HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 02-06-86
.
Centr~ Contra Costa Sanitar.. District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Februar 6, 1986
NO.
V. HEARINGS
1
SUBJECT
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER ADOPTION OF
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF
THE PROJ ECT FOR WATERSHED NO. 35 SOUTH SEWAGE
COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
DATE
February 3, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING,
ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION AND APPROVE PROJECT
SUBMITTED BY
Jacqueline L. Zayac, Planning/Grants
Technician
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering Dept./Planning Division
ISSUE: A publ ic heari ng was set for February 6, 1986, at the Board meeti ng of
January 16, 1986, to consider adopting the Negative Declaration for the proposed
Watershed No. 35 South Sewage Coll ecti on System Improvements Proj ect, herei nafter
called "the project." If the Negative Declaration is adopted, approval of the
project is required.
BACKGROUND: The proposed project, located within the City of Danville, consists
of installation of pipeline in three separate reaches (see Attachment 1), Based
on recent District staff estimates, wastewater from existing and approved
developments in the project area would cause almost all reaches of Segment 1 to
exceed capacity and several reaches in Segments 2 and 3 to exceed capacity if the
proj ect were not bu 11 t. Segment 1 of the proposed improvement proj ect is a
committed project of .the Sycamore Valley Specific Plan Assessment District.
Segments 2 and 3 are not projects of the Sycamore Valley Specific Plan Assessment
District. These segments are being proposed for construction now based on a
unique, one-time opportunity for the District to incorporate project construction
with construction of the already approved Sycamore Valley Specific Plan Assessment
District roadway improvements to Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara.
The District guidel ines require the Board to consider the Initial Study prepared
for the project and public comments received on the Negative Declaration prior to
approving the Negative Declaration for the project. The Initial Study for the
project was prepared by Earth Metrics, Inc., an environmental and planning
consulting firm. District staff concluded that the Initial Study for the project
adequately, accurately, and objectively evaluated the proposed project's effect on
the envi ronment. Based on the Initi al Study, it was determi nad that a Negative
Decl aration is the appropri ate document to address the environmental effects of
the proj ect.
In compliance with the CEQA requirements and after receiving the Board's approval,
District staff arranged for a legal notice to be published which solicited
comments and provided notice of the District's intent to adopt the Negative
Declaration for the proposed project. If the Board adopts the Negative
Declaration, approval of the project will be required to complete the CEQA
requirements and allow the District to file a Notice of Determination in the
County Clerk's office.
RECOMN:NDATION: Conduct a publ ic hearing, consider adoption of the project
Negative Declaration, and consider approval of the project.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED F R BOARD ACT/ON
j ~ 1<'-
.~.'.'
r_ ,-i
/ " \';~
, . "", '\ .~'
. ~ \ CD .,.
~,__y_); It'J
Page 2 of 6
l OOUG~It~ Itt)-"--=
! '
11
=
I
.. ~ E i
~ a ! r
1&1 1ft ~ A.
:I. M '" II
X Q C C
u ~ .2 GI
~ '" ~ E
to- c: .!! ~
< ~ 8 e
I t
! i
~
.~
~
i
~
~
~.
.{!
'--..:."
~ ~...z
w !Z~Cio
VI w>:!:w
:!:~ ~ll:~g
W:J~w~Wd
~ fECi ~~ ~~Cl
VlC:!: oz"'Z
~ ~~ ~ III ~ iil ~
r;; ~Q ~t;! ~t;!Oi
>< QIl: oe: ...e:'"
W 1f::E ll:!a 0111111
- lLC z68
II! I ~
Page 3 of 6
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DEQARATION FOR lHE
WATERSHED NO. 35 SOUTH SEWN;E COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJ ECT
RESOLVED, by the Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa, State of California, that
WHEREAS, the project upon which this determination is made is described
as follows:
The proposed project involves the installation of approximately 11,300
linear feet of sewer pipeline in three segments along Sycamore Valley
Road/Camino Tassajara between Camino Ramon and Dougherty Road. Segment 1
of the proposed improvement project would be the installation of
approximately 4,100 linear feet of an estimated 33-inch diameter pipeline
beneath Sycamore Valley Road between Camino Ramon and Old Orchard Road.
Segment 2 would be the installation of approximately 4,200 linear feet of
an estimated 24-inch diameter pipel ine beneath Sycamore Valley
Road/Camino Tassajara, beginning approximately 250 feet east of the Park
Hill/Sycamore Valley Road intersection and continuing eastward along
Camino Tassajara. Segment 3 would be the installation of approximately
3,000 linear fee of an estimated 24-inch diameter pipeline beneath Camino
Tassajara beginning approximately 6,750 feet from the eastern end of
Segment 2 and continuing eastward to Dougherty Road. The nominal pipe
sizes indicated are based on pl anning-level f1 ow capacity studies and
will be finalized in design based on District design standards and
proj ect site slopes.
WHEREAS, an initial study of the proposed project has been conducted by
Earth Metrics, Inc., an environmental and planning consultin'g firm.
WHEREAS, District staff finds that the initial study adequately,
accurately, and obj ectively eval uates the proposed effect on the
environment.
WHEREAS, a publ ic heari n9 has been hel d to receive any comments and the
results of the initial study have been reviewed by the Board.
~W, THEREFORE, IT IS FOUND, DEQARED, AND ORDERED that the above named
project will not have a significant effect upon the environment; and
THAT, the Secretary of the District is hereby authorized and instructed
to file a certified copy of this resolution and of the aforesaid study at
the District Office to be available for public inspection and copying.
Page 4 of 6
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the District Board of the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District this 6th of February, 1986, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AS SENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
President of the District Board of the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERS IG NED:
Secretary of the District Board of the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa, State of California
I
J
I age 5 of 6
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
WATERSHED NO. 35 SOUTH SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
RESOLVED, by the Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa, State of California, that
WHEREAS, the project upon which this determination is made is described
as follows:
The proposed proj ect invol ves the install ati on of approximately 11 ,300
linear feet of sewer pipeline in three segments along Sycamore Valley
Road/Camino Tassajara between Camino Ramon and Dougherty Road. Segment 1
of the proposed improvement project would be the installation of
approximately 4,100 linear feet of an estimated 33-inch diameter pipeline
beneath Sycamore Vall ey Road between Cami no Ramon and 01 d Orchard Road.
Segment 2 would be the installation of approximately 4,200 linear feet of
an estimated 24-inch diameter pipeline beneath Sycamore Valley
Road/Camino Tassajara, beginning approximately 250 feet east of the Park
Hill/Sycamore Valley Road intersection and continuing eastward along
Camino Tassajara. Segment 3 would be the installation of approximately
3,000 linear feet of an estimated 24-inch diameter pipeline beneath
Camino Tassajara beginning approximately 6,750 feet from the eastern end
of Segment 2 and continuing eastward to Dougherty Road. The nominal pipe
sizes indicated are based on pl anning-level fl ow capacity studies and
will be finalized in design based on District design standards and
proj ect site slopes.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS FOUND, DECLARED, AND ORDERED that the above named
project is approved; and
THAT, the Secretary of the District is hereby authorized and instructed
to file a certified copy of this resolution and of the aforesaid study at
the District Office to be available for public inspection and copying.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Di str i ct Boa rd of the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District this 6th of February, 1986, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
JlB SENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
President of the District Board of the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary of the District Board of the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
County of Contra Co State of California
~
Pagl of 6
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Responsible AQency: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, 5019 Imhoff
Place, Martinez, CA 94553
Name of Project: Watershed No. 35 South Sewage Collection System
Improvements Project
location of Project: In the City of Danville along Sycamore Valley Road
and Camino Tassajara between Camino Ramon and Dougherty Road
Description of Project: The project involves the installation of
approximately 11 ,300 linear feet of sewer pi pel1ne in three segments
along Sycamore Valley Road/Camino Tassajara between Camino Ramon and
Dougherty Road
Jacqueline L. Zayac
Contact Person
415
Area Code
689-3890
Phone
392
Extension
The Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, on
February 6, 1986, determined that the project will not have a significant
effect on the environment and on February 6, 1986, determined to approve
the above project.
A Negative Decl arati on has been prepared pu rsuant to the provi si ons of
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.
Date:
Joyce E. McMillan, Secretary
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
.
Centr~
Contra Costa Sanitar District
.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Februar 6, 1986
NO.
VI.
CONSENT CALENDAR 3
SUBJECT
APPROVE AGREEMENT RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY WITH
RUDOLPH M. MOHAR, ETUX, JOO 3966, PACHECO AREA
DATE
J anuar 28, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
APPROVE REAL
PROPERTY AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer
Engineering Dept./Construction Div.
ISSUE: The property owner has requested permission to construct a wooden
retaining wall within a portion of the sewer easement on their property (Lot 4-Sub
6407) .
BACKGROUND: The retaining wall will be installed along the property line of Lot 4
as shown on the attached map to permit a more useable rear yard area. At staff's
request, the owner has agreed to keep the retaining wall support piers at least
two feet clear of the existing 8-inch sewer main. The height of the retaining
wall varies to a maximum of four (4) feet.
The Real Property Agreement requires the property owner to remove the retaining
wall if requested to do so by the District.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Agreement rel ati ng to Real Property with Rudol ph M.
Mohar, etux, Job 3966, authorize the President of the Board of Directors and the
Secretary of the District to execute said Agreement and authorize the Agreement to
be recorded.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
130211.9/85
DH
$ffJl
RAB
ROGER J. DOLAN
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
~
-----..---,.._.._._.___._m__.~_,,_~____~__,,_...__~___...._........._ ,.. ._.._....__.~._-~--~.__,......_.._.___...~_~__.._H..~_....._ ....__......_.
\. ._~
_ .........na...... Sf..............
_ ~ __ _ ..... .. '"' 1OlU__ _ :
--.w Da ~ fl"IOS"ri"'. o.C.- .:.-
-- :::l-~:-r-:----i T---
CUll 2 "'1>> MfDW. .
,.. PllPCllATID- IUI ... Dlntft
--: msr~~-~ _ i
, ,-
.Ul: wma... c...&::.Jal aKUl1_-_ - ~
- fIllS f4' o.c.
S\Te
- - - ~. - _:. _: -
~
~ iu:.~'.n ~ mm- COKPUSSn'!
- .. 2IlIn.~ 1& 1lW-----
(2) auDDC ..u."lUlGRD loa ~ I'WstU.
. . >> "' A8 IAllm nalUU OJ 4Ol)'SF
, _.. 'lID rm ~ l'LUTlWl'"""
: wo,..._a1SWI:QAll!. . ..--
.___.1---::__ ,.-:
-- .. - ._."~. -; . - "
~~--:- -_.~t:.:~=f:~=:~: ->~~
ICALI. t. 1/2.-. 1"'-0.-
- : --....:...--... - - .- :.......--
~QB-Y~ L~-
.. 0
~ ';.:.!
.. ~~~
s~$
NH~Z
1'1$-""
"D.INL.er
; sa
1
Type .C.INt.eT
I+!K) 50
ce"-~
Illf..., ,e. GP
-,
.::J
10' SOl
2
7M?1b
LJ2J2.1}()_ _
7
...
..
Ii;
"
o
~
PLAN
MOHAR COURT
"-
..
SCAlE.I""?O'
REAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT
JOB 3966 - LOT 4 - SUB 6407
PACHECO AREA
WALL
8 ~ SEWelf!. ,N\ AlAI
\ ~ \
\\, N\_ 1/
./...?~ i'~
/;-. ~\ll
ICTUAL LDC4T/CJIj OF \-
TIIf ~X/5T !Ill To fJl :1, ~
<<T~JltMINlD ~101t "'~ 0
7rJ -.aJN5TJtETION"l 2: ~
( l . ;;;~\"
o !i ~
(j) ~...,,,--
...-\ ~ \
Y ~\
"'"
~:!
f
(\
y
6
.
CentrL Contra Costa Sanitar.. District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1
OF 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Februa
6
1986
NO.
VI.
CONSENT CALENDAR 4
SUBJECT
QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENT, JOB 3902 - PORTION PARCEL 1,
SUBDIV ISION 6478, WALNUT CREEK AREA
DATE
APPROV E QUITCL AIM
OF EASEMENT
SUBMITTED BY
Dennnis Hall, Associate Engineer
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering Dept./Construction Div.
ISSUE: The Hofmann Company, general partner of Oak Road Villas II Joint Venture,
owner-developer of Subdivision 6478, has requested the District to quitcl aim a
porti on of an exi sti ng easement which 1 ies with i n the common area of thei r subdiv i si on.
BACKGROUND: The subject easement was granted to the District on July 23, 1984 to
provide for the offsite sewer for Subdivision 6360 located to the south of
Hofmann's Subdivision 6478. The proposed offsite sewer was then real igned which
eliminated the need for the portion of the easement which is being quitclaimed.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Quitclaim Deed to Oak Road Villas II Joint Venture, Job
3902, authorize the President of the District Board of Directors and the
Secretary of the District to execute said Quitcl aim Deed, and authorize the
Quitclaim Deed to be recorded.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
f!rJt
III
1302,..9/85 DH
RAB
"(f f'-')
;::y VD"
299 )./! 44
6478
~
or)
~
~
f
dJ0~
0'V,~
-- ~ OJ/'
~
~
~
.
"-
~
AB4tJDOIJED
$G.VIIER
~1
v-C
v~
..Ul
~~
,
~~
I I
~l!JZ.02.
1
N8lJ'IU 'orw
Su8. 6360
QUITCLAIM EASEMENT
JOB 3902
WALNUT CREEK AREA
.
Centr" Contra Costa Sanitar; District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Februar 6, 1986
NO.
VI.
CONSENT CALENDAR 5
SUBJECT
EST,ABLISH FEBRUARY 20, 1986 AS A HEARING DATE TO
CONSIDER THE FORFEITURE OF A PORTION OF P AND J
UTILITY COMPANY'S $1,000.00 CONTRACTOR CASH DEPOSIT
DATE
Januar 28, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
EST,ABLISH HEARING
DATE
SUBMITTED BY
Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer
INITIA TING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering Dept./Construction Div.
ISSUE: P and J Utility Company has not paid overtime inspection fees accrued
on District Job 3893.
BACKGROUND: P and J Utility Company is the contractor of record on District Job
3893, which includes the construction of 2,644 feet of 8-inch main line sewer.
During construction operations overtime inspection was requested from this agency
by the contractor for work done after normal constructi on hours. The overtime
inspection was provided as requested on May 25, 1985. The contractor was billed
by certified letter on two occasions. Subsequent attempts to contact the
contractor have been unsuccessful. At the present time the past due charges,
including delinquent charges, amount to $261.80. P and J Utility has been totally
unresponsive in this matter.
District Code provides for the forfeiture of a contractor's $1,000 cash deposit
(or porti on thereof) if the applicant viol ates any term of the permit. The
General Manager-Chief Engineer has reviewed the background of this matter and,
based on the facts presented to him, certifies herein that the contractor, P and J
Utility Company, has violated its permit. The Board must establish a hearing date
for consideration of the forfeiture of $261.80 of the contractor's deposit. The
contractor will be sent official notification of the hearing date and will have
the opportunity to give testimony at said hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: Establ ish a hearing date of February 20, 1986, to consider the
forfeiture of $261.80 of P and J Utility Company's $1,000 cash deposit. Instruct
the Secretary of the District to give P and J Util ity Company written notice ten
cal endar days in advance of the date the matter will be heard that the Board
intends to declare a forfeiture of their contractor's cash deposit.
JSM
JH
RAB
ROGER J DOLAN
1302.4.9/85
';~
DH
ECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
/JftjJ
(
.
Centr~. Contra Costa Sanitar) District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER BOARD~~)j~N~ary 6, 1986
SUBJECT
PAGE 1 OF 3
NO.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 6
AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 86-3 (DANVILLE) AND
P.A. 86-4 (ORINDA) TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE
FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT
DATE
January 28, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
SUBMITTED BY
Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer
Owner
Address
Parcel No. & Acreage
Parcel
No.
Area
86-3
Danville Champlin & Cotton Dev. Co.
401 S. Hartz Ave.
Danville, CA 94526
216-102-005 (0.45 AC.)
86-4
Orinda
D. R. Doll and D. J. Lenci
4 Mira Monte Road
Orinda, CA 94563
264-250-014 (0.48 AC.)
ACCEPT FOR PROCESSING
INITIA TING DEPT.lDIV.
Engineering Dept./Construction Div.
Remarks
Lead
Agency
One office building to be
constructed on site.
INegative Declarationl by
City of Danville.
City of
Danville
Existing house with CCCSD
failing septic system.
Will connect to sewer
which was installed in 179-
180 as part of the Thiessen
E.I.R. District to prepare
IINotice of Exemptionll.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 86-3 and 86-4 to be included in a future formal
annexation.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
IJ(
1302".9/85 H
RAB
f}n$
_~___.,"""'_.___~n'_".___.,.,_~___._,"_,._._....~'__m'___"'_"~__'''____'_~''''__''__'_.__.,._....,."-"...__",,,.~.._~_~____"______~~~._~_._...__._,_.__...___...__".______.,______"".__.,"'..
~ ll: en ----- ~ ~ :1 : 78 ..
I z ~ ~ ,^ ~ ~ ~ z, ~
!:!II'I> -' ." I ..... III 0.. 0 0 ~';c
<(cu'o Cl"JO -filii! In..l. II". ~1O"i..1r I 8/;,,\,~ ~\~O~~~ 3 ~ 34 e"~ .
,25/RIIB ili483 r.... 110 SUI~'O """::1 ^;.PL \.~ v--: ':.;0:; 4 2~(,C't'~ '33'), .' ..e .;r~:~:
V 2"4" i"-' r - '.J '8- or I ! 0", ! ~ . S\i13'6' ~~' 5 4 <9<9"'-- U . IZ~I '6'0 \ ,.;.
'2?4 / 10 IlL"'. 1 / 10 ~. .. " . ;
"'1'.'*( c~ l!o!!.L/ ob';... " 1'522 [T' '1 ~
1i\ ',,-- '( I't,~ 4.00 AC \ AC 2Q'AC
· C 1 II i'~~\ )( ,'y 11 ~ rc- r 5', ',r- ,- h..:.
l_"'~ 0 1 10.~ S:fjJUB 491SA ~ f- ~ 'i--g.. "-~3~Tt~/~ .' 3 , 0, :~~ ~
~ .. - ,. I . "fVi~ '< -. 3-2l:f~ 4
.._~ #' 41 "~ ~ ~.;- ~ "~ ,.--;;o~ ~ / '""Ir"':': '~-n;;;' 8'" el[ .c"- ~
,'Q · '.... 46 \0" ,I I / ,. WI TR'. 1
' , .,. 41 20 ti 130 II" . \ / 1ft" r---o
' " ,I"of "t!; 20 ,q 5. " \ ~ ,..1 '-tJ! ::::,~" ~
~ (\Cl r./ os - - ,.__~ 2C .. 0 A _ 0 _
~ "<<:::, ,,~.>- '.~ Y, I"Tk'..- .: Tee ,': itr,t!"-"F l,54C .~IlJil AOA( .1-;;
~ ~ ",- s-,tft "3 'l:t :r, ,q \ .0 ' ," 6~~'5 " " /
.\ /' it 31 - L. t~. 9'AC
Tf- M~. A ~~ _ . ~l \' hi.k.~ '" (n-1'i~~~-il(& "'0 '
~~~\ SUB ~,\\" 13' !4~lSlt ~f-Ilil 'OO36~" ...~ ~~" ~n~Ta;~.. l> II /
[ bl.L 543 ." I" -r-; ~ ~ oj 9''"' ~ 1 ,.,/
f"~ ,; lIS -.....:; __ .7 I 90 920~~- 3~ Z 5 30......... 2. ____
~ -Lj / 171 ~~,.' ~ ,. I. " .. 35 4 21 ~'3
~ [L[ - -- !I-/ZIZ \0' 14~ - ~ ~ :.~ :'~1 I <,~<I [,. ~ it 2SYc ,
24'" 2 rlf~ . '-OICJ 4(.~"'_~~". ':::J."" STA (jPANDE SCHOO,- (,,4...,
J".. .. '60 ~ I-- ~ -. S ~ '" ,,. --^ 2
-23g/:>! I" ' t-:;. I I' I~.. _ ,,"AI "'!." _~""''"lN." AC 24 23~
.~.3'AC --.., h I ~ '00 ~.~,~.' ~4l5 50..ANT:~" .D'AfLP.~T, --.Jl ~..... .--.--rD... I .~ 7
,.... ~'--W~ I l'he.t ~;(~~o . . 1I',j, 1482.1'291,30 13'~ fK:\" Lj...J:~..J~~><
=s '\ .rr ~'~ fB-?J/o ~ f Y ~ '''~d 2,>>lt 5 J.....:... fiF'4' ~.,.
- L~~ SUtr .: I"" (,-/5/9 '1691,'To-. ," .15S~..~~~ RD.-~ ,_~I-----' " 1 " ,
,~ 5'" .., ~. ~ --~. i-;CA"jiJO~T A",GO ~o - -~,,~,. / J J'l-" l _40. ..' 6
~ :So ~~ .r;-. ~ ~ ,..1 ,.- I. I, Je-,Y-t,. 2.1-'" " Tiff
1- \f..115J I~t r---, ;;. -t., " f- ''"1'7,~~~~~::;ip VI T (RAlNOE
\" \: ~ ~ o'A8LbJ 1., h 80 H M ,~ /~_.9'500 ~~'J;,,~ ~X( ~ -~ 1'5)(/5 "RK'7 '0 32 J L b,;<
1\"~~: .,t'll~LIH I -:~:.'~ ~'~....~~,:\'~
.~ ~~1/~1", .'j;\'/ ~~~12'ic7';~~S: I.
'n -. '0, '9'8 ,n. 4 2~ ~/-,.:...
""<om :: G~#-!&~\~;~ : ~';: ~~
SCHOO' % ~/v~~~, ,,- ~ (:~ ~ ~"Tl 0
~,"5.'AC 1: ! I ~ ~'-4' '\L,42 4:, 1--:- 134\ l~ ~ SUB ,,<S> c." '
y 73 ;: I ~A i '% 46 r--- "L1::, L7Z I A o~" I
J I; I~ ,7"'. 52 Iai 35 13'~ TI ..c'&,;' 66 404 ~
. ,1;* ~ ~1l::J" p J /'. ":" 'j' ,," t · I~," ~ ".. ,:'.
'. ~'-r,.'..;rJ~I:: '::~.....',.'.. ~MI. w~~,,'..'~\l5.\~ I:::~ .3T6:, 6'\~.:> :,<>
... .. 58 -)> 1, ---... ----zi....~
'*'. . " 47 ...... 59 ~ 41 43. 4406!--o
~ 5- 59 ., 21 i 5. t4l'~ "14. 0 r eTA 44
:;.. f '.~.,.. '. " 3. 'J '\ 30 ~...:. 20, ~ ~ ~
~~. ,,7 V Ll cO .1+~0\"~~Q::::; ~2 ., 60 U '. ~\,2..i I 1,~.:f\I., ~~" ~ T~ ~r~~~
'r.:' 0 K li' NS9!' 04 ,<.2"'; ~.. ~ 171. 1'\ .1 ~f-o~'
'i. d :?: 4, 41 I!" 90; I I K 13 .,.- -:l I-- 24 2!5 ~
;'6 .... './ . _ I, 25 ," I.,. ~ 'A.W'. ',01\ · I 1-27
.~,:."..'.'.,. 37\~~.,....:....~.............::...d39 140 !l";...,.;"..........~.4..,..'i... :' .,.,. 9 ...::.. t,l r;.-':" ;;-~:.. 05 ' 26 '4: CO TA ~ 1"'.
V "i 7T }:~::::.. ' _ ~ 'OT I.. '.9 '50 10, . 1102 103 I04:!3 22 ;
~IJ' :~--fjj~: ~ '~~~~;I;~ ~..;:~ ' ~ t:~'~ :~~~,:~';.: ]
~~"- \ e-il/45 :'"". ~ . \ '\ 5 19'\. I ~ · 54 ~\:23 o. ~~~o; ~
",tJ e; t ~-? ;\,., I . 1 4 32 IS , c n 30 '\.~ ~ B"O '\ t-!.!
_-" ~\t. '" _i; .JIP-. ,04 _ '. v Il~;:' of" ~. ,)... 21
! u .\ ..:.. ''If \;t: !!IIP [> · \.! \" I~' ~i7'~ 00 8 ~:.:
, 8' ~1 J> \ r ~r'~~~~~.IM~jT~ ,\ ~21 \sUe" n \~ 30 4J. .3.4 ~z:
~ ~ Unit rs' ~ ~~/sT,," ~ \ Ii ~ CT ;;i
~t 5598 .. /"!"I ,III JO,.,,^,IIIl. r 44[/1::
I \ Clr...,' ~ '-2;1'*3 . . \40 I \' l-../~
n.---... It '"\ PROPOSED ANNEXAT ION 0 "V \ 1~1J1
~:} L;~~. ~_II~ " ~.O _O.~IJ:'O.,
\ "'~ ~o \ "'--I' ,.. ~.",~
: I '~31 A c::=
- ~ t .<.f - '\ ,_ 25' '~i1 '''T~~''~'''l
1
'4 ,z'f1/ ~
~
..
~
s
, ~~5b \~ .'
~ ~e J'
~'J."~ ~
~], .
. ~ '
""'.,.
~/
,,''f'ftt!'
~
s
~
11 10:
PAt 86:3
.._-,--_.__._-~,-~.
4\.74aAC
I/~~
GUARANTY SERVICE CORP.
>
JOHNSON
65.7AC ~H
/ ~~~ AC
/:'-~-
/ ....,...../"
/~TI!NIICK "
1.71 AC IIti
.AC
IMSIII..III
IT."AC
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
RA.
811 "4
.
Centr" Contra Costa Sanitar _ District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
NO.
VI.
CONSENT CALENDAR 7
SUBJECT
DATE
AUll-lORIZATION OF $1250 FOR DAVID REINDL TO ATTEND A
SEMINAR AND WORKSHOP ON "ADJ USTABLE FREQUENCY K>TOR
CONTROL" IN ANJlHEIM, CA, MARQ-l 10 - 14, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
AUll-lORIZE FUNDS
SUBMITTED BY
James L. Bel cher
Associate En ineer
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Plant Operations Department/
Maintenance
ISSUE: The Plant Operations Department is evaluating energy saving projects
that coul d make use of vari abl e frequency drive (VFD) equi pment. The Pl ant
Maintenance Division is requesting to send David Reindl, Assistant Engineer,
to a comprehensive three-day seminar on VFD for rotating equipment.
BACKGROUND: The Pl ant Operati ons Department conti nuousl y assesses its
operati on to mi nimize energy consumpti on requi red to process wastewater. It
has become apparent after reviewing our operation and technical publications
that significant energy savings can be real ized by modifying the drive
mechanisms on centrifugal equipment (i.e. fans, pumps) that operate at
varying loads. Examples of District equipment where this type of energy
savings may merit further consideration is the 200 hp induced draft (ID) fan,
the 100 hp and 150 hp process water pumps and Pumpi ng Stati ons. Prelimi nary
estimates indicate that installation of VFD assemblies on the above equipment
could save the District up to $40,000 per year in electrical costs as well as
reduce maintenance.
Over the past few years there has been introduced a new generati on of VFD
equipment that offers lower purchase prices and higher reliability than in
the past. The District woul d benefit fran having the expertise of an
in-house engineer capable of evaluating and selecting this equipment and its
application for our operation.
The seminar is given by ASD, Inc. which is an independent association not
associ ated with any particul ar manufacturer. The lecturers are all
recognized authorities in the field of adjustable frequency motor control and
its utilization. There are sufficient funds in the Plant Operations
Department Employee Educati on Account to cover th i s expendi ture. A copy of
the course outline is attached. This item is placed on the consent calendar
due to District Policy which requires Board approval for courses over $500.
RECOtJMENDATION: Authorize $1250 for David Reindl to attend the course
"Adjustable Frequency Motor Control" in Anaheim, CA, March 10 - 14, 1986.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
.
Centrl
Contra Costa Sanitar District
.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1
OF
6
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
NO.
VII. ENGINEERING 1
DATE
Februar 3 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
Feb ua 6 1 86
SUBJECTAUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MAN~ER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO
EXECUTE .oGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF DANV ILLE AND J AM:S R.
STEJ).1AN AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION
OF SEWER FACILITIES THROUGH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1985-1
AND AUTHORIZE $1,054,000 FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION
FUND FOR DISTRICT PROJECT 4168
AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT
AUTHORIZE FUNDS
SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Jay S. McCoy, Construction Division Manage Engineering Dept./Construction Div.
ISSUE: Board approval is required to final ize agreements with the City of
Danville and James R. Stedman and Associates for the design and construction of
sewer facilities as a part of the City of Danville's Assessment District 1985-1.
BACKGROUND: District planning studies during the mid-1970's identified the need
for certain watershed improvements in the Sycamore Valley area, also known as
Watershed 35 South. As it became apparent that development was likely to occur in
the Valley, the District's Board of Directors establ ished a pol icy in 1978 which
restricted acceptance of annexation petitions and connections to the District's
sewer system until "needed ultimate facil ities" are installed. The Board later,
in 1985, modified this pol icy to allCftl the connection of a 1 imited number of new
houses which would be built as a result of the City of Danville permitting one-
time property divisions in the Valley.
All of the "needed ultimate facil ities" which were identified in the mid-1970's
have been installed except for the segment in Sycamore Valley Road from Camino
Ramon to 01 d Orchard Road. Thi s sewer has been desi gnated as Segment 1 and is
commonly known as the "Missing L ink" (see Exhibit One). The CftIners of the
properties within the Sycamore Valley have formed the above-referenced Assessment
District to finance necessary road and utility improvements. The Missing Link
will be constructed as a part of the Assessment District work with CCCSD
contributing a portion of the costs as summarized below.
More recent watershed planning studies indicate that additional trunk sewer
parallels must be installed to provide adequate capacity for new developments
already approved as well as those anticipated in the future. These parallels are
designated as Segments 2 and 3 and are shown on Exhibit One. An opportunity now
exists to incorporate the construction of Segments 2 and 3 with construction of
projects for the already approved Assessment District in order to minimize
environmental impacts, achieve lower construction costs, and avoid future
excavation in newly paved roadways.
.oGREEMENT WITH CITY OF DANVILLE
The respective staffs of the District and Danv ill e have negoti ated an agreement
which provides for the installation of the sewer facilities designated as Segments
1, 2, and 3 by the City of Danville through its Assessment District 1985-1. In
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
JSM
RAB
'_'~-~-"_-_.,-----_.._",-----,._,_._-,--,.~...,._.._...-'._~-----------------.-~,--,,,.,.<,,...^..~---,.. .._-".,----_._.,_.._-"."-_._--".~-_._---_.._... .--.,.,..- .~..",-",---_._,..
SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO
EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF DANVILLE AND JAMES R.
~TEDMAN AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF
~EWER FACILITIES THROUGH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1985-1 AND
~Pl~~~CfEp~dJ~t~logP6KROM. T~~SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 2
DATE
February 3, 1986
OF
6
accordance with the provisions of the agreement, CCCSD will pay the Assessment
District for CCCSD's proportionate share of the total cost of Segment 1 and the
total cost of the construction of Segments 2 and 3 (including a 1-1/2%
admi ni strative fee). The Assessment Di strict w ill pay all other costs. The
road, util ity and sewer work will be bid by the City as a minimum of three
proj ects in 1986 and 1987.
The owners in the Assessment District area are responsible for the costs
associated with a new 27-inch diameter pipeline, the size proposed in the
Sycamore Valley Specific Pl an which was prepared in 1979. The District is
requiring the owners to upsize this pipeline (Segment 1) to an estimated 33 inches
in diameter to accommodate future growth outside the Assessment District and to
provide additional conservatism for groundwater infiltration and inflow. The total
cost of this parallel sewer is estimated at $691,000. The cost of a 27-inch sewer
(obl igation of the property owners) has been estimated to be $565,000. Staff
recommends that CCCSD fund the remai ni ng $126 ,000 cost ($100,000 to the City and
$26,000 District Force Account) which will be repaid through the future collection
of watershed fees. This sharing of costs was negotiated with the City of
Danville.
Segment 2 and 3 are estimated to cost $542,000 and $386,000 respectively. These
costs will initi ally be borne sol ely by CCCSD. These segments must be funded
entirely by CCCSD because they will serve existing and future developments outside
of the Assessment Di strict. The Sewer Constructi on Fund w 111 be reimbursed
through the collection of watershed fees as future connections occur.
The proposed agreement obligates the Assessment District for approximately
$565,000 as shown below. The agreement also provides for CCCSD depositing funds
with the City of Danville. A 1-112% administrative fee of $12,000 will be
deposited with the City within 30 days of approval of the agreement with the City.
The construction costs of Segments 2 (estimated at $469,000) and 3 (estimated at
$335,000) and CCCSD's share of Segment 1 ($100,000), a total of approximately
$904,000, will be deposited after bids are received for the Assessment District
work.
In additi on, the proposed Agreement with the City of Danv ill e prov i des for a
maximum number of connections which can be made from the Assessment District area
before Segment 1 is constructed. This limit on the number of connections will
guarantee that the capacity of the existing sewer system will not be exceeded.
---------
13028- 9/85
SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO
EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF DANVILLE AND JAMES R.
STEDMAN AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF
SEWER FACILITIES THROUGH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1985-1 AND
AUTHORIZE $1,054,000 FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR
DISTRICT PROJECT 4168
AGREEMENT WITH JAMES R. STEDMAN AND ASSOCIATES
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 3 OF 6
DATE
February 6, 1986
The District is contracting directly with the engineer for the Assessment
District, James R. Stedman and Associates, for the design of Segments 2 and 3. A
cost reimbursement contract with a cost ceiling of $68,000 has been negotiated
with the Stedman firm for the design of Segments 2 and 3. The Assessment
District is contracting with Stedman for design of Segment 1. Stedman will
desi gn the proposed sewers and incorporate the desi gn for Segments 1, 2, and 3
into the plans for the Assessment District. District forces will direct the
consultant's design work. District forces will require $27,000 in funds to
facl1 itate project management, engineering, and design reviews throughout the
design period. A $13,000 contingency is included for potential change orders
which may be needed during design. The funds which are required for the design
phase is summarized in Exhibit Two.
SUMMARY OF COSTS
A summary of the estimated costs and sharing of costs for the design and
construction of the sewer facilities is shown in the following table.
Design
Construction
Inspection
MISSING LINK
SEGMENT 1
CCCSD AD 1985-1
16,000* 36,000
100,000 516,000
10,000 13,000
TOTALS
Design
Construction
Inspection
Administrative Fee
Sub Total
Grand Total
$126,000 $ 565,000
TASSAJ ARA PARALLEL
SEGMENT 2
CCCSD AD 1985-1
$ 56,000* -0-
469,000 -0-
10,000 -0-
7,000 -0-
$542,000 -0-
TASSAJ ARA PARALLEL
SEGMENT 3
CCCSD AD 1985-1
36,000* -0-
335,000 -0-
10,000 -0-
5,000 -0-
386 .000 -0-
691,000
Sub Total
Design
Construction
Inspection
Administrative Fee
Sub Total
542,000
*See Exhibit Two for an itemized breakdown of design costs.
13028-9/85
SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO
EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF DANVILLE AND JAMES R.
STEDMAN AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF
SEWER FACILITIES THROUGH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1985-1 AND
AUTHORIZE $1,054,000 FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR
DISTRICT PROJECT 4168
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 4 OF 6
DATE
February 3, 1986
The total estimated District share of costs of the proposed work is $1,054,000 as
shown above. This share includes the design costs of $108,000, construction costs
totaling $904,000, inspection costs of $30,000, and administrative fee of $12,000.
The $1,054,000 is being requested from the Board at this time and includes $5,000
prev iously authorized by the General Manager-Chi ef Engi neer for proj ect startup.
Appropriate funds will be deposited with the City of Danville after bids are
received for the various construction projects. The District's contribution
towards construction costs ($904,000) is strictly an estimate (+20%) and will be
refined after the sewer design is completed and bids are received. This work is
included in the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engi neer to execute
agreements with the City of Danville and James R. Stedman and Associates for the
design and installation of sewer facilities through Assessment District 1985-1 and
authorize $1.054,000 from the Sewer Construction Fund for District Project 4168.
1...._______.
13026-9/85
Page 5 of 6
Pages
f'
,
-~....~,/
"-'. ,...
~
..
"
"_ _' III
. '"~-,
~--
.
~
~
I
f i
S E i
III 0 II r
02 :: i. A.
ftt '"
t:Cl c!
III III .2 II
-% tE
~ i i ~
~UCL
I: .!
I r
I_IImllllllllll~
I
I
-i
I
II11I11I1/IIUiiiiii
.i
HmIR/JIIIIIIII/JIIIII/JI11
'--
~ in z
~ !!~~C
I&l~ ~I&l
~ ~ !Il: ~g
/!i~~lll~~d
~1!:1&l~~<~"
a~ cO ~!5~
.. Uuun
!' 'i I ~
g : I >
I
! ;
Page 6 of 6 Pages
EXHmIT lWO
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1985-1
AlJ1HORIZATION OF DESIGN FUNDS
COST SUMMARY
($1,000)
SEGMENT 1
SEGMENT 2
SEGMENT 3
TOT fol S
James R. Stedman and Associates
41
27
68
District Force Account
11
2-
16
10
6
27
Contingency
2-
56
.2.
36
..ll
108
TOTfol DESIGN FUNDS
(a) $36,000 Assessment District cost
(b) Conti ngency to be appl i ed to Force Account or Stedman and Associ ates as
di rected by Proj ect Manager.
.
Centr~
Contra Costa Sanitar District
.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1
OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Februa
6 , 1986
NO.
VII.
DATE
ENGINEERING 2
SUBJECT
ADOPT A REVISION TO THE 1978 BOARD POLICY REGARDING
ANNEXATION AND SEWER SERVICE PROVISIONS FOR
PROPERTIES IN THE SYCAMORE V ALLEY AREA
(WATERSHED 35 SOUTH)
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Jay S. McCoy, Construction Div. Manager
Engineering Dept./Construction Div.
ISSUE: The Board of Directors created a special policy in 1978 for annexations
and sewer service in the Sycamore Valley area. Board approval is required to
modify this policy.
BACKGROUND: The special Board policy was created to compensate for capacity
limitations in the existing sewer system which serves the Sycamore Valley and
future growth which was projected to occur in the valley. Condition No.2 of the
1978 Board policy reads as follows:
"Adopt a policy that no annexations will be accepted in Watershed 35 So.,
without guarantee of prepayment of watershed trunk charges or installation of
needed ultimate facilities, and that no service will be provided outside of
present District boundary until planned facilities are installed downstream
of the property seeki ng service."
The needed ul timate faciliti es were i denti fi ed as trunk sewers extendi ng from
Interstate 680 eastward to Hansen Lane. All of these needed faciliti es have been
installed except for the portion from Interstate 680 to Old Orchard Road which is
commonly known as the "Missing Link."
The District and the City of Danville are in the process of entering into a Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) which is on this Board agenda for approval.
This JEPA guarantees the installation of the last of the needed ultimate
facilities mentioned in Condition No.2 above. Also, the JEPA includes a
restriction on the number of sewer connections which can be made prior to the
construction of said ultimate facilities. This restriction will guarantee that
the capacity of the existing sewer system will not be exceeded prior to the
completion of the ultimate facilities. Staff will monitor the connections and
enforce the restriction in conjunction with the City of Danville.
Therefore, Condition No.2 is no longer needed and can be el iminated. With the
elimination of Condition No.2, annexation petitions can be accepted and processed
from owners of property in the Sycamore Valley and development will be able to
occur in an orderly fashion.
RECOMMENDATION: Delete Condition No.2 from the Watershed 35 South Board policy
adopted in October of 1978.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
fl5
1302
RAB
.
Centra.. Contra Costa Sanitar.. District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
February 6, 1986
NO.
VIr.
ENGINEERING 3
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 86-5 (DANVILLE) TO BE INCLUDED
IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT
DATE
January 31, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
ACCEPT FOR PROCESSING
SUBMITTED BY
Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer
INITIATING DEPT.!DIV.
Engineering Dept./Construction Div.
Parcel
No.
Owner
Address
Area Parcel No. & Acreage
Remarks
Lead
Agency
86-5
Danville Blackhawk Corp.
3820 Blackhawk Road
Danville, CA 94526
202-100-022 (103.6 acres)
207-050-007 (32.9 acres)
Proposed Subdivision
6196 (110 lots) and 6699
(100 lots).
Danville
The annexation of these
parcels has been held
pending the change of the
Board policy regarding
properties in the Sycamore
Valley area (Watershed 35
South).
This item may be considered
by the Board provided that
the Board revises its
Sycamore Valley policy whic
is on this agenda earlier
in the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 86-5 to be included in a future formal annexation.
JSM
RAB
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302".9165
(~V~
DH
me
INITIATING DEPT.!DIV.
)
+
/
'.' """:":'::'::~'::'::':~?k~:
.;,.;,:,'
....,...
.'.....
........
:.~.:~;
.....:.
..,....'
',",' .~
.......
........
........
........
......
AN 1\JEX
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.....................
':\4;;";';'.:':':':::';':':':::::':.
.~: ~?:
II
+-
,'.'.'
:::~:
.......
L II_to
;:.... 1.,-"
~
.;:?::
........
.:.j:
.:~::
-:-:.:-:
~
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
f?A. 86-5
! ).Jf,Lt
.
CentrL_ Contra Costa Sanitar ~ District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 3
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
February 6, 1986
NO.
VI!.
ENGINEERING 4
SUBJECT
AUlHORIZE $35,000 FROM SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR STORM DAMAGE PROJECTS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-86
DATE
January 30, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
AUlHORIZE FUNDS
SU5~IJi'H' ~t. Willi ams
Engineering Division Manager
INlTIATJNG DEP.iT./DI\l.D tm t
cnglneer ng epar en
Engineering Division
ISSUE: Funds are required for continuing work on storm damage projects.
BACKGROUND: The severe rains of the 1982-83 winter caused extensive damage to the
CCCSD storm damage. A total of 49 damage locations were identified, ranging in
severity from fallen trees and debris to major landslides. There was too much
damage to be repaired in one summer, so an emergency project was launched to
repair those sites where collection system failure was a possibility. Repairs
were compl eted at 21 sites before the onset of the rai ns of the 1983-84 winter,
thereby preventing collection system failure. During the 1983-84 winter, two new
damage sites were identified. Thus at the start of summer 1984 a total of 30
sites remained on the storm damage list. At that point in time the emphasis of
the storm damage work shifted from emergency repairs to cost-effective long-term
repairs. It was also recognized that repairs at many of the damage locations were
complicated by potenti al future liti gati on. In these cases the approach was to
maintain the sewer service while providing technical support to the District's
Risk Management Section in order to assist them in the ultimate resolution of each
probl em.
In July 1984 the Board authorized $91,400 from the Sewer Construction Fund for the
storm damage budget for the fiscal year 1984-85. With this budget the Engineering
Department proposed to continue working on projects which were on the storm damage
list. Specific work identified at that time included major work at 7 damage sites
and minor work at 15 damage sites.
The Engineering Department requests a new authorization of funds for collection
system damage work for fiscal year 1985-86. Of the initial 30 projects remaining
before the fiscal year 1984-85 storm damage budget authorization, 15 have been
removed from the list as a result of design and repair work being completed; five
projects are in litigation or claims status and consequently are being handled by
the District's Risk Management Section with the Engineering Department providing
support as needed; and four of the proj ects requi red no desi gn or constructi on,
thus have been transferred to the Coll ecti on System Operati ons Department for
routine monitoring. Only 6 of the original 30 projects still require some level
of design and construction work.
The Engineering Department intends to use this authorization to continue
preliminary engineering on the six projects in order to define them sufficiently
so that a Boa rd authori zati on for desi gn funds can be made. Work req ui red to
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
;()RvJ
jJ4AJ
1302A..9/85
SUBJECT
AUlHORIZE $35.000 FROM SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND FOR
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR STORM DAMAGE PROJECTS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-86
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 2 OF 3
DATE
January 30. 1986
bring the projects to the point where they can be designed includes: field
investigation. negotiations with haneowners. geotechni- cal investigation.
easement acquisition. negotiation with insurance companies. and inter-departmental
coordination with Collection System Operations Department. The requested budget
for preliminary engineering for the six remaining collection system damage
proj ects is $35.000. Thi s i ncl udes $10.000 for engi neeri ng support for those
projects being handled by Risk Management (see Attachment 1) .
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize $35.000 in Sewer Construction Funds for prel iminary
engineering on storm damage projects for fiscal year 1985-86.
---------
1302B-9/85
ATTAa-tP-ENT 1
ENGINEERING DEPARTP-ENT BUDGET
FOR 1986 STORM DAMAGE PROJ ECTS
District Force Account:
Predesign
Risk Management Support
Geotechnical Investigations
T ota 1
$15,000
10,000
10,000
$35,000
Page 3 of 3
.
Centr_____ Contra Costa Sanital ~ District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
February 6, 1986
NO.
VIr.
ENGINEERING 5
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE $10,900 FROM THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
FOR PREPURa-tASE OF EQUIPMENT FOR THE CONCORD
INDUSTRIAL PUMP STATION UPGRADING PROJ ECT
DATE
Februa ry 3, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE FUNDS
SUBMITTED BY
Jarred Miyamoto-Mill s
Associate Engineer
INITIATING DEPT.lDII(
Engineering uepartment/
Engineering Division
ISSUE: Board authorization is required for funding of the prepurchase of
equi pment for the Concord Industri al Pump Stati on Upgradi ng Proj ect, Di stri ct
Proj ect No. 4091.
BACKGROUND: On August 22, 1985, the Board of Di rectors approved the North
Concord/Clyde Sewage Collection System Improvements Project. An element of this
project is upgrading of the Concord Industrial Pump station fran 120 gallons per
minute to approximately 800 gallons per minute rated capacity. The Board has
authori zed $21,000 for predesi gn and desi gn of the proj ect el ement. Part of the
Pump Station upgrading will be accomplished by replacing the existing 7-1/2
horsepower/USO r.p.m. pumps with new pumps rated at 30 horsepower/17S0 r.p.m.
The new pump motors will be of a high efficiency design to minimize future power
utilization. These pumps, because of the need for standardization and compati-
bility with other Pump Station equipment and space requirements, will be obtained
fran Fai rbanks Morse, the manufacturer of the exi sti ng pumps. Lead time for
delivery of this equipment is estimated to be 16 - 18 weeks. Prepurchase of these
pumps at this time will assure their availability prior to award of the
construction contract.
The Engineering Department has obtained a pricing quotation of $10,900 for the two
pumps fran Fairbanks Morse's representative and determined that the cost for these
pumps is reasonable. The preliminary total project cost estimate for the Pump Station
upgrading is $95,000. This includes design, construction contract, and
construction management costs.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize $10,900 fran the Sewer Constructi on Fund for the
Concord Industrial Pump Station Upgrading Project, District Project No. 4091.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
130211..9/85
2-
JMM
tfS/Lt
HSM
/J1kJ
DRW
ENG.
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
VIII. SOLID WASTE 1
CITY OF ORINDA
~f~tt~f!ff%lli))
26 ORINDA WAY
ORINDA, CA 84563
(415) 254-3900
FEB 3 1986
CCC!lD
,.lO"'l"TAnV OF -THE DI!;TNCT
February 3, 1986
Mr. Roger J. Dolan
General Manager
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Dolan:
The Orinda City Council held a Public Hearing on whether
to assume the franchising responsibilities for refuse col-
lection in Orinda. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
City Council voted against assumption of the franchise at
the current time.
The City Council also supports the recommendations provided
by the City of Lafayette in their January 24 correspondence
to the district. More specifically, the ten year contract
based upon a five year guarantee and a five year extension
is strongly supported by the Orinda City Council.
As you may be aware, the collection rates were as actively
discussed as the assumption of the franchise. The City
Council intends to cooperate with Orinda-Moraga Disposal
in working toward a rate structure more acceptable to the
community in the future.
Thank you for the consideration provided to the citizens
of Orinda and the City Council in the review of the draft
franchise agreement.
Sincerely,
../i)NJ c:S/A/ c.~L-/11A:-
Tom Sinclair
City Manager
TS:nh
.
Centr... Contra Costa Sanitar # District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 8
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
February 6, 1986
NO.
VII 1.
SOLI D WASTE
2
SUBJECT
RECEIVE REVISED DRAFT OF THE RENEGOTIATED REFUSE COLLECTION
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND STAFF REPORT THEREON, AND AUTHORIZE
EXECUTION WITH PRESENT FRANCHISEES AFTER DETERMINING FINAL
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
DATE
January 28, 1986
TYPE OF ACTION
RECEIVE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT DRAFT
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Paul Morsen, Deputy General Manager
Administrative
ISSUE: At the conclusion of the December 19, 1985 Public Hearing to receive public
comment on the draft of the renegotiated refuse collection franchise agreement,
District staff was directed to prepare, and herewith submits, a Position Paper which
reviewed the major issues presented in the public hearing process, and to
incorporate alternative provisions within particular sections of the franchise
agreement for consideration by the Board of Directors.
BACKGROUND: At the direction of the Board of Directors, District staff commenced
negotiations to produce a successor refuse collection franchise agreement in
November 1984. Prior to commencement of negotiations with the franchised refuse
collectors, meetings were held with officials of the Cities of San Ramon, Danville,
Lafayette and Moraga, and the Orinda Association to advise affected jurisdictions of
the purpose of the negotiations and to sol icit concerns and suggestions. The
initial, and successive, drafts of the renegotiated franchise agreement which were
su bm i tted at the Novembe r 19, 1985, Decembe r 5, 1985, and Decembe r 19, 1985 Boa rd
Meetings were concurrently provided to city officials. A Public Hearing was held on
December 19, 1985 to receive public comment from representatives of affected cities,
residents, the general public, and refuse collectors on the draft of the
renegotiated refuse collection franchise agreement. A review of the major issues on
which publ ic comment was received rel ative to the draft franchise agreement is
presented in the following sections of this Position Paper.
The revised draft of the renegotiated franchise agreement is provided as
Attachment I, and alternative provisions for particular sections of the agreement
are provided as Attachments II through V.
The renegotiated franchise agreement will be extended to Valley Disposal Service,
Inc. and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. The execution of a franchise
agreement with Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal Service will be delayed until this
refuse collector submits a comprehensive and acceptable rate application by
March 31, 1986.
City Officials
Town of Moraga--The Town of Moraga advised the Board in a letter dated
December 19, 1985 that it is in complete agreement with a ten-year term of the
franchise agreement. The letter further indicated that it endorses periodic
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
WF JH
~~
SUBJECT
RECEIVE REVISED DRAFT OF THE RENEGOTIATED REFUSE COLLECTION
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND STAFF REPORT THEREON, AND AUTHORIZE
EXECUTION WITH PRESENT FRANCHISEES AFTER DETERMINING FINAL
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE 2 OF
DATE
A
Januarv 28. 1986
distribution of printed rates and services information to customers (at
intervals of once every twenty-four months and following rate changes) and the
increase to 30 days for the delinquent payment period prior to termination of
services.
The Town of Moraga was subsequently notified that its comments were entered into
the Public Hearing record and advised of the Board's decision to continue
consideration of the renegotiated franchise agreement to February 6, 1986.
City of Lafayette--In previous meetings with City officials, the City of
Lafayette advised the Board that provisions in the franchise agreement should be
developed to provide the District with the required flexibil ity to address
uncertainties within a ten-year framework. In a letter dated January 24, 1986,
the Lafayette City Council provided the Board with its recommendations that the
following be included in the franchise agreement: a ten-year term; a definition
of "wastestream" in Section 1, Definitions; a requirement that written
notification be mailed to each customer no less than 30 days prior to the public
hearing at which rate increase applications are considered; and written
notification to cities and customers whenever substantial changes in operations,
level of service and cost to customers are being considered.
The City of Lafayette was subsequently advised by District staff of the Board's
decision to continue consideration of the renegotiated franchise agreement to
February 6, 1986, at which time the City's recommendations will be reviewed and
acted upon.
City of Orinda--In a letter dated December 3, 1985, the City of Orinda advised
the Board that collection rates are unacceptably high and that measures to
reduce rates should be investigated. The City requested a period of two months
to review the draft franchise agreement and the City's options regarding
assumption of franchising authority. These requests were reiterated by a City
official at the Publ ic Hearing. In a subsequent letter, the City requested the
District's Deputy General Manager attend a City Council Meeting on January 28,
1986, at which the draft franchise agreement will be considered.
District staff has subsequently advised the City of Orinda of the Board's
decision to continue consideration of the renegotiated franchise agreement to
February 6, 1986. An affirmative response was made to the City's request for
participation by District representatives at its January 28, 1986 Council
Meeti ng.
City of San Ramon--The City of San Ramon advised the Board of its plan to assume
franchising authority for refuse collection within its City limits. The City
also wished to establ ish a process for the inclusion of newly annexed areas
within its franchising authority. This concern was accomodated by incorporation
of clarifying language in the draft franchise agreement.
---------
13028- 9/85
SUBJECT
RECEIVE REVISED DRAFT OF THE RENEGOTIATED REFUSE COLLECTION
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND STAFF REPORT THEREON, AND AUTHORIZE
EXECUTION WITH PRESENT FRANCHISEES AFTER DETERMINING FINAL
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
DATE
3
OF
8
January 28, 1986
The City of San Ramon was subsequently notified by District staff that the
District's current service areas within its City limits will be excluded from
the renegotiated franchise agreement boundaries, and provisions have been
incorporated for the annual transfer of the franchising authority for areas
newly annexed to the City.
City of Danville--In a letter dated December 18, 1985, the Danville City
Council provided the Board with its recommendations that the term of the
franchise agreement be ten years, or less, and that local governments be
exempted from refuse collection fees. The Council requested that a Publ ic
Hearing be held in the San Ramon Valley on the renegotiated franchise agreement.
The City of Danville was subsequently notified by District staff that: the
Board will be considering terms of ten or more years at its February 6, 1986
Board Meeting; the District does not exempt local governments within its
boundaries, incl udi ng itsel f, from refuse coll ection fees; and al though the
Board conducted a District-wide Public Hearing on December 19, 1985, the
District would be pleased to send representatives as participants to City
sponsored public hearings.
Residents and Public
Certain residents and members of the publ ic expressed concern regarding the
level of collection rates in the District; others indicated satisfaction with
the rates and quality of service. Two specific issues pertinent to the
renegotiated franchise agreement were presented: that the refuse collection
franchises be opened to a competitive bidding process; and that incentives to
recycling be incorporated in the franchise agreement.
The Board expressed a di si ncl i nati on to use a competitive bi ddi ng process to
select franchised refuse collectors. Staff believes that Section 24, Recycling,
provides the District with broad latitude in instituting refuse recycling
programs at the initiation of the Board of Directors.
Refuse Collectors
The major concerns expressed by the franchised refuse collectors are summarized
be 1 ow :
Insurance Limits (Section 15)--It was indicated that the increased amount
of insurance coverages would result in significantly higher premiums, and
that the limits should not be stipulated in the agreement, but should be
set by the Board from time to time.
Dissemination of Rate Schedules (Section 18)--It was contended that the
administrative expense and technical problems in complying with the
1...._______.
13028-9/85
SUBJECT
RECEIVE REVISED DRAFT OF THE RENEGOTIATED REFUSE COLLECTION
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND STAFF REPORT THEREON, AND AUTHORIZE
EXECUTION WITH PRESENT FRANCHISEES AFTER DETERMINING FINAL
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
DATE
4
OF
8
J anuarv 28, 1986
requirement for notice to all customers of rates and services, at least
once every twenty-four months, and each time a rate increase is granted,
woul d be unreasonably burdensome. It was requested that the information
and manner of notice be prescribed from time to time by the Board.
Industrial Waste (Section 1)--It was requested that industrial waste not be
excluded from the definition of "Garbage" in Section 1, Definitions, in
order to avoid exposing this collection activity to free market forces.
A concern was expressed that, while very little industrial waste is
collected in the franchise areas, such exclusion by the District may erode
this collection activity in other regulatory jurisdictions.
Term of the AQreement (Section 34)--Twenty years was indicated as a minimum
term; a twenty-five year term was regarded as appropri ate based primarily
on the requirement to secure capital commitments, particularly in the
development of a disposal site.
Staff Recommendations on Remaining Issues
Insurance Limits (Section 15)--The staff recommends that the amount of insurance
coverages be set annually by the General Manager-Chief Engineer, after
discussion with the refuse collector; the refuse collector would have the right
to appeal the decision of the General Manager-Chief Engineer to the Board of
Directors. This process is consistent with the request of the refuse collectors
and Section 15, Insurance, has been revised to incorporate such provisions.
Insurance should no longer be an issue.
Dissemination of Rate Schedules (Section 18)--The staff recommends that the
requirement for distribution of printed rates and services by the refuse
collector shoul d remai n. In order to meet the collectors' request for greater
flexibility, staff has redrafted the agreement to provide for consultation with
the General Manager-Chief Engineer, or his designee, by the refuse collector to
determine the appropriate manner of notifying each customer, as follows:
"No 1 ess than once every twenty-four (24) months, and each time the
Contractor requests a rate increase, the Contractor shall notify each
customer with printed information setting forth the rates, days of
collections, Contractor's complaint procedures, and the amount and manner
of refuse to be collected. The Contractor shall consult with the General
Manager-Chief Engineer, or his designee, to determine the appropriate
manner of notifying each customer."
This proposed modification is unacceptable to the collectors. They propose the
following language:
"Di strict, from time to time, may di rect Contractor to mail to its
-.------..
13028-9/85
-----'-_.-._'~----_....,,~""._--"~-----"._----~-,-~.-_..--_..-."-""._-.."---..__.~,.,..,.--_."-
SUBJECT
RECEIVE REVISED DRAFT OF THE RENEGOTIATED REFUSE COLLECTION
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND STAFF REPORT THEREON, AND AUTHORIZE
EXECUTION WITH PRESENT FRANCHISEES AFTER DETERMINING FINAL
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
DATE
5
OF
8
January 28, 1986
customers i nformati on regardi ng rates and services and Contractor shall
comply with such directions."
Staff does not recommend the collectors' proposed modification because it is too
broad and inappropriately removes the automatic notification to ratepayers of
rate increases at each time the collectors request a rate increase or at a
minimum, once every two years. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to shift the
burden of increased rate notification from the collectors to the District staff.
Therefore, accurate ratepayer notification of increases in rates is best served
by the compromise language recommended by staff.
Industrial Waste (Section 1)--The staff recommends exclusion of industrial waste
from the franchise agreement for the following reasons:
1. The unique and individual ized character of the various industrial wastes,
coupled with the non-standard methods of removal and disposal, prevent the
establishment of a uniform and fairly determined rate schedule. Unlike the
uni form rates for general refuse of resi denti al and commerci al customers,
separate rates for i ndivi dual industri al waste products woul d need to be
set. As such, these rates are better determined by free market forces.
2. The existing franchise agreement does not define industrial waste as a
franchised activity, and the District has not previously set rates for
industrial wastes. The exclusion of industrial waste collection from the
renegotiated franchise agreement does not represent an alteration of
pre-existing conditions.
3. As ever increasing numbers of industrial waste products are classified as
hazardous, the ri sk of 1 i abil ity for damage to property and 1 i fe bei ng
retrospectively assessed upon regulators should be avoided.
4. Publ ic agencies, such as the District, which produce unique industrial
waste materi al shoul d be unfettered in thei r attempt to obtai n the most
efficient, economical, and safe removal and disposal means.
5. The purpose of the franchise agreement is to provide for the economical and
efficient collection and disposal of general refuse of residential and
commercial customers. Industrial waste shares little in common with
domestic and commercial refuse and accordingly staff can find no publ ic
benefit from including industrial waste within the monopoly privilege
granted by thi s agreement. As with hazardous waste, i ndustri al waste
should, therefore, not be a concern of this Board.
The collectors assert that excl usion of industri al waste differs from current
garbage industry franchise practice and will create an undesirable precedent.
Staff bel ieves that other garbage industry franchise agreements are silent on
--------..
13028-9/85
SUBJECT
RECEIVE REVISED DRAFT OF THE RENEGOTIATED REFUSE COLLECTION
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND STAFF REPORT THEREON, AND AUTHORIZE
EXECUTION WITH PRESENT FRANCHISEES AFTER DETERMINING FINAL
TERMS OF THE AGREE~NT
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
DATE
6
OF
8
January 28, 1986
the issue of "exclusive right of disposal of industrial waste". A precedent of
allowing the free market and state and federal regulators to control the
collection and cost of industrial, designated, and hazardous waste disposal is
appropri ate. The attached survey (Attachment VII) reveal s that withi n the
District boundaries, most of the industrial waste collected is hazardous waste.
The remaining industrial waste collected will likely be classified as a
designated waste. Designated waste must receive special handling and be
disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations in a similar manner
to hazardous waste. During the franchise term, staff anticipates many changes
in the definitions of hazardous, designated, and industrial waste established by
state and federal agencies. Rates and disposal requirements will appropriately
be set by the free market and state and federal regul ators. Therefore, staff
recommends that all industrial waste be excluded from the franchise agreement.
Term of the AQreement (Section 34)--The District staff recognizes that the term of
the agreement is a focal issue for Board determination. At the Board's direction on
December 19, 1985, three additional alternative terms have been developed and are
presented on Attachments II and III in a narrative format, and in Attachment VI in a
comparative chart. As the Board has requested staff recommendati ons on remai ni ng
issues, the following reasons are provided in support of a ten-year term:
L...________
1.
The City of Lafayette and the Town of Moraga have recommended that the term
of the agreement be ten years. The City of Danville recommends that a term
of ten years, or less, be employed.
2.
The term of ten years, which is equivalent to the unrenewed option period
under the current agreement, would appear to be long enough to provide a
stable environment to ensure responsible refuse collection and financing of
equipment acquisition. The refuse collectors have, during the course of
negotiations, indicated a minimum period of seven years for amortization of
garbage trucks.
3.
A ten-year term, which has hi storically been used by the Di strict, will
allow reasonable flexibility to adjust to uncertainties of the future and
thereby provide for the long-term best interests of the ratepayers. A
longer term could needlessly constrain future District Boards in addressing
such uncertainties. A term of ten years, or less, has recently been
adopted by other franchising agencies, such as the City of Walnut Creek's
agreement with Valley Disposal Service, to provide needed flexibility.
4.
The requirement established in the draft franchise agreement for assuring
disposal site capacity after five years recognizes the critical sol id
waste disposal problem in the County, and is intended to encourage the
private sector to develop a sol uti on by guaranteei ng an additi onal five
year term. In the event the disposal problem is not sol "ed, the District
would be able to pursue other options to protect the interests of the rate
paying public.
13028-9/85
SUBJECT
RECEIVE REVISED DRAFT OF THE RENEGOTIATED REFUSE COLLECTION
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND STAFF REPORT THEREON, AND AUTHORIZE
EXECUTION WITH PRESENT FRANCHISEES AFTER DETERMINING FINAL
TERMS OF THE AGREEtlfNT
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
DATE
7
OF
A
January 28, 1986
5. The refuse collectors' assertion that a linkage exists between a longer
term of the franchise agreement beyond ten years and their ability to
obtain funding for a disposal site is, in staff's opinion, unfounded. A
ten-year term, and a determination by a future Board on possible extensions
of the agreement, should not impinge upon capitalization of a disposal
site. It is recognized that refuse which would be deposited at the
disposal site would not be drawn solely from within the District's
jurisdiction, but from other franchising authorities, each with varying
franchise terms.
6. A term longer than ten years is unnecessary for the purpose of amortizing
the refuse collectors' investment in providing adequate disposal capacity.
A public refuse collection franchise is not required to provide long-term
guaranteed profitability or remove all risk from collateral private sector
disposal enterprises.
For the reasons set forth above, Di strict staff believes that a term of ten
years provides an appropriate balance between the District's need for
flexibility in adjusting to future changes, and a reasonable level of stability
for the refuse collectors. If the Board believes a term longer than ten years
should be granted, District staff recommends the use of Alternative 4, shown on
Attachment III, which provides for a base term of ten years and an additional
five-year option period. The conditions established for the option period
provide the District the requisite level of flexibility unavailable in the two
other alternative terms beyond ten years.
cttachment IV presents Section 7 of the franchise agreement which is unique to
Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal Service, and which permits submission of an
unaudited statement of operations prepared by a certified publ ic accountant on a
compiled basis.
Attachment V presents Section 38 of the franchise agreement which is unique to
Valley Disposal Service, and provides for the exclusion of the City of San Ramon
from the renegotiated franchise agreement.
RECOMtENDATION:
1. Review and consider the revised draft franchise agreement presented as
Attachment I, alternative sections presented as Attachments II through V,
and further input from cities.
II. Deliberate and decide the following issues:
a. What Board actions would be appropriate regarding input from the
Cities of Lafayette and Orinda?
----------
13028-9/85
SUBJECT
RECEIVE REVISED DRAFT OF THE RENEGOTIATED REFUSE COLLECTION
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND STAFF REPORT THEREON, AND AUTHORIZE
EXECUTION WITH PRESENT FRANCHISEES AFTER DETERMINING FINAL
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
DATE
8
OF
8
January 28, 1986
b. Is the present draft of Section 18, Miscellaneous Obligations of
Contractor, regarding distribution of printed rates and services
satisfactory?
c. Should industrial waste be excluded from the definition of "Garbage"
in Section 1, and thereby not be provided monopoly privileges?
d. What should be the term of the franchise agreement?
e. Should the provisions of Section 7 be included in the Pleasant Hill
Bay Shore Disposal Service franchise agreement?
III. Consider the franchise agreement, as amended, and authorize execution by
the Board President with:
a. Valley Disposal Service, Inc. and Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc.
as of March 1, 1986
b. Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal Service only after receipt of a
comprehensive and acceptable rate application by March 31, 1986.
~.._----_..
13028-9/85
LAFAYETTE
sarrrum t848=INUIIIPOIIATEDI888
CITY COUNCIL
Richard F. Holmes, Mayor
Donald L. Tatzin, Vice Mayor
Ernest W. Parti
Gayle B. Uilkema
Avon M. Wilson
January 24, 1986
Parke Boneystee1e, President, and
Members of the Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear President Boneysteele and Members of the Board:
The City of Lafayette has reviewed the January 3, 1986 draft
of the renegotiated Master Garbage Franchise agreement in
conjunction with the previous draft of December 9, 1985. Since
this is our City's first opportunity to comment on the proposed
tranchise agreement, we would nke the following recommendations
considered for incluslon in the garbage franchise and entered
into the Public Hearing record:
1. Add "Wastestream" and its definition to Section I.
2. The City of Lafayette supports a 10-year contract -- 5
years guaranteed, with a 5-year extension if the
Contractor has a new, approved and operational landfill
site in place. Given the changing regional solid waste
picture, we believe this approach gives both the
District and the ratepayers the greatest protection and
fl exi bil ity.
3. While we strongly support the provisos of Section 18,
page 16, by which the contractor notifies each customer
when a rate increase has been requested, we believe, in
order to assure maximum responsiveness to the
ratepayers, the section should be amended as follows:
"Each time the Contractor requests a rate increase, the
Contractor shall notify each Customer, in writing, that a
rate increase has been requested of the District. The
written notification shall be mailed no less than 30 days
prior to the District's scheduled publiC-hearing relative to
the proposed rate increase.
No less than once every twenty-four (24) months, and each
time the Contractor requests a rate increase, the Contractor
shall notify each Customer with printed information setting
forth the rates, days of collection, Contractor's complaint
procedures and the amount and manner of refuse to be
collected."
,~~----_.. -. ._--- ..-.
251 LAFAYETTE CIRCLE, LAFAYETTE, CA 94549
TELEPHONE: (415) 284-1968
_ ___~__~.______.__,.____..______.,~_.~_m.'_'_'_~__'___'_.~__"'___'_' .__"._.~____~~____,__'''__,._"___._...._..._...,.._.._._"'
This written notification and information can be included as part
of the regular billing.
4. Sections 24, 25, and 27, pose the potential for
substantial change in operation, level of service and
cost to the customer. Since our City's stance is that
this franchise should be responsive to customer
concerns, we recommend that language be added to these
sections which specifically assures that the cities and
their citizens shall have written notification well in
advance of any such proposed change and its concomitant
scheduled public hearing. This language should be
consistent with the notification and hearing process
which we have recommended for Section 18.
We appreciate the assistance and information which your
District has provided to our Council during the renegotiation
process. In this spirit, we request that any further proposed
changes to the draft franchise and appropriate hearing dates be
provided to us in a timely manner, thereby enabling us to provide
the Board with additional input.
In addition to our written comments, a member of our Council
will be present at the February 6, 1986 public hearing, to answer
any questions which you may have. We look forward to meeting
with you at that time.
Yours very truly,
~-r;e-: ~
Richard F. Holmes
Mayor
cc: Town of Moraga
City of Orinda
1-24amw
1/3)>';
,,?/ /'
L4dv ~~ ~J/~~'L./
Cl
)}?~t~1 ~
~_tt~V?-- .
c:;:, ~ /J/'....:..../~ ~:.Lf f? ~ ~ ~ ~.,L
c2/u.,,'-: z!4. ~d--.0 ~J ;/ ..4'.c7c~~ ~-. c:::,r-~L
~ ~, ~.,eZ-- ~ .--/~ ~--r L~ ,.J-/../~.
P ~ ~ a. ~.~ ~"" p.. ~ ,.J
?- ~t~ .
~4
V Q
tf-_. ?J_-i.--
S<8' ;I ~J).i/ ~,AL-
"t7/ ''';/- I ~
~ ft1CED\'l~t\))
JA\~ t' 1986
Edouard A. Laqache
29 Altamount Dr~ve
Or~nda, CA, 94563
cccso
SECRETARY Of "THE OI~'l'fl1O't
January 8, 1'386
Letters. Ed.:i.tor
Contra Costa Sun
P.O. Box 599
3678 Mt. Diablo Blvd.
Lafayette, CA, 94549
Copy to: Contra Cos.ta Central Sanitary Diatr~ct Board.
Gentlemen,
This letter ~s to express my d~sappo~nt.ent w~th the
act~ons of the Contra Costa Central 5an~tary D~ctrict Board.
As :far as I know the Urea son d'etreU on a requlatory board
~s to prevent pOSSible abuses of pr~vate ~ndustr~es that
are ~n a monopoly pos~t~on.
Thus, ~t stands to reason that the board should have
been very ~nterested ~n the concerns o:f Helen Boll~nq.
Merely a letter of concern should have tr1qqered a :full
~nvest~qat10n on the disP05al rate structure 1n the Lamor1nda
area. Unfortunately, the board has been anyth~nq but
cooperat~ve, and the .atter rema~ns unresolved to th~s day.
While we should all applaud the efforts of Helen
Bollinq, the fact of the matter is that the present situat~on
is unacceptable. We are lucky to have cit1zens who have
the t~me to devote such poiitical .atters. In many
co..un~t~es, people spend all of the1r t1me Just try~nq to
make ends meet. If the board cannot respond to the t~reless
efforts of Helen Boll~nq, where does that leave those who
cannot afford either ~nflated rates or the time to uncover
thelll?
I urqe the board to turn a new leaf, and to renew the
battle for respons~ble requlat~on for th~s ~ndustry. The
taxpayers of th~s county work hard enouqh: they certa~nly
shouldn't need to stay UP past .~dn~qht to qet reasonable
qarbaqe rates.
S~ncerly yours,
~a.~
Edouard A. Laqache
P.aJ!,a'La :z itiaa.
1045 cS/ningfieLd f):)'Li1.7e
<Walnut C'Leek, Ca. 94598
R~(~teD~;~lL1
'JAN 1 ~) 1986
cccso
stCRETARY OF THE 015'"'10"
January 13, 1986
Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, Ca 94553
Dear Directors:
At your Febuary 6th meeting you will be
discussing franchise renewals for current
garbage collection agencies.
Consumers would, of course, enjoy lower rates
were CCCSD and the various Cities to utilize
competitive bidding at franchise time. Per-
haps that day will come in the not too dis-
tant future. Not one to beat a dead horse, I
.Wi11 limit my recommendations to the following:
Franchise agreements should NOT be extended
for the maximum 10 year renewal period. Fran-
chises should be on a year to year basis with
cancellation options (for competitive bidding
purposes, new technology etc) for both parties.
I urge you not LOCK us in as did the City of
Walnut Creek tn their franchise renQ9$tiation.
Very truly yours
~b~
j~H~ ~ f! , \l ~ [5)
JAN 1 6 1986
cccso
seCRETARY OF THE DISTRICT
January 13, 1986
Mr. Paul Morsen
Deputy General Manager
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5099 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California 94553
Dear Paul:
The subjects of your January 3, 1986 letter regarding the
proposed franchise agreement with Valley Disposal were reviewed
with the Danville City Council on January 6th.
The City Council does not wish to independently schedule a
separate hearing on the proposed agreement. In addition, the
Council appreciates your clarification of the other questions we
raised about the agreement.
Thank you for your response.
Sincerely,
G--7~~%--P ;a~
MICHAEL M. DAVIS
City Manager
cc: Marshall Grodin, Valley Disposal, Inc.
542 San Ramon Valley Blvd. · Danville, CA · 94526 . (415) 820-6337
THE
PACIFIC
MARKETING
Il!IIl. Jill; ';""1\ {F' . .... ~!?:I
" ;Jt.~ ;:;'.,'" I~:~ "./ ~ lbb
GROUP
iJAN 2 1 1986
cr.. . CCCSD
f:ie,CRETAR'I' OF THE OIRT!'UOt
January 16, 1986
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Gentlemen,
It has come to my attention that the quality of service delivered by
the Valley Disposal Service of Walnut Creek is being questioned.
Simply stated, their service is superb.
As an adult, I have lived in Chicago, Tulsa, the New York area,
winston Salem and now, Lafayette. Therefore, I believe I can
reasonably assess the quality and value of Valley Disposal Service;
both are excellent.
The people who run Valley Disposal are fine citizens who contribute
actively to their community. These folks are good people!
Again, as a six year resident of Lafayette, I believe strongly that
Valley Disposal provides excellent service at a reasonable price. I
enthusiastically endorse the renewal of their franchise and would
discourage you from granting this franchise to any other company.
Sincerely,
244 CALIFORNIA STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
415.788.8764
t/ ~ ;:J~~ I!J ~-,7.ui.a
~ 0~ fA~_ ~~ 0-'~d
50/ q ~ /L.4.0
/J'JUvr~ &.:4. 9t1r-f".3.
I... I 7- g~.
IJ.uvI /~ ./3~~ ~&~ /11tt~
J ~ ./~f h ~ ~J ZU-nA:
V~ ~'~ tt'vJa. ~>,L
jJL'YWU I fl1J J ~d: VtU ~ ~
~ ;thvi ~ r~'
j ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ft~ ILl-r
~~~~~~~.
J ~ 1Jw:r ~ ~nLb,a ~
~ 4i?Yf A~ ~~
O;:~~l~i
),utiih'Wl..Q,j ~.
J~.Ltz~AM~
~ ;t.- ~ CL ~ WrJ
J.~ ~. ~ k ~J/Y1 CA-
.1t12NJ ~ .1' ,~..
~~6~
)ff~ ~ ~'IljL /~
~ ~ ~ cktvn-~
~~
(hAld 4JvL~d~aJ
~~~
~ ~vtu..
W~~
Ca- q LJr-q (0
'!"
tdt~Vl/ ~2- -
J . -
~ -'-.v-l.,;~~.. ft
A-r d-rrn;" -.,;-~ 7t/o-../J
'-y"Hl ~~~'--'~ ?"...d<..;
a -I1.-d~/U'~ 6f a ./"U~K..~~~
~,t~~~ iltd/L'i ~~f
~. .t:JILk~' Ab4J'fA/ ~~~.Z
...t~-t.' ~ 1-0 a.UtnA,,.- ~rL)
-iz?,u .::6 C/l.~v ~ ~~ 'r
;(k~.'
N-etA./-v~ ~1 C( a~drhl.~J
cj t;~ -6 ~<<; ~~
M' ~~ I ~N tGu-,<,,,L<<'<<'p2
J-ru-1tA ~.~ tv fit ~ ~/~/' .
f hj~d ~1 ~ Yk<XF""
LUuu-( ft 'l71.LL--1 ~ ~~-<.-a/
. ~ '1~ ~2)'
')1:1/L.-Kj ~~ ~
fa <fI~. ~~/.
~~4"
cl)Pf ~~~
Jd-n. /~
,jw cy)~ ~-~4/'
37S-Y ~~~.) IV.
~~..1 (~. 7'YJ-Yi
"" ~ '" '" . '0 '" w, ___1
;t'b J[: ,~ IF- Un "':' te Al
fU 1'=.... :\.'f'" u.t \:I lS lk!;
JAN 21 1986
CCCSO
SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT
January 16, 1985
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Attention: Honorable Parke Boney Steele
Dear Mr. Steele,
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on
the efficient, reliable and friendly service
provided by Valley Disposal Service.
I would hate to think of having any other service.
Sincerely,
""
\
I
l .
~!t~t<7
/?ui({(
Jeanne Sharkey
190 N. Wiget Lane
Walnut Creek, CA
94 5 ~{8
R I e IE n ;,~ IE !O
JAN 2 1 1986
CCCSD
SIlCRETARY OF THE OlsmlCT
January 17, 1985
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Attention: Honorable Parke Boney Steele
Dear Mr. Steele,
I want to compliment Valley Disposal Service for
their reliability, efficiency and the courteousness
of their employees for the 12 years we have lived
in Walnut Creek and been serviced by them.
Sincerely,
J;. J3 2f1'~
G.B. Wyman
961 Kenilworth Ct.
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
~Gte~B~f!\D)
JAN 21 1986
January 17, 1985
CCCSO
SECRETARY OF THE OlsTl'lICT
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Attention: Honorable Parke Boney Steele
Dear Mr. Steele,
My wife and I have resided at 32 Elmwood Ct.,
Walnut Creek, for the past 30 years. During this
period of time, Valley Disposal has provided
excellent service and their personnel have proven
to be very relyable.
My compliments to this organization.
Sincerely,
~
H.H. Rudige'r
32 Elmwood ct.
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
John Eaton
3510 Hamlin Road
Lafayette, CA 94549
January 16, 1986
central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Sir or Madam,
I just moved to Lafayette last year and I want to tell you how much I like
the garbage pick up services provided by Valley Disposal. I like the
friendly service and the price. But most of all, I like the fact
that Valley is a local group from our own community.
Very Truly Yours,
~f.L
John Eaton
~~ 0,90/1'18:;;-
.~~~.{)~~
6o/Q ~.rP~ .. . '.'
~4 91.j5S3 '.
. .
~~tto~:
~ ~ ~.;..k&., ~ I W<.
~ ~ .A.~:;h.. Chuv ~~ ..J- ~ ~
.,-7J~--~ L th. ~ ~ (J)~_.
~ tkrP ~ t)~ ..0 /Ilo ~
r ~ &1/ ~, ~
~~ ~ cL ~ L M ~
fYV~~~~
. 1J tk ~. ~
~ ~/NMJ ~ ~ k~.
~{~ . ~ ~ ~ ~
r . . ~~fxu..~
~ ~.--UutJ 1;, h ft-e ~I
~tRt ~ ~ ~ ~
O.>\.l ~ IlY\ ~ tl o.-J. ~
~ ~;;{} ~ 4m ~ ~
rt-J ~ U; ',I o-~
VI) ~~~ cY~
3~ <(~~ G)~k 1LJS-03
January 17, 1986
Mr. Parke Boneystee1e
central contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, Ca. 94553
~ ~ :~ If!! n ~{ ~ !DJ
JAN 2 2 1986
Dear Mr. Boneystee1ej
cccso
SECRETARY OF THE DISTRlcr
We have been following with interest the discussion of
refuse collection services for those of us residing in
the central Sanitation District.
After reading the recent contra costa sun article, we
feel it necessary to compliment the Layayette Disposal
Company. They have been our collectors for the seven
years we have resided in Lafayette. The level of ser-
vice provided us was never equaled in our previous re-
sidences (Oakland, E1 Cerrito and Alameda). We have
never experienced a problem of missed or inadequate ser-
vice. Further, we appreciate the collectors' hard work~
ing ways and courteous attitude, a rarity these days.
We ask that you help insure that the quality service
provided by Lafayette Disposal is extended to us on a
long term basis.
Very truly yours
mMI~ ...LIP--
and Marion lIes
3527 Hamlin Rd.
Lafayette
-"
~lef!IY~/(j)
JAN 2 ;3 1986
January 22, 1986
cccso
seCRETARY OF THE OISTRIOT
Board of Directors
CCCSD
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Gentlemen;
Generally the public always welcomes the opportunity to pay
less for a product or service. Often the problem with paying
less is, that less is received by the consumer. I believe this
to be a probability if the garbage franchise for Orinda and
Moraga is competitively bid for.
The ingredients for such a scenario are simple. A larger
garbage company bids to do the work at a loss in order to get
the franchise, and to increase their revenue base. The
Orinda-Moraga franchise is only a small portion of their total
business. Consequently, they can eat the loss for a year or
two and then raise the rates to a profitable level. Meanwhile,
the current carrier is out of business because they can't
compete with loss bidding. The local community is the loser
because they end up with the same rates but lose a local
business in the process.
Secondly, it seems only common sense that given a local garbage
company whose entire business is the community he lives in
versus an outside garbage company to whom our community
represents only a fraction of their revenue; the issue of
service and fair rates is significantly more critical to the
local company. It also seems reasonable that the local garbage
company has more interest in the general welfare of the local
community.
Finally, as a citizen of the Orinda Moraga community for over
30 years, it seems clear to me that collecting garbage in
Orinda would be much more difficult and therefore costly than
Moraga. Why? One simply needs to drive the older, narrower
streets and steeper hills of Orinda. If by chance Orinda
residents are charged the same rate as Moraga residents, I
suggest Orinda is paying less than they should be.
As a current resident of Moraga, I wish to go on record in
support of the good service I have received from the Orinda
Moraga Disposal Service Company.
Sincerely,
fttJ~
Steven A. Manuel
SAM/kms
~"-'-1 h~
<! C. c.. S. :Z>.
fOlq~ f~
c-~1 f ~ '1YJJ3
~\ lib.: f{.'~'''''' ffi; 11 ...' '5 fD'
tftl ~ \\:" I~'~ )~ ~ I!.
JAN 27 1986
CCCSD
""F.GRET~"Y 0FIHE DISTRict
~,~~~
~~!
~~1~~~~
~1~~AAv~/J ~
.M ~'t ~. .~ ~ Ud ~. ALa,
't-r ~ ~ ~ ~ W . ttAt, )4u1h~
,~~ J ~ cnv~ AA-f 'ilL ~ -/..ill, ~ ~~/
~ a., ~~~, $CU~ ~;U ad
M. ~ ~~~~ ~~ rr ~J
~~~~~~r~'
~ ~~t..U ~~i ~ ~-:.r-~tv
~.~~ I&~~~~~~
.,~;tk~I~~~~'
J ~~J~ ~!#r4/~ 1 ~ ~
~~. J~6 ~.~~~tJ-tL
~~~~0~~ ~M
~M~4-~.
~~i:cik~~.
~;
~, " 1Jv..., ~ ~
, IJf:J- ~- ~.
~I ~ ftfSb3
/11.5>./ ~t/ -jl.}JCf .
,ro/~/9?~
<::cJ" .cn t,(/ . . . J I j} 1 . if? 1 ". ) ,,/,~/) ;rl,~. ;- 4. /J ~.~ ~
, '14t~ U ~ ~ . fA' Ii'II ji, ,(~ !! /1." liH~
~~ C'~ ~u/ /~ fl,.f- JAN 271986
.5 O/f{ _ ~r I...IL::r~ s coos,
~r ECRETARY OF mE DISTRICT
/)11~ ~, 9'f553
J /~~L ~~,,~,'-: tk~ ~;f-
--t4,/td' ~~,~~[~~~~
o ~,e /~~ i:."O c&~/ t~o7I / ~ iJ~~
f~7fd,~~,/td~ '~<J-->
/,-aL~,~r~l, -,~.*
w-€/~,~~~~,U4ad~
v~pvd. .<A<- ~ "':;dI~ ~ rL.f ~.. ~
t:::~~~ "aL(,:Jd~
/la', "~/~~"" ,~~
~'~ ~ ~::(~cp-v;z5~ aJ-
~,', j. . _ "_A.I-"'" ./~ -[0 /I_..d. '15-' .. tJ~
fA crwV ~""'--- r v#." ~ '
~;:;tdZ::::~ -d~b::::::::-= ~
'lD~;t:~'. .
/~.~rt~~~.
~~'~"~.
~ h ..t2ef~~~ "., fl
;tfR. If ~ 13~. . ~J,tv:r. ~,
J tl U ., -. /Jd~ ~I /i - jIL, ql/.5'~
U-f-" ?37-05fp>' ~ <-"""'7
~ f810: ~ D \,1 ~ li]
JAN 2'-' 1986
CCC$O
SF-CRETARY OF THE DISTRICT
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
NClrtinez, Ci'. 9l~553
Dear Board of Directors:
I c:m a long-time resident of Lafcyette and I ,'lant to say thC\t I an
very pleased \7i th my gnrbagc collec tion compan~r, Valley Di spos2~1 Service.
I ha',c been reLldin.~ in the paper cbout a franchi.se, and I say ,sl,rc i_ t
to them -- the longer the better! I've never seen such hc:rcl-uorkinz boys.
lfuen I pay my bill at least I knmr they did a lot of \':OTk for the money.
Another thing. I leno,,;v the dump is filling up Gncl the:;e compo.nies l,DVC t.o
buy a ne,'l one. I sny let t]-.em ,'Jerk it off over a lon[; period of time
because that "i 11 probably help keep the rates lovler than n short period
of time.
Sincerely,
L" -!)
~~
RONALD T. LARSEN 8 SON
GENERAL INSURANCE BROKERS
582 Market St., #811
~~~-~~~~Q~~~~~.~~
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TEL E PH 0 N E (4 1 5) 9 8 2 - 3 1 6 6
'F8 !"""",':\If!' U' '(," IE [D'"
'. 'rn";:l '!' . ~.,\. '.- \
I 1~ '~",,, ~ /J
January 29, 1986
FEB 3 1986
CCCSO
~CRl'T,AnY OF THE Ol!\TAler
Board of Directors
CCCSD
1519 Imhoff Pl.
Martinez, Ca.
Gentlemen:
Upon reading the local papers, it has come to my attention that
Orinda Moraga Disposal Service has been unjustly represented.
I have resided in Orinda for over twenty five years, and my service
has always been of high quality. They have always been most accom-
,odating on any unusual pick ups that I have needed.
Sincerely,
~~rJ{A
c;ry:)
Ron Larsen, Jr.
167 Las Vegas
Orinda, Ca. 94563
RLjr:jo
HELEN D. BOLUNG
52 Barbara Road, Orinda, CA 94563
6 February 1986
Hon.. Nels Carlson, President and Members
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board
5019 Imhoff Place
MartinezI' CA 94553
Dear Directors:
Many puzzling questions have surfaced for me about the Garbage Monopoly
Practices of the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District and its Publicly
Elected Board after attending the Rate Setting Public Hearing on 18 July 1985.
1. Has the District thru its elected Board Members done a disservice to the
public by sanctioning territorial boundaries established and agreed upon between
the present franchisees some 40 years ago and who are not permitted by District
Board approved contracts _ to engage in competition even between each other.
2. Has this District thru its Board acted in the best interests of the general public
by awarding practical-lifetime contracts to these franchisees without testing the
market placeI' when clearly, two of the three franchisees. rates are exceptionally
high with Orinda and Moraga having the highest rates in the general Bay Area.
3. Has this Board historically encouraged, subsidized inefficiency at public
expense by ignoring constructive public comments, professional data prepared
by their own staff. ...the District; and professional data provided by the prestigious
firm of Price Waterhouse. Its special report, dated 7 February 1983, "Review of
Refuse Collection Rates Setting Procedures. "
a. "Currently the District calculates the franchise operator's revenue
requirement using too operating ratio method. Essentially, this method results
in a cos t plus contract with the franchise operator. ....... 'We believe the District
should consider bing the Return on Equity method. The Return on Equity Method
puts the Di strict in the position where they can more readily monitor the franchisor's
profit.....
b. "Survey of Refuse Rates: We noted for the service areas most similar to
the District, it appears that the District's residential I-can rates are higher than
the averaqe, but the District's 2-can ra tes are about average. In both cases I these
rates are above the median. (under! ining added). /I
..
On 18 July 1985, despite public input, a District prepared Data Sheet listing
Page-2, 6 February 1986
GARBAGE FRANC RISE
rates for communities in various counties in the Bay Area; and the Price Waterhouse
findings in Febraary 1983, Valley Disposal Company and Orinda/Moraga Dosposal
Company applied for and the Board Members approved the following rate increases
(No info available for P.H. Bayshore~
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
Orinda/Moraga Disp Co. 7.7%
11.7
8.6
o
7.7
16.11
Valley Dis p Co 5 %
7.35
8.24
5
10.3
18.08
4. Another puzzling practice: No verbatim minutes are taken by hand or machine.
Summary minutes are taken. Why aren1t verbatim minutes taken, if for no other
reason but to verify, when necessary I what was and was not stated, particularly
when there is no written documentation~ After all aren't we all subject to discarding
what may be unnecessary information for one person but vital to another?
At best summary minutes are incomplete. Fore example: At the 18 July 85.
I noted that your comparison Data Sheet showed Orinda to have the highest rate in
the general Bay Area. ...... "Yet it does not include rate information on the
Oakland Hills, Piedmont, Montclair, Richmond, El Cerrito. II I added, II it
seemed no comparison data without this information was complete, if for no other
reason but that the communities were contiguous and served by other disposal
companies. II I also made reference to the cost for Orindans being more than
double for l-month's service as compared to Oakland Hills, Piedmont, Montclair. II
I.come before you tonight to ask tha t:
a. Minutes of the meetings be summarized by hand but recorded by machine.
b. Eliminate the "Feudal Rights System II as described in Forbesl
21 October 1985 is sue: liThe Garbaqe Game II... .... where it describes customers as
being virtual captives to garbage companies. and allow the franchisees to act in
competition with each other by lifting I eliminating the territorial boundaries.
c. Future District Comparison Data Sheets include rates for the communities
of: Oakland Hills I- Montclair, Piedmont I Sausalito, El Cerrito, El Sobrante.
d. You support Lafayette's suggestion tta t written notification be mailed to
each customer no less than 30 days prior to the public hearing at which rate increase
applications are consisderedi and written notice to cities and customers whenever sub-
stantial changes in operation level of service and cost to customers are being considered.
e. I join the staff and others to limit the term to no more than 10 years
Page---3 I 6 February 19(;.:>
GARBAGE FRANC HISE
f. I ask that you support your professional arm. ... the District's recommen-
dation in allowing the industrial waste to remain competitive.
g. I ask that you allow your professional arm.... the District to put into
action Section 12 I District May Require Efficiencies in Operation.
Yours truly I
~
HELEN D. BOLUNG
.
MCCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN
FORMERLY
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
THREE EMBARCADERO CENTER
SAN F"RANCISCO, CALIF"ORNIA 9411'
(415) 393-2000
VAN VOORHIS & SKAGGS
SAN JOSE OFFICE
COUNSELORS AT LAW
ONE ALMADEN BOULEVARD. SUITE 620
SAN JOSE, CALlF"ORNIA 9S113
(408) 947-8400
1855 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR
POST OF"F"ICE BOX V
WALNUT CREEK, CALlF"ORNIA 94596-1270
(415) 937-8000
TELECOPIER (415) 937-8004
February 6, 1986
HAND DELIVERED
Hon. Parke Bonneysteele, President,
and Members of the Board
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Refuse Collection Franchise Agreement
Our File No. 71573.005
Dear Members:
This letter is to clarify the position of our clients
with regard to two of the issues remaining to be decided by you
at your February 6 meeting.
Dissemination of Rate Schedules
Attached is a copy of my letter of January 21 addressed
to Mr. Hazard. We urge adoption of this more flexible approach
which we think will benefit all.
Industrial Waste
Your staff's survey (Tab VII in your packet) further
confuses this issue because the wastes discussed in the survey
are hazardous.
We agree that hazardous wastes should be excluded from
the exclusive franchise and the draft before you so provides
(,[1 (e) (5)).
We urge that the exclusive franchise include industrial
waste which is not hazardous. This can be accomplished by
deleting the words "Industrial Waste" from "l(e) (5) and
substituting therefor the following phrase: "or waste produced
by the District and other public entities as a result of
treatment or other processes undertaken in providing public
utility services." The same changes should be made in
paragraph 3.
Hon. Parke Bonneysteele, President,
and Members of the Board
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
February 6, 1986
Page 2
In summary, if our suggestion is accepted, non-hazardous
industrial waste would be included in the exclusive franchise
while hazardous waste and wastes generated from the treatment
process of CCCSD and other similar public entities would be
excluded.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
SMS: lj-C/1-B2
Very truly yours,
C.4i- j fJf'C! 'if/MafJ?/?
sanf;~jM. Skaggs . /f
b/ /'.0
Enclosure
f2
,.. ITCHEN, DOYLE. BROWN & ENEh_ N
FORMERLY
SAN FRA.NCISCO OFFICE:
VAN VOORHIS & SKAGGS
SA.N JOSE: OFFICE
THREE EMBARCADERO CENTER
SAN F"RANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
COUNSELORS AT LAW
ONE ALMADEN BOULEVARD_ SUITE 620
SAN ..JOSE. CALIF'"ORNIA 95113
(408) ,,47-6400
(415) 393-2000
1855 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD. THIRD F'LOOR
POST OF'F'ICE BOX V
WALNUT CREEK. CALIF'ORNIA 94596-1270
(415) 937-8000
TELECOPI[R (415) 937-6004
January 21, 1986
James Hazard, Esq.
1111 Civic Drive
Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreements
Our File No. 71573.05
Dear Jim:
Pursuant to your request, I am submitting my suggestion
for language pertaining to the rate card issue.
I suggest the following language:
"District, from time to time, may direct
Contractor to mail to its customers information
regarding rates and services and Contractor shall
comply with such directions."
We feel that this language will give the District
flexibility to modify its requirements from time to time as
circumstances dictate. We also feel that it will give us the
opportunity to discuss the details of such communications with
District staff rather than having such frozen into the contract
language. All in all, we feel that it is in the interests of
both parties to have more flexibility rather than less. We hope
that you will agree.
Very truly yours,
ji J I '1d'!"
;. /J.'
.;' ~ It ;11.,(/.' v t' .//t. .I L(':'~ I~;r:'-:.)
Sanfcl-d M. Skaggs .' ... (
.c-;.-r ,K.->
SMS:ks
(Dictated but not read.)