Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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-
(
.
~