-MQRPGA DISPOSAL SERV ICE, INC. AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL POSITION PAPER PAGE 2 DATE Februarv 13, 1990 OF 34 ton to $35 per ton on November 1, 1989, and further increased to $36.81 per ton on January 1, 1990. The Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, which increased its disposal fee to $38 per ton on August 1, 1989, increased its fee still further on December 15, 1989 to $45 per ton. These d1 sposa 1 fee 1 ncreases at the th ree in-county fac1l1t1es used by the franchised collection companies are the bases for the requests for reconsideration of the collection rates previously established effective July 1, 1989 and August 1, 1989. Closure Cost Assessments The County Board of Supervisors approved a $52.22 per ton fee at the Aane interim transfer station which began operations on December 19, 1989. The transfer station fee is based on an operating life of 37 months and an operating ratio of 93.4 percent. The $52.22 per ton transfer station fee does not include closure and post-closure costs of the Aane landfill. Assessment of the unfunded projected closure and post-closure maintenance costs are intended to be made by the County against the refuse collectors on a quarterly basis over ten years, apportioned on the basis of historic use of the landfill by the communi t1 es served and payments made. The County will beg1 n the closure cost assessment program after development of a Memorandum of Understand1 ng with th e refuse collection franchising agenc1es, a trust agreement governing the closure fund, and a transfer of assets agreement for the transfer of closure funds collected to-date by Aane Fill Corporation into a trust fund. The development and execution of these documents are expected to be completed by May 1990; at that time, the County intends to 1mpl ement the assessment program by billing refuse collectors retroactively to December 1989. Two recent correspondences from Sara Hoffman, County Solid Waste Manager, related to closure cost assessments are provided on Attachments II and III; in the January 18, 1990 letter, it is suggested that collection rate adjustments under current review include a provision for the unb1lled closure cost assessment. Two versions of the unfunded closure and post-closure cost assessement have been prepared by Delo1tte & Touche, the County's consultant. One version, shown on Attachment IV, proj ects an unfunded bal ance of $24,941,800 and 1 ncl udes hazardous waste closure and post-closure costs. The other, shown on Attachment V, projects an unfunded balance of $18,829,000, and does not include hazardous waste closure and post-closure costs. The County's consultant is presently reviewing Aane's financial ability to incur the hazardous waste closure and post-closure costs, and is refining certain allocation bases. The consultant's review is anticipated to be completed by February 16, 1990, and a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on whether closure of the hazardous waste portion of the 1 andflll shoul d be borne by the general public is anticipated. 13028-9/85 ( CONOOCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER REQUESTS FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF REFUSE COLLECTION RATES WITHIN THE CURRENT RATE-SETTING PERIOD SUBMITTED BY V ALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT, ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL POSITION PAPER SUBJECT PAGE ~ DATE OF 34 Fe' n. lQQO Rate Reconsideration Requests Valley Waste ManaQement Valley Waste Management used the Acne landfill through December 18, 1989, and the Acne interim transfer station since that date for all of its collected refuse. The req uest for reconsi derati on of its J ul y 1, 1989 schedul e of co 11 ecti on rates is based on an increase in disposal fee from $47 per ton at the Acne landfill to $52.22 per ton at the Acne transfer station. A copy of the collector's request is provided as Attachment VI. Valley Waste Management requests a 16.89 percent increase, based on increased disposal expense of $215,000 and provision for closure costs assessment of $233,000, to be obtained over the last three months of the current rate-setting period. Orinda-Moraqa Disposal Service, Inc. Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. used the Acne landfill for residential refuse through December 18, 1989, and the Acne interim transfer station since that date. Commerci al and drop box refuse is di sposed of at the West Contra Costa Sani tary Landfill in Richmond. The request for reconsideration of its July 1, 1989 schedule of collection rates is based on an increase in disposal fee from $47 per ton at the Acne landfill to $52.22 per ton at the Acne transfer station, and landfill disposal fee increases at the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill from $31.20 per ton to $35 per ton effective November 1, 1989 and to $36.81 per ton effective January 1, 1990. Although not presently requested, the collector suggests that some process for adjusting collection rates to provide for closure cost assessments be considered. A copy of the collector's request is provided on Attachment VII. Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal used the Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in east county for all of its coll ected refuse. The request for a reconsi derati on of its August 1, 1989 schedule of collection rates is based on an increase in the landfill disposal fee of $38 per ton to $45 per ton effective December 15, 1989. Although not presently requested, the collector suggests that some process for adj usti ng collection rates to provide for closure cost assessments be considered. A copy of the collector's request is provided on Attachment VIII. Staff Analyses Staff analyses of the refuse collectors' requests are provided in Attachment I. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearings to consider requests for a reconsideration of refuse collection rates within the current rate-setting period submitted by 13026-9/85 ( ( CONllJCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER REQUESTS FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF REFUSE COLLECTION RATES WITHIN THE QJRRENT RATE-SETTING PERIOD SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MAN JIG EMENT, ORINDA-MORJlGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL POSITION PAPER SUBJECT PAGE 4 DATE Februarv 13, 1990 OF 34 Valley Waste Management, Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. and Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal, and reset collection rates effective February 1, 1990 in consideration of the following two separate issues: I. Collection Rates Consider the effects of disposal expense increases presented in the staff analyses. In view of Valley Waste Management's unwillingness to negotiate a disposal fee at the Altamont landfill, consider the al ternative per ton fees of $6.93, $8.13 and $15.68 presented in the staff analysis. II. Closure Cost Assessments Determine whether closure cost assessments should be included in this rate-setting; if they are to be included: A. Authorize the District to establ ish a trust account to receive payment of closure costs fran the th ree refuse coll ectors unti 1 sati sfactory MOU agreements and trust agreements over closure cost funds are executed between the franchisors, Contra Costa County, and Acme Fill Corporation. B. Determi ne whether the closure cost assessments excl udi ng, or i ncl udi ng, hazardous waste closure costs shoul d be prov i ded in the collection rates. 13028-9/85 Attachment I STAFF ANALYSES OF RATE RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS The District staff analyses of the requests for a reconsideration of refuse collection rates submitted by Valley Waste Management, Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service and Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal are provided in the following sections. Valley Waste Management In pursui t of an export agreement with Alameda County, the Contra Costa County staff and other public officials negotiated a mitigation fee of $5.85 per ton. Acme Fill Corporation negotiated a $20.90 tipping fee with the Altamont landfill. Before negotiation of the"tipping fee was concl uded, the District and Valley Waste Management had begun negotiations of the tipping fee applicable to the customers of Valley Waste Management because of the collector's affiliated entity relationship with Altamont landfill, and the recognition that Acme, whose profit margi n was now to be based on a set percentage of expenses, may not be as demanding a negotiator as the public's interest might require. The Di strict was informed by representatives of Valley Waste Management th at pa rti ci pa ti on ins uch negoti ati ons woul d not be req ui red, as a tipping fee at Altamont for use in setting Valley Waste Management's collection rates would be separately negotiated with the District and other affected franchisors. Since that promise was made, the District's repeated attempts to meet with Valley Waste Management on this issue were ignored. A meeting was finally held on February 8, 1990, only after the District staff advised Valley Waste Management of its intent to use the $6.93 per ton tipping fee charged by Altamont to San Francisco, instead of the $20.90 per ton fee. The $6.93 per ton fee was considered appropriate as this favorable fee is being charged to the citizens of San Francisco who are not even customers of Waste Management, Inc., as are the customers of Valley Waste Management, an affiliated entity of Altamont landfill and a subsidiary of Waste Management Inc. At that meeting, representatives of Valley Waste Management indicated that they did not recall the prQ~ise to the District to negotiate a separate tipping fee at Altamont for its customers, and expressed an unwill ingness to negoti ate a ti ppi ng fee lower than $20.90 per ton. In response to the District staff's assertion that the $20.90 per ton fee was excessive in comparison to the $6.93 per ton charged San Franci sco and the $8.13 per ton charged the ci ti es in Alameda County, Valley Waste Management officials indicated that the lower fees were justified on the basis of a long-term commitment of a 1 arge vol ume of waste from San Franci sco, and the granti ng of long-term collection franchises by the Alameda County cities. Results of Staff Analvsis The adjustments to collection rates are presented on the following attachments: ( ( Attachment Description I-A Effect on Representative Co11ecti on Rates of Di sposa 1 Fee and Closure Cost Assessment Assumpti ons. This attachment shows the amount, percentage increase or decrease, and resultant rates of certain representati ve co 11 ecti on rates based on A 1 tamont landfill tipping fee assumptions of $6.93, $8.13 $15.68 and $20.90. Additionally, the incremental effects of the two Aane closure cost assessment assllllpti ons, i. e. exc1 udi ng or i nc1 udi ng hazardous waste, are shown. 1-8 Percent Increase <Decrease> in Collection Rates Based on Altamont Landfill Disposal Fee Assumptions. This graph shows the percentage increase or decrease in refuse collection rates, without Aane closure cost assessment, assuming A1tamont landfill tipping fees of $6.93, $8.13, $15.68 and $20.90 per ton. I-C Rate Adjustment Calculation. The calculation of the revenue increase or decrease requi red based on four transfer stati on fee assumpti ons, whi ch vary accordi ng to A1 tamont landfill tipping fees of $6.93, $8.13, $15.68 or $20.90 per ton, are shown. Additionally, the calculation of the incremental effects of the two Aane closure assessment assumptions are presented. 1-0 Aane Transfer Station Fee. The components of the $52.22 Aane interim transfer station fee, as reported by De10itte & Touche, and the three alternative fees developed by replacing the $20.90 Altamont landfill tipping fee with tipping fees of $6.93, $8.13 and $15.68 per ton, are shown. Despite having previously indicated a willingness to negotiate a separate tipping fee for its customers at the Altamont landfill with the District and other affected franchisors, Valley Waste Management has advised the District that it is now unwilling to do so. Therefore, District staff has computed the adjustment to collection rates based upon the existing Aane transfer station fee, which includes the $20.90 per ton tipping fee, as well as transfer station fees based upon the $6.93 ti ppi ng fee pai d by San Franci sco, the $8.13 tipping fee paid by Alameda County cities, and a tipping fee of $15.68, which would result in no change to collection rates. As a result, staff is not able to recommend specific rate adjustments for this collector. ( \ ( Qrinda-Moraga Disposal Service. Inc. Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service incurred disposal fee increases from $47 per ton to $52.22 per ton effecti ve December 19, 1989 for resi denti al refuse disposed of at the Acme facilities. The unregulated disposal fee of the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in Richmond, at which this collector's commercial and drop box refuse is disposed, was increased on November 1, 1989 to $35 per ton and on January 1, 1990 to $36.81 per ton. The amount, percentage increase, and resultant rates of certain representative collection rates, based on the disposal fee increases at both disposal facilities, are shown on Attachment I-A. Additionally, the incremental effects of the two Acme closure cost assessment assumptions, i.e. excluding or including hazardous waste, are shown. The calculation of the revenue increase required, based on the disposal fee increases at the Acme facilities and the Richmond facility, is presented on Attachment I-Ei additionally, the calculation of the incremental effects of the two Acme closure cost assessment assumptions are shown. Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal uses the Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill for all of its collected refuse. The unregulated disposal fee of this landfill was increased from $30 to $38 per ton on August 1, 1989, a consequence of which was a collecti on rate adj ustment granted by the District as of August 1, 1989 to collection rates that had just been set as of July 1, 1989. The landfill raised its disposal fee again on December 15, 1989 to $45 per ton, and is the basis for this collector's second request for a reconsideration of its collection rates since its rates were established effective July 1, 1989. The amount, percentage increase, and resul tant rates of certai n representative collection rates, as a result of the December 15, 1989 disposal fee increase, are shown on Attachment I-A. Additionally, the incremental effects of t~e two Acme closure cost assessment assumptions, i.e. excluding or including hazardous waste, are shown. The calculation of the revenue increase required based on the disposal fee increase, as well as the calculation of the incremental effects of the two Acme closure cost assessment assumptions, are shown on Attachment I-F. SSS/Position Paper #3/Attachment I ex: I ...... +J c:: Q) E or:. U to -+J -+J ex: UJ ~ c! en ~ en en ~! I-l ~i i~ !ffi I-l~ ten UJUJ ...Jen a~ .... UJen i:8 !<~ !z::) UJen enO ~d ~c ~ ! t ~ ~ UJ ..... CD CD~""" .. ~ <<I \0 ~IIIO:::+ e<<l N CD ~ . + ~III~--: U1:1:1r- ~.g:ll8 UlLO:::..... eC<<I N ~<<I III:%: lilt 8 :: e<<l CD..... CD L~ L ~~u U),-c.... Ou..... ......e 0..... 8 .0 . 8 Lll CD ...... ..~~. ~ III oa + e<<lO:::N CD~ + flilll"';..-4 en ::I r- . CDO~...... ~~:ll8 eC<<IO:::__ N ~oa III:%: 8 . 8 . CD ellllllt CD..... <<I L~ CD ~ ~ L III...... U o u e ....x........ ow . 8 l't'l ~ e N ~~:g~ Or-~ . CD~<<I...... '>-11I0:::0 '>- CD 0 wo::: CD CD L&.. ...... o o N ...... ^ <<I CD lilt III CD III o III <<I <<I CD III CD L .....LU OUCD co ..... v... ...... o o ..-4 ~ e CD CD L~ L <<I ~o::: o ...... o o III e o 00 ..... ...... ~...... a...... I-EL&.. :z~ WIII~ ::Ellie UJeC<<I Cl ...J <CD :ZCD~ <~e 2: 0 w';~ I-III~ en 0...... eC 0.< ~III .....~ >-0<<1 W -l ...J eC > LllLllO LllCO. . . . Lll ..... l't'l ..-4..-4l't'l N 0\0\0\ .......... ..... . . . \0 \0 \0 Lll Lll Lll ONO . . . ..-4..-4\0 ..-4 OLllO l't'l Lll Lll . . 0 Lll.....O\ ..-4..-4N N ... ..-4..-4..-4 Lll Lll Lll o Lll Lll CO 0\ ..-4 . . . N ..-4 OOLll Lll\Ol't'l . . . .\0..... ..-4..-4..-4 N ^^^ 000 000 . . . CO co co v v v ^^^ LllLllO N.o\ . . . ..-4..-4 co ..-4 V V V Lll Lll Lll .....ON Lll co \0 ..-4..-4l't'l ... N e <<I o CD ...... 0'1 X e 0 .....em en <<I 00. ...... 0 <<I...... L .....<<10 ~..... eu~ .. CD t- L. C~CDoa 0.... E >- t::::ll ~o l't'lO:::~N 0\ . \0 LllLllO .....ON . . . LllCOIO ..-4..-4l't'l N 0\0\0\ ............... . . . \010\0 Lll Lll Lll ONO . . . ..-4..-410 ..-4 OLllO Lll ..... l't'l . . . Lll.....N ..-4..-4l't'l N ... ..-4..-4..-4 Lll Lll Lll o Lll Lll co 0\ ..-4 . OOLll .....CO..-4 . . . .\00 ..-4..-4N N ^ ^ ^ ..-4..-4..-4 CO coco . . . \0 \0 \0 vvv ^^^ LllLllO ON..-4 . . . ..-4..-410 ..-4 vvv Lll Lll Lll .....ON LllCOIO ..-4..-4l't'l N e <<I o CD ...... 0'1 X e 0 ....em en <<I 00. ...... 0 <<I...... L .....<<10 ~..... eu~ ..COLL. C~ CD <<I 0..... E >- I-IIIE ~~8~ ..-4 000 co l't'l l't'l . . . IOO\N ..-4 ..-4 Lll N 0\0\0\ .......... ..... . . . 10\010 Lll Lll Lll ONO ..-4..-4 \0 ..-4 LllOO LllO. . . . 10 0\ co ..-4..-4. N ... ..-4..-4..-4 Lll Lll Lll o Lll Lll CO 0\..-4 . N ..-4 LllLllLll .....ON . . . LllCOIO ..-4..-4l't'l N LllLllLll .....ON . . . LllCOIO ..-4..-4l't'l N e <<I o CD ...... 0'1 X e 0 .....em enoa 00. ...... 0 <<I...... L .....<<10 ~.... eu~ ..CDLL. e~ CD <<I 0.... E >- I-IIIE ~~8~ 10 . Lll ..-4 Lll Lll Lll Lll..-4. .....Ol't'l ..-4N\O N 0\0\0\ ............... .c.D~ LllLllLll ONO . . . ..-4..-410 ..-4 o Lll Lll l't'lCOLll . . . .....0\0\ ..-4 ..-4 Lll N ... ..-4..-4..-4 Lll Lll Lll N ..-4 o Lll Lll CO 0\..-4 . . . N ..-4 000 LllO\. . . . \0 co"'" ..-4..-4. N NNN .......... ..... ... LllLllLll .....CO..-4 . LllLllLll .....ON . . . LllCOIO ..-4..-4l't'l N e <<I o CD ...... 0'1 X e 0 .....em en <<I 00. ...... 0 oa...... L .....<<10 ~..... eu~ .. CD L. L. e~Q)oa 0..... E >- I-UlE ~~8~ 0\ . o N ..-4 ..-4 OLllOO NNIO..-4 . . . . CO \0 0\\0 ..............-410 N .................... Lll Lll Lll Lll . . . . .... LllLllOLll ""'\0 co 0 . . ...... ...... 0000 O.......l't'l . . . . COIOO\l't'l ..............-410 N ..............-4..-4 .... l't'll't'll't'll't'l LllOOLll LllLllION CO LllOOLll .\Ocoo . . . . ..... Lll co Lll ...... ..-4 ..-4 Lll N 101010\0 10101010 . . . . LllLllLllLll LllLllOLll 0\ CO 0\0 . ..-4l't'l ...... OLllOO Lll.....CO. 0\ .... co 10............ , 0........-4....... 0\ 0\ N ..-40\' 'co ...... N"<<I<<I ..-4...... ...... ~ 0'1 , e<<l _......4 ....- L. e...... e L 0 o OO::E I- ..I- ,e" 00...... O\I-coe ......... . tG ~Ui~~~o .....e.........CD >0 ...... 0:::.....'1'0'1 W~ e (J') a. r- yo- ..- -,5~~ (I) <Ul'>-'+- ...... enUl~~ oa ~eC :;;:;; ;; enCD-l-l e .....CD CD o~~~ ~ ec ..... eC......oo Ul Cl<<lEE CD <III<<1..c: 0::: o:::o~u o 0-,-..- ::EllleCO::: ,..... eCo o :z ..... 0::: o X o em <<I 00. o ......L <<IC O~ L L ~~ E 8~ OOLll coco...... . . . Lll Lll N ............ ..... N ........-4..-4 10\0\0 ... Lll Lll Lll IOION . ...... ...... LllLllLll 10\0. o . . LllLllO\ ............\0 N 000 Lll Lll Lll . . . l't'll't'll't'l OOLll Lll Lll Lll co LllLllO ..-4...... 0\ . . . LllLllO ........-410 N 10\010 0\0\0\ . . . \010\0 000 000 ............r- ...... LllLllO ............ 0\ ..l't'l ............~ N .. e o I- <<I, LLll ~. e ... ~80 :;; en ~ 0 O~ a.. <<I...... CD en ...... ...... ..... CD.... 0'1 X 011I'>- e 0 oa~ ..... em ~~:;; en(3a. OU...J ...... 0 :%:e <<I......L en..... ~ ;;~o >-CD<<I eu~ eCCD+> CDLL m~"'" ~Gl<<l e .....e>- ............oaO\Ul~ ......<<IenCOCD 0 ..... III ,0::: N :%: 0 <<I Lll a.~..-4 1-11I11I, ~Ci8~ en < w -l a.. ( Attachment 1-B V ALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT PERCENT INCREASE/DECREASE IN COLLECTION RAlES BASED ON Al TN<<>NT LANDFIll DISPOSAL FEE ASSUtpTIONS .... .... - 'I- '0 C tG ...J ~ C o ~ ~ .... < ~ tG $21 I 20 I 19 I 18 I 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 m u.. .... tG U'I o Co U'I - C c (! '- Q) a.. $20.90 <10><9><8><7><6><5><4><3><2><1> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Percent Increase<Oecrease> in Collection Rates, Without Aane Closure Cost Assessment SSS/Pos. Paper 3/Att 1-6 (38) ( Attachment I-C VALLEY WASlE MAN~EJENT RAlE ADJUSlMENT CALaJLATION (000 0.1 tted) Acme Transfer Station Fee Assuming Altamont Landfill Tipping Fee as Denoted in Attachment 1-0 $38.25/ $39.45/ $47.00/ $52.221 ~n ~n ~n ~n Adjustment for 12119/89 Acme Transfer Station Fee: Forecasted Disposal Expense. 12119/89 - 6/30/90. 1.907 1.907 1,907 1.907 at $47/Ton ($3.564 [Note A] ~ 12 Months x 6.42 Months [Note B]) Forecasted Disposal Expense. 12119/89 - 6/30/90. 1.552 1.601 1.907 2.119 ($1,907 ~ $47/Ton x Transfer Station Fee) --- <Decrease> in Disposal Expense, 12119/89 - 6/30/90 (1) < 355> < 306> 212 Acme Closure Cost Assessment, Excluding Hazardous (2) 231 231 231 231 Waste. 12119/89 - 6/30/90 ($431 [Note C] ~ 12 Months x 6.42 Months) Acme Closure Cost Assessment, Including Hazardous (3) 305 305 305 305 Waste, 12119/89 - 6/30/90 ($570 [Note C] ~ 12 Months x 6.42 Months) Total Revenue Increase<Oecrease> Requ1 red, Excluding (4) < 355> < 306> 212 Acme Closure Cost Assessment (Fi gure 1) - - - - Total Revenue Increase<Decrease> Required, Including (5) < 124> < 75> 231 443 Acme Closure Cost Assessment. Excluding Hazardous - - - - Waste (Figures 1 + 2) Total Revenue Increase<Decrease> Required, Including (6) < 50> < 1> 305 517 Acme Closure Cost Assessment, Including Hazardous - - - - Waste (Figures 1 + 3) proj ected Revenue, 2/1/90 - 6/30/90 ($10,653 [Note A] (7) 4 ,4 93 4,493 4,493 4,493 ~ 12 Months x 5 Months) - - - - Percent Increase<Decrease> in Revenue Required, Excluding < 8 .OO>~ < 6.81>~ 4.7~ Acme Closure Cost Assessment (Figures 4 ~ 7) - - - - Percent Increase<Decrease> in Revenue Required, Including < 2.79>~ <~>~ 5.14% 9.86% Acme Closure Cost Assessment. Excluding Hazardous Waste - - - (Figures 5 ~ 7) Percent Increase<Decrease> in Revenue Required, Including < 1.11>% < .02>% 6.79% 11.51% Acme Closure Cost Assessment. Including Hazardous Waste - - - - (Figures 6 ~ 7) Notes: A. Per July 1989 Rate-setting: Forecasted Revenue, 7/1/89-6/30/90 $10,653 Forecasted Disposal Expense. 7/1/89-6/30/90 B. The period 12119/89 - 6/30-90 equal 6.42 months. $ 3.564 C. Contra Costa County recommends a total Acme Close Cost Assessment to $431.407 excluding hazardous waste and $570.419 including hazardous waste for Lafayette. Danville. and the unincorporated areas served by Vall~ Waste Management. ( Total Direct Labor Costs Total Equi pment Total Variable Operating Costs Total Administrative Costs Amortization of Invested Capital Transfer Station Operating Costs Tipping Fee Charge Total Operating Costs Operating Ratio Allowance Solid Waste Planning Fees Export Agreement Mitigation Fees TOTAL TRANSFER STATION FEE SSS/S. Elsberry/Att I-D (30) ( Attachment I-D VAllEY WASlE MANN2EMENT ACME TRANSFER STATION FEE EFFECTIVE DECEMJER 19, 1989 Altamont landfill Current Transfer Tipping Fee Assumption: Station Fee S6.93/Ton $a.B/Ton S15.68/Ton $ 8.11 8.11 8.11 8.11 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 3.72 3.72 3.72 3.72 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.62 ~ 3.62 3.62 - 20 .32 20 .32 20.32 20 .32 20.90 6.93 8.13 ~ - 41.22 27.25 28.45 36.00 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.24 2.24 2.24 2.24 5.85 5.85 2.&2. 5.85 - $ 52.22 38.25 39.45 47.00 - - - L. ..J>A-MORAGA DISPOSAl SERVICE RAlE ADJUSTtEHT CALQJLATION <000 0111 tt.ed> ( Excluding Aane Closure Cost Assessment A<Uustment for Aane Transfer Station and Richmond Landfill Disposal Fee Increases: Aane Fill: Forecasted Disposal Expense, 12/19/89 - 6/30/90, $ 506 at $47/Ton ($946 [Note A] ~ 12 months x 6.42 months [Note B]) Forecasted Disposal Expense, 12/19/89 - 6/30/90, 562 at $52.22/Ton ($506 ~ $47/Ton x $52.22/Ton [Note C]) Increase in Disposal Expense, 12/19/89 - 6/30/90 56 Richmond: Forecasted Disposal Expense, 11/1/89 - 12/31/89, 64 at $31.20/Ton ($382 [Note A] ~ 12 months x 2 months) Forecasted Disposal Expense, 11/1/89 - 12/31/89, 72 at $35/Ton ($64 ~ $31.20/Ton x $35/Ton) Increase in Disposal Expense, 11/1/89 - 12/31/89 8 Forecasted Disposal Expense, 1/1/90 - 6/30/90, 191 at $31.20/Ton ($382 [Note A] ~ 12 months x 6 month s ) Forecasted Disposal Expense, 1/1/90 - 6/30/90, 225 at $36.81/Ton ($191 ~ $31.20/Ton x $36.81/Ton Increase in Disposal Expense, 1/1/90 - 6/30/90 34 Increase in Disposal Expense, 11/1/89 - 6/30/90 42 ($8 + 34) Total Increase in Disposal Expense ($56 + 42) 98 Aane Closure Cost Assessment, 12/19/89 - 6/30/90 ($110 & $147 [Note 0] ~ 12 months x 6.42 months) Total Revenue Increase Required $ 98 PrOjected Revenue, 2/1/90 - 6/30/90 ($4,152 [Note A] ~ 12 months x 5 months) $ 1,730 Percent Increase in Revenue Required 5.66% Notes: A. Per July 1989 Rate-Setting: Forecasted Revenue, 7/1/89 - 6/30/90 Forecasted Disposal Expense, 7/1/89 - 6/30/90: Aane Fill Richmond Attachment I-E Including Aane Closure Assessment Excluding Including Hazardous Hazardous Waste Waste - 98 98 59 79 157 177 - 1,730 1,730 - 9.88% 10.23% - $4,152 946 382 $1 ,328 - B. The period 12/19/89 - 6/30/90 equals 6.42 months C. $52.22/Ton is the County-approved Aane Transfer Station fee. D. Contra Costa County recommends a total Aane Closure Cost Assessment for Orinda and Moraga of $109,886 excluding hazardous waste and $147,174 including hazardous waste. ( Attachment I-F PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL RAlE ADJUSlMENT CAlCULATION <000 Onftted> Excluding Acme Closure Cost Assessment Including Acme Closure Assessment Excluding Including Hazardous Hazardous Waste Waste Per August 1989 Rate-Setting: Forecasted Disposal Expense, 8/1/89 - 6/30/90 $569,408 $165,379 Forecasted Revenue, 8/1/89 - 6/30/90 Adjustment for 12/15/89 Tipping Fee Increase: Forecasted Disposal Expense, 12115/89 - 6/30/90, at $38/Ton ($165,379 ~ 11 months [Note A] x 6.5 months [Note B]) 97,724 Forecasted Disposal Expense, 12/15/89 - 6/30/90, at $45/Ton ($97,724 ~ $38/Ton x $45/Ton) 115,726 Increase in Disposal Expense, 12/15/89 - 6/30/90 18,002 18,002 18,002 Acme Closure Cost Assessment, 12115/89 - 6/30/90 9,076 11 ,924 ($16,755 & $22,013 [Note C] ~ 12 months x 6.5 months) Total Revenue Increase Required $ 18,002 27,078 29,926 Proj ected Revenue, 2/1/90 - 6/30/90 $258,822 258,822 228,822 ($569,408 ~ 11 months x 5 months) Percent Increase in Revenue Required 6.96% 10.46% 11.56% Notes: A. The August 1989 rate-setting covered the 11-month period of 8/1/89 through 6/30/90. B. The period 12115/89 - 6/30/90 equals 6.5 months. C. Contra Costa County recommends an Acme Closure Cost Assessment of $88,651 excluding hazardous waste and $116,471 including hazardous waste for the unincorporated areas served by Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal. Since approximately 18.9% of the unincorporated population resides within the District, that portion of the Assessment is applied above. SSS/ S. El sberry/PHBS-Rate Ad (33) SE/hb 2/13/90 Attachment II ( Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Contra Costa County Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development Phone: 646-1390 ~ ~ ~ rillE fil ~ e W It m JAN 2 2 1990 . cccsn ADMIMS tF.."TfON January 18, 1990 Paul Morsen Central Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Morsen: ( Over the past several months Contra Costa County has worked closely with you and other representatives of the franchising agencies to develop a plan for reducing the immediate costs for closure of Acme Landfill by extending the term of collection. The assessment plan was specifically designed to insure a fair share according to historic use of the landfill and recent payments. The next step in implementing the closure assessment is development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the franchising agencies, a trust agreement for oversight of the closure fund and a transfer of assets agreement to insure that all monies collected to date by Acme are received into the Trust Fund. As you know, these implementation measures are currently in the drafting stages, with the first meeting scheduled for January 25, 1990. Your Board will be reviewing rate applications for your local haulers within the next few months. Although the closure costs implementation measures are not yet in place, I would strongly advise that your Board consider including a closure cost assessment component in your rates. This would help stabilize the monthly bills by avoiding the need for a double assessment at a later time. In addition, you should be aware that Acme has suggested that a per tonnage rate of $5.92 be added to the transfer station rate until the closure assessment measures are put into place. Obviously, it would be more desirable to adhere to the quarterly assessment plan only. I would be happy to address your Board on these issues. Also, would you please put me on your mailing list for staff reports and Board agenda notices for hearings on rate review for the local haulers. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ~ Sara M. Hoff Solid Waste l~.. ./ n anager H8/morsen.ltr cc: Board of Supervisors Phil Batchelor " I, Attachment I II ( Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Contra Costa County Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development Phone: 646-1390 m~@~U\Vlm@ JMJ 2 9 1990 AD:.i,f.r.f2"0:'! January 24, 1990 Paul Morsen Central CC Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Dear ~~I!re- On Tuesday, January 23, 1990, the Board of Supervisors reaffirmed the rate of $52.22/ton for the Acme interim transfer station. The rate is based on amortization of capital over 37 months and an operating ratio of 93.4%. The $52.22 rate has been used by Acme with the approval of the Board since the opening of the transfer station in mid-December. In addition, the Board adopted a gate customer surcharge of $8.62/ton for the Acme Landfill closure cost assessment. We are currently in the process of developing a Memorandum of Understanding, trust fund agreement and other ancillary documents to implement the closure cost assessment plans for each community. Draft documents will be circulated to all the cities and sanitary districts who are historic users of Acme Landfill in the near future. Of course, I would be happy to discuss the MOU or other closure issues with you at any time. Sincerely, ~-------. ~cL Sara M. Hoffman Solid Waste Manager SH/mgrs.ltr cc: Board of Supervisors ~ tj o t <b ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ o i:: ~ CI) ~ ~ <: ~~ z:E ~~ o~ u~ A~ ~O (I)~ O~ U~ <((s ~~ ....~ Zs O~ U:> o ~ - .... en ZGl:II! iCU IIoIU ~ II . II'" OH'" ~........ ~....=.. ~!l CO 110I II N ~ = ~ C II . ~~=~ .011'" H H_ .. 0-1110 WNH" ........H'" Uo. II . 110I10111 ~"""II ..J 0 II a-II . II i - "~0=2 W:JWd".- <<",en .. ::lC 11- eIl..J IIN OU 110 ..J' II U.... IIN ell .. C A. ..J-H~ ..J"'" _"'-"H..... ~:n -0.11 .... ~. . ,.,11 -0 0. ... N 110I Z .... lIC ~ ..J C ~ en - o o 3 U ! U g N . .. on ~ ... '" o . N .. on . ~ ... '" - ,.: o ,., . N .. .. ... ... 0. as ~ ~ on -0 ... o 3 U ! U ( N...,,"ON......... ~~~~::o: .. .. .. .. .. ... -o"'N-O'~ 0-.0.,.".....,.. -........""'. .... ..... on:2"'o.on... ;;;~~N~:~ ~. ...- to ,.: g : 0: o.~P(::..:tc ... .. ..... ... .. ...... ..... ..... .... .. .. ~.......,......o.o. N~:ri~::J:~ .. .- .. .. ... .. ION....IO.....~ ~~~;::~:"" .. .,:- ... N' ..0- .. .... N....N...N.'" ~~~~:::~ .. .. .. .. ... ...,.o.onon.....,., o....-o,.,,.,.N ....IONIO-o.'" .......fIt ... ... ,.,.. N '" ...... .. ~~~~~ --:"!~C!~ ...,o.onN,., ... w U > GI: 110I en 110I .... ell ~ ..J ~c 1IoIC11 ..JC ..JA. Cell >- o ..J C~ lICW ......J Z..J IIoIC u> - w Cl C CD lIC ~ w .... .... w ~ C ... 0 ~w...g~ ""'""wlO..c: 1IoI~.;! ....UIIoI A. ::0.....::: 3 )-::;)__u cz> z ....~zz- CCCCZ ..J::IOell::l .. :;; ~ on .. '" ..J C .... C .... ~!O:~ No.,- .. ... .. ~;:::~ .-:;; N....O' ~~:~ .. ... .. No-.... IC~:!# - tilt. .. - .. ..0.... ~~:~ - . ...,.IO.N 0.,.,.", tI~:~ :;; ,.,.....0 No..N ....., . ..., . -. ~~:g NN' &t'\ - -. ..._ N .... .. ~~ ~ 00 0 "'''' .0 110I ..JU c- :g~ A. W CIIen Og ~ c!s ~~ .... cc co zz -- ~~ cz ~i! !! ..J C .... C .... ~~~~~~;::: ... '" N .... 10 .... ...,. ., .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ,.,..ono,.,o-o, ;!;~~~~::: .... ... on . ..., on ~ ~ ~N~~g~~:~ "'NIOO'ON........, .....,.,; N': rD" "..:....,... : U'\ ,.,-4'l/'\o,.,~-o.:! "''''0.'''0.. .....-- ..... ........ .. . - - - .... .. ~g~~slSa:~ O.....,ON-oN.- .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. ononlOonlO-o.,,,, .-""N..o""""'N'o- ~:;;on_~~~~ : ...,. - ..., .. .. ...._onNO,.,N.2;: QN""~""o.""_ ............... "'.. 00.. '-'.. co.. 00.. : ""' ..0 co ... N ...0 a:),." . <<J" ....0.10....0.....0..,., ,.,N...,.....onO-o.N ..... .... OIl .. ... N ,." .... ... ... ... .. .. ...... ... .. ~~~~~~~ . . . . . . . onOIO_"'N-4' ..J C CII o A. CII o w GI: C = ell ~ C aI ..J ..J .- w Cl C CD GI: ~ : .... Z C CII C 110I ..J A. CIa o !i~ 110I alC : ~ =~ =!=....~A:! CII....gou u -c,..-w-....z ~~;8~cnz A.UClICaI~::l ..J ..J Attachr'lent IV ,."...,......... <:) '" . '" on""ClQ 0.- 0.- : 10- "'......0 ....... . ,." ....... ~ ~~:~ Q '" . '" . -. ~. on '" . 0. 0. . on.. . - -. ... - ,., .... .. !#lC:2 "'-.,0..... .:.,;: ,.,." ........, ~~: ~- - .. ~!O::: "'........ ~- ~- : i ....... I In .. .. I .. ~~ ~ ~ - .... N &:~ on on ..J C .... o .... w .... C Cl ell lIC w !i .... en ~ u uw _ Cl ..J '" i~ ~ o - - o 10 - - .. 0. .. N .. . .... en w '" ~oo Zu -01) "'~ 30.. A. w ....0. ~~ -- .... . CIIon wClQ 0. 110I_ lIC ~~ ..J ... U IX !~ "'-~ 110I ..J _..J: ....-u -zc u '" -0 ~N3 .... ~ en'" ~~! -- w .... zwu ....z- ....fit 30- ...ZGI: C::l C ... ........ cen: OIlolU lICC !~1IoI ;:~! C ... i9:j ..J- U'" ZZ Cl-- Z -O..J eIlZC ::lC::l Z 1IoI00Z ....ClQC ~~1IoI -....= ....0..... CII_ W 0 =.... enCl :gai "'lICC z~ W....CII Z W UOGl: a~3 ....uu w c...o cw "'GI: .... -A.U 110I CW..J ....GI:..J CCC o U '" ..JCCII ..J Z .... -::lZ ~"'a -~~ ........ ZU..J WIlolC U..J::l ",..J'" wCU A.UC ~ - - ~ .. N .. 8 . - ... on -4 - .. ~ - N - on - ~ ~ o o o ... -..... _N -.... ..J C .... C .... . .. . ~ . l ~ E ... - ~ ..... ~ut. i!:~ ~.'" . " 0.- .......0 .:,,:;; iw. ~::I. CO. . en ~ en 8 . w,,:r: UP"l: ... 3"-'.", :1&&1.... C::I.O ClOD:': .- . " ... ...: a o ~ "! ~ j C "I a o ~ u ... ~ en ~ en a o ...: ~ C :0: o ... ~ < :E ::;. O......C) Wo."N ...C)"C) u...." " "10.'" ..._.0. -".'" 8:3:- 0.. -. " . ... 0 en ... f~ .. w'" ee...: c;;a 00 ... ~ uu ~ ut ... ~ a :0: ~ :; ~:~ ~........" . =:3:~ ....0.. z-. _ . H ...... MoD. 0." _II . N ~ ~ < z ...: ... ~ ~ < .. N ~ CD :I: )( W . ."" .0 .oD . " 110 11- ..0 . 11- ... II II . . N ... Z ~ ...: ~ ~ < II> o 0.. II> o o ~ u i5 u ~ - i ~ ~ g ~ N ~ - _ - 11\ C) ,.: 11\ .., " 11\ _ M 11\ .0 - o 3 u z o u t. Touche Ross ( Acme Fill Closure and Post-Closure Cost Collection Alternatives -~c)"'.'R; ~~R;~~:"" .: ,,; ~. ;:- ; : ~" ~:::0_1I\.ti3 .... -, ~~ N '" .... _ _ 0................ ~~~~:;:$ ....... .. 0"'-.0'. ~~g~o:::t ~ .*C.. ... .. - - 11\ _ -- _""II\O....~ ~~~o~:o. ........ .. C)_II\~N..... ~Si ~::; .. ...... ..... ;~;; ;I ... ;; MMMMM "''''''II\O~ ~O:"'N'-; - ... u > ...: ... en w ~ en ~ ..... ... u < CD ~ -' ~< ... II> ~o ~ 0.. <II> >- o ~ <~ '" w ~~ z ~ ...< u> ... ~ ~ ..... ... 11\ ~ .... < .... 0 < f"\W .....w...co..... .......wco-c ...- ...: ~eiwa&: :;;....j:i! ,....~-Gl:U <2> Z .........zz- C<<<Z ....:loen::l M 11\ ", .... ~ < ~ o ~ 0.....1 ....", . .... 11\ . ..o..;:~ ",,,,.0 ..tlIt.... . _ g~:~ ......cs .. ... .. ~"'.co ",::::S ..... .. - _ ~~:C) II\N'~ Jt~:~ ;S;S::l 0.0.C) ~~:~ .. ... .. NN'~ ~g:~ .. .... .. - - _ .. MM M 00 0 ........ .0 ... ~u C- en> 0"': o..w II> II> 0)( o <CD Cl <0.. ...:0 c::: :EO .... C< 00 % % "':Cll: 00 ~~ <% 3;;;; :EO ~ C ~ o ~ ~N~~~~V; 0: c)~OIl\.It\.o.... ,,: 0-..0 i o. '^!i : .: ~;;;!..~tl..:~ _ _ . .. E.....-o-....o-.N NII'\OCO...O.... . It\ .... ... .0 It\ . 0- :e8"~""; C!":ii": ~ o-~~...", .0 .... ........ ... _ _ It\ _ _ _ ...~~!.O!.O=~:o g'OIt\'ONN.....2 ........... .. 0:;;;~0!(;2~:~ ... - .... ::3 11\ ......, . C)" WI tilt ......... . - .... _ .. ~~~~~~~:N ...O-O.OC)C).:O c:: to ~.. '^ ~.. ",''; : '^ ~5P~.i ~~ P1. : ~ ;; ~ ;; ;; :l ~~~~~~~ ....... 1t\0C)_....N.., ... C ut f en Co ... '" o :I: en ~ C CD ~ ~ :I: ~ Z C en C W ... 0. ..... W U C CD ...: ~ ..... ..... .... Cl 0 ...:w o :;)..... w"coc 8",ut", ...._0 .... <<....CL zz:c.......c-<< :iggoc::;0..8 c,.-.....-...z ~:5~8ffienz G,U<"':CD~:::I .... ~ :I: Attachment ~~:~ ~...,..'" ... .... ... ~~:~ ...... . N ....... ~la.N ..ceo:", ... .... ... 0...... In ~~:~ - -. -_ N -.. .. "'N.o- 1:3:;: ... .... ... ...... . ~~:! _ .. . ""....0 N.-.'" """-'N '" 0 . <)- ~~.: ~ -- .... .... _ M - ..... N MM M 0.- 0 ..... 11\ _ .... ~ < ..... o ~ W ~ ~ en ...: W ~ ..... en :;) u uw -u ~ '" CD< i5 - .. v o o 0. i " ;; 0- C) 0. - . en 11\ :;)C) ~o. 0.- . ~~~ ~~~ - ... t;!S1II ...i:l_ ~ ... '" - ai5~ o~~ ~ ... U!'" !"'~ ::::: ~~ -~-o ~-... -zuu u -~ o~filz '" N - '" ... _0.0 ~:3~og .-0. 1&1.. ",-i5~8 =~~. . ... '" .... !03::g ~ ....~...CM :: C ....M- ................ Z <en-<w O.......::I~ _z.....en Co !~-~~ ~ -z~ U ~-<Ollt III :5...i~a ~ :;)O%OCo ... Q.JoC"'~ ~. o~ -'~ lit o..~~c::;<<:!~ Ct-....zz....oe'" Z 0 U ~ -OOUCt-~ u)Z~Ll.lZZa:)W :;)< ...:-...0.'" l&Io.iw!3CD-~ ~COOCD~ZO:;) ~~fli~~~"'- ::ci"~="'''''~~ :"'!:I:;;~~o :l:uen8% W enu ~ :::I:ECI: ~aeffiw""~g "'~u~gu""- w....WWtn""'e;,. :0: ...eno~<3f uo-'cn-,-,w a~8<';'8~~ ~u o~ IIIen...lItOCo~ c-a...~o....w." en~iZ:5o..w~i -G, a~a:S!Een <... ~<-A:< ~~...c5w~3:! ollt~ogf~< -,oe-zen -0 ~:ZU<OW%III -:te: .....CDJ... u..~ (l)U c: Z Z I-Z~ -0 '000-0 w....-wz a.. ~~~~~,..:3 ~~:~~~~~ _-'....0.... c- ~8~g::::o~ o o o ~- C) ;; o o o " - tI\ N - ... ;; ... o III a C ... en III - lit ~ g o o o o C) o " .... "" .. M o o o - ~ < ~ o ..... ,.,." ",.,. "'" _N ....",11'\ ""...... """"""" Attachment VI Valley \tJaste Management P.O. Box 4007 2658 N. Main Street Walnut Creek, California 94596 415/935-8900 ~ 'eI 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 (VA-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 div.slon of SAWDCO ( ( 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 \ . --3~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 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 Annual Acme closure assessment (V. 4-1) 431 6.5/12 Acme closure assessment 12/18/89 thru 6/30/90 Total revenue increase required V. 1-1 215 233 --------- --------- 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 V ALLEY WASTE MAtWiEMENT ALTERNATE RATE ADJUSlMENT ANAlYSIS DISPOSAL EXPENSES BASED ON $47/TON (000 Omitted. Unless Othe."ise Noted) Pass-Through Acme Landflll Disposal Expense Without Profit Ma rg 1 n Forecasted Unadjusted Revenues for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1990 $ 8.700 Forecasted Operating Expenses for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1990 Deduct: Acme landfill Disposal Expense . 10.078 <A><3.564> l 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 ~ casted Revenues Adjusted for Forecasted Franchise Fee and Acme landfill Disposal Expense 6.930 85 <A> 3,564 10.579 Increase in Forecasted Revenues Required 1,879 ~ercent Increase in Forecasted Revenues Required 21. 6~ Attachment I Per Di strict 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 $15.75 $16.10 COlmlercial - Single Can $ 14.75 $17.95 $18.30 20-Yard Drop Box $192.95 $234.65 $239.65 SS/Rate Setting 1988-89/VWM Alt Rate , '.' .t :'\_: I C. ..-: .:.~ j ,. ,....... ~ V. 3-1 ~ '" A~ dJi1t ~. DIRECTORS Bart Blsio Clark COlvis .-'; PRESIDENT ."' Boyd M. Olney, Jr. SECRETARY-TREASURER George Navone DecC';:,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, '-lJ~JIm ~ T 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. ...... o-ut. %DC. l3;:S" ~>-= .....~=O <'-':;4 ~W" %~" ~o= ut 0- ut o U . W,,=r:: U...." _ ~"':'" ~~:c; COO:.: ".. " " W DC ~ ut o -' u . 0- ut o 0.. o :z: < w DC ~ II> o -' u W 0- ut < :a en l3 o DC < N < :.: N. O..,MCO wo..N .....CO.CO U........ II ... wOM~ ~...."o. -' . .. an 813='" 0." -" " . 0- 0 ut W ~~ ..., wW DC DC ~~ ut II> 00 -' -' uu o W 0- < X 0- en W a :.: ..... :i ~ - -' .., =~ .... 0- %- - . ~!3 0- - N UJ > ..... < :z: DC W 0- -' < N 0- en :.: X W co ,... 11\ " ...., 110 "-0 II - HO H_ H-o .. . 11- ..... .. II ::~ .. ..~ .. .. .. II .. " " .. II N UJ :z: 0- DC < X -' < en o 0.. en o o DC o u :z: o u ~ - ~ ~ .. .... ~ - -0 ~ - ~ co ~ N ~ ~ ;; - 11\ CO ,.: 11\ ~ 11\ ... ~ '" -0 - o DC o U :z o u I ( Touche Ross Acme Fill Closure and Post-Closure Cost Collection Alternatives November 7, 1989 ~~H~ ~~~ i ~ ...,.0 COIN -.:1'0"&1\.0:) ............ N'''' .... ...... _~CO...~. N 0- 11\ 11\ . 0. N~CO' ... .. .. .. ... ....... """...,..-.... . N~O"'CO' ...~O..II\. ..-- -. __ N .... .. o~............ ~~~~:;: ........ o...-~o. ~~oo--. ~~:l~~: :; ;; .....""&1'\0........ ~~~c;;e: .. .. ... ... ... CO_II\~N. "'0-0 0.' ..,OCO ~. .. .... ... :;~;; ;l ~~~~~ "":~~~~ ~O'II\N~ UJ U > DC W en W 0- en < :a ...... W CI ~ en DC < CI W 0- 0- ...... W '" >- ...., < ... 0 < "'UJ -i),t....COt-- ,",wco-< UJ- DC LlJa:: :0 I-UUJOa.. t- ....xCX' wo--'<O >-::)_o::u ~%> z ~-I:Z::Z- <<~<:z -':aoen~ -' >-< UJ(/) -'0 -' 0.. < en >- o -' <>- DC W 0- -' % -' w< u> 0. N .., c; ~ 11\ .. ... o -0 - ~ 11\ - 11\ .. .0 .., 0. .., - ~ .... - ... ~ '" ~ .., -' < 0- o 0- 0..... .., ~ . ~~: .0.., . 11\ 11\ . ...... . O.....~ 0..... ..,.., . - . .., 11\ . .0.., . 11\ '" . ....... ~~:~ II\N'CO ';'::-.4 NoO'o. tltl::l ~O'CO ~~:~ -. - NN'V\ ~g:~ ... .. :; :;;; ~~ ~ 00 0 ,..j,..j .0 w -' u <- en> 00< o..w en en oX o <en CI <0.. ~9 XC ..... << 00 :z: :z: 0< DC 00 << ClO <:z: 0<- 00< xa ~ 0. o ;; .0 ~ ;; -' < 0- o 0- ~N~~~:;;~:O: CO:;&OIl\..,,,,-o.f- .. .. .. .. ... .. .... J'o-O"lQCOo'^!2' ~:;;;:!:lt;;i~: .... . E..,..,_O'....O'.N N"'OCQ....O..... ..,11\..,....011\.0. CO- .0- 0 ~ ..,- ~~- : ,...o-ocoo'" . ~;;~~t;tl : - - .. .. ...."'""....................0.0 g~S;~~N~:~ ... ... .. ... ... ... .... ........,.,0"'-0,.,. ~..,_..,.oco.o. tl4:;~t.t~~:l: ;; ~~~~~~~: ,....,c....o.ocoCO' ... .. ... ... ... ... .... o.~...,.~~~~: ~~~~~~"?.: .- N .... - ... ... ... ... ~~~~~~~ . . . . . . . "'OCO-"'N~ -' < en o 0.. en o w DC o :c en >- < en ...... w CI < en 0< < CI ClO DC UJ o ;:)..... w,....m< 8~"'DC ~....a to- 0::....Q.. Z%:_<_O:::: <OU _0..0 uto-OOU U <>-_w_....:z: ~~~8~~% Q.,U<D::CJ)3=> -' -' :c -' -' :c 0- :z: < ut < W -' Q. ,.. '" ...., ,.: o '" ... ~~: ~""'...: ......,.,... ~ N'- . "" .......- . N .......... ~ o .0 '" . !3:3: . -. O~ . -.., . N_ . . .. ;;;; 11\ ... ~ CO ..,- ... ....N. CO"" COCO, - . ~ '" . 11\ ~ . ,... '" . ....... N :0 11\ '" 0. CO ... ..,,... . N_ "',... . . .. 11\ 0 . ~~: - .. ;;;; ~ - .... N -' < 0- o 0- w ..... < <.:l X~ 0. - '" '" en '" UJ X o ..... en =:l u uw -CI -' 0< en< ;:):.: o..u N '" 11\ - N '" 11\ ~ .., N ... 0. ;::: - o o .., . ;; o ~ N .0- ::! .., .... ~ o - - V. 4-1 o o 0. N ~ - ... 0. CO 0. - . CIS '" 3~ A. _ . ~~~ ~~~ 0- :;;~CIS wwClC >- w w ... DC :c en ~U% l3~~ -' 0- U ClC Ow .... aW.~ 0 en - :z.. CIS 1.1.1"'" ow. J --'-0 ~ ~;:tic) ~ u -z en .00- o .CIl% iUN-LLI . ~ cco-o '" ut,.,~oo -co-, 0 ut -10.. w... >- .-:=0 ..... w uo-CO < :.:w~ 0 Z o-:cwo< < to- w .., a:: a:: I- M en 000....... fot.zu...-< x < CIS 0- < -,cn- ~I--'-' z <cn-cCw OUJw.JI- a::ZI-U) 0 ZLLJ-U< 1.1.1 00- <::a 0- -z-' U ~-c(ocn 1.1.1 ~LLJ~""'a ~ =>o:z:oo w 0..::;)<..,0: a::. 0-' -';:5 ut o..~~u<<~~ CJ_I-:Z::_<iU :z 0 U >- -oOUCJ-o-. CI)'ZI-W:ZZa)W ::lc( a::_w~a: wo-~w9a:a-;:! o-coQen-'~o~ ~;;)~-'~DC""''''' -........w-Jwu..,..,..% I-Oor:- '-0- (1)..-0:=-....(1)00- W 0 "'0....0 :eUClSO% w ~Clo~u2~g oBwww 0<0- a::a:t-xo:t-u..- :':Uut~U :z Wl-wwcnW(I)O :c -'utO-,<x UQ...Jcn-'-'w B~8~<<;'8~~ t-U 01- wenwenOOt- <-,t-1-0I-W0 0%<0.. 0-;:) ~~B50~~x <w~~~~~~ ....0: c( cna:w <<-,uwutODC o < DCQU< (/)~o~o..z -'o....zen -0 ....JzUcCowzw -~< -'en~o- u..u.. (1)0 < :z 2: I-Za::' -0 '000-0 w....-w:z:; Q.. to- I- en I- I- en a::: zuwu<>-wO ~~ffi~~~~~ <<'-'.....0.... -c- wO%o<ut.....:cz CLU_o.W_U::> o o o 0. N CO CO. - ... o o o ..... '" N ~ - ... o o o o CO o ,., ..... .... ~ o o o - -' < 0- o 0- ~ ,.. .....'" ....,~ ,.. ~ ,.. ,., ~ l1\ ....,~~ ( v. 5-1 VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT -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 --------- --------- --------- --------- VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT FRANCHISE ZONES 2, 4 AND-5 SCHEDUL~ OF CURRENT AND PROPOSED RATES V. 6-1 Current Rates (Effective 7/1/89) Proposed Rates (Effective 4/1/90) Reoular 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 (dirt & 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 a SAPUTO. III 002 \ Attachment VI I LITTLE & SAPUTO A~ItNKn AT '-CW '~TSR T. SAPUTO OJSIlLLS A. lU1UCANrN XIlN D. LITTLE $00 "ONACIO VALLSY a.OAD. SUITE 380 WALNUT CllI!I!K. CA 9096 (41$) V.4.500(l 'AC611i11'. .. (415) 944.1112 January 4, 1990 VIA FA.CSIMILE Sue McNulty Rain.y, President Board of Dir.ctors Contra costa Cen~ral Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Rate Review Caused By Increase In Tippinq Fe.. Orinda-Koraga Disposal Servioe, Inc. Dear President Rainey: On behalf of Orinda-KoragA Dispoaal Service, Inc. (hOrinda- Moraga") We .ubmlt thia requ.st ~or a aid-year review seeking an incre.s. 1n rates due 80lely to an increase in disposal rates charged. Orinda-Moraqa disposes. of its collected retuse at both t.he Richmond and the Acme Fl11 dumpsites. Both -i tea have recently increased the t.ipping t.es. Each disposal .ite has also ad~ed extra charqes to the b~se tipping fee. The tipping fee at Acme 1. currently $52.22 per ton which rate was effective as of December 15, 1989. W. have been advis.~ by County statf that they expect to ....ss the closure oosts retroactive to December 15, 1989. That assessment should occur approximately March 15, dep.nding on all of the agreements being ~imely pr.pared and execute~. The Board aight wish to consider 80me .echanIsm to cover that eventuality. The Richmond disposal charge vas incr.ased to $35 per ton etfective November 1, 1989 (up from a ~revious rate ot $31.20). As of January 1, 1990, the following add1tional charges were added to the baae tipping fee: a. i5~ per ton for the Contra Costa County Public Works Depart.tnent, b. 36C per ton for environmental h.althl , c. SOC per ton to cover the State mandated AB939 charges. The total disposal charge as ot January 1, 1990, at the Rlchmon~ ait.e i. $36.81. -. . 01/04/90 15:02 tf9412 . -LITTLE 1 SAPu1 III 003 Sue McNulty Rainey, President Board of Directors Con~ra Costa Cen~ral sanitary District January 4&, 1990 Page 2 Becauae Orinda-Xoraqa disposes of ita refuse at two difterent landfill aite., calculating the new tippin9 fees is . little more complicated. The reaidential refuae i. cSisposed of at Acme, while the compactor, commercial and box refuse 1s disposed of at Richmond. Set forth below then is a recalculation of the torecasted tipping tees: Xncr.a..d Di.posal Cos~s - .ov~mher and December. 1989 $ 919,320 45,500 92,400 290.500 $1,347,720 Thi. total .uat then be .djuBte~ for the tifteen (15) days at the increa.ed 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 c 8,300 x 3S.00/ton c (No change) ~ 19,560 x $52.22 - $1,021,423 . These figure., plus those above, are on an annual basis and need to b. adjusted for a monthly basi. and 1n the case of the Acme charges, for the one-half (\) .onthly basis. Ynereased Disposal Costs Commencing Janua~ 1. 1990 $1,021,423 "7,853 97,178 305.52~ $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. (Residential) (Compactor) (Commercial) (BOX) 19,560 x 1,300 x 2,640 x 8,300 x S52.22/ton - 36.81/ton - 36.B1/ton - 36. el/ton c ~ The increase 1n the rate requested should be calculated usinq 'the new torecasted dump fees derived above. Presumably, this would .imply ~e a percentage increase applied uniformly across all rates. 1n accordance with the Board's latest announcement of policy. . Please achedule this item on the next available Board agenda. In any event, please notify this firm and/or Orinda-Xoraqa when we might expect this 1 tem to be heard. ......~ ...,......~ ..,...., ....,~~...6.... ..... . . '""... ... ...,0. "". V ........... .. \ (, Sue McNulty Rainey, President Board of Director. Contra Costa Central Sanitary Diatr1ct January 4, 1990 Page 3 Thank you again tor your cooperation an4 kind oonai4aration in this matter. .. Vary truly yours, LITTLE , SAPt1TO ;. JCDL/mk cc: Orinda-Koraqa Disposal Service, Inc. Walter Funasaki , ;: ::: Attachment VIII LITTLE & SAPUTO ATTORNEJ'S AT LAW I'ETER T. SAI'UTO GiSeLLE A. JURKA:--:IN J(E~ D. LITTLE SOO 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 Re: Rate Review Caused By Increase In Tipping Fees Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal Dear President Rainey: c~.. 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 PHBD of the increase is enclosed. Based on the foregoing circumstances, FHBD has no alternative but to seek to have the rates for collection and disposal adjusted to reflect the new cost. PHBD hereby applies for changes in rates based upon these circumstances. 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 ollithe 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 ~ ~. ~" ~--: ~ ~..' "/" /'"" ,,- N /," 1/ ' ~/,_/" / '" ," ,.d., --.,,- . . /. ,~~ -'f!.' ~if<B:./ to1ttle KDL/mk enclosure cc: Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal ~lter Funasaki (w/enc.) --- Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill P.O. BOX 5397 CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94520 (4 \ 5) 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 Se~Jice pittsburg Disposal Service Delta Debris Box Service Oakley Disposal Service Brentwood Disposal service Gi,140,J - J A1- I+fJ-;tc>:A - ~ p. ~ _:)~ ~ Pd- ( . ~