The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 02-15-90 . Central Contfa Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 34 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF February 15, 1990 NO. IV. HEARINGS 1 e ruary 13, 1990 SUBJECT DATE CONDUCT 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 TYPE OF ACTION CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT /DIV Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer Administrative/Finance & Accountin ISSUE: 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 capacity and scheduled to cease operations 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 uncertainty regarding disposal expenses to be incurred during 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 1 andfill ceased operati ons, a departure from the Di stri ct' 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 reconsidered during the rate-setting period, if a significant 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 disposal fee was suppl anted by a $52.22 per ton transfer stati on fee. The di sposa 1 fee charged by the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in Richmond was increased from $31.20 per INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION /~~ . #--~-~ 1302A-9/85 WNF PM SUBJECT CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER REQUESTS FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF REFUSE COLLECTION RATES WITHIN lHE OJRRENT RATE-SETTING PERIOD SUBMITTED BY V ALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT, ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL POSITION PAPER PAGE 2 DATE OF 34 February 13, 1990 ton to $35 per ton on November I, 1989, and further increased to $36.81 per ton on January I, 1990. The Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, which increased its disposal fee to $38 per ton on August I, 1989, increased its fee still further on December 15, 1989 to $45 per ton. These di sposa 1 fee increases at the th ree in-county facilities used by the franchised collection companies are the bases for the requests for reconsideration of the collection rates previously established effecti ve J u1 y I, 1989 and August I, 1989. Closure Cost Assessments The County Board of Supervisors approved a $52.22 per ton fee at the Acme 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 Acme 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 ti es served and payments made. The County will begi n the closure cost assessment program after development of a Memorandum of Understandi ng with the refuse collection franchising agencies, a trust agreement governing the closure fund, and a transfer of assets agreement for the transfer of closure funds collected to-date by Acme Fi 11 Corporati on into a trust fund. The development and executi on of these documents are expected to be comp1 eted by May 1990; at that time, the County intends to imp1 ement the assessment program by bi 11 i ng refuse coll ectors retroactively to December 1989. Two recent correspondences from Sara Hoffman, County Sol i d Waste Manager, re1 ated to closure cost assessments are prov i ded on Attachments II and III; in the January 18, 1990 1 etter, it is suggested that collection rate adjustments under current review include a prOVision for the unbi11ed closure cost assessment. Two versi ons of the unfunded closure and post-closure cost assessement have been prepared by De10itte & Touche, the County's consultant. One version, shown on Attachment IV, projects an unfunded balance of $24,941,800 and includes hazardous waste closure and post-closure costs. The other, shown on Attachment V, projects an unfunded ba1 ance of $18,829,000, and does not inc1 ude hazardous waste closure and post-closure costs. The County's consultant is presently reviewing Acme'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 landfill should be borne by the general public is anticipated. 13028-9/85 SUBJECT CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER REQUESTS FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF REFUSE COLLECTION RATES WI11HN lHE QJRRENT RATE-SETTING PERIOD SUBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE MANPGEMENT, ORINDA-MORPGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL POSITION PAPER PAGE ~ DATE OF 34 Februarv 1 ~. loon Rate Reconsideration Requests Valley Waste ManaQement Valley Waste Management used the Acme landfill through December 18, 1989, and the Acme interim transfer station since that date for all of its collected refuse. 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 Acme landfill to $52.22 per ton at the Acme 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. Ori nda-Moraaa Di SDosa 1 Serv ice, Inc. Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. used the Acme landfill for residential refuse through December 18, 1989, and the Acme 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 Acme landfill to $52.22 per ton at the Acme 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 same 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 collected 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 coll ecti on rates with i n the current rate--setti ng peri od submitted by 13026-9/85 SUBJECT CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER REQUESTS FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF REFUSE COLLECTION RATES WITHIN lHE CURRENT RATE-SETTING PERIOD SUBMITTED BY V ALLEY WASTE MAN PG EMENT, ORINDA-MORJlGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL POSITION PAPER 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 I, 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 alternative 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 establish a trust account to receive payment of closure costs from the three refuse collectors until sati sf actory 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 including, hazardous waste closure costs should be provided in the collection rates. 13028-9/85 Attachment I STAFF ANAl.. YSES OF RATE RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS The District staff analyses of the requests for a refuse collection rates submitted by Valley Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service and Pleasant Hill Bay provided in the following sections. reconsi derati on of Waste Management, Shore Disposal are Valley Waste ManaQement In pursui t of an export agreement with Al ameda County, the Contra Costa County staff and other publ ic offici al s negoti ated a miti gati on fee of $5.85 per ton. Aane 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 Aane, 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 District was informed by representatives of Valley Waste Management that participation in such negotiations would not be required, 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 ti ppi ng fee charged by Al tamont to San Franci sco, 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 promise to the District to negotiate a separate tipping fee at Altamont for its customers, and expressed an unw i 11 i ngness 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 Al ameda County, Vall ey Waste Management offici al s i ndi cated 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 Analysis The adjustments to collection rates are presented on the following attachments: Attachment Description I-A Effect on Representati ve Coll ecti 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 incranental effects of the two Acme closure cost assessment assumpti ons, i. e. excl udi ng or i ncl udi ng hazardous waste, are shown. !-B 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 Acme closure cost assessment, assuming Altamont landfill tipping fees of $6.93, $8.13, $15.68 and $20.90 per ton. 1-C Rate Adjustment Calculation. The calculation of the revenue increase or decrease requi red based on four transfer stati on fee assumptions, which vary according to Altamont landfill tipping fees of $6.93, $8.13, $15.68 or $20.90 per ton, are shown. Additionally, the calculation of the incranental effects of the two Acme closure assessment assumptions are presented. 1-0 Acme Transfer Station Fee. The components of the $52.22 Acme interim transfer stati on fee, as reported by Del oi tte & 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 exi sti ng Acme transfer stati on fee, which includes the $20.90 per ton tipping fee, as well as transfer station fees based upon the $6.93 tipping fee paid by San Francisco, 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 adjus"bnents for this collector. Orinda-Mora~a Disposal Service_ Inc. Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service incurred disposal fee increases fran $47 per ton to $52.22 per ton effective December 19, 1989 for residential 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-E; additionally, the calculation of the incremental effects of the two Acme closure cost assessment assumptions are shown. Pleasant Hill Bay Shore DisDosal 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 fran $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 resultant rates of certain 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 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 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 c:t: I ........ +> s::::: Q) E ..s::::: u to +> +> c:t: UJ ~ ~ '" ~! ~i i~ !5ffi 1-41 ti", UJUJ ....'" B~ ~~ Ii I~ I ! ti ~ UJ .... 0) O)+>"'" ..+> 10\0 +>Ula::+ CIO N O)~ .+ ~UI~r; UI::I::I..... ~.g:s8 Ulr...a::-- <10 N +>10 UI:I: o o . 8 .0 O)~ UI CIO 0).... 0) t.. '0 t.. ::I ::I 0 UI.....C... 00.... .....c 0.... . ..... o o U'I 0) ,..., ..+>+>~ +>UllO+ CIOa::N O)~ + ~UI";"" en :J,.... . 0)0::1..... UI'OUl8 Ult..O) <1Oa::__ +>~ UI:I: 8 0) CUI~ 0).... IG t.. '0 0) ::I ::I t.. UI..... 0 o u C .....x....... OUJ . 8 ~ . 8 1\"1 +> C N IGUI+ +>+>0).... u..... +> . 0)::110..... .....Ula::O ..... 0) 0 UJa:: -- 0) 0) La.. . ..... o o N ..... ^ 10 O)~ UI 0) UI OUlIO 1G0) UlO)r... ....r...u oUO) co .... v... ..... o o .... +> C 0) 0) r...+> r... IG ::I a:: o 8 UI C o .. .... ..... +>..... 0..... I-ELa.. Z::I UJUI'O :::EUlC W<IG (!7 .... <0) ZO)+> <La..C :::E 0 UJ';jfa I-Ul+> (/)0..... < 0.< ~UI ....+> >-010 UJ .... c! > U'lU'IO U'lCO~ . . . U'I....I\"I .... ....1\"1 N 010101 ............ . . . \0 \0 \0 U'I U'I U'I ONO . . . ........\0 .... OU'lO 1\"1 U'I U'I . . . U'I....OI ........N N ~~~ ........ .... . . . U'I U'I U'I OU'lU'l COOl.... . . . N .... OOU'l U'I\OI\"I . . . ~\O"" ........ .... N ^ ^ ^ 000 000 '!;'!;'!l ^^^ U'lU'lO N~ 01 . . . ........CO .... v v v U'I U'I U'I ....ON . . . U'I CO \0 .... ....1\"1 4oIot N C 10 o 0) ..... Cl X C 0 ....ceo (/)10 OQ. ..... 0 10..... t.. ....IGO +>.... cO'O .. 0) r... r... C'OQlIG 0.... E >- t::lll~o 1\"1 a:: UN 01 . \0 U'lU'lO ....ON . . . U'lCO\O .... ....1\"1 N 010101 ............ . . . \0\0\0 U'I U'I U'I ONO . . . ........ \0 .... OU'lO U'I....I\"I . . . U'I....N .... ....1\"1 N ~~~ ........ .... U'I U'I U'I o U'I U'I COOl.... . . . N .... OOU'l ....CO.... . . . ~\OO ........N N ^^^ ........ .... CO COCO . . . \0\0\0 vvv ^^^ U'lU'IO ON.... . . . ........\0 .... vvv U'IU'IU'I ....ON . . . U'lCO\O .... ....1\"1 N 000 CO 1\"11\"1 . . . \OOIN .... .... U'I N 010101 ............ . . . \0 \0 \0 U'I U'I U'I ONO . . . ........\0 r-l U'lOO U'lO~ . . . \0 01 CO ........~ N ~~~ r-l r-l r-l U'I U'I U'I OU'lU'l COOlr-l . . . N r-l U'lU'IU'I ....ON . . . U'lCO\O r-l r-l 1\"1 N U'IU'IU'I ....ON ~cO~ r-l .... 1\"1 N x C IG o 0) ..... Cl X C 0 ....ceo (/)IG OQ. ..... 0 IG..... t.. ....IGO +>.... CU'O .. 0) r... r... c'OO)IG 0.... E >- I-UlE ......CD80 COa:: N \0 . U'I r-l U'I U'I U'I U'lr-l~ . . . ....01\"1 r-lN\O N 010101 ............ . . . \0\0\0 U'I U'I U'I ONO . . . r-lr-l\O r-l o U'I U'I I\"lCOU'l . . . ....0101 r-l r-l U'I N ~~~ r-l r-l .... U'I U'I U'I o U'I U'I COOl.... . . . N r-l 000 U'l0I~ . . . \0 CO.... r-lr-l~ N NNN ........ .... ~~~ U'I U'I U'I .... CO r-l . . . r-l .... U'IU'IU'I ....ON . . . U'lCO\O r-l r-l 1\"1 N C IG o 0) ..... Cl X C 0 ....ceo (/)10 OQ. ..... 0 IG..... t.. ....IGO +>.... CU'O ooO)r...r... C'OIIG 0.... >- I-UI ......CD80 Oa:: N 01 o N OU'lOO NN\Or-l . . . . CO \0 01\0 r-lr-lr-l\O N ................ U'IU'IU'IU'I . . . . ~~~~ U'lU'IOU'l ....\OCOO . . r-l r-l 0000 0r-l~1\"I . . . . CO \0 011\"1 r-lr-lr-l\O N r-l r-l r-l .... ~~~~ . . . . 1\"11\"11\"11\"1 U'lOOU'l U'lU'I\ON . . CO U'lOOU'l ~\OCOO . . . . ....U'lCOU'l .... r-l r-l U'I N \0\0\0\0 \0\0\0\0 . . . . U'I U'I U'I U'I U'lU'IOU'l 01 CO 0\0 . . . . ....1\"1 r-l OU'lOO U'I....CO~ ~ 'li~"':'-: ...... O....r-l....~ 01 01 N r-l 01 ...... ......COr-l N............IGIG r-l r-l r-l '0 Cl ...... CIG ,,.... ....- ~ Cr-l cr... 0 o OO:::E I- ..I- ......c......, 00.... OII-COC ......... . ft::I ~Ui~~~O ....C4oIot......0) >0 ..... a::.... I , , Cl UJ+> C CI) 0.,....,.... ..- ....S:;::;:: (/) <UI.......... ..... (/)UI'O'O IG 0< C C .... a.. IG IG +> (/)0)........ C ....0) 0) 0La..+>'O '0 CC .... ~';j~g UI <UlIG.c fi a::0+>0 o 0.,......- :::EUI<a:: ,.... <0 o Z .... a:: o X o ceo IG 00. o .....t.. IGO .... 0'0 r... r... ~~ E 8~ OOU'l COCOr-l . . . U'lU'IN r-l r-l .... N r-l r-l r-l \0\0\0 ~~~ U'I U'I U'I \O\ON . . . r-l .... U'lU'lU'I \O\O~ . . . U'lU'lOI r-l....\O N 000 U'I U'I U'I . . . 1\"11\"11\"1 OOU'l U'lU'IU'I . CO U'lU'IO r-lr-l0l . . . U'lU'lO r-lr-l\O N \0\0\0 010101 . . . \0\0\0 000 000 . . . r-lr-l.... .... U'lU'IO r-l .... 01 . . . ~~I\"I r-lr-l~ N .. C o I- 10...... r...U'I +>~ c-.. ~80 ~ (/) +> 0 o+> a..1G..... 0) (/) ..... ..... ....0).... Cl X OUl..... C 0 IG'O ....ceo ~f~ (/)l3Q. OOc"" ..... 0 :I: 1G.....t.. (/).... ~ :t:i~0 >-O)IG cU'O <O)+> O)r...r... eoLa..c ~~~ ..........IGOIUl8 .....1ll(f)a)CD 0 .... UI ...... a:: N :I: 0 IllU'l Q.+> .... I-UlUI...... z....8N <0 .... (/) < UJ .... a.. Attachment 1-B VALLEY WASTE MAN/4iEMENT PERCENT INmEASElDEmEASE IN OOLLECTION RATES BASED ON AL TOOtH LANDFILL DISPOSAL FEE ASSUMPTIONS .... .... .... 14- '0 C '" ...I +oa c o ! $20.90 $21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .... < ~ '" i u.. .... '" III o Q. III .... C c ~ '- 8? <10><9><8><7><6><5><4><3><2><1> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Percent Increase<Decrease> in Collection Rates, Without Acme Closure Cost Assessment SSS/Pos. Paper 3/Att 1-8 (38) VALLEY WASTE MANH3EJENT RATE ADJUSlJEHT CALaJLATION (000 Qlitted) Adj ustment for 12/19/89 Acne Transfer Station Fee: Forecasted Disposal Expense, 12/19/89 - 6/30/90, at $47/Ton ($3,564 [Note A] ~ 12 Months x 6.42 Months [Note B]) Forecasted Disposal Expense, 12/19/89 - 6/30/90, ($1,907 ~ $47/Ton x Transfer Station Fee) <Decrease> in Disposal Expense, 12/19/89 - 6/30/90 Acme Closure Cost Assessment, Excluding Hazardous Waste, 12119/89 - 6/30/90 ($431 [Note C] ,. 12 Months x 6.42 Months) Acne Closure Cost Assessment, Including Hazardous Waste, 12/19/89 - 6/30/90 ($570 [Note C] ~ 12 Months x 6.42 Months) Total Revenue Increase<Oecrease> Required, Excluding Acme Closure Cost Assessment (Figure 1) Total Revenue Increase<Oecrease> Required, Including Acme Closure Cost Assessment, Excluding Hazardous Waste (Figures 1 + 2) Total Revenue Increase<Oecrease> Required, Including Acme Closure Cost Assessment, Including Hazardous Waste (Figures 1 + 3) Projected Revenue, 2/1190 - 6/30/90 ($10,653 [Note A] ~ 12 Months x 5 Months) Percent Increase<Oecrease> in Revenue Required, Excluding Acme Closure Cost Assessment (Figures 4 ,. 7) Percent Increase<Oecrease> in Revenue Required, Including Acme Closure Cost Assessment, Excluding Hazardous Waste (Figures 5 ~ 7) Percent Increase<Oecrease> in Revenue Required, Including Acne Closure Cost Assessment, Including Hazardous Waste (Figures 6 ~ 7) Notes: A. Per July 1989 Rate-setting: Forecasted Revenue, 7/1/89-6/30/90 Forecasted Disposal Expense, 7/1/89-6/30/90 B. The period 12119/89 - 6/30-90 equal 6.42 months. Acme Transfer Station Fee Assuming Altamont Landfill Tipping Fee as Denoted in Attachment 1-0 $38.25/ $39.45/ $47.00/ $52.22/ ~n ~n ~n ~n 1,907 1,552 (1) (2) < 355> 231 Attachment I-C (3) 305 1,907 1,907 1,907 (4) < 355> - 1,601 1,907 2,119 (5) < 124> - < 306> 212 231 (6) < 50> - 231 231 (7) 4,493 - 305 305 305 < 8.00>1 <~>I < 1.11>1 < 306> - - 212 - < 75> - 231 - 443 - < 1> - 305 - 517 - 4,493 - 4,493 - 4,493 - < 6.81>1 - - 4.721 - <~>I 5.141 9.861 - < .02>1 - 6.79Ji - 11.511 - $10,653 $ 3,564 C. Contra Costa County recommends a total Acne Close Cost Assessment to $431,407 excl udi ng hazardous waste and $570,419 i ncl udi ng hazardous waste for Lafayette, Danville, and the unincorporated areas served by Valley Waste Management. Total Direct Labor Costs Total Equipment 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 1-0 (30) Attachment 1-0 VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT ACME TRANSFER STATION FEE EFFECTIVE DEcaeER 19, 1989 Current Transfer Station Fee Altamont Landfill Tippil1g Fee Assumption: $6.93/Ton $S.13/Ton $15.68/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 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 5.85 5.85 - $ 52.22 38.25 39.45 47.00 ...... ...... ...... Attachment I-E c.. ,4DA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE RATE ADJUSlJENT CAlWLATION <000 0Il1tted> Excluding Acme Closure Cost Assessment Including Acme Closure Assessment Excluding Including Hazardous Hazardous Waste Waste Acijustment for Acme Transfer Station and Richmond Landfill Disposal Fee Increases: A~e Fill: orecasted 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, 12119/89 - 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 month s ) Forecasted Disposal Expense, 11/1/89 - 12131/89, 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 98 98 Acme Closure Cost Assessment, 12/19/89 - 6/30/90 <$110 & $147 [Note D] ~ 12 months x 6.42 months) 59 79 Total Revenue Increase Required $ 98 157 177 Projected Revenue, 2/1/90 - 6/30/90 <$4,152 [Note A] ~ 12 months x 5 months) $ 1,730 1,730 1,730 Percent Increase in Revenue Required 5.661 9.881 10.231 Notes: A. Per July 1989 Rate-Setting: Forecasted Revenue, 7/1/89 - 6/30/90 Forecasted Disposal Expense, 7/1/89 - 6/30/90: Acme Fill Richmond $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 Acme Transfer Station fee. D. Contra Costa County recommends a total Acme Closure Cost Assessment for Ori nda and Moraga of $109,886 excl udi ng hazardous waste and $147,174 including hazardous waste. Attachment I-F PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL RATE ADJ USlMENT CALaJLATION <000 On1tted> Excluding Acme Closure Cost Assessment Including Acme Closure Assessment Excluding Including Hazardous Hazardous Waste Waste Per August 1989 Rate-Setting: Forecasted Revenue, 8/1/89 - 6/30/90 $569,408 $165,379 Forecasted Disposal Expense, 8/1/89 - 6/30/90 Adj ustment for 12/15/89 Ti ppi ng Fee Increase: Forecasted Disposal Expense, 12/15/89 - 6/30/90, at $38/Ton ($165,379 ~ 11 months [Note AJ x 6.5 months [Note B]) 97,724 Forecasted Disposal Expense, 12/15/89 - 6/30/90, U5,726 at $45/Ton ($97,724 ~ $38/Ton x $45/Ton) Increase in Disposal Expense, 12/15/89 - 6/30/90 18,002 18,002 18,002 Acme Closure Cost Assessment, 12/15/89 - 6/30/90 9,076 U,924 ($16,755 & $22,013 [Note CJ ~ 12 months x 6.5 months) Total Revenue Increase Required $ 18,002 27,078 29,926 Projected 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 12/15/89 - 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. Elsberry/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 ~ ~ ~ IllEOOme\JlilD JAN 2 2 1990 cCcsn ADMI~IS tF-. "'TtON 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 v~ ./ n anager H8/morsen.ltr cc: Board of Supervisors Phil Batchelor ( Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: 646-1390 Contra Costa County Attachment III Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development ffim&~llWmm JMJ 2 9 1990 r:::~8;; AD;ilf.'..- ~- '-'.~.. '.1 '. '--.--'-\.-' I'. ',.. January 24, 1990 Paul Morsen Central CC Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Dear ~~en~ 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 $8.62/ton for the Acme Landfill closure cost assessment. We are currently in the process of developing a Memorandum of Understanding, trust fund agreement and other ancillary documents to implement the closure cost assessment plans for each community. Draft documents will be circulated to all the cities and sanitary districts who are historic users of Acme Landfill in the near future. Of course, I would be happy to discuss the MOU or other closure issues with you at any time. Sincerely, ""---... C?wc=L Sara M. Hoffman Solid Waste Manager SH/mgrs.ltr cc: Board of Supervisors ~ tj o t ~ ~ ~ ~ g :s CI) ei t5 <: ~~ z~ =>>9i 0"- u3: ~ ~o CI)~ O~ u~ <~ ~~ .... ZS Oei u~ o - II , 111"'1 0111"'1 .......n... ~_:tIt i~ ~ =!8 ~ n , ~~!!i!i II , 11_ tit 0-11 CO "'N II _ ~_III"'I us!: III' '" - II ~""II SOli -II . .. i - ""'0"2 "'!~g~ ~lS 11_ ~ IIN U II 0 .... I II.. U~ . N '" tit 2 ~-IIr: ......... . ......-rH... ~~ :1 -0011 _II M. II 1"'111 : - N ~ ! ~ U i ~ ~ 2 '" - o g N . '4 11"1 ~ ... e , N '4 11"1 , ~ ... 1"'1 - .... o 1"'1 . N tit ;! - 00' ii5 i M 11"1 .0 - o ! U ! U N-#-oN-'1"'I ~~~~::;: .. ... ... .. .. I ~"'N"'O'~ tIt~~;;~:t;: tIttlt tit I tit ~~~~!Q:~ "'~NN:ZS'''' ':2..... to ,..: g: 0: a:t;!~=..,.:1C ~.:.:fA,.,;''': tIttlt tit tit :N~~~:~ NNIl"lIl"lCOI-# .. .- ... ... ... .. CON...CO....~ ~~~~~:II"I -':"".N'~ tit tit tit N...N-N.I"'I :O~~~:$:~ -4- o..-Jl't- tI\-': : ",.. O....-oI"'lI"'l.N .......aa..N..~'l()..: ~ _I"'IN 11"1 '4 tit tit tit tit ;; ~~~H~~ "';O:"'N"; - '" U > ~ '" '" '" ~ '" 1 ~ >-e ~lS ~Q,. e'" >- o ~ e>- ~ '" ~~ z~ ",e u> - w 1.:1 e CD ~ ~ '" ~ ~ '" >- e ... 0 ~w_;~ ....,.....co..c w~'I! ~uw Q,. ~ ~ ~ w~~ >-~-~ ez> z .......:::I:Z- eeeez ~:>>ell"'~ M 11"1 . ~ ~ c ~ o ~ .......'4 0-0.... NOoI- .. .... .. ""......... ......,-# __:;; N""Oo ~~:~ .. ... .. NOlo.... lC~:!:; ",..... ... - tit ...0.... ~~:~ .. ... .. -#COIN 001"'1'1"'1 tl~:O. - tit 1"'1""0 NOoIN ......"".: "" ~~:g NN 111"1 .. .., .. __ N tIttlt tit ss S 1"'11"'1 .0 '" ~U e- lS~ Q,.W "'''' O~ ~ c~ ~:! .... CC o ell zz -- !! ~~ ez ~! ~ e ... o ~ CONC8I"'12:-o-,II"I' ~ p:: N ~ as ~!:;.: ~ ",; .....1/\.. c;.",," 9".....0- : ...... ...,....o."'~_.......... ...;..",. ;;:~ "'-CO 1"'1 gll"l 00 11"'1 "'NII"II"'I -00111"1 I"'INCOOo N""'4 ....."'N...:.,..,.:... : '^ I"'I-#II"IOI"'I~-ol-# ..,....0.\1'\0. ......... ..- ....",. ..... ;;;; ;; ~ ~~~~~:ee:~ O'4-#ON-oNI- .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. Il"lII"ICOIl"lCO-OoII"'I _U'\N-oII"I-#N'Oo ~;;II"I.:::t~:~ : -#, ;; : "'_II"INOI"'INIS!: QN"'"'Oq.,'O'... '_ ........ ....... "'.. 0.. "'.. CO.. 0... : "" ~~ao~~~~::i I"'IN-#"'II"IO-oIN ..",. ..",. .. .. .. I N ,., ......... tit tit tIttlttlt ~~~r:~~~ ";O';":";N~ ~ C en o Q,. en - ell w ~ en >- C CD ~ ~ - z ~ z C en e '" ~ Q,. - w 1.:1 C CD ~ ~ 1.:10 ::l ~ ~~ : ~ ~~ Z3lZ-c-!lE ~2l!louQ,.l:S c,..........-...z ~~~8~en;; Q,.UC~CD~~ Attachi'lent IV 1"'1-#1'" 0'" I 11'\ II"II"'IICO 0." 0." : eJ" .",...,..0 .......,.., tit tit . tit ~~:;! Q '" . 11\ ~. 'i.: '9.' "'.......0 .. ... .. :;;; :;z !:;::J:~ 11'\--0.... ..... "," : ,.: .........eJ 5~: ...... - tit . - - tit ~~:-# "'...,;:! ~.~. : lC' .........11\ N-N-' -../I- tIttlt tit M - . ... N &:~ 11"111"1 ~ c ~ o ... '" ~ ! ~ en a w ... e 1.:1 uw -1.:1 ~~ ~5 s . - - . ~ III W ~ ~oo Zu -b.Q "'~ 3c.. Q,. 2 - ~. -# N' tit w . ...00 ~~ -- ~. en 11"1 wco 00 "'- ~ ~~ ~... U ~ !~ "'->- '" ~ _~z ~-u -zc u-o'" 5i eN! iil5 ~ ... , '" 1"'1 :; ::~! 00 -- .. !w~ N __=- tit ~51 !ell- ...~! e ... ... ... c"'z owu ~c !~W =~! ~ ;~~ .. 2",,-. ... zz '" \.2-- , 3 ~ c;;i~ tit ~c~ "'001 ~coc ~Ci", _....z ~o~. en_ "'ze ~~~ ZQ,. w~en Z '" UOGl: a~! ~uu w cae "'GI:~ _Q,.U '" cw~ ~~g O",U ~ell'" ~!~ ~;i ~ ... ZU~ ~~~ ~~~ Q,.ue ~ N' - 11"1 . - ~ ~ . 8 - -- _N -- ~ c ~ o ... ~ ~ . ~ . ! ~ 1: '" . {., " g>-~E~ ~"'" " .. 0"- .......0 i ,,- . ...... " .. w" =-:;," ca" . en >- en 8 . ~;; H: i....... .. .'" ~.- .a . .. .- ".. . . W Gl: g ~ U . i i c w a o ~ U W >- en :I en a a ~ C :z: a w >- ~ ;;;. 0.......10 l2~:~ u..... .. ....0.. ~_.o. ;:rt · · '" 0::3:" 0.. -. . . . >-all", f~:~ .. ".. ww:~ I;E~ ~~II" UU: >- en w >- a :z: >- :a ~:!: -'......... . =~:. "'0.11 Z_II -. " M~n 0. " -. II N ~ >- c Z Gl: w >- ~ c .. N >- - CD :z: x w N W Z >- Gl: ~ .... C en o 0- .,. Q o ~ ! U $ - ~ ~ :; :i ~ ( - .. - ~ to: '" .. .. '" .. M '" .0 - o ~ ! U -. Touche Ross Acme Fill Closure and Post-Closure Cost Collection Alternatives -~IOr;:;:'!:lt 8elClt..ii.", ...... .. ...."'1--.2: ~~C5t;:t:CI .... .... ;;;; ~ ~ 0......"''''..... ~g~~:;:s .. .. .. .. ... .. o....-ilo.;S ~::!g"'o::'" ~ .;c.. ... .. - - '" .. .... -"''''0.....;Sl ~~~o;e:o. fO- .: '^)" N : '" ~Si ~::; .. .... ..... ;;:;l;; ~ ;: .. """"" -",,,,,a..o ";O:";N~ - w U ;: Gl: W en w >- en :I .... w u c CD S ~ ..c w '" ::::f c.,. >- a ~ ~~ >- ~ z.... w w >- >- .... w "" .. .... c ... 0 C ~LU """'w....co~ ......wo-c w- Gl: ~eiw~&: :;;>-j~~ >-:;'-laI:U cz> z "'-'2Z- c<<<z ~:aocn:;, " "" . . '" ~ < I- o >- 0......1 "'.. . '" '" . .,,;,,: : 0.- ",,,,.0 ........ . .. ~;:::!i ""...IIS .. ... .. ~""IO iX~:S ..... .. - .. g~:1O "'N'~ t~":~ tltI::i 0.0.10 :~:~ NN":~" o.a. o.a. tit ... .. ;; ;; "" " ao 0 .,;".; ~ w ~u c- en> Olal: o..LU en en ox o C ID ., ~~ ilS .... << 00 zz ~~ <z ~a: zo ~! ~ c >- o >- ~N~~~:i:;; 0: IO::!O"".."'..o..... ....0 -0- ~ ~.. '^!i : ,: ~;;:!....~_:o .... .~ ~.."'-O''''S.N J.:~~~~;"':O: i '8" '!i '^ -1 'dl" : r::" o-;:J~J:::.. '0 .... ... tit .. ... - - '" .. .. .. -~~~~::'8:2 g..o",..oNN",.J::: i~~~.!O"i.ri: ~ ....-"'N"''''tI.1O .....:..... '", .. .. ::!~~~;:it~~:N ....o-o.alOlO.::O c: to j!.- '^ ri '^ c: : '^ ii~"";N!:!~:~ .- ..~ .;; "':R- .... N .. .. .. .. .. .. ~~~~~~~ ";O';":";N..# ~ C en ~ en - a w g :z: en >- < CD -' ..... = >- =- :i c w ~ 0.. " w u < CD Gl: ~ .... "" .... <.70 '"' LU o :;'1- W.,.....COC 8-4'''''"' .....-0 >- '"' 1-0.. Z!Z.....,C-a: :i>-gou0-8 C~-LaJ-""Z ~~!i8~~z o..U<Gl:lD:a:;) ..... ..... - = Attar.hf11:?nt V =f~:~ cs.,.'" . .. . ~..,... N_ · "'N -- . ....... ~5:N . .. "':. 0"'11\ N~:~ ~".:' N .... .. ....N.O' ~:a:;:: .....,:: g ~~:"'" ....... .. ;; "'....0 N... . .., OI'l....N 0I'l-!- : ..0- .0 .., 0-. ..: lIC) ;;; ~ " - ..: N ~~ . . '" '" .... < I- o >- w >- ~ In '"' w ! - en :;:, U uw -u ~'"' IDe i5 " a . - - o ~ ~ ;; i - !;~ ~B 1&._ . :!!! J~:C - .... =5'" wii:J. ~w .... ... Igi ~ .... ul!w !"'~ :: :. ~... --'-0 >- -.... -zuu U -z a~fit:ii ~;i~1 ~~:II:Wg W",~""o ......,. . .... w '" ge!:;:~ ~ "'c",cen ~ C .....- >->-~~ Z :!:::!~ ... Gl:Z>-1n 0 !~-~:I ~ -2-' U >--joen '" ~C~9~el ~. ~ ~ fit uw- "'5 ~~~~ e~~ ;;iew~;$w :;)< Gl:-wo.laI: wo.!w9--; i$8i:s~e~ -....w~w...i=- ...oae... _ en-ft::a>-en w ~o-a :II: In :z w enu >- :;:'ZGl: ~a~zw"'~e Gl:ltii;ti...-; w>-",w wen = ~en ~< a!g~~8~llf >-U a>- wenw.,.oo>- cai>-:C~I-~~ enGl: ~ w<z -0.. i3i;PlEen <w ~<-a::< :C~~~w~g~ Q C Gl:OU< ~~2i~o..~ ....zu<ow:z~ -~c -'CD=>>~ ~... ;u....zi -0 '000- ....~-wz ~t;~t;:c)-:! ~~ffi~~~~~ QC-'~O.... c- ~8~f:=Q!i I 5' 10- ;; I - - 0I'l N .. ;; ... o '" ; c .... en . fit ; ~ ! o 8 s'" - '" '" .. " o o o - ~ < >- o >- "'""'''' "'''''' -N "'.,'" "'"" "'" '" ~ "--' Attachment VI Valley \tllaste Management P.o. Box 4007 2658 N. Main Street Walnut Creek, California 94596 415/935.8900 IQ \e,I 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 01.3-1). 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 01.4-1). Sara Hoffman, the County Solid Waste Manager, has confirmed to our company that when the "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) is finalized, the County will request payment in full of the Acme closure assessment retroactive to December 18, 1989. a diVision of SAWDCO r. ". Honorable Susan Rainey, President and Members of the Board of Directors January 16, 1990 Page 2 Therefore, Valley Waste Management is requesting an increase of 16.89 percent to recover increased transfer and disposal costs of $215,000, and the Acme closure assessment of $233,000 from December 18, 1989 through June 30, 1990. These costs are projected to be recovered over the three-month period of April 1 through June 30, 1990 (V.1-1). That will raise the single can rate from $15.75 per month to $18.40 (V.6-1). Attached to this letter are various supporting documentation. Should you or your staff have additional questions, we will be pleased to be of assistance. Very truly yours, James E. Landa Controller -=r~4 Jerome M. Kruszka Acting General Manager sl Enclosures INDEX Item Title Tab Page 1. Rate Increase Required Based on Transfer, Disposal, and Closure Costs Effective December 18, 1989 1-1 2. Adjusted Disposal Expense @ $47.00 per Ton From CCCSD Position Paper dated July 3, 1989 2-1 3. Acme Fill Rate Change Notice 3-1 4. Touche Ross Analysis of Closure and Post-Closure Cost Collection 4-1 5. Revenue Projection by Customer Type 5-1 6. Schedule of Current and Proposed Rates 6-1, 6-1. 1 V. 1-1 VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT -CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT- RATE INCREASE REQUIRED BASED ON TRANSFER, DISPOSAL, AND CLOSURE COSTS EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 18, 1990 (000) Annual disposal expense projected for the fiscal period 7/01/89 thru 6/30/90 . $52.22 per ton ((3,564/47.00)*52.22)) 3,960 Annual disposal expense projected for the fiscal period 7/01/89 thru 6/30/90 . $47.00 per ton (V. 2-1) 3,564 Annual increased cost of disposal 396 6.5/12 Increase in disposal cost 12/18/89 thru 6/30/90 215 Annual Acme closure assessment (V. 4-1) 431 6.5/12 Acme closure assessment 12/18/89 thru 6/30/90 233 Total revenue increase required 448 --------- --------- Projected annual revenue fiscal period 7/01/89 thru 6/30/90 (V. 5-1) 10,608 3/12 Projected revenue April thru June 1990 2,652 --------- --------- 16.89% --------- --------- VALLEY WASTE MANNiEMENT Al TERNATE RATE ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS DISPOSAL EXPENSES BASED ON S47/TON (000 Omitted. Unless Otherwise Noted) Forecasted Unadjusted Revenues for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1990 Forecasted Operating Expenses for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1990 Deduct: Acme Landfill Disposal Expense 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 Increase in Forecasted Revenues Required ~ercent Increase in Forecasted Revenues Required Effect of Alternate Rate Adjus1:lnent on Representative Collection Rates: Residential - Single Can Commercial - Single Can 20-Yard Drop Box SS/Rate Setting 1988-89/VWM Alt Rate Current Rates V.2-1 Pass-Through 1ane Landfl1l Dfsposal Expense Without Profit Ma rQ f n $ 8.700 . 10.078 <A><3.564> I 6.514 6.930 85 <A> 3.564 10.579 1.879 21.6~ $ 12.95 $15.75 $ 14.75 $17.95 $192.95 $234.65 Attachment I Per Di strict Analysis 8,700 10,078 10,721 85 10,806 2,106 24.20% $16.10 $18.30 $239. 65 '..~~'.:.;} : ,. ,..',-.01", l _., _1.""_'.": I [. V. 3-1 ~ '" I1CHUb 0JiJt ~. DIRECTORS Bart Blslo Clark Calvis .r,o PRESIDENT Boyd M. Olney, Jr. SECRETARY-TREASURER George Navone DecC'dH'!r 18, 1989 ~ Mr. Jerry Kruszka Valley Waste Management 2658 N. Main Street Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Mr. Kruszka: ** Effective 12:01 am December 19, 1989 Acme Fill Corporation's gate fee will be $52.22 per ton. We wish to thank you for your continued patronage. Very truly yours, 73 vjl fl7tt2d.if- 0' Boyd M. Olney, Jr. cc: Mr. Gino Scopesi Mr. Tom Blackman BMO/ph ** Effective date states December 19,1989. However, Acme billed Valley from December 18, 1989. I I en I- en o u w '" => en o -I U . I- en o Q. o z < w '" => en o -I U W I- en < :II en a o '" < N < :::c: o W I- < X l- V> W I- a :::c: .... :i N w > I- < Z '" W I- -I < N I- - <0 :::c: X w ...... ~:" a~e~ ~ II -I~nc; ~'-'~.. zwll z=>1I <0: II UJ"=~ UI'\ = ... ~""'lIon -'w..... <=>110 ala:,: II" II II ...... N 0..... wOo I- eo u..... WO -1- -I . 8~ 0. - . I- 0 en w ~~ o.s ww '" '" =>=> en en 00 -I -I UU ...... - ..... ..., =~ ... 0. Z - - . ,.., N-o 0. - II II eo IIN II eo II , II~ 110. lion II" II II II II II """ .,0 11-0 II 110 11- 11.0 1\ n.. II II n~ II . II~ II II II II II II II II II N W Z - I- '" < x -I < en o Q. en co o '" o u Z o u ~ - , ~ .. ,., ~ ~ 'i eo ~ N -4 ~ - .. - on eo ,..: on ..., , on .. N on .0 - o '" o u Z o u Touche Ross Acme Fill Closure and Post-Closure Cost Collection Alternatives November 7, 1989 ~~~~ ~~~ l ~ "..,.Ot!ltU'\.a) ........ Nt"" .... "," _~eo,...~.o. N o.onon.N 0. N...,eo.,., ~,.; ~"'i ci: r; ,...::So..on.~ tit ...... ....... ........ N In .... .. .. 0...,"""''''' ~&~~:;: ... ... ... ... .... 0""_~01 ~""Oo.-' ~~~~o:.: - - .. .. ..."",""'0....... ~~~c;~: tti .: '^~. N : ono.o 0.' ,.,oeo ...,. ..... ,,; .: ..;..... ...... .. - .. NNN~N _,.,ono.o ~O:";Ntti - w u > '" w en w l- V> < :II -I >-< wv> -10 -I Q. <en >- o -I <>- '" W I- -I Z-I w ...... w CJ < <0 '" -I < < CJ I- o W .... l- I- ...... W 11\ >- ..., < .... 0 < ,.,W -,~....COt- ...,weo-< w - '" L.LJQC ::0:0 t-uwOo.. ::Ul-:::~~ >:;:)_~U <Z> Z ~....:z:z- <<<<Z -1:11 oen => ,... ~ ~ 11\ , 11\ .. .0 ,., 0- ,., - ..., ~ 11\ ..., ,., o.""'~ ,.,..., 1 ,., lI\ 1 , " .0,., . lI\ lI\ . ...., . O-'~ 0."" . ,.,..., 1 ";",:fIi ~~:g ..... ... - .. 8:8::~ U'\N.a) 0:'::...0 N.olo. ~~::l o-OICO ~~:IC , . NN . '^ 8:g:8: .. .. ;; :; ~~ N 00 0 . . ,.,,., .0 W -I U <- V>> 0'" Q.W V> V> oX o <<0 C) <Q. ~9 xa ..... << 00 zz -- "'''' 00 << C)o <z "'- 00:: XO 0.. o .. -I < I- o I- ~~~~~~:i\:0: eo.oOIl\...,II\.o,,,,, ... ... .. .. .. .. ... ,...o.oeoOIl\S!' ~;;;!~t;tS~: .. .. . j9...,,.,_0.,.,0.. NII\OCO"O. ...,11\,.,,...011\' .o-4o,^ ...",^!,: ....o.oeooon 1 0--........,.........,. . .... ..... tilt .. . - - .. .. ...."',.,...................--0.0 ~~3;~~N~:~ .. ... ... ... ... .. .... .......fII"\O......O,.,. o.,.,_,.,.oeo.o. ~:; "'..~ ~ ~ ~ : .. ~~~~~~~:N ......o....o.ococo.~ .. .. .. .. .. .. ... o.~"'~~~~: ~.~ ~~ ~~ "!. : .... N .... .... .. .. .. .. N~NNN~~ ~~~o:~~~ onOeo-,.,N..., -I < en o Q. en o W '" o :::c: en >- < <0 ..J -I : ...... W CJ < <0 0:: < CJ .... Z < en < W ..J Q. C) 0 ex: W o =>>- w'"'cc< 8..., en 0:: ...,.....0 ..... ex...-o.. z:z:c....,ce-cr: <00 -Q.O enl-OOo 0 <>-_w_t-z ~:S~8ffi~% Q.u<"'<o:II=> ..J ..J - : ...... lI\ ..., ,..: o 11\ .. :!g;: 0..., . , . N~:~ .-.....N ....... N 0: ~ o 11\ .. .011\1 ~~: . ,. 0..., . -,., . N_ . . .. :;:;; ~ eo ,., .. ""N. co,..,. co eo . . .. ..., 11\ . 11\"'" .... 11\ . ..... lI\ 11\ 0. eo. ... ,.,,... N_ 11\ .... lI\ 0 ~~. . .. :;;; N - r-: N -I < I- o I- W ..... < C) NN 0:--: 11\ 11\ en '" W :E: o I- en => u ow -Cl -I '" <0< =>:::c: Q. u N 11\ 11\ , N on , 11\ ~ N ... 0. t: o o ,.., .. o ..., N -0 :! ,.., ... N o - - v. 4-1 o o 0. N ~ . - ... . 0. eo 0. - 1 en on =>eo -10. a.._ . ~~~ ~~~ - ... th~cn wwac >- w w ... '" ::c <It =>uz l3~~ -I I- u~w z.... :c o I- en - :z. w.....o.... -~-o I- _ I- -:EOCJ U -z .00- a .CI)Z WN-UI I- "'Q.O en,.., =>00 -eo..., 0 ~grr.. w.. ....:::z:o w Ol-eo :w< 0 ~="'<< - ... w ,., a: ~....,.,.. 000....... "'-~~<ut C -,cn- to- .... -' ..... <en-<w OUJu..=-..... a:z....cn 0 zW-Uc( LLI 01- <:II I- -z.... c.J ....-<ocn UJ :Su.l~""i3 ~ =>ozoo Ul o..:'CWal: <<. ~dw=;S w: z:u<<",< CI-....::z:c-<UI Z 0 u >- -oOUCJ-~ rnz.....wz:zcow =>< ",-wOo", Ulo.gw9m-~ I-eoom-l~o=> ~;)~.....~acl-"" -,w-,wu...,z ....ocx- ..0- en_<>::IIl-eno. w 0 cno--o ::cuenoz W ~golZ02~~ oowww "'I- <<0::.... X <<.....,.- :cuen=>u z wl-wwenUleno i3o:::~g:::~:E a~8<l;'8~::: ....u 0.... wcnw<<nea.... <-,........0...."'''' oz<Q. I-=> ~~B50~~x <w~~~~~~ 1-01:: < cna:w < <""'0 wen 0'" o < "'ou< en;:)o=>Q.z .....0....%0 -0 -IZU<OWZW -:::::)< .....CZ)::l..... u....... (J)U < :z z.... Z IOl:' -0 '000-0 w.....-wz 0.. 1-1-(1)...... eno:: 20WU<>-WO WLUClI:WXcCc.:JU u....w-,-x:zz <<.........0.... <- woz"'enl-:z Q.u-o..W-UJ o o o 0: N eo .0 ;;; o o o .... o en => I- < I- en - 11\ N ~ .. . <It - en >- -I < ~ en :::c: I- o o o , o CO o ,.., ,., ... z - N o o o - -I < I- o I- " ...... ~N ...,..., .................. ", ..., 11\ ....,...,...., 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 --------- --------- --------- --------- V. 6-1 VALLBY WASTB MANAGBMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT FRANCHISE ZONES 2, 4 AND 5 SCHEDULE OF CU~RENT AND PROPOSED RATES Reqular Service: 1 32-gallon can weekly* Each additional can weekly Each additional can -- non-regular Current Rates (Effective 7/1/89) Proposed Rates (Effective 4/1/90) $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 Multi-Apartment Service: Each apartment weekly Each additional can weekly Each additional can -- non-regular per pick-u Commercial Service: One can weekly Each additional can weekly Each additional can -- non-regular per pick-u 1 Cubic Yard: 1 time per week 2 times per week 3 times per week 4 times per week 5 times per week 2 Cubic Yards: 1 time per week 2 times per week 3 times per week 4 times per week 5 times per week 3 Cubic Yards: 1 time per week 2 times per week 3 times per week 4 times per week 5 times per week 19.10 15.75 19.10 22.35 18.40 22.35 13.05 8.80 4.85 15.25 10.30 5.65 18.05 7.10 4.55 21.10 8.30 5.30 68.00 79.50 116.20 135.85 164.45 192.25 212.65 248.55 258.65 302.35 116.20 135.85 212.65 248.55 309.05 361.25 405.60 474.10 502.00 586.80 160.35 187.45 308.10 360.15 463.60 541.90 618.20 722.60 762.80 891.65 * 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. ,~. 81/&4/90 15:82 11'9441112 LITTLE a SAPUTO III 902 Attachment VII LITTLE & SAPUTO '''TSR T. SAPUTO OISeLLB A. IUJl~ANJN KIlN D. LITTLE AI"f'OItNIrnAT LAW SOD 'YONACIO VALLEY !tOAD, SUITE 380 WALNUT CIlBSJt. CA '4596 (41$) V44.5000 'AC."III.. .' (415) 944.1112 January 4, 1990 VIA FACSIMILE Sue McNulty Rainey, President Board of Directors Contra Costa Central Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 ae: Rate Review Caused By Zncreaae In Tipping F.e. orinda-Xoraga Dispo.al Service, Inc. Dear President Rainey: On behalf of Orinda-Xoraga Di.posal Service, Inc. (MOrinda- Moraqa") ve submit this request for a aid-year review s.eking an increa.e in rates due Solely to an increa.. in disposal rates charged. Orinda-Moraga disposes' of ita collected retuse at both 'the Richmond and the Acme Fill dump.itea. Both aite. have recently increased the tipping tees. Each di.posal aite has also added extra charges to the b~8e tipping fe.. The tipping tee at Acme i. current.ly $52.22 per ton Which rate was eftective a. of December 15, 19.9. W. have be.n advi.ed by County .talt that they expect to .....s th. closure costa retroactive to December 15, 1989. ~t a.sess.ent .hou14 occur approxi.ately March 15, depending on all of the agreement. being ~imely prepared and executed. ~e Board aiqht vish to consider 80me .echani.. to cover that eventuality. The Richmond di.poaal charge va. increa.ed to $35 per ton atlectlve NOVember 1, 1989 (up from a previous rate ot $31.20). As of January 1, 1990, the rolloving addit.ional charges were added to the ba.. tipping fee: a. 95~ per ton for the Contra Coata County Publ ic Works Depart.lnent, b. 360 per ton ror environmental health, 1. c. 50~ per ton to cover the .tate ..ndated AB939 Charg.s. ~. to~al disposal charge as ot January 1, 1190, at the R1chmond ait.e 1. $36.81. 81/94/90 15:82 "94.12 -. . LITTLE a SAPUi flJ 003 Sue McNulty Rainey, President Board of Directors eon~ra Cos~a C.ntral Sanitary Di.trict .January 4, 1990 Pag. 2 Becau.. Orinda-Moraqa di.poses of it. refuse at two different landfill aites, calculating the n.w tipping tees i. a little more complicated. The residential refu.e i. disposed of at Acme, while the compactor, commercial and box refuse 18 disposed of at Richmond. Set torth below then i. . recalculation of the toreca.ted tipping te.s: rnara.S.d Disposal Costs - .ov~mh.r and o.cember. 1989 (Residential) (compactor) (Commercial) (Box) 19,5'0 x '47.00/ton - $ 919,320 (No chan;.) 1,300 x 35.00/ton - 45,500 2,a40 x 35.00/ton c 92,400 .,300 x 35.00/ton c 290.50Q '1,347,720 Thi. total .ust then be adju8te~ tor the fifteen (15) days at the increa.ed rate at Acme fer December, 1989. ~ 19,560 X t52.22 - $1,021,423 These figur.s, plus tho.. above, are on an annual basi. and need to be adjusted for a monthly ba.i. and 1n the case of the Acme charges, tor the one-half (~) .onthly b.sis. Yncrea.ed Di.posal Costs Commencing Janua~ 1. 1990 '1,021,423 47,853 11,178 305.52;1 $1,471,977 Tbese figures (Which are annualized) .hould be adjusted to reflect that they would only be in effect tor the next .!x (6) aonths. (Residential) (compacto!:') (Commercial) (Box) 1~,5'0 x '52.22/ton _ 1,300 x ".Il/ten- 2,640 x 36.Bl/ton- .,300 x ".Il/ton e . .. The increase in the rate requested should be calculated using the new torecasted dump fees derived above. Presumably, this would .imply be a percentage increase applied uniformly acroas all rates. in accordance with the Board's lat.st announcement ot pOlicy. . Please 8chedule thi8 item on the next available Board agenda. In any even~, please notify this firm and/or Orin4a-Xoraqa wben we alght expect this item to be heard. .0 ~- ~.wy~'VY 6V-VV .. ..,...........,&... ..... ...,.., .. ..,na "IV .....,y . Sue MCNulty aainey, President Board of Director. Con~ra Co.~a C.n~ral Sanitary Diatrict January 4, 1990 Page 3 Thank you again tor your cooperation and kin4 con.lderatlon in thi. matter. -. Very truly yours, LI",LE , SAPt1'1'o JmL/2Ilk ee: OrInda-Mora9a Disposal Servioe, Inc. Walter Funasaki . . ::: Attachment VIII LITTLE & SAPUTO ATTORNE)'S AT LAW I'ETER T. SAPUTO GISELLE A. JURK^~IN KE:-': D. LITTLE 500 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 380 WAUWT 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, PHBD 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 ofuthe 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 c ~. ,; ;I'/'~' "",.' /'" ",' ,.. /.' 1/ - ~/,.// ./ ,',' ;,,g. ~. ,'/f "':l-~...,:p.'" ~tt '9,/ J:;ittle KDL/mk enclosure cc: Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal ~lter Funasaki (w/enc.) .. ... --- Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill P.O BOX 5397 CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94520 (415) 682-9073 December 8, 1989 . Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal Service P. O. Box 23164 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 . ATTN: Boyd Olney, Jr. RE . . Disposal Fees Dear Mr. Olney, ~. Effective December 15, 1989 disposal rates will be increased at the Contra Costa sanitary Landfill, in Antioch to $45.00 per ton. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please phone our office. Sincerely, -~. sil Garaventa, Sr. President SGS:br cW, '7;40,J' v' A1.-- A-iJ'7 t 04-1/ - w.. p. ~ - J~ f p~ cc: Concord Disposal Se~Jice Pittsburg Disposal Service Delta Debris Box Service Oakley Disposal service Brentwood Disposal Service . . 5 , STANLEY F. LORENCKI. C.C.S. -A8~W~~ LAF-xY'ETTE. CALIFORNIA TEL.EPHONE 284.156158 lR~CfEU~l![lj) FEB 1 3 lS3J CCCSD ~r-"l:'CTIl ~V"'~ 'T~r: I"\'~,,,,_ 1070 Via Baja 9 Feb. 1990 Dear Mr. Boneysteele, First---Do you think that you could vote against the proposed increase in garbage collection rates since the existing charges are already astronomical. I'll wager that people are,or soon will be, dumping their garbage in "convenient" areas---rather than pay these horrible charges. Second---I believe that the collection rates are archaic and actually reward people who have more trash to dispose. At the present, a person who has one can of garbage is allowed two cans of trimmings. The person who has two, three or more cans of garbage is given a discount for these extra cans. Regarding the two cans of trimmings. More often than notJthese "trimmings" cans are chuck full of trash---yet they're piCked up. I think that a more equitable rate structure shoud be initiated. For instance, a charge should be made for the number of cans placed out for pick-up. Forget the 'no charge" for the trimmings pick up. If people want to dispose their trimmings, they should pay for for service. Faced with ~harge, they might learn how to compost. I find it extremely unfair that the old duffer down the street who composts his Clippings, and has but one-half a can of garbage, has to pay the same charge as his neighbor who has not only an overflowing can of garbage but two extra"trimmings" cans chuck full of trash. Would you call this fair? Thank you. -' S:le~ *~. .". . ~~. ~ ' ~- .- ~ _~-- ,!".,..-- ~___.. -..... ~~. ~ ~ ..' -,_... _,t.. ... -'! ~ Jan .:M"lDonalJ. 3 3 01 dV. .Lucile .Lane .LafayetteJ C!.a!.lfo'tnla 94546 REellVID "'- l> FEB 5 \990 S~, ~~ \)~tti(j ~OCVl~ ~\ ~~ 4-otc- ~~~~<O~ Vv\~ W~~ ~ ~~1 ~~cy- ~ o.,,-h:, ) ~ . J::1 "\>~ ''vv\out (1\N'.~ ~~~~~~~~'l ~. i....,Q.P.. ot~~ ~\""'~ '1 Lt.M/U,~1 ~~ ~ ~ ^ a~u..~ ~ l/~ -&. d-.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~"~"1~J~rn~ ~1~' l~ rJA~ d, J)O ~--G-; ~ ~ L-- ~~ISI'~'I;,Ic:;J ~~~'1~~.,1 . nA~ \0-/;1; -Fru w.. ~f ~? .3. ~~ ~ ~ 'fC- t14.X: ~ ~- & lu-...- "'- ~ .) cccso ~f.:~,qy or:Tt4F"n~,.- ---- - ---- - ------ --- -L L -<- 0- ~r',~. c9 ~ Cio ~,,:t-c.--{ - ~ ~~~~~ ~_ IN-=-tc- ~r' "'-f oJzR h f5/ . ~~~ ~~d1U-'1~ \ .' -7h~jg~ ~-r ~ . W-e- 6--1--f ~ t-~~A~.r S' . J . ~ ~~ ~Cj)fv--~ --1:5, ~ ~o ~ ~I'~ koq ,()~ MnL- ~CA~_ ~ /\.1L~ ~ 1~ / , i . Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF SUBJECT DATE NO. V. BIDS AND AWARDS 1 AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO MOTOROLA, C & E, INC. FOR TWELVE MOBILE RADIO TRANSCEIVERS AND ASSOCIATED HARDWARE TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AW ARD SUBMITTED BY CAROLYN GREGG, BUYER I INITlA liNG DEPT IDIV. Administrative/Purchasing ISSUE: The District received bids on January 19, 1990, for the purchase of twelve mobile radio transceivers. The Board must authorize award of the purchase order or reject all bids within forty-five days. BACKGROUND: Beginning in the fiscal year 1987/88 a project was begun to upgrade the District mobile radio system. At that time staff recommended replacing the tube-type mobile radios, over a multi-year period. These old units were being discontinued and replacement parts and maintenance support were not available. Twelve solid-state radios were purchased in 1987/88, twelve more in 1988/89, followed by this 1989/90 recommended purchase. Th is purchase will concl ude the upgrades as identified in the 1987/88 project. The request for bi ds for the purchase of twel ve radios was publi cly advertised on January 8 and 13, 1990, and bids were publicly opened on January 19, 1990. The bids are: Bid Amount Motorola C & E, Inc. Ericsson GE Mobile Communications Business Radio Services $13,918.91 15,802.43 22,844.25 A technical and commerci al eval uation was conducted by the Collection Systems Operation Department and the Purchasing Section, see Attachment I, ~hich shows that Motorola C & E, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder. Funding for this purchase was authorized in the 1989/90 Equipment Budget, in the amount of $27,000. This total incl udes purchase and installation; no additional funding is necessary. The installation for these radios shall be performed by the District's current radio maintenance service company. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of a purchase order to Motorola C & E, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $13,918.91, for the purchase of twelve mobile radio transceivers and associated hardware. KFL JL 1302A-9/B5 CG REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIAT~G V./DIV (}o JJ-, .. . N : - ~ . ...... ~ I~ ::! ...... . :::l tu ~ . :z ~ uJ I.LJ ~ V) .0 0 I.{) ~ 0 N ...... . . Cl 8 o::T ~ .~ Cl V) Lb 0 V) 0 >- . 0'1 U 0'1 e:( ~ ...-f ro Cl V) I U I Cl . Z V) Cl 0'1 I U I.{) I I a N e:( I.LJ 0::: - - 0 q I N :z: a I . I (V) I.{) V) ...... u - l- I.{) 0::: V) :z: V) l- t--- W ~ a I.LJ w l'-; >- co u Cl z - ...... a I.LJ I.LJ - - u a 0'1 0'1 V) ~ . . . ro :z: >- Cl V) t--- 0 ro e:( u I- a V) a >- . ~ o::T - 0::: ...... 0'1 U 0'1 e:( 0'1 a-: l- e:( U I U I Cl -l 0'1 I U I.{) I I a (V) a a 0::: - - a - ...... 0:: W I . I (V) I.{) Cl a I- - l- I.{) . . - ...... e:( l- V) V) I- ro 0:: a a I.LJ I.LJ ~ I- ::E: I.L.. Cl Z Z I.LJ ~ (Y) I.LJ -l . (V) ::E: ...... 3 N 0- o::T Z co I.LJ : o::T ex) I.LJ >- ...... . u a I.LJ ...... Cl V) ~ \.0 -l -l ~ N e:( ::E: (!) >- 0 V) 0 >- 0 co 0- cr a I- 0'1 U 0'1 e:( . -= e:( a.. I.LJ ro I- I.LJ :z: z I U I Cl S ::> . e:( >-. a ...... ~ I U I.{) I I I.{) V) 0:: I.{) -l I.LJ V) ~ ...... 0 ~ I- I.LJ - I.LJ 0:: V) ~ . I (V) : a a z 3e:( u z l- I.{) Z l- e:( 1-3 - => V) I- &I a 0 0:: a I.1J I.1J .. -l 0:: I.1J :IE: Cl z ...... :ze:( gz :3 l- . !!:o 0 V) V) 61.1J . -.J ~ -.J f3~ 0:: ~ . .. I.1J c_ :. V) I- 0 ~u ~ I 0:: Cl I- a:0 ~ i i : I.1J I.1J -.J ~~ 8 ... ... !I >- l- e:( 0 ~ ~ ~ as l!! - e:( - ...... z ~ ;1 i!! I.1J - U co ~ u U 0:: ~ V) 0 I.1J , Z V) ::E: c( en ::E: 0:: e:( 0 I- u Cl . 0 ::z I.1J 0 . - c( >- I- m 0 0 0 ~ c( . ~ co ::z iii 0:: I.L. c( 0 . z - u.. I.LJ >- ~ z I- 0 -.J 0 ~I: ...... Cl Z co z ~ >< ' ~ :IE: co z I- w" \ ..J ~ c( I- J .. i I.1J -.J ~ . N ...... - I liil- I I ~ . . . ...... N . @. :;; ~ o .0\ "" N . Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 5 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF February 15, 1990 NO. V. BIDS AND AWARDS 2 SUBJECT DEClARE MICROAGE, SALINAS' BID NON-RESPONSIVE AND AUlHORIZE AWARD OF A PURQ-IASE ORDER TO COMPUTERLAND TO FURNISH A DISTRICT WORD PROCESSING SYSTEM AND AUlHORIZE $145,000 FROM lHE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND TO lHE GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT. DATE Febru TYPE OF ACTION AUlHORIZE AWARD AUlHORIZE FUNDS SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT /DIV Maryhelen Hartley, Personnel Analyst II Administrative/Personnel ISSUE: The District received bids on January 29, 1990 for the replacement of the word processi ng system. The Board must authorize award of the purchase order or rej ect all bi ds with i n 45 days and authorize the funds for repl acement of the District Word Processing System. BACKGROUND: When the Sony Word Processing System was purchased in 1984, Sony was just enteri ng the word processi ng market. Subsequently Sony di sconti nued thei r word processing operation. Maintenance costs on the District's word processing system have increased by approximately 150 percent and replacement parts and service are increasingly difficult to obtain. In May 1989, a committee of word processor users was formed to research repl acement al ternatives. A survey was conducted District-wide to determine current usage as well as projected needs. Committee members attended several demonstrati ons and presentati ons on vari ous hardware and word processi ng software packages. After extensive and careful evaluation of user needs and the equipment demonstrated, committee members selected IBM compatible hardware and the WordPerfect software program which met the minimum requirements of the word processing needs of the District. The Committee's recommendation was presented to the District Management who concurred with the Committee's findings. A consultant was employed to convert the Committee's recommendations to technical specifications and to provide expertise in configuring an efficient word processing system. Bids were then solicited through the District's public bid process. The specifications include replacing the current system with 21 desktop computers, 19 1 aser pri nters (4 desktop computers w ill share 2 pri nters), 20 WordPerfect software packages (1 software package already purchased for specialized Engineering Department requirements), installation, maintenance, training, and technical support. Whil e for the most part the new equi pment is di rectly adaptabl e to the office furniture which is currently in use, the project necessitates adaptation of some exi sti ng desks to accommodate the desktop computers and pri nters and to acqui re printer stands, typewriter returns and work tables for some work stations. Attachment No.2 lists the additional furniture necessary to adapt certain work stations. The Sony system is a "dedi cated" word processi ng system which means th at word processing is the sole function. Desktop computers will perform a substan 'al array REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 130 CRF KFL PM KLA SUBJECT DECLARE MICROAGE, SALINAS' BID NON-RESPONSIVE AND AUlHORIZE AWARD OF A PUROiASE ORDER TO COMPUTERLAND TO FURNISH A DISTRICT WORD PROCESSING SYSTEM AND AUlHORIZE $145,000 FROM lHE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND TO lHE GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT. POSITION PAPER PAGE 2 OF 5 DATE February 9, 1990 of functions, depending on the software utilized. Replacing the Sony word processor with desktop computers will allow the depar'bnents added flexibility to utilize other software applications to improve efficiency and productivity. Exampl es of such appl i cati ons i ncl ude a cl aims management program, spreadsheet application, and a linkage between IBM and MacIntosh terminals. However, this project only addresses word processing needs and no unrelated applications are part of this request. As other applications are identified and eval uated, those items may be requested as a part of future equipment or 0 & M budgets. While it is recognized that obsolescence is a risk attendant to computer purchases, it is felt that the equipment specified should accommodate the District's word processing requirements for many years. Desktop computers may also be upgraded or expanded. The Committee's evaluation criteria included the system's ability to meet current and projected word processing needs, delay of system obsolescence, efficient and timely long-term service and maintenance, and system flexibility. The request for bi ds was publ icly adverti sed on January 18 and 23, 1990, and bi ds were publicly opened on January 29, 1990. Six bids were received. A technical and commercial evaluation was conducted by Personnel and Purchasing (See attachment 1) which shows that Computerland is the lowest responsible bidder. Microage, Salinas specifically bid a model MPC 2386SX which does not meet the micro-channel requi rement of the bi d request and, therefore, a maj or materi al vari ance. Purchasing has informed Microage, Salinas both verbally and in writing that their bi d is consi dered by staff to be non-responsive because of the maj or materi al variance that they included in their bid. Furthermore, Microage, Salinas was informed that they have a ri ght to a vari ance heari ng, at the Board meeti ng of February 15, 1990, to show cause as to why the Board shoul d not decl are thei r bi d n on- respons i ve. Purchase of new word processing equipment was included in the Capital Improvement Plan and has been reviewed with the Capital Projects Committee. Purchase of a replacement word processing system was planned for inclusion in the 1990-1991 Capital Budget. However, continuing maintenance problems with the Sony equipment forced the replacement of the word processing system to be accelerated. Consequently, the General Improvements Conti ngency Account funds are i nsuffici ent for a purchase of th i s size. Therefore, funds in the amount of $145,000 for repl acement of the word processi ng system must be authorized from the Sewer Constructi on Fund to suppl ement the General Improvements Conti ngency Account. A detail of project costs is provided in Attachment 2. By authorizing and purchasing a replacement word processing system, the Sony equipment will become surplus equipment and will be set up for a public sale. RECOI4ENDATION: Declare Microage, Salinas' bid non-responsive and authorize the award of a purch ase order to Computerl and the lowest responsi bl e bi dder in the amount of $124,052.53 to furnish the word processing system equipment, and authori ze $145,000 from the Sewer Constructi on Fund to the General Improvement Contingency Account. 13026-9/85 ...... I- z: w ::E ::c w ex: l- I- ex: '-I N I 0 ~ ' ~ ...J ... ID CTI ~ - I 0 ~ 0::: c:; r- Q) ~ ~ CTI Vl w (V' ~ ~ ~ r- .' N ~ :> Cl CO Cl Cl Cl ;:; ;: ~ ~ Cl ~ 0 0- I-- 0 I~ z - u U 0 z - ..... . ~ a: 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ l::: ~ .. z: z: z: z: N ..... ID LO 0 (V) ~ (V) LO :::.::: ~ ...J ... CO 'd" 0 ~ 0 -l ~ c: ~ ~ 0 . '~ ~ w -<u 'd" (V) (V) N W 0 CO N a w .... - ID M I"- z: ~ ~ " N ~ o a: .-I LO N ~ 0::: Cl I- ... .. ID (V) 0 I-< N C 0 W 0 I~ ~ ..... CO .. ex: -l CTI 0 ex: " 'd" 0 0::: I- I Vl Cl I~ g: ~ ~ ~ ;: ~ N CTI ...w :::> CTI '""" ID LO 0 ID -l <: 0 G) V') V') ..... CTI 01- z: N ID LO LO (V) W 0 W _-101 W -foIT 0 :::l -l I .... ... ..... I"- ..... ~ LO z: ~ ~ "- u: N ~ a: >- >- - u w a.. ex: ..... !~ Z - (V) ..... I-< ~ :> a: ::E 3: 0 Q. ~ 0 a: W ... ..... ~ ~ 25 ~ m LO 0 CO 0 -l 0 ~ c::: -l ~ I- ...J ... I"- ID LO 0 W 0 W . :> g z t;Z: -- '~ CO CTI V') W CTI I~ ex: ~ l( N I-< >- N Cl .~ " 'd" Cl ex: I LO 0 CTI ~ 0 -l 0 ~ c::: ~ -l 0 ;: V') .;;; V') .. V') LL. ~ ... ... l"- 'd" N LO W 0 W LO W W LO W V') ex: 'd" :~ ~ - u N I"- ..... ~ LO z: LO ~ ~ ~ z: ..... a: >- >- N '-' z - w - -l :> a: M ..... I-< ..... I-< CTI ..... ...... I-< ,0 Q. ~ -foIT :> LL. 0::: W ~ ~ CTI g Q) V') ex: 'd" N '..:.j 0 0 c: C -l CTI z: ~ ...J'" I"- oi:::t (..) ID LO W . > Cl I-< -- ~ ~ I"- 0 W z: I V') ex: . 0- 0::: W ..... CTI W Cl ~ ' , r- VI ex: C!:l -l N W <;:t CO ;:;J CO CO Cl 0 -l ~ -l CO ~ V') Q) 3: ~ ex: I w LO ...., C .... ... CTI .--f (..) o:;:j- o:;:j- I-< LO C W W N W .;;; 0 0::: l- V') .--f o:;:j- 1L;j .-- -u CO I"- Z ..... o:;:j- CO ..... ~ z: z: LO c:: >- :z::: I z - N ..... I-< ...... l::: LL. 0::: ~ :> a: ..... I-< N 0 10 .. 0 ~ 0 V') ;::; z: :z "> .. ~ ~ ID ~ W LO 'd" 'd" 0 CO 0 ~ 0 0 0 N 0::: q ...J ... ..... CO l"- N CO LO 0 LO 0 . ex: w - ~ ~ ~ N N W LO ID I"- ID co 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 V') V') .. C!:l C:(::Z I W .... ... .--f M CO M CO LO 0 L..,") C> C> W -(,I' W 0 z: 0::8 ..... .c::t [., - u M N M o:;:j- ..... I"- ;::s LO a .--f 0 0::: >- >: o:;:j- ~ 1i;J z z - ..... 0 :> a: M N I"- .--f ..... .-t V') ;:: Cl .. .--f c:; -foIT V') :i:: z w ... 0 w ;:: .. 0 ii 0::: ~ 0- Il: ei ... o z w I- a Cl .... ei ~ z ~ ~ -l V') V') ...J 0::: -< 0 CO W W LJJ -< 0 II: ~ a z 0 ;:: o :> ..... w C!:l -l I"- :::> ii ... ... II: III ~ uO .. 3: 8 II: .... .... m .. ~ ... I- -l ~ co CY ... -< .... z a 0 g ei .J -< II: ~ ex: CO ex: LO w -< ... 0 :> ... ... 0- ...... W W .. 0::: ~ > -< 0 0 ..: a :> .... ::E I- w ex: o:;:j- >- ... 0 ex: C!:l a.. ~ .. I- ~ Cl 0- W a.. ex: N ..... g I-< -< 0 ~ a.. z: I- .. Cl co - ""'- ::E G 0 z: ..... I-< I~ co L' -l ...... W -l d: w I-< -l I- ::E V') ~ ex: ::c I~ . :::> ex: a.. ::E :> ~ I- eI) .. a.. LL. I- ...... w w 2 a I;;:; 0::: . W .~ I- W w 0 z w :z: 0::: w 0::: ...... z: ~ w I- co co 0 l- V') 0 (!) 0- W ex: ...... I Iw t: :::> ., w ex: 0::: z: z: b. 0::: W ..... u. 100 0- c.:::: W Cl :::.::: w V') 0 w a.. :> 0 ii: ::E w ...... z: w I- :::> z: l- I-< V') I~ - M 0 I- :> ex: ex: z 0 0 ...... Z ~ I V') ::E ... Z Cl 0- W Z W ;I: 0- I-< W ...... ~ ..... z: w 0 :z :~ ~~ 0 ...... Cl :z I- LO ex: ..... :z 0 I- ex: -l 0::: w w C!:l ex: ex: N ::E !;t 0 a.. ..... t- -l ex: a.. C!:l 0::: 0::: 0::: Z V') -l -l l- . ..... V') et 0::: I~ I- :z z: w ex: ex: ...... -l -l -l ::c I"- -l ~ V') W -l W ~ 0 0::: ..... z: 3: 3: :z ex: w ex: C!:l ......... ex: z: 0< ex: -' I- 0::: V) W c.:::: z: l- I- ...... :::> w I- ..... :::> z: w I- J :::> 0::: V') S ex: LL. LL. ex: :z V) V') w >< z: ex: I- 0 co 0- it;. w ex: w 0 0 0::: ex: I-< z: 0::: ex: z: 0::: >< I- et ::E . a.. -l V') V') V') V) I- ::E ::E I-< LL. I- ex: I- w t- o .~ ~ . W :r ex: ex: v C 0: ~ ~ ex: ex: I- ex: w w l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- i_ :> W W 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >=t 5;:: -l 0 ..... -l -l -l -l -l -l -l -l -l z ~ll ..... 0'\ ..... N 101 i 101" N ..... :IE c z :IE 0 -< loI_ N (V) o:;:j- ..... N 0 0 0 3 ~ ..... 0 0 0 0 0 14 Ii ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c ~~ 0: 0: L t ..... ..... .--f .--f N N M o:;:j- LO ID I"- co CTI ex: co ~ .-f I-- :z w ::E :J: U e:( I-- I-- e:( . . 1-1 ...w I ~!l 011: I- ... I- ... - U Z - :> 0: ... ....... 0( U I- - o 0: N I- ... e:( C) ... 0'1 0 0'1 I- ... C) - u u z - :> 0: ... 0: N ... III ::li :> .... ... Z t; .. U I- - 0: ... o 0: ~ I I- ... III I- ... V) Z u a: w :> ... U ...... :> ~ w V) .... ... .. U I- - Cl o 0: :z I- "- e:( W ~ e:( I- ... 3 - u z - I-- :>'" l..L. "- C) V) ~ 0'1 o:;t N C) C) LO C) ..J C) ..J r--. ft o:;t C) .-f r--. ex:> r--. LO U C) U 1.O C) C) W ~ E IE ....... N o:;t ex:> (V) LO o:;t r--. :z C) :z 0'1 C) C) ~ w 0( U C) 1.O .-f 0'1 r--. ...... .-f ...... r--. 0 I~ I- - e:( w o '" 1.O (V) ~ r--. 3 ~ V) 0:: I- "- ex:> Cl u ~ ,...., n .-f .-f ~ I~ ~ e:( ~ ~ ft e:( I-- N Cl 0'1 1.O 1.O C) 0'1 LO C) ..J C) Cl ..J r--. LO Cl ex:> ex:> :J: ...... :::> I - 1.O .-f C) r--. r--. r- ~ u C) ...... U .-f 0'1 ...... N N :z ~ ,.... I- ... ex:> 0'1 o:;t (V) o:;t o:;t :z C) CO :z 1.O ex:> CO ~ .-f c.!' ..J o:;t l::l ~ - u N .-f .-f ...... .-f ...... .-f V) ~ '-' Z - :z :i :> '" C) .-f C) C) W ...... ~ "- :z :z :z >- z V) -' 0 V) i= W "- u ii: C) ~ ~ '" cj r--. 0.... ... OZ w I-- 0 ~ cj :E Z ~ ~ ..J V) ft V) ... 0 0( Cl II: ~ 0 Z 0 ;: o :> CO W W LO W ii: ~ ... ... II: III j ug ...... w c.!' ..J :::> ~ C) 8 II: l- I- m ... ::li I-- ..J e:( CO ft 0' Z 0 0 g .J oc 3 cj 0( II: ~ e:( CO ~ e:( o:;t W w 0 :> w ... > 0( 0 0 ..: 0 :;; I- 0.... ...... U U ~ '" ::E I-- w e:( ft >- ..J .. C) e:( c.!' 0.... ~ N I-- e:( Cl .. U 0.... e:( ...... I-- ...... ffi 0 ::E 0.... :z I-- ft Cl C) CO ::E C) C) :z .-f ...... I-- g CO U ..J ...... W ..J I W ...... ..J I-- ::E V) V) e:( CO :J: I~' 0 :::> e:( 0.... ::E w :> :::> I-- en ft 0.... l..L. I-- ...... w w u V) Q ILL ~ 0 W .~ I-- U ...... W C) - Z W :J: ~ W ~ ...... :z :> u I-- al 10: 0 I-- V) C) c.!' 0.... W e:( ~ ...... ex:> u. t: :::> . w ;2 ~ :z :z w ~ W I 0 it 0.... ~ U Cl W V) C) W V) 0.... :> .-f ~ f-- ~ ::E w ...... :z u I-- :::> :z I-- ...... Z Cl '" C) I-- :> e:( e:( :z C) C) - :z :z I V) V) z: ~~ 0 U z: w :J: 0.... ...... W ...... ~ ...... C) z: ::E 0 e:( ~ ...... Cl z: I- LO c:t: ....... z: 0 I.L.I ;:: ..J ..J ~ ft W W ~ e:( e:( N ::E I-- 0 0.... I- ~ ~ ~ e:( 0.... c.!' ~ ~ ~ V) ..J ..J I-- 0 e:( ...... V) ...... e( w :z :z w e:( i ..J ..J ..J :J: r--. ..J ..J V) W ~ I- ~ C) ~ ...... :z 3 3 e:( w e:( c.!' '-' e:( V) :z ~ ..J j :::> ~ V) W ~ :z ~ I- ~ :::> u I-- ...... :::> :z w e:( al 0.... ~ V) e:( e:( l..L. :z V) V) I.L.I >< :z e:( I-- l- e( ::E . w e:( :J: U ~ C) ~ e:( ...... :z ~ e:( :z ~ >< 0 C) u 0.... ..J V) V) V) ::E ::E ...... l..L. I-- e:( I-- w l- t- U :i. u e:( e:( e:( ~ e:( ~ " ~ ~ W w I-- w w I-- I-- I-- I-- I-- I-- I-- I-- :J .. L C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) 0 >, ~ z ." 5;: .-f 0'1 ..J .-f .-f - ..J ..J ..J ..J ..J ..J ..J ..J '" 0" N .-f :I i 01" " z :I 0 :..!!!.- 0 3 '" . ::l . .-f N (V) o:;t ..- N C C) C C) C) C) C) r. II: ~.~ 0 . . . . 0 . . . . r. r. L t "" C"': l!'l .-f .-f .-f .-f N o:;t 1.O r--. ex:> 0'1 e:( CO ATTAOIMENT 2 REPLACEMENT OF WORD PROCESSORS DETAIL OF PROJ ECT COSTS CONSULTANT COSTS & ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT Hardware IBM PS2 Model 55SX microcomputer Hewlett Packard LaserJet II printer Hewlett Packard Scanjet Scanner Softw are MS/PC DOS 3.3 WordPerfect 5.1 WordPerfect Library (Menu System) Fast Back (Back-up system) Training for 25 users Installation Conversion of existing Sony files to WordPerfect format Furniture ~ 2 ea. Secretarial desk return 3 ea. Corner unit 6 ea. Keyboard drawer 1 It. Reconfigure existing panels 1 ea. Printer table 1 ea. 5 drawer lateral 42" file cabinet 1 ea. Computer table 48x30 with casters and keyboard drawer POD 1 ea. Computer table 30x60 with casters and keyboard drawer CSO 2 ea. Computer table 30x60 with casters and keyboard drawer CONTINGENCY (5% of hardware and software) $ 2,750 1l0,613 10,720 1,875 830 4,712 7,500 6,000 17 $145,000 . Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION SUBJECT PAGE 1 OF 3 PAPER BOARD MEETING OF February 15, 1990 CONSENT CALENDAR 2 NO. VI. AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 90-1 (WALNUT CREEK) AND P.A. 90-2 (ALAMO) TO BE INClUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT DATE February 6, 1990 TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT ANNEXATION FOR PROCESSING SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall Associate En ineer Parcel No. Area 90-1 I Wal nut Creek 4907 90-2 Alamo 77E5 Owner, Address Parcel No. & Acrea e Elwood and Joan Kronick 266 La Casa Via Walnut Creek, CA 94598 140-230-003 (8.89 Ac.) Marvin B. Starr, et ux 160 Patricia Lane Alamo, CA 198-050-010 (0.49 Ac.) INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division Remarks Lead A enc Minor Subdivision 45-89 containing two lots. Owner intends to con- struct a medical office building. Negative Declaration by Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County Existing house - failing septic system. District to prepare "Notice of Exemption". Al amo RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 90-1 and P.A. 90-2 to be included in a future formal annexation. INITIATING OEPT.IOIV. (flY 1302A-9/85 DH REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION JSM RAB "- ..... ~w o \' ~ oJ".. .. I c:, ~ 'l ...~ ~ ...' 1- , ~I ... ~ \ ~ 0 ~~":J\ - "'..' - \~ ~ --- S\)~f; ~~I.~'';' .\t> .- ., .. ~ 2 go.....' I .' o ZI~Z" . ~6 8'(; I "("'c,~;' - /I 10 40 "- '. .. ...~\ ~ H~~.( ( V G-,.'O '\. 0 ) :. ,nAG o "t;)'J C ~. ~ ~_.........-"I ~~. ~ ,iii ~~;, r ..." .~ ,< - ' , ..,' o I~ r ~ ~:i .~,,./. .\0 ~ ~.~ 'III&CIO ,,~- .~ ~~ IUJ \!! ~ -_ 'b ." .An lAc. ~::i . ~ .' ,'; "/'" , " :.. ~~ ~;.-- i ~;c ~' ~ ~ . '/ /r.' " ....~ ~ , ~ II' " ~ \ .. ,- '" >'" · ~~ "v..aG<< ~CT )., ..+ h.... ~ - ,\\~ !It ~ ~~ "- cT 10 ~~ ~. · #" r ~ /-'i ' ~A" ~-"\' "'~.., ~'~ ~ ~ \ . ~ 7 . ~ /.' · !ll" .?"~~.. · " ~~ '<,~ ~-;i,',:~7J · .. .. ~~~ ~ ~ . os+ T R V _ --;/ ~' . '.. .. " ,'~~~\~~~,cE ..~~..~ ~ ':or ~~ -......ft "l' ~ "TI..... ~~~.~ ~ ,. -: ~' .".. \ ~ ~ .~ ~~ "Z/i';;Tr ~ ~ " . "a> " ,III!O.. L " ,- .' ~ · > · ... ,,., . V __" .. a.. . ...... .." . ' · r~ , f9 """ 7ft/II "u' ,"--, '" '>.; , .. ...~ i? ..'" '1-tl :tfff' · r."O ~ ~O! ~E1J ~ ,. .'~ ~ ..~~ ,-~':;.- ~ -t" fHj ~~;-l ), I<. ~'^ ;\'l~'''''':r'-..-<, '..-' , ! ~~/lT '<l! .. . ~ ~ ~~ o"'v .... .,,, .' ~ f-T '" 0 ' 'R '::If i ~~'\~~. ,,~.. ~ '~"''''''p ,,*" ... f ,-I' .Jt ~ 'I /' /" _ ~ ... v. c! ~ !tt. 'l.#J ~ffil\. "1. ",.( . ..::I. I!".~' -,t:,"" ,. , . ~ . ~) L. 00' "1,. ~,'. ~ ~ ~ ... · ~ - . ~ ~ -. · _~ . '"'-<6 .Jf!il . ,~ 7'OJ~ . _ ......",0 · _~ . ....-~lf;;l.6rrflr- ~~~ 1 ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A~' ' " '"' .. :; u e.. t,. '.. R~i;?'~ ~'n ~\...' ',. /> ~ ' "" .... '" ,\,_. .~. , ~ ~IA 6. r. / / ~1 < IJ. ~d~llm .,.u~ 'i...iil . .-<of 4 .", - f'.)W~ ......, ~ II \n"'" . "'..i" \ ~ . Tl!\/,'/ :..J(;. .....-. ~ l!~ "/. . ..... ,-""'- . f' . WUll ~ .~.......~: ...,;~ .... Z.Go'IIC . 'l:l::i -( ~'SUB .~~ ~... ~ . ,. _ ~ ~ l ,...1 ~ ~>.;, .~ ((~ Y~~i \ ..L l:)l::;..p>.~ ~ ~ -- $>" ..t....... ~~f~'~_E ,-on" .."t"" ~~ -{t1~ .,." ~\" ." ~~<_ r~U1II\ITl\lf<-"'--~~o ~~>'V.A'~ ~\ 4 I. .. & c fi\ '0 ,F. ~ .'--"t~ J\'~ ';~"':.:ii;:: , .;-.' Z "1r. ";, ..... \\\"{}~~. PROPOSED ANNEXATION P.A. 90-1 b . ES )AC ~~ ~~~ P .A. 90-2 . Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF February 15, 1990 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 3 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE EXEa.JTION OF A CONSENT TO DEEDING OF PUBLIC ROAD TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (JOB 1583 - PARCEL 7), SOUTH WALNUT CREEK AREA DATE February 6, 1990 TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE CONSENT TO DEEDING OF PUBLIC ROAD SUBMITTED BY Denni sHall Associate Engineer INIUATIf\lG DEPT IDIV ~ng'neering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: A portion of Subdivision 7306 is being deeded to the County for public road purposes for the wi deni ng of Danvi1l e Boul evard. An exi sti ng publ i c sewer easement is located within the road widening area. BACKGROUND: The County requires a "Consent to Deeding of Public Road" whenever an area to be deeded for public road purposes encroaches upon an existing easement. Usually, areas are dedicated to the County and other publ ic agencies for future public roads. In those instances, consents to dedication are processed. In this instance, 1 and is bei ng deeded to the County by the ow ner of the adj acent property. Hence a consent to deeding is needed. A standard consent document will be used in which the District retains prior rights. Thi s project has been eval uated by staff and determi ned to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines Section 18.6, since it involves a minor alteration in land use limitations. RECOt+1ENDATION: Approve the Consent to Deedi ng of Publ i c Road to Contra Costa County, Danville Boulevard, Subdivision 7306, Job No. 1583, authorize the President of the District Board of Directors and the Secretary of the District to execute said document and authorize its recording by Contra Costa County. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 DH JSM RAB INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ~/ I//?l JJ~ ". j I tl ~ ._~ VICINITY MAP NT.S. A CONSENT TO DEED COUNTY ROAD Job 1583 - Parcel 7 South Walnut Creek Area . Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 3 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF February 15, 1990 NO. VI. SUBJECT DATE CONSENT CALENDAR February 9, 1990 4 DIRECT STAFF 10 SEaJRE THE SERVICES OF AN ARBITRA10R IN ACCORDANCE WITH STEP FOUR OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEIlJRE TYPE OF ACTION PERSONNEL SUBMITTED BY Paul Morsen, Deputy General Manager INITIATING DEPT /DIV Admfnistrative/Personnel E: In accordance with the Memorandum of Understandi ng (M. O. U.) between the i5'i'5trict and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Employees' Association Public Employees Union, Local No. One (Local #1), the Board must employ an arbi trator to render a recommendati on when gri evances are appeal ed to the Board 1 evel . BA~ROUND: The Union maintains that the District has improperly applied the terms of the M.O.U., Article III, Section 10.1 on at least two occasions in the last year. Section 10.1 states, "Employees may compete in a promotional examination process if there are four (4) or more qual ified in-house candidates. "The Union believes that the language dictates the following conclusions: o Employees who compete in a promotional examination need only take the exam; they should not be required to pass the test. The District must select from among all in-house candi dates regardl ess of thei r ability to successfully compete; o The District is unilaterally implementing language on the Rule of Four that was rejected during the last contract negotiations; and o Because the Uni on obj ected to the resul ts of two recent exami nati ons, the District's past practice, which requires the passing of an examination(s) for inclusion on an eligibility list, is invalid. The General Manager - Ch i ef Engi neer has heard the gri evance at Step 3 of the Grievance procedure. He has denied the grievance based on years of District past practi ce requi ri ng candi dates to pass exami nati ons in order to be consi dered for promotional opportunities and the need of the District to ensure that employees are qualified for their positions as evidenced by passage of an appropriate examination. In matters that are appealed to the Board of Directors (Step 4), the M.O.U. reads as follows: "Step Four In the event such differences are not settled and the grievant desires the grievance to be considered further, it shall be presented, in writing, to the Secretary of the District within five (5) days of receipt of the REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION SUBJECT POSITION PAPER DIRECT STAFF TO SEWRE lHE SERVICES OF AN ARTIBRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WIlH SlEP FOUR OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE PAGE DATE 2 OF 2 February 9, 1990 General Manager - Chief Engineer's decision. The Secretary shall calendar the meeti ng for closed sessi on * at the next regul arly schedul ed Board Meeting in keeping with established guidelines for calendaring an agenda i tem. The Board shall amploy a neutral th i rd party to hear the matter and recommend action to the Board. The District and the Union shall equally share the cost. If the parties cannot agree on a neutral third party, then a list of five (5) neutral individuals shall be requested from the State Concil iation Service and the parties shall use the alternate el imination method to determi ne who shall conduct the heari ng. The Board may adopt, reject, or modify the recommendation of the appointed neutral third party. The decision of the Board is the final action of the District. II *(The language above was written prior to changes in the Ralph M. Brown Act. It is not now appropriate as a result of these changes to consider grievances in closed session; therefore, this matter has been calendared as a personnel item on this agenda.) RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to secure the services of an arbitrator in accordance with Step Four of the Grievance Procedures in the matter of the appealed grievance regarding the Rule of Four. 13028-9/85 . . PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL ONE Mailing Address - P.O. Box 222, Martinez, CA 94553 Union Hall - 5034 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone (415) 228.1600 ..... January 25. 1990 RlECleOYlE1O JAN 2 6 19~O CCCSD ~--e.rorJlcry ':'C 'rN-t:: l"\~''''. Ms. Joyce McMillan. Secretary Board of Directors Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez. CA 94553 RE: REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION - UNION GRIEVANCE DATED DECEMBER 11. 1989 - -RULE OF FOURu Dear Ms. McMillan: Pursuant to Article III. Section 2.5. Step 4 of the parties M.O.U.. the Union hereby requests that the Board of Directors of the Central Costa County Sanitary District employ an arbitrator to-hear the above cited case. Previous cor~espondence between the parties on this grievance are attached herein. Please contact the undersigned representative as soon as possible so that we may begin the arrangements for selecting an arbitrator. Thank you. nne Mueller Business Agent PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION. LOCAL ONE cc: Russell Leavitt. Unit President Roger Dolan. General Manager Attachment AM:lk . Central "antra Costa Sanitary lstrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 3 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF February IS, 1990 NO. VI1. ENGINEERING 1 SUBJECT DATE February 13, 1990 AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO TYPE OF ACTION EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR FINAL DESIGN OF THE HEADWORKS FACILITIES AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT EXPANSION PROJECT (DP 20069) SUBMITrED B'l: uouglas J. Craig Associate Engineer INITIA T1tiG DI;PT./DIV. tnglneering Department Engineering Division ISSUE: Authorization by the Board of Directors is required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute professional services agreements for amounts greater than $50,000. BACKGROUND: In March 1989, the facilities plan for the Headworks Expansion Project was completed. The facilities plan recommended that the existing headworks be abandoned and that a new headworks facility be constructed with a near-term capacity of 260 mgd. Staff considered several alternatives which included the use of the existing headworks but, due to extensive rehabilitation costs, a new headworks was found to be more cost-effective. The recommended new headworks facility contains influent pumping, screening of wastewater flows, flow meteri ng and wastewater samp 1 i ng. Other recommended facilities include a new influent diversion structure, odor control equipment, improvements to the plant electrical system, relocation of shop space, and pipel ines to route flows to various locations. The new influent diversion structure is needed to accommodate the future Contra Costa Boulevard and "A" Line interceptors. The new diversion structure would receive wastewater flows from the new interceptors and convey flows to the new headworks facility. In December 1989 the predesign of the Headworks Expansion Project was completed. The predesign identified the location of new facilities, the general types of equipment needed and their corresponding layout, and preliminary electrical and i nstrumentat ion control systems. The fi na 1 products of the predes i gn are a series of technical memoranda and drawings which will be used as a basis for developing the detailed design. The predesign level estimate for total project cost and construction cost is $32,100,000 and $27,600,000, respectively. This includes a preliminary estimate of $4,200,000 for PG&E to design and construct off-site facilities which will provide two independent power sources to meet plant electrical reliability requirements. Costs for this work are still being negotiated with PG&E. If an agreement cannot be reached with PG&E, staff will consider alternatives for generating standby power on-site. /302A-9/85 DJC DRW RAB N REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INIT(A\ING DEPT./DIV. O/.~ !J4J o~ SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR FINAL DESIGN OF THE HEADWORKS FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT (DP 20069) POSITION PAPER PAGE 2 OF 3 ~~~uary 13, 1990 JMM has completed both the facil ity plan and the predesign of the Headworks Expans i on Project. Based on thei r previ ous performance and knowl edge of the project, staff recommends that JMM provide final design services. An agreement has been negotiated with James M. Montgomery Engineers (JMM) for final design services with a cost ceiling of $1,798,000. The design services include preparation of plans and specifications and assistance during the bidding period. During negotiations with JMM, staff evaluated several parameters (e.g. number of plan sheets required, man hours per sheet, construction dollars per sheet, fees charged for similar projects designed by other engineering firms, design fee curves) which were used to arrive at the final negotiated design fee. Total final design costs are estimated to be $2,389,000. A breakdown of all final design costs is shown in Attachment I. In compliance with the District's CEQA guidelines, a Negative Declaration was prepared for this project and approved by the Board on December 21, 1989. A Notice of Determination has been filed with the State of Cal ifornia and the County Clerk. The Headworks Facilities Expansion Project is included in the 1989-90 Capital Improvement Budget starting on page TP4. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute a Cost Reimbursement Agreement with a cost ceiling of $1,798,000 with James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. for final design services of the Headworks Facilities Expansion Project, DP 20069. 13028-9/85 ATTACHMENT I HEADWORKS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FINAL DESIGN COST COMPONENTS DesiQn Services o Preparation of Plans and Specifications (James Montgomery Consulting Engineers) Soecial Services o Geotechnical, Seismic, Corrosion, Exploratory Digging, Aerial Survey PG&E Power Study o Subtotal District Force Account o Engineering o Plant Operations Subtota 1 Miscellaneous Costs o o o Lega 1 Printing Contingency Subtota 1 TOTAL ~-"~"-_.'-'-"'-'~'-'--"-""----~'-----_.'--'-'-'-'--.--.---.--..-..--.-.--..-....---.. ,._.__..._."",--.._..._._,,-,_._'_.,.,.,...._-,_.....--.~..--- $1,798,000 $1,798,000 122,000 15,000 169,000 50,000 5,000 30,000 200,000 $ 235,000 137,000 219,000 235,000 $2,389,000