Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-1972 AGENDA BACKUPMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOARD CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD MARCH 8, 1972 The District Board of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in an Adjourned Regular Session at its regular place of meeting located at 1250 Springbrook Road, Walnut Creek, County of Contra Costa, State of Calif- ornia, on March 8, 1972, at 8:00 o'clock P.M. In the absence of President Allan, the meeting was called to order by Member Boneysteele. I. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Members: Gibbs, Mitchell and Boneysteele ABSENT: Members: Rustigian and Allan Member Boneysteele was unanimously elected President Pro Tem. President Allan arrived at 8:10 o'clock P.M., and deferred Chairmanship of the meeting to President Pro Tem Boneysteele. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES After explanation by Mir. Bohn, Counsel for the District, it was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Gibbs, that the Minutes of the meeting of March 2, 1972, be approved after making the following change: Under VI. OLD BUSINESS, REVOCATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 72-9 A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE IN BOUNDARIES OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 50", the following shall be added: "RESOLUTION NO. 72-13, A RESOLUTION REVOKING RESOLUTION NO. 72-9': And the Motion shall read as follows: "After explanation by Secietary Davis Thai Resolution No. 72-9 was adopted through administrative error, LL rias mo -v -,d by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Rustigian, that Resolution No 72 11, A Resolution revoking Reso- lution No. 79-9 be adopted Carried by the following vote:" Motion changing Minutes carried by the following vote: AYES: Members: Gibbs, Mitchell and Boneysteele NOES: Members! None ABSENT: Members: Rustigian and Allan None. None. None. III. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES IV. HEARINGS V. BIDS VI. OLD BUSINESS DISTRICT REVENUE PROGRAM President Pro Tem Boneysteele recognized Mr. Dean P. LaField, Executive Vice President of the Homebuilder's Association of Contra Costa-Solano Counties, Inc. and Mr. Martin O. Lohman, who were present in the audience. President Pro Tem Boneysteele requested Mr. Dalton, Administrative Engineer, to review page by page the proposed staff draft on Chapter 11, Fees and Charges, which would be incorporated into the District Code. Mr. Dalton prefaced his remarks by stating that Member Rustigian had re - ;wed the proposed draft on Chapter 11 and had made his views and comments ilable to Secretary Davis. Mr. Dalton then proceeded to explain staff ,.ionale and present a review for Board Members on all aspects of the proposed (haft on Chapter 11 on a page by page basis. Questions and discussion were interspersed throughout Mr. Dalton's presentation with Board Members acting with consensus to revise certain portions of the proposed draft and requesting Mr. Bohn, Counsel for the District, to prepare addiLional revisions to certain Articles and Sections. Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager -Chief Engineer, emphasized that the amount of rates shown in the draft for Environmental Quality Charge was basically a staff planning figure. Board Members were in agreement that the amount of rates was subject to change but that the ratio of rates for unimproved properties would be twenty-five percent of the rate established for improved pr-p-rties. Mr. Horstkotte stated that he envisages the Environmental Quality Charge as a partial substitute to the, ad valorem tax. Board Members and staff dis- cussed the relationship of the Environmental Quality Charge, the ad valorem tax and District operating expenses. After comment by President Pro Tem Boneysteele that depreciation must be considered as an operating expense, it was the consensus of the Board Members that the purpose of the Environmental Quality Charge was to recover incremental costs or the Environmental Quality Improvement Program. Mr. Horstkotte stated that prior to implementation of an Environmental Quality Charge, the DistrIci would be required to initially notify all property owners affected and that a majority protest would nullify collection of the charge on the tax roll. Discussion of administrative procedures to implement the Environmental Quality charge followed after which it was agreed that in order to implement the program by July 1, 1972, a public hearing should be planned for the end of April 1972. Member Mitchell noted that a public hearing on Local Improvement District No. 50 should also be planned for April 1972. VII. NEW BUSINESS CONSENT ITEMS None. OTHER BUSINESS ADDED BY SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA None. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Member (Jbbs observed that plants at the District's pump facilities in Orinda need odd*tional watering. 2 President Allan reported that the California Association of Sanitation Agencies' program for Certification of Treatment Plant Operators was favorably received by State authorities in Sacramento. President Allanthen commented on the Watson Amendment. President Pro Tem Boneysteele reported that on behalf of the District, he was attending a March 7-9 seminar on San Francisco Bay -Delta Water Quality being conducted by Professor Erman A. Pearson of the University of California. After discussion, it was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Mitchell, that :President Pro Tem Boneysteele be authorized $125.00 enrollment fee and expenses to attend the seminar. Carried by the following vote: AYES: Members: Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Boneysteele NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Member: Rustigian President Pro Tom Boneysteele stated data and information on the seminar would be made available to staff. VIII. REPORTS COMMITTEES President Pro Tem Boneysteele reported that by mutual agreement, Member Mitchell will serve as Chairman of the Persouncl Committee. Chairman Mitchil reported that the PeronneI Committee had received a staff memorandum Lequesting authorization to hire a Civil Enginceriag Assistant IT, and that a meeting with staff had been scheduled for March 21, 1972, to review the !natter_ After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte and Mr, Jack Best, DpTartment Head, on the urgency of the matter, and a comment by PT:esident Pro Tein Boncystecle that the Personnel Committee should review the total personnel requiremenL,1 of the Engineering Department, it was agreed that the Committee would meet with staff on March 10, 1972, at 800 o'clock P.M. the District Offices. Member Gibbs, on behalf of the DistricL Contract Negottating Committr,c for Wastewater Renovation, reported on the meeting held 6, 1972, with representatives from Contra Costa Couniy Water District. Board Members and staff discussed the maUei, aid it was recognized that Bechtel Corporarion should be employed as District Consultant. After explanation by Mr. HorstkoL,c and Mr. Bohn on the scope of services to be performed, it was moved by Mornbc,r Gibbs, seconded by President Allan, that the President be authorized to execute a Technical Services Agreement with Bechtel Corporation and that funds in the amount of $10,000.00 from the Sewer Construction Fund be authorized. Carried by the following vote: AYES: Number: Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Boneysteele NOES: Mewbers! 'None ABSENT: bembcr; Rustigian It was noted that the District Committee will next met with representa- tives of the Water District on March 13, 1972, at 7:30 o'clock P.M_, at the District Offices. 3 President Pro Tem Boneysteele stated the next meeting of the Advisory Committee on solid waste recycling was scheduled for March 14, 1972, at 8:00 o'clock P.M., and that Member Rustigian planned to attend. Minutes of ih eeting of February 29, 1972, were made available to the Board. GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER Mr, Horstkotte reported on the operation of the Martinez pump stations and indicated that progress was being made toward cutting off the Martinez &J)J' treatment plant. F4'3 COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT None. IX. ADJOURNMENT At 1310 n dock P.M., President Pro Tem Boneysteele adjourned the meeting. 4 March 15, 1972 / rZiMnANDUM OR THE HONORABLE hAMBERS OF TAE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A tozuckatLo, Jr., Gonor:. ilmginoer STJBZECT Watershed Trunk Charges Policies Included in my memorandum of January 31, 1972, Review of Esdblisl-led Soit„ru!s or al:vonuo, waN recoumndation thr, molt w,tenAlc,_; trunK char; Lacrcasca. The reasoac given were (1) Earlier and greater recovy of District investmens, (2) Possible excessive increases in future trunk construction costs, and,in one ulse added money for an extension of the trunk downstream. While this recommenda- tion is not as important as others and does not require an ordinance or change in the Code, it should be considered and acted upon at an early date. In the application of watershed charges in the past, we have exempted previocs,ly sewered areas and Local Improvement Div,U7xt-L; which pre -dated the formal adoption of a watershed plan, Behind this policy w(7,s tn2 assumption that ail such sewered Eras had previously pAd their full share of the local watershed trunk system. This assumption is valid in those areas whefe service conditions are tabi1ized and no substantial densification of land uzage has or is occurring, However, in at least half of our established watersheds, densification is apparent in the -Form of apartments and townhouse type subdivisions on properties that were zoned as assessed as quarter to one-h,ilf acre homesites some years ago, For planning of facilities in areas of unknown or anticipated density increas,s we hEve been forced to apply extra safety factors for future capacity, This has the effect of increasing costs and unit charges. From a financing viewpoint, the exemption of served properties from watershed charges does not seem equitable when such properties make a much larger demand on the sewer system than they paid for, In such cases, the older areas, in terms of development, are being densified and the newer areas are paying the extra costs o such 6ensification, My recommenEazion would be the removal of the exemptions from watershed charges for sewered areas in all cases where zoning and use for a property aas increasedTi . would give credit to such properties against watershed charges in the amou-aL: of asseLsments paid or 'zoned sites under previous zoning, In this manner, the bez,aficiaries of zoning changes resul-Ang in denser land uses would 'ae. paylng a higher and nor,2 equizable share of the cost of providing local walt:ershed sewers. Respect-Zu.11y W Co Dalton, Adminiszrative Engineer WC.Dms Recommendation approved: Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer March 14, 1972 MEMORANDUM: FOR THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Mr. G. A. Hors tkotte , Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: EBMUD public hearing on EBMUD assuming responsibility for solid waste disposal for parts of Alameda and Contra Costa County 1. PROBLEM: Guidance from the Board of Directors is required on the following points: a. Is it the policy of the Sanitary District to oppose EBMUD? b. If so, who shall make District presentation at public hearing? c. Should District adopt a policy of alerting other Contra Costa governmental and refuse collecting agencies to actively oppose EBMUD? 2. BACKGROUND: Board Members were previously apprised that the Board of Directors of EBMUD were considering a sub -regional approach for solid waste disposal with EBMUD as the regional agency with taxation authority responsible for the planning and the implementation of a solid waste disposal program. At present, the Solid Waste Committee (two members of the Board) of the EBMUD Board of Directors is attempting to determine what public and governmental agency response is to the proposal. A public hearing has been scheduled for March 21, 1972, at 7:30 P.M. in Kaiser Center Auditorium, Oakland. See En- closure A. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS: a. The Board of Directors should actively oppose EBMUD's proposal for the reasons listed in paragraph 4. b. The Board of Directors should adopt a policy of alerting other Contra Costa governmental and collecting agencies to oppose EBMUD's proposal. c. The Board of Directors should, through the media of the press, inform the general public of Contra Costa County the reasons for the position adopted by the Board. d. The Board of Directors nominate a Member of the Board to make the Districts presentation on March 21, 1972. 2 4. REASONS: a. Action by EBMUD is premature for these reasons: (1) Senator Ne j edly `s bill introduced January 3, 1972, proposes a State wide solid waste management plan to be developed by July 1, 1974. The bill proposes that each county is respon- sible for preparation of its own solid waste management plan unless the county desires to permit this responsibility to be transferred to another county or regional planning agency. EBMUD proposal is a sub -regional approach involving Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. (2) The California Refuse Removal Council has informed EBMUD that the Northern Division of the Council has a study underway on solid waste management for the Bay Area and that this study will incorporate new facts not previously available. The study is to be completed by the end of 1972. (3) ABAG has officially supported the three year demonstration program (100 tons per day) of the SPUR report which is to be implemented this year. The SPUR report is a Bay Area regional plan for disposal of solid waste. EBMUD as a sub -regional, may conflict with SPUR. (4) BASSA is scheduled to become operative in July of this year. The responsibilities of BASSA could be expanded to include solid waste management. If BASSA had responsibility for solid waste, the Bay Area would have a true regional approach to the problem. vs. perhaps numerous county plans and EBMUD as a sub -regional planner. b. EBMUD Solid Waste Committee Report states that the study on solid waste was undertaken at the request of the League of Women Voters of the Bay Area (2,600 members) . With only 2,600 memnbers , this is hardly a mandate to infringe on Contra Costa County or the Sanitary District which has 309,000 people utilizing the Acme Fill site. c. Presuming EBMUD plans take over or regulate the Acme Fill site, the Board of EBMUD would not be representative for many Contra Costa residents, i.e., Martinez, Concord, Pleasant Hill, Pittsburg, Antioch, and part of Walnut Creek. d. Contra Costa County basically has sufficient landfill capacity. (The District's Bechtel study projected Acme Fill capacity to the year 2020) . Disposal represents 20 of costs while collection is 80%. East Bay has the immediate problem. The Sanitary District's problem is solved to 2020. e. EBMUD's report discusses recycling of solid waste, but recognizes that technology and availability of markets preclude a significant recycling effort. EBMUD plans therefore to concentrate on disposal by landfill and the Acme Fill site is particularly attractive. 3 f. EBMUD' s su-regi onal approach would incorporate the Acme Fill site. Scavenger companies of Contra Costa County, at some financial risk, had the foresight to acquire adequate acreage for landfill to satisfy residents within the County. Unfortunately, companies of East Bay like Oakland Scavanger did not have the same foresight. While presumably some compen- sation would be forthcoming to Contra Costa County Scavenger companies, many would consider the matter unfair and a heavy penalty to Contra Costa companies. g. Basically, all EBMUD could accomplish is to take over the Acme Fill site, perhaps add a few machines for recycling, and put in several transfer stations to cut down on transportation to the dump (this would greatly benefit Oakland Scavenger) . To pay for this, acquiring the dump (more probable than mere regulation) , and building transfer stations, EBMUD would tax Contra Costa residents which would lighten the load on Alameda residents who really have the problem. h. In the EBMUD report (page 36) it is suggested that EBMUD may have to regulate the collecting agencies. At present, the District collects a modest franchise fee from five companies, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek collect franchise fees and look upon these fees as a source of revenue. Presumably, Concord and Martinez also collect franchise fees. The question is posed, would EBMUD take over these franchise fees mentioned or add an additional fee? It should be noted, the City of Oakland collects approximately $300,000 per year in franchise fees from Oakland Scavenger. Would EBMUD regulate this company? 5. COMMENT: It is not known if EBMUD plans holding additional public hearings. It is noted that the hearing of March 21 is being held in Alameda County. Perhaps a hearing will be scheduled in Contra Costa County. EKDms Enol: Approved/Disapproved: G. A. Hors tkot to , Jr., General Manager --Chief Engineer Respectfully submitted, E. K. Davis, Secretary March _;72 XEMORANDUM FOR: Honorable Members of tae Board of Df_-fectors VIA: G. A. Horstkotte, ir,, Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: Agenda Item 1. PRO3LEM Overflow, John Reilly 7 Mariposa Lane Orinda, California 254-3061 2 3A=ROUND On Saturday, December 18, 1971, District on call crew was called to relieve an overflow at the address mentioned above, Upon arrival, the crew found the 6 E -1c3 -Dlusged 120' downstream from NE 23 to Wye on El Dorado Lane. Me stoppage consisted of roots and was cleared with no difficulty. There was no damage inside building as sewer water came out of cleanout. Cleaned and disinfected area. 3. ALTERNATIVES: Jay claim, refuse claim. 4 aCOMMENDATION This claim from E. H. Morrill Co, come E to $116.12 and 1 recommend it be ?aid. Robert H. Hinkson Suaerintendent of Field Operations Recommendation Approved G. A. _orstkotte, aeneral Manager -Chi Engineer RHEL:jv STA1EM NT M3RILL CU. 1,7_,Echrusical conitadou ATING • All CONOUTIONING * 845-4100 999 ANTHONY STREET • BERKELEYCALIFORNIA 94110 AN 3 1 1972 J, Rcilly 7 MPriposn Lancl Orindn, Calif. '411 ",=•7:...." , Mut rt YOUR 1 ANCELLEL) CHECK IS YOUR P11 1 PT driv e-' March 6, 1972 MEMORANDUM FOR: Honorable Members of the Board of Directors VIA: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr. -- General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: Authorization to hire Civil Engineering Assistant II at Range 54 ($1,031. -- $1,254.) 1. PROBLEM: The Engineering Department requires a Civil Engineering Assistant II to replace Ron Gallaway, Civil Engineering Assistant II, who is being transferred from office duties to Survey Chief of Party of Crew B. 2. BACKGROUND: Received approval of Personnel Committee for said change. 3. RECOMMENDATION: Approval and authorization to hold examination for said position. "commendation Approved: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr. General Manager -Chief Engineer JLB: jv Respectfully submitted, Jack L. Best Office Engineer