HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-1972 AGENDA BACKUPMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE DISTRICT BOARD
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
HELD OCTOBER. 26, 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 October 26, 1972, at 8:00 o'clock P.M.
The meeting was called to order by President Allan.
I. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
ABSENT: Members: None
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
After comment by Member Gibbs and discussion by Board Members, it was
moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Gibbs, that the Minutes of the
meeting of October 19, 1972, be approved after making the following correction:
Under "VIII. REPORTS, ACTING GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER" in para-
graph e. insert "and Mr. G. A. Horstkotte" after "Operations".
Motion changing Minutes of the meeting of October 19, 1972, carried by
the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
None.
None.
None.
III. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES
IV. HEARINGS
V. BIDS
VI. OLD BUSINESS
1. DRAFT ORDINANCE ON DISPOSAL SITES
The Board Members and staff reviewed and discussed the proposed draft
District Ordinance on disposal sites with Board Members making certain re-
visions and amendments.
President Allan invited comments from persons in the audience.
Mr. David Levy, Attorney for the City of Concord, addressed the Board.
Mr. Levy noted that the position of the City of Concord,on the matter pre-
viously presented to the Board,had not changed. He st*��-.ed the matter was
of serious concern to the City of Coucori and that, .Lo his opinion, the
action and approach adopted by the Boa,,- of Supervisors on October 24, 1972,
regarding solid waste disposal sites was good. Mx. Levy indicated that the
City Council would have to now officially inform the Board of Supervisors
of the City of Concord's position on the matter. Discussion followed be-
tween Board Members and Mr. Levy.
Mr. Frank Burger, .11echtel Corporation, and engineering consultant to
Acme Fill Corporation, addressed the Board. Mr. Burger reviewed briefly
solid waste recycling operations being conducted at the Acme Fill site.
Regarding the proposed District Ordinance, he stated Mr. George Gordon,
Attorney representing Acme Fill Corporation, had previously presented the
position of Acme Fill. He requested that the Board deter definitive action
to permit sufficient time to review the draft ordinance and prepare comments.
Member Boneysteele commented that the Sanitary District was indeed fortu-
nate that private enterprise had exercised foresight in providing residents
of Central Contra Costa County with an adequate disposal site. He noted
that other surrounding communities were not as fortunate. Discussion fol-
lowed regarding the activities of the District's Advisory Committee on !"
Solid Waste Recycling and responsibilities that the District may have to
assume in this field.
In response to query by Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager --Chief Engineer,
Mr. Levy suggested the District consider a joint exercise of powers agree-
ment between the District, City of Concord and Mt. View and Rodeo Sanitary
Districts regarding the Acme Fill disposal site.
Board Members, Mr. Dalton and Mr. Levy discussed the suggestion made
by Mr. Levy, after which it was the consensus of the Board that staff pre-
pare the draft ordinance, as amended by the Board, for review at the Novem-
ber 2, 1972, meeting. At this November 2 meeting, the Board intends no de-
finitive action. In the interval, staff was requested to explore the matter
of a joint exercise of powers agreement, at a meeting to be arranged by Mr.
Levy, with officials of the City of Concord.
At 9:47 o'clock P.M., President Allan recessed the Adjourned Regular
meeting. At 9:58 o'clock P.M,, President Allan reconvened the Adjourned
Regular meeting.
Staff was requested to place all interested parties on the District's
mailing list to receive the agenda for meetings and appropriate documents.
K
2. LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 50
Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer, presented a brief
status report on Local Improvement District No. 50, indicating that the City
of Martinez was adhering to its planned schedule for rezoning action.
_, TREATMENT PLANT MODIFICATION
Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer, reported staff had met
with the District's engineering consultant firms and had devised a tentative
construction schedule for the expanded treatment and water reclamation plant.
Copies of the tentative schedule were provided Board Members. Discussion
followed.
4. WALNUT CREEK DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
After discussion regarding scheduling, item was continued to first
meeting in December, 1972.
5. AUTHORIZATION TO EMPLOY PATENT ATTORNEY FOR DISTRICT ADVANCED TEST
TREATMENT FACILITY
Board Members and staff reviewed correspondence from Mr. Bohn, Counsel
for the District, retaining Mr. Ernest M. Anderson, Eckhoff, Hoppe, Slick,
Mitchell and Anderson, 235 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California, as
Patent Attorney for the District.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. CONSENT ITEMS
ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS AT NO COST TO THE DISTRICT
It was moved by Member Rustigian, seconded by Member Gibbs, that ease-
ments from:
Grantor
Job No. Parcel No.
Mabel E. Kuss 2154 6
Edward Kurzadrowski, et ux 2154 22, A & B
Emile J. Lallement, et ux 2229 2
Jeffrey W. Baus, et ux 2222 1
Leo Rolandelli, et ux 2222 2
Anthony R. Cianciarulo, et ux 2222 3
be accepted and their recording ordered. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell,-Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
3
n
2, AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH PROPOSED SEWERING AREA 49, CAMELLIA
LANE, FOR FORMATION OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 55 IN 1973
After explanation by Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer,
and Mr. Jack Best, Office Engineer, and discussion with Board Members re-
viewing a map of the proposed area, it was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded
by Member Gibbs, that. authorization to proceed with P.S.A. 49, Camellia Lane,
for formation of Local Improvement District No. 55 in 1973, be approved. Car-
ried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Al -an
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
3. AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR EXTENSION OF
THE BOLLINGER CANYON ROAD SEWER SYSTEM
Utilizing a map of the area, Mr. Dalton, Acting General -Chief Engineer,
explained the current design of the Bollinger Canyon Road sewer system in-
dicating funds expended were recoverable through watershed charges. Discus-
sion followed with concern being expressed that the current design of the
system, having a perforated 4-inch line for drainage placed above the 8-inch
sewer line, may result in drainage infiltration.
After comment that staff should confer with the District's financial
consultant, Bartle Wells and Associates prior to the construction phase,
and after explanation by Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer,
that an estimated $5,000.00 was needed to prepare necessary plans and
specifications, it was moved by Member Boneysteele, seconded by Member
Rustigian, that authorization of $5,000.00 from the Sewer Construction Fund
to prepare plans and specifications for extension of the Bollinger Canyon
Road sewer system be. approved. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Member: Mitchell
ABSENT: Members: None
4. AUTHORIZATION FOR $72,272.00 FOR RELOCATION OF JET FUEL LINE,
TREATMENT PLANT
After explanation by Mr. Dalton -,,Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer,
it was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Boneysteele, that authori-
zation of $72,272.00 from the Sewer Construction Fund for relocation of a
jet fuel line at the Treatment Plant be approved. Carried by the following
vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
4
C�
5. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL $8,000.00 FOR SPECIAL SERVICE CHARGE STUDY
After explanation by Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer,
and discussion by Board Members regarding a toxic waste program to be established
by the District and estimated annual revenue to be generated through the special
service charge, it was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Boneysteele,
that authorization of an additional $8,000.00 from the Sewer. Construction Fund
for the Special Service Charge Study, be approved. Carried by the following
vote
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
6. AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND REFUSE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL_ II SEMINAR, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, NOVEMBER 30 -
DECEMBER 1, 1972 — -
After explanation by Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer,
it was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Boneysteele, that authori-
zation for Mr. Dalton and Secretary Davis to attend the Refuse Collection and
Disposal II seminar in San Francisco on November 30 - December 1, 1972, be
approved and that registration fees and transportation be authorized. Car-
ried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
7. RESOLUTION NO. 72-54, A RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISED STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS, JANUARY 1973
After explanation by Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer,
it was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Boneysteele, that Resolu-
tion No..72-54 be adopted. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT:. Members: None
8. OTHER BUSINESS ADDED BY SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA
a. LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT N0. 51
(1) RESOLUTION NO. 72-55, A RESOLUTION ORDERING CHANGES AND
MODIFICATIONS, LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 51
(2) RESOLUTION NO. 72-56, A RESOLUTION DETERMINING UNPAID
ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR BONDS, LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 51
5
l\
(3) RESOLUTION NO. 72-57, A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BIDS AND
APPROVING OFFICIAL NOTICE AND STATEMENT OF SALE OF BONDS,
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 51
After explanation by Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer,
that due to change in ownership of one parcel, the District would be obligated
to accept assessment in the amount of $425.00, it was moved by Member
Boneysteele, seconded by Member Gibbs, that Resolution No. 72-55,%solution
No. 72-56, and Resolution No. 72-57, be adopted. Carried by the following
vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele,
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
9. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
In response to query, Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer,
presented a brief report on the Contra Costa County Health Planning Association.
VIII. REPORTS
COMMITTEES
1.. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE RECYCLING
Member Boneysteele, Chairman of the Advisory Committee, presented a
report on the activities of the Committee. He indicated the Committee ex-
pected to complete their report after the first of next year. Member
Boneysteele requested staff to prepare appropriate certificates of apprecia-
tion for the individuals that participated on the Committee.
2. BAY AREA SEWER SERVICE AGENCY
Member Gibbs, Member of the Executive Committee of BASSA, presented a
report on recent activities of BASSA.
ACTING GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
1. Mr. Dalton presented to Board Members, correspondence from Mr.
Peter Aguirre, 3626 Happy Valley Glen Road, Lafayette, California, asking
for tax relief. After discussion by Board Members, staff was requested to
prepare an appropriate reply.
2. Mr. Dalton reported sewer line relocation on Rahn Court, Walnut
Creek, had commenced. Discussion followed.
3. Mr. Dalton reported staff was contemplating maximum utilization
of 8 1/2-inch by 11-inch stationary vice legal size. After discussion,
it was the consensus of the Board that staff adopt such administrative
procedures in the interest of conserving materials.
4. Mr. Dalton and Mir. Jack Best, Office Engineer, reported that the
District's current copying machine was inadequate and that staff was renting
a different type of machine on a trial basis. Discussion followed with Board
Members indicating staff should consider leasing copying equipment after re-
viewing the different types of equipment on the market.
COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT
Mr. Bohn was not present at the meeting.
SECRETARY
i M r. Davis reported on the following:
1. The District had received a copy of a press release from the Calif-
ornia Association of Sanitation Agencies regarding Proposition 14.
2. He had attended the Board of Supervisors' meeting of October 24,
1972, regarding solid waste disposal sites.
3. The District had received correspondence from Lafayette Garbage
Disposal and Orinda/Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. requesting rate increases
effective January 1, 1973.
4. Financial status of the pilot plant project.
REPORT BY MR. DAVID NILES, SUPERINTENDENT OF PLANT OPERATIONS
Mr. Niles presented a report on the recent Water Pollution Control
Federation Conference held October 6-14, 1972, in Atlanta, Georgia. Mr.
G. A. Horstkotte and Mr. Niles represented the District along with Dr.
Denny Parker, Brown and Caldwell, engineering consultant firm for the
District.
Mr. Niles stated the District's special report on activities at the
Treatment Plant was presented by Dr. Parker and was well received by the
conferees. Board Members indicated their pleasure for a task well done.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 11:06 o'clock P.M., President Allan declared an Executive Session
to discuss a personnel matter,
At 11:14 o'clock P.M., President Allan reconvened the Adjourned Regular
Meeting.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
At 11:15 o'clock P.M., President Allan adjourned the Adjourned Regular
Meeting.
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE DISTRICT BOARD
CENTRAL CONTRA. COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
HELD NOVEMBER 2, 1972
The District Board of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in a
Regular Session at its regular place of meeting located at 1250 Springbrook Road,
Walnut Creek, County of Contra Costa, State of California, on November 2, 1972, at
8:00 o'clock P.M.
The meeting was called to order by President Allan.
I. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
ABSENT: Members: None
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
After comment by Member Mitchell and discussion by Board Members, it was
the consensus of the Board to continue the item, "II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES",
1 to the meeting of November 16, 1972. In the interval, the Secretary was re-
quested to revise the Minutes of October 26 1972 in accordance with - q , guidance
provided by Board Members.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 8:05 o'clock P.M., President Allan declared an Executive Session to
discuss a personnel matter.
At 8:48 o'clock P.M., President Allan reconvened the Regular Meeting.
III. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES
It was moved by Member Rustigian, seconded by Member Gibbs, that the ex-
panditures, as reviewed by the Expenditure Committee, and as submitted by the
Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer, be approved, reference being specifically
made to Sewer Construction Vouchers Numbers 1598 to 1625, inclusive, Running Ex-
pense Vouchers Numbers 15316 to 15466, inclusive, Payroll vouchers Numbers 2315
to 2429, inclusive, Local Improvement District No. 50 Construction fund vouchers
Nos. 161 to 164, inclusive, and Local Improvement District No. 51 Construction
fund vouchers Nos. 22 and 23. Carried.•by.:the fbllowing vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: none
ABSENT: Members: None
None.
None.
IV. HEARINGS
V. BIDS
VI. OLD BUSINESS
1. STUDY SESSION - DRAFT ORDINANCE ON DISPOSAL SITES
Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer, and Mr. Bohn, Counsel for
the District, recommended that the Board Members accept the draft District ordinance,
dated October 31, 1972, as presented by staff, and establish a future date on which
the hearing on the draft ordinance would be held. In the interval, staff would have
the opportunity to meet with all interested parties in an attempt to resolve contro-
versial items and the interested parties would have an opportunity to review the draft
ordinance and prepare appropriate response for the hearing date. After discussion by
Board Members and staff, and acknowledgement of communication from the City of Concord
on the matter, it was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Boneysteele, that the
draft District ordinance dated October 31, 1972, be accepted for consideration for
adoption by the Board at a hearing to be scheduled for January 18, 1973. Carried by
the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan _
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
President Allan acknowledged Mr. George Gordon, Attorney, representing Acme
Fill Corporation, in the audience.
Mr. Gordon acknowledged the Board's action on scheduling a hearing date and
welcomed the opportunity to review and discuss the draft ordinance with the District.
He noted the County's general plan on solid waste disposal sites was scheduled for
presentation to the County Planning Commission on January 16, 1973. He indicated
that, while he had not seen the County's final general plan, the intervening inter-
val may permit opportunity to resolve any conflicts that may exist between the
County's plan and the intent of the District's draft ordinance.
Board Members discussed Mr. Gordon's comments with Member Mitchell reporting
that he had attended the recent meeting of the County's Planning Commission wherein
the draft of the County's general plan on refuse disposal had been presented. He
stated he had presented to the Planning Commission a report on activities of the
Sanitary District in the field of solid waste management and the District's interest
in protecting the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Central Contra
Costa County. Discussion followed regarding Member Mitchell's comments and the
concept of the County's general plan with interest being expressed in road access
to the Acme Fill disposal site. While Mr. Gordon reviewed previous plans by the
County to provide a northerly access route to the Acme Fill site, Mr. Dalton, Acting
General Manager -Chief Engineer, noted that current County plans envisaged a southerly
access route to the disposal site from the freeway frontage road at the District's
treatment plant facility.
2
2. LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 50
J Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer, reported that action by the
City of Martinez regarding rezoning of property was on schedule.
Mr. Bohn, Counsel for the District, reported progress on final settlement of
the contract with the District's contractor was proceeding although there were some
legal questions yet to be resolved.
3. HOLDING BASIN, SCHEDULE II
After explanation by Mr. Dalton, Acting General diaaager-Chief Engineer, it
was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Rustigian, that authorization for
$91.58 from the Sewer Construction fund for final settlement of the cost for the
Holding Basin, Schedule II, be approved. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
1. CONSENT ITEMS
from:
VII. NEW BUSINESS
ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS AT NO COST TO THE DISTRICT
It was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Rustigian, that easements
Grantor Job No. Parcel No.
J. Michael Transchel, et ux LID 54-1 16
Joseph F. DeLong, et al 2154 12
be accepted and their recording ordered. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
2. CLAIM OF MELANIE M. ROOF IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,908.27
After explanation by Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer, and
discussion by Board 2-:embers of the staff memorandui; it was moved by Member Rustigian,
seconded by Member Gibbs, that the claim of Melanie M. Roof be referred to the
District's insurance carrier with District obligation in the matter not to exceed
$1,000.00. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
,i
3. ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT FROM PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC AT A COST OF $200.00
After explanation by Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer,
discussion by Board Members, and upon the recommendation of Mr. Dalton, it was
moved by Member Boneysteele, seconded by Member Rustigian, that acceptance of an
easement, District Sewering Project 1926, Parcel 3, from Pacific Gas and Electric
be approved at a cost to the District of $200.00 from Sewer Construction fund. ( ,/
Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
4. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL $26,500.00 FOR WATERSHED STUDIES AND
ENGINEERING WORK
Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer, explained the request
for additional authorization of funds was predicated primarily for administrative
purposes and that all funds authorized were eventually recoverable through Water-
shed charges. Board Members and staff discussed the matter with interest being
expressed that further expenditure of funds of this nature be deferred until the
District's financial consultant, Bartle Wells and Associates, could report.
After further discussion and explanation by Mr. Dalton, it was moved by
Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Rustigian, that authorization of an additional
$26,500.00 from the Sewer Construction fund for Watershed Studies and Engineering
Work be approved. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
5. REQUEST OF ORINDA/MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE FOR RATE INCREASE, EFFECTIVE_
JANUARY 1, 1973
6. REQUEST OF LAFAYETTE GARBAGE DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., FOR RATE INCREASE,
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1973
The Board acknowledged receipt of correspondence from Orinda/Moraga Disposal
Service and Lafayette Garbage Disposal Service requesting a rate increase effective
January 1, 1973.
After discussion by Board Members and staff, the Board tentatively scheduled
a public hearing to be held on December 7, 1972, to consider the rate increase re-
quest. Staff was requested to provide appropriate information and recommendations
to permit a study session by the Board at the meeting of November 30, 1972.
7. AUTHORIZATION OF $36,190.00 FOR COMBINED SLUDGE PROCESSING PROJECT
After explanation by Mr. Niles, Superintendent of Plant Operations, and
discussion by Board Members, it was moved by Member Rustigian, seconded by :Member
,'Mitchell, that authorization of $36,190.00 from the Sewer Construction fund for
the Combined Sludge Processing Project be approved. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
4
8. INFOIRXATION
a. CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Dalton, Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer, explained that the corres-
pondence from ABAG referred to a project proposed by the City of Concord requesting
grant funds to construct a pumping station and an interceptor line to be connected
to the District's plant and outfall line.
Board Members, staff and Mr. Bohn, Counsel for the District, discussed
various ramifications of the proposal, including its relationship to the County's
Water Quality Study and its possible impact upon the District in the interim per-
iod.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that staff prepare a
communication for the President's signature indicating District approval of the
City's project subject to certain prescribed conditions.
b. CORRESPONDENCE FROM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WATER AGENCY
Board Members, staff and Mr. Bohn,
length and expressed views regarding the
Costa County Water Agency. Mr. Bohn was
for perusal by the Board.
�.. c. OTHER CORRESPONDENCE
Counsel for the District, discussed at
correspondence received from the Contra
requested to prepare certain documents
Board Members noted correspondence received from the Shell Oil Company dated
October 26, 1972.
9. OTHER BUSINESS ADDED BY SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA
None.
10. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
It was moved by Member Boneysteele, seconded by Member Gibbs, that, effective
this date, sick leave for Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager -Chief Engineer, be term-
inated and that Mr. Horstkotte resume his regular duties as General Manager -Chief
Engineer. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele,
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
5
VIII. REPORTS
1. COMMITTEES
a. PERSONNEL
Member Mitchell, Chairman of the Personnel Committee, reported that the
Committee had met regarding administrative procedures to be followed to facili-
tate selection of personnel who had taken written examinations. After discussion,
staff was provided Board guidance in the manner of screening of applicants for
District positions.
b. NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE FOR CITY OF CONCORD
Member Mitchell, member of the Negotiating Committee, reported that the
Committee had received a copy of the final report by the City of Concord's con-
sultant firm concerning possible consolidation of sewage treatment facilities or
annexation to the District.
Mr. Dalton, Administrative Engineer, reported that staff had been in con-
sultation with the officials of the City of Concord and that staff's effort was
oriented toward development of a memorandum of understanding which may result in
a contractual form of agreement between Concord and the District.
Member Mitchell cautioned staff that it should not be aggressive in
seeking early annexation of the City of Concord.
Discussion followed with staff indicating it would review the matter
in further detail regarding its discussions with officials of the City of Concord.
c. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE RECYCLING
Member Boneysteele, Chairman of the Advisory Committee, noted Board Members
had a copy of the Minutes of the most recent meeting. He indicated that as his
schedule precluded his attendance at the next meeting on November 8, 1972, Mr.
Robert R. Grinstead, Vice Chairman of the Committee, would preside and that Member
Rustigian had agreed to attend as a representative of the Board.
d. BAY AREA SETWER SERVICE AGENCY
Member Gibbs, Member of the Executive Committee of BASSA, reported that the
agency was attempting to employ the services of a consultant firm. He indicated
that the Trustees of BASSA were still in an organizational phase and that employ-
ment of a general manager would probably be several months in the future.
Member Gibbs stated one of the major concerns for officials of BASSA was
to become intimate with present planning for the Bay Area regarding water pol-
lution.
N.
2. GENERAL MANAGER --CHIEF ENGINEER
' Mr. Dalton, Administrative Engineer, acting for Mr. Horstkotte, General
Manager-Chief Engineer, reported the following:
a. Recommended the Board Members authorize a charge of $4.00 for each copy
for the District`s book on Standard Specifications. It was moved by Member
Boneysteele, seconded by Member Gibbs, that a charge of $4.00 per copy for the
District's Standard Specifications be approved. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
b. Requested authorization for Mr. David Niles, Superintendent of Plant
F Operations, to attend a sludge disposal seminar sponsored by the Environmental
Protection Agency in Anaheim, California, November 13-15, 1972. It was moved
by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Rustigian, that authorization for Mr. Niles
to attend the sludge disposal seminar in Anaheim, California, November 13-15,
1972, be approved and that Mr. Niles be authorized registration fees, per diem,
and transportation. Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Rustigian and Allan
NOES: Members: None
M ABSENT: Members: None
c. Placement of the sewer line in Rahn Court, Walnut Creek, was completed
but the overall project was not complete.
d. The District's Advanced Treatment Test Facility had been shut down
because modification to the City of Concord's incinerator was necessary. He
indicated the cost of converting Concord's incinerator would approximate
$7,000.00 to the District, however, such cost was recoverable through grant
funds.
e. Noted the Board Members had received copies of correspondence from:
Special Counsel for the District, Wilson, Jones, Morton and Lynch, dated
October 31, 1972; Mt. View Sanitary District, dated October 31, 1972; and
correspondence by staff to the State Water Resources Control Board.
f. Receipt of correspondence from Hacienda Homes,_Inc., Orinda, California,
a copy of which was provided Board Members.
Mr. Dalton, Administrative Engineer, reported that Hacienda Homes, Inc.
was desirous of obtaining sewage service from the District. He stated part of
the area to be served was presently within the District, however, the Board had
previously held a public hearing on this general area and had received majority
protest to annexation. In response to the request of Hacienda Homes, Inc., Mr.
Dalton requested funds to provide staff preliminary engineering studies for
severing the area.
Discussion followed with staff being directed to advise Hacienda Homes,
Inc., that their request for sewage service will be considered when the District
has received petitions from a majority of the property.owners requesting local
improvement proceedings and annexation to the District from properties not now
within the District. Staff was requested to advise Hacienda Homes, Inc., of
administrative procedures for the submission of petitions.
7
g. A meeting before the Local Agency Formation Commission which he had
attended regarding sewering the Muir Oaks area. He stated LAFCO had rejected
the protest to District Annexation 35 on the basis that the annexation was
complete and LAFCO had no further jurisdiction.
3. COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT
a. Mr. Bohn reported on the current and projected activities as visualized
by Air. Ernest M. Anderson, Patent Counsel, insofar as they relate to the District
and its treatment and water reclamation plant expansion project. He indicated
that, according to Mr. Anderson, there were several patentable items that should
be clarified.
Board Members, staff and Mr. Bohn, discussed the matter including the
relationship and responsibilities of the District's engineering consultant firm,
Brown and Caldwell, in designing the District's expanded plant project.
It was the consensus of the Board that Mr. Anderson and Dr. David
Caldwell appear before the Board at its next meeting to discuss the matter.
b. Mr. Bohn suggested that, in the matter of the District's proposed
ordinance on disposal sites, a letter be forwarded to Mr. John Clausen, County
Counsel, recommending that a sub -committee be formed from the County's newly
appointed "Solid Waste Management Policy Committee" to examine the feasibility
of a contract or joint exercise of powers agreement with the interested parties.
Mr. Bohn suggested representation for the sub -committee should include the
District, the County and the City of Concord.
Board Members indicated that a cooperative approach was desirable
and therefore interposed no objection to Mr. Bohn's suggestion.
4. SECRETARY
None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
At 11:41 o'clock P.M., President Allan adjourned the meeting.
0
$94,166,64 — 1915 Acts Bmads
JOB-
fecalimpovment DisxNo�N0ViVbLr ab 1972
F-1 H C,E
10 Suite. 2800, One California. St., $SOd:;IS?. /1 54fj7:?d`
San. Franc.- ;�,�o, CA, 94111
Crass and Company, Inc..
2, 900 Wilshire 1131vd,� 550,556.81
Lae Angeles, CA 9003..7
Juran & Moody, Inca
3� Municipal Bonds � $51,0,1,3o94 5�5392%
St® Paul, Mlmnesot�. 55101
— - John Pestana
4. 29234 Mission Blvd. $c��a,��ad 0�3 7a0000%
Hayward, CA 94544
JOB _
ckqxa. 23Y
VI. OLD BUSINESS
1.
City of Concord
OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER November 3, 1972
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
1250 Springbrook Road
,I, nut Creek, California
Gentlemen:
CITY COUNCIL.
Daniel C. Helix, Mayor
Laurence B.Azevedo
Daniel E. Boatwright
Richard L. Holmes
Thomas J. Wentling
Farrel A. Stewart, City Managt
In recent months we have had numerous conversations with you discussing
mutual efforts to resolve water pollution requirements. Concord has
been making a serious effort to arrive at a satisfactory solution to the
disposal of our seller plant discharge. The introductory sentence in your
letter of October 27 erroneously implies that you have previously offered
to negotiate for the use of your facilities.
We in the City of Concord are most anxious to work out a solution using
either the plant or outfail of your district. In the past it has been
�- our distinct impression that you are reluctant to negotiate unless the City
of Concord annexed to your district. This :could have been unacceptable as
it would have imposed upon the people of Concord your additional high tax
rate in addition to paying for Concord's existing treatment plant facilities..
The tenor of your letter indicates that we can hope that rutual efforts, which
up to now have proceeded very slowly, will stove very rapidly.
At our last meeting we discussed the alternative of annexation. At the con-
clusion of the meeting we indicated :;e will develop the land value of our
plant which we now plan to .have ready in about two :reeks. In the meantir,e
you promised to draft a memorandum of understanding for our review and con-
sideration. As soon as you have done so, we can schedule another rieeting.
Yours1'truly,
,JI�(i
. Ik��vt c.sart
City Managcr
FAS:ob
cc: State Water Resource Control Board
San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control
177
Y
Bc argil�-
1
nn-"tlr,on r•Illlr rGNTf70 t am vA 0 VCl nP rn 1\IrnR n r.AI I FnR ril A 0Ar;7n TGI fl: DLJ r111C r-Q0 G;znr
vt. vLU bu51Ntb
May 12, 1972
City of Concord
Civic Center
Concord, California
Attention: Mr. Farrell Stewart, City Manager
Gentlemen:
Ia line with our previous discussions and correspondence on the
matter of cooperative waste water treatment studies, we have agreed that
due to the complexity of the problem, all elements which will affect the
ultimate decisions should be considered concurrently. The physical, economic,
legal, political and policy questions are so interfaced that they must be
resolved in relation to each other.
To expedite our joint studies the District Board of Directors has
appointed a committee to represent the District. This committee consists of
two M-mbers of the Board, District CoLmsel, Administrative Engineer and
myself.
This committee is prepared to meet With a similar group from Concord
at your convenience. Please advise me when we can arrange such a meeting.
Yours very truly,
CENTtP.L CONT41A COSTA S MITARi DISTRICT
G. A. Horstkotte, Jr.
General 113.11ager-Chief Engineer
GAR: j v
V1. ULL DU3111DOO
1.
October 27, 1972
City of Concord
Civic Center
Concord, California
Attention: Mr. Stewart
Gentlemen:
We wish to repeat our offer of immediate negotiation in the
matter of consolidation of facilities.
We have agreed to accept the sewage flows from other existing
agencies in this sub -region and particularly that of your jurisdiction.
This acceptance must obviously be based on a fair and equitable agreement
which shall be subject to the review and approval of the State Water
R✓sources Control Board.
We are available at your convenience to firs a schedule of
meetings with you for this purpose.
Yours very truly,
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
W. C. Dalton
Acting Genaral Maaagar-Chief Engineer'
:4GD: jet
cc: State Water ;3zsource Control Hoard
cc: San Francisco !lay Water Quality Control Board,
V1. ULU
Filed:
November 22, 1971
City of Concord
Civic Center
Concord, California
Attention; I-Ir. Cosmo Tedeschi
Gentl—pa:
With reference to the study Of consolidation of the sewage
treatment facilities of Concord and this District, as directed by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board, we are prepared, at your
convenience, to explore this matter in greater depth. However, in
light of the imminent submittal of the sub -regional study by the
County consultants, we would suggest another meeting on this subject
around the end of November.
Please advise us as to your preference for the date of the
next study session.
Yours Very truly,
% G. A. HORSTKOTTE, JR.
General I-L-Inager-Chief Engineer
By W. C. Dalton
Administrative Engineer
WC;D:jv
November 16, 1972
The Honorable Edmond Linscheid,
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
and Members of the Board
Contra Costa County
Martinez, California
Gentlemen:
At a hearing held by the Board of Supervisors on
October 17, 1972, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
made a brief series of suggestions regarding the Alternates
and recommendations made in the Contra Costa County Water
Quality Study. The purpose of this letter is to supplement
those suggestions and to emphasize several ii-latters which per-
haps have not received sufficient attention.
The Regional Oualitv Control Board has previously
adopted the recommended plan B-3 for planning purposes in
the Central and Eastern parts of the Countv. We concur with
this decision and join in recommending the same to the honor-
able Board.
With regard to implementation of the various plans
which have been suggested, the following is pertinent:
1. CCCSD presently operates a subreqional sewage
interceptor, treatment, and disposal system serving one half
of the County population and said system has a perfect record
of compliance with State and Regional water cTuality control
standards.
2. CCCSD has planned an expansion of its facilities
which will meet pending and future State and Federal water
quality control standards, will be in complete conformance
with the subregional recommended plan and alternates, will
provide reclaimed water to supplement the existing limited
source, and will be easily expanded within present planning
to accommodate the first stage of the recommended sub-req-
ional plan.
3. CCCSD has received and executed, on October 5,
1972, a Grant Contract in the amount of 842,800,000.00 for
The Honorable Edmond Linscheid, Chairman
a and Members of the Board
November 16, 1972
Page 2
eligible project costs for its plant modification program,
and has $2,800,000.00 approved for project implementation
for reclamation facilities, and $550.000.00 in a partially
complete site improvement Grant Project, all approved in
conformance with regional planning.
4. CCCSD has acquired sufficient property at its
Treatment Plant site to provide for the future needs of the
recommended plan for all non -industrial treatment purposes.
By way of further report to the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors, the Sanitary District advises
that it has given further consideration to arrangements
with other interested public agencies in the Central and
Eastern portions of Contra Costa County and has instructed
its staff to immediately commence discussions with repre-
sentatives of each of the other effected agencies looking
toward the adoption of a mutually acceptable joint powers
agreement which will provide for expanding its existing
agreement with the Contra Costa County Water District for
the sale of reclaimed water and which will also provide
adequate representation to the other Public agencies in-
volved in a joint elan to handle the disposal of sewage
in general accordance with plan B-3 as it now exists or
may be further amended.
As these discussions progress we will, of course.
keep the Board of Supervisors fully informed.
Very truly yours,
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Donald L. Allan,
President of the District Board
DAL:mn
John A. Bohn
-ALtorne7 at Law
W11. Fargo Banc Bid1'n6
Piedmont, California 94611
(415) 655-4800
November 7, 1972
The Honorable Donald L. Allan, Chairman
and Members of the Board of Directors,
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
1250 Springbrook Road
Walnut Creek, California 95696
Gentlemen:
Guam Office
Bohn Buildinod
Post Office B" X
Aeana, Guam 96910
You will recall that at our last meeting the question
arose regarding the desirability of continuing the services of
a Patent Attorney for the District and some confusion that had
arisen regarding whether the District was in violation of ex-
isting patents. At that time it was suggested that I should
ask the Patent Attorney and a representative of Brown & Cald-
well to appear before the Board to discuss these matters.
In the meantime I have received a letter from Mr.
Ernest M. Anderson, the Patent Attorney to whom I referred,
which explains, in some detail, the service he feels should be
performed.
I am enclosing, herewith, a copy of this letter so
that the Board may discuss the same and make the necessary
decision as therein set forth.
Ver ruly yours,
John A. Bohn,
Attorney
JAB:mn
Enc.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
3.
CARL HOPPE
ROBERT H. ECKHOFF
ROBcRT G. SLICK
JAMES F. MITCHELL
ERN EST M. ANDERSON
LAW OFFICES
EcxuoFF, HOPpE, SIJCY, MITCHELL & ANDBSSOA
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2610 RUSS BUILDING
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
October 31, 1972
BRUCE H. JOHNSONSAUGH
File 4663
John A. Bohn, Esq.
Wells Fargo Bank Building
Piedmont, California 94611
Re: Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District
Dear Mr. Bohn:
391-7160
AREA CODE 4M
This is <1 follow up to our telephone conversation of
last week during which we discussed several patent matters of
concern to the District. These matters come to my attention as a
result of conferences I held %,,,ith Denny Parker, and as a result of
my subsequent study of materials Denny gave me. The purpose of
this letter is to outline a course of action for each patent matter
and to estimate the approximate cost of services and disbursements.
First, Denny informed me that Jack Pratt of Enviro-
tech Corporation has stated his belief that one of Envirotech's patents
(U. S. Patent, 3, G76, 334) covers the lime treatment process which
is to be used by the District. Having read a copy of that patent it
does indeed appear that this patent may cover the District's process.
However, before I can properly advise the District I must obtain
certain additional information about the District's system. (Denny
will provide nie with that information after a few tests are complet-
ed.) in addition, I must obtain from the Patent Office, the file wrapper
of patent prosecution and condu(-A a study of prior art waste treatment
systems. The k�stiniated cost of this project is $1, 500 to $2, 000.
A second paLt.It p-ujeCt rotates to three new improve-
ments incorporated in the Di t.ric1,'s system. Denny believes that
each of these improvements inav be patentable and he suggests that
a novelty search be conduct<:d .is to each. The approximate cost of
making a novelty search, including our study of the patents uncovered,
would be approximately $350 for Each improvement, or a total of about
$1, 000 for all three.
A third project concerns an investigation as to the rele-
vance and scope of several patents issued to Dorr-Oliver, Inc. Mr.
ECSI3flFF. H2OPPE, SLILY, 34rrCHRLL 8e ANDERSON
Page Two
October 31, 19742
Parker informs me that one or more patents issued to Dorr-Oliver
covers a wastewater treatment process involving the use of lime.
It is not known presently -whether any Dorr-Oliver patents cover
the District's system but copies of eleven patents have been order-
ed for consideration. An initial evaluation of those patents will
cost approximately $500.
Please let me know to what extent I may proceed with
the patent projects outlined above.
Very truly yours,
Ernest M. Anderson
EMA/lp
cc: W. C. Dalton
Denny S. Pa.•k(�r
Y.1_• ---
-111-
4.
ERNEST A.WILS ON
KENNETH -ONES
JAMES T- MORTON
RICHARD F. RAYMOND WILSOX, JONES, MORTON &¢ LY.NcH
GERALD A. LASTER
JEREMIAH J. LYNCH ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
CHARLES N. KIRKBRIDE
1894-1911
KIRKBRIDE S GORDON
JOHN E. LYNCH
PHILIP D. AS SAF
630 NORTH SAN MATEO DRIVE
(J05EPH B. GORDON)
1911-1929
PEGGY L. M ELLIGOTT P. O. BOX 152
KIRKBRIDE S WILSON
1929-19.1
NORMAN W- KAVANAUGH
5HERROD 5. DAVIS
THOMAS C. MORONEY
LAWRENCE C.JEN5EN
RICHARD G. RANDOLPH
MAYER A. DANIEL SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94401
MICHAEL R. NAVE
JOHN G.CLARK �n1 S] 3a2-3523
KIRKBRIDE, WILSON, HAR2FELD S WALLACE
1947-1961
R06FRT G.AUWBREY JAMES L.COPELAND
RICHARD H. HARGROVE PHILIP H. SHECTER
ANDREW C. HALL,JR. JOAN E. BRIODY
OF COUNSEL
ARTHUR J. HARZFELD
JAMES M. WALLACE
RICHARD J. OOLWIG
ROBERT J. HILL
ROBERT A. PRIOR
PAU L E. BASYE
THOMAS 5.AOAMS
THEODORE H.KOBE
j�
Y,JR. November 1, 1972
.
AA-KAPLAN (MO. ONLY)
Z.
.4:
Mr. William Dalton
�
s i_
� 3 �,
Acting Engineer -Manager
�I
� � �
m ° �
IZ
w
.
;,!
Central Contra Costa Sanitary
31
District
�.
ae a
'e U
P. 0. Box 5266
- _
ND
^'
�'
Walnut Creek, California 94596
I ��
°
Re: Local Improvement District No. 50
Dear Bill:
I received a telephone call yesterday from
Jack Waltz, the City Attorney of Martinez. The sub-
stance is that the City Council is highly alarmed about
the inclusion of an interest charge in the assessment.
He is contemplating a declaratory judgment action and
a temporary restraining order.
He assures me that the City is _proceeding with
its hearings upon zoning adjustments, as scheduled. I
told him that in the event zoning proceedings -vTere com-
pleted so that the assessment proceedings could proceed
on schedule, that it ,vould be worthwhile for the City
administration to approach the District staff on the
question of deletion of the interest charge from the
assessment. He indicated some willingness to take that
course, but not a course which would involve the City
Council itself approaching the District Board and re-
questing that the interest charge not be included.
I expect to be in touch with him within the
next couple of weeks concerning the inclusion of the
interest charge in the assessment and the securing of
a temporary restraining order in a, declaratory judgment
action.
Very truly yours,
for WILSON, ,iJONES, � ORTON & LYNCH
G.U/s c
cc: John A. .Sohn, Esq .
VI. OLD BUS
4. LID 50
November 16, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: Status Report - Local Improvement District 50
In our discussion with Barry Whittaker, Assistant City Manager -Plan-
ning Director of the City of Martinez, on November 16, 1972, he indicated
that they are on schedule. The Public Hearing on change in zoning is
scheduled for November 28, 1972. The Notices are being mailed to the af-
fected property owners this week. The City also plans to have three
one-half hour Television coverages on Channel 10 on Tuesday, November 21
at 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, November 22 at 6:00 P.M. and Friday, November 24
at 10:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
L , . A ) S1114 fk I
G A orstkotte,'
Gener ager-Chief gineer
GAH:eh
JLB
Date:
J
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: W. C. Dalton, &.General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: CONSENT ITEMS: ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS, AT NO COST TO THE
DISTRICT
Easements offered for acceptance are as follows:
No. Grantor Jo►�[bj' No. Parcel No.
2-1
3. t.Ar 0 I e Er f%r a
5. 30 1f� ep 11 F'/ Die L
®-.0-
6 CX it LM1 --- i
L I t> �
7. � $ ,� I -r-i-v U-r7 v
10. CL1L-,�
Respectfully submitted,
Jack L. Best
Office Engineer
JLB :1 v
Approved:
W. C. Dalton
Acting General Manager -Chief Engineer
�44NV d tea'
N
C' C. I i.7uaK�y fi,
e ly'1 �.
'�4.h @i ELF j K' CZ
y }�
v;
L1 � t1A.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
2. Claim
November 3, 1972
MEMOR4NDUM FOR: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ITIA: Go A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: Agenda Item
PROBLEM: Claim for Damages - $29.13 s Shirlee Moser
e 1770 Lilac Drive
Walnut Creek, California
BACKGROUND: On Thursday, September 14, 1972, our District Rod Crew was called
to take care of an overflow at the address mentioned above. Upon arrival.
the crew found the existing 61° line plugged 114' down from existing R.> I.
front #1770 on Lilac. The stoppage consisted of roots and was cleared with
no difficulty. There was some minor water damage to baseboard molding in
the family room, two oval braid rugs, and two canvas paint boards. The Dis-
trict crew cleaned and disinfected overflow area, "Overflow Device" has
since been installed.
ALTERNATIVES: Pay claim, refuse claim
RECOMMENDATION: Pay claim, damage caused by stoppage in main sewer.
Respectfully submitted,
Re H. Hinkson
Superintendent of Field Operations
RIl'3: eh
Recommendation Approved:
G. A H rstkotte`, r, t
Gene al Ma_Aager®Chief ineer
till. NEW BUSINE:
3.
November 9, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR: Honorable Members of the Board of Directors
VIA: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: Agenda Item, Request for the appointment of Richard Finch
to the position of Maintenance Man I.
1. BACKGROUND: The position requested here is authorized in the 1972-1973
budget. Mr. Finch is fully qualified to fill the position. He is
presently working in the Maintenance Department on a temporary basis.
Pertinent data regarding Mr. Finch's capabilities was presented to the
Personnel Committee, November 2, 1972. I request the appointment be
made effective November 1, 1972.
2. RECOMMENDATION: Appoint Mr. Finch to the position of Maintenance Man I
effective November 1, 1972.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert H. Hinkson
Superintendent of Field Operations
RHH: jv
Recommendation Approved:
G. A orstko.
Gene; Manager-Chie Engineer
VI I . NEW BUS I NES I+
ll 4,
November 10, 1972 CJ
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE H01\10FABDE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRE EC10RS
`CIA: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT; Authorization for additional $70,000.00 for ;district
work in conjunction with Water Reclamation Plant de-
sign and construction
PROBLEM. We --request this authorization to update and adjust our accounts
foi District work in conjunction with the Water Reclamation Plant Project.
At the present time, we have three accounts to which we charge services per-
formed by the District as requested by Brown and Caldwell and Bechtel:
1. Brown and Caldwell Treatment Plant Expansion .1973,--District District Expense
2. Bechtel Incorporated Treatment Plant Expansion 1973, District Expense
3. Treatment Plant Design, Test Facility ATTF
The Water Reclamation Project is scheduled for construction in March, 1973,
and it will be necessary for the District to perform further work: i.e.,
establish horizontal and vertical survey controls adequate for construction,
and etc.
Therefore, we are asking for lead money in order to do the necessary office
and field work prior to and during construction.
Tabulated below is the status and the additional requests for the three ac-
counts:
.Account Amount Previously Used as of Additional
Number Authorized----- Member 30, 1972 Balance o Request
1 $ 91,694.16
2 50,000.00
$ 70,463.50
44,362.79
$21,230.66
5,6.37.21
$ e
j,000.00
3 42,000.00 48,248.18 _(6,248.1A) 65,000.00
TOTAL $183,694.41 $163,074.47 $20,619.69 $70,000.00
BAU'KGROU20: The above requests cover only District expenses req-.i.irec. for .:he
Water Reclamation. Pro- ect and 80% of the funds expended should be recoverable
from grant funds as part of the eligible engineering.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
Rc! }aectfa:.11y submitted. --
Best,
JLB:ms Office Engineer
Recommendation approved:
=1,,t.� 1`
G. A. Ho�Fstkotte, �Jr.,
General 1 �*.iag;er-Chief Eng:��ee-r
V11 , NEW BUSIN.ES,
5
November 9, 1972
MEMORANDUM! FOR- Honorable Members of the Board of Directors
VIA- G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT- Agenda Item
1. PROBLEM- Trunk sewer deficiencies. Request for $18,200. to make
system corrections.
We have replaced defective sewers in the amounts of 210' of loll,
268 of 12" and 64' of 15`° this fall. We have used up the allotted funds
(45,913.,03) authorized in July. I feel that it is essential to do
another 125' of 10" in the Sunnybrook, Los Arabis Road area. We are
half completed here. 25' of 18" in Rheem and 50' of 15" in Burton
Valley.
While these additions will not complete all we hoped to do
this fall, it will put us in pretty good shape for the winter. It will
take about 13 days at $1,400. a day to do the work, A total of $18,200.
is needed.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert w_. Hinkson
Superintendent of Field Operations
RHH-jv
Recommendation Approved-
z. ". - A),() 11'0
G. A. orstkotte9 Jr.
General Manager -Chief En ineer
V IIL NEW BUSINESS
it 6
November 8, 1972
kEMORANDUM TO, HE 'HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: C. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: Garbage Franchises
1. BACKGROV10: This District franchises ;Live garbage collectors who provide
service to the unincorporated area within the District and the City of Lafayette.
The total population served under District franchises is approximately 127,000,
(20,000 In the City of Lafayette). Until last year, rates and service levels
were established on a comparison basis with other local franchising agencies.
The rate study of last year was made along public utility procedural guidelines
using information furnished by the accountants of the franchisees. One company
did not furnish such information, and one involved segregation of costs, etc.
between the District and City controlled areas. Only three companies have ser-
vice areas Yholly within the Sanitary District and are, therefore, theoretically
required to submit all company records.
As a result of our detailed comprehensive rate study, current basis monthly
rages, as compared to 1968, were increased as follows: Lafayette 41% to $3.45,
Orinda-Moraga 27% to $3.10, Diablo 30% to $3.00, Valley 50% to $3.45 and Pleasant
Hill 0% at $2.65. (Valley, Lafayette and Pleasant Hill furnish weekly garden
trimming curbside pickups to all customers, and Orinda-Moraga to customers in
Lafayette @ $3, 5�
2. PROBLE-Mg The major local problem in this field is lack of a coordinated
solid waste management program in the central county area. Efforts by District
management some years ago to establish a working relationship with other local
franchising agencies met with initial, enthusiasm among other agency staff people,
but failed to gain support after consideration by top-level executives. Whether
another effort in this direction under today's changing conditions would be more
successful or not is a matter'of individual judgement, but, in my opinion, it
should be attempted at an early date.
The specific problems related to the District's garbage collection franchises
are:
1. The lack of uniformity of rates and levels of service under District
control.
2. The increased, costs of franchise administration without related increase
in franchise payments.
3. The value of annual comprehensive: rate studies as opposed 'to rate com-
parison studies.
Page 2
4. The genera's level. and costs of service in this area when compared to
others.
5. The validity of the argument that all customers must be charged for a
service, other than the basic, when such service is offered zone -wide.
6. Whether rates applied to commercial collection should be more specifically
dealt with in our ordinance, and the question of District control over companies
serving only commercial accounts and providing drop -box service.
7. The dependence on accounting information not easily verified.
3. DISCUSSION: Based on the information developed in last year's studies, there
does not appear to be any real reason why the District could not adopt a single
base rate for all franchises. Considering the complexities of present customer
billings, there does not seem to be any reason why customers cannot individually
have the option of additional services, including garden trimmings pickup. The
question of backyard or curbside pickup for either garbage or trimmings could be
customized with a differential in rates for those who so desire. The garbage in-
dustry is a service industry with captive customers and, in my opinion, those
customers should be given as wide a range of choices as reasonable within the
economic limits of public jurisdictional control.
The need for and value of an annual rate study to determine rate of return
on investment and operational profit margins for each franchisee is questionable
in my opinion, unless it is a very simple updating process. Periodic evalua-
tions of individual companies, particularly if comparative rates or requests
are out of line is certainly appropriate, but if a uniform base rate and uniform
options are adopted, such studies would probably only be necessary for inefficient
operators.
District costs related to garbage franchises and solid waste have pyramided
in the past two years. Previously, franchisee fees covered expenditures in this
field, but it is doubtful that they now represent 20% of the salaries devoted to
this subject. We can, of course, add these to the District general administrative
costs (and taxes) but since the incorporated areas except Lafayette are presum-
a.b_y paying such costs separately to Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Concord, and Walnut
Creed., it would seem more equitable to add them only to our garbage franchise
areas,
4:, RECOMM XDAT1ONS
1. Begin consideration of rate adjustments only alfte.r requests for changes
have been received from all franchisees and so advise franchisees. Tf any
franchisee does not furnish requested information by prescribed date, in.form
him that it will not be considered for a year.
2. Compare rates within District against each other and against other ior_al
agencies before undertaking any comprehensive individual rate studies.
3. Bring levels of service availability within District into alignment and
hold public hearings or. proposed cha ages before rate considerations.
0
Page Three
4. Cons-_i.der revenue requirements to meet expenses and t'.Ile inc ceases J_n
franchise payments necessary to carry the solid waste program without using
sewer-orientee revelries. We should consider a percentage of gross revenue
related to Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill frauchises.
5. Suggest a joint study on garbage franchising to the other public agemcies
in the Central County area.
Respectfully submitted,
W. C. Dalton,
Administrative Engineer
Approved:
G, A. Horstkotte, Jr.,
General Manager -Chief Engineer
V11. NrW BUSINESS
7.
November 10, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: Quit Claw Deed to Moraga Enterprises, Inc. - Job 2201
PROBLEM: Our existing easement lies within the proposed Subdivision 4049.
Four buildings are planned over our sewer line.
BACKGROUND: In order to construct the buildings, it is necessary to re-
locate a portion of our sewer line lying within the boundaries of Sub-
division 4049. The sewer line being re-routed has been paralleled by
a new trunk sewer, but we chose to keep it available for emergencies
rather than abandon it.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
Respectfully submitted,
/JackL. Best,
e Engineer
JLB:ms
Recommendation approved:
G. A. Horstkote,r.
Gen al Manager -Chi. Engineer
VII. NEW BUSINESS
n $ .,and 9.
November .10, 1972
MEMORANDUM FORg THE HONORABLE MEMBERS Or THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA-. G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT. Consent to dedication of 'public Roads and drainage
easements Job 2201.
PROBLEM- Subdivision 4049 must have the Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District Consent to Dedication for Public Roads and drainage easements
of those portions of the District's easements which will be within the
roads and drainage easements shown on the map of said subdivision before
they can file the subdivision map in the County Recorder's Office.
BACKGROUND. Checked with our attorney, Jim Carniato. lie says O.K. to
exegete consent document (short foreman)
RE=O 5MNDATION g Approval
Respectfully submitted,
E i
Jack L. Best,
Office Engineer
JLB ones
Recommendation. approved:
G. Hors otte, Jr ,
Gene Manager -Chi Engineer
VxI. NEW BUSINESS
10.
November 10, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: Consent to Dedication of Public Roads - Job 2197
PROBLEM: Subdivision 3833 must have Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District consent to Dedication for Public Roads of those portions of the
Districts easements which lie within the roads shown on the map of said
sub -division before they can file the sub -division map in the County Re-
corder's Office.
BACKGROUND: Checked with our attorney, Jim Carniato. He says O.K. to
execute consent documents. (short form)
RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
Respectfully submitted,
/Ja�c�kL. Best,
Office Engineer
JLB:ms
Recommendation approved:
G. A— Horstkotte, Jl?
Gener 1 Manager-Chie Engineer
Rom•
November 10, 1972
ME,'40RANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: G. A. Horstk.otte, Jr., General. Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: Approval, of the State Personnel Board Agreement:
at a Cost. of $3,400.00
At the District Board's 22-73 Budget Session, the staff presented a
number of requestsfar internal personnel promotions and adjustments for
the Board's consideration. The Board of Directors indicated they would
not consider this request,.or any similar change, until after we had another
State Classification and Salary Survey..
We contacted the State Cooperative Personnel Services and they have
sent the enclosed copy of the Agreement for the Board's approval and
signature. They indicated, in their cover letter, that they would not
be able to begin this project until May of 1973, and they would expect
to have a comprehensive report ready by August 1973.
We recommend execution of the State Agreement.
WCAO)��-�°z�
nv;��3
W. C. Dalton
Administrative Engi-.e.at
WCD:ms
JLB
Encl.
Aparoved:
G. A. Horstkotte, Jr.,
General Manager -Chien Engineer
AGREEMENT
THIS AGRUEEMENT, made and entered into this
day of , , by and between the STATE PERSONNEL
BOARD, througb its duly appointed qualified, and acting xasciitive
Officer;, party of the first paTT, hereinafter called the Board, and
The CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITART DISTRICT , party of
the second part, hereinafter called -the DISTRICT
WITNESSETH: That the parties, for and in consideration of the covenants,
conditions, agreements, and stipulations hereinafter expressed, hereby
agree as follows:
1. In consideratioL of the payment by the DISTRICT to
the Beard of the sum hereinafter prescribed in Schedule A. the Board does
hereby agues to perform those technical personnel services hereinafter
set forth, pursuant to the authority contained in Section 18707, Govern-
ment Code.
2. The Board shall
A. Prepare a classification plan covering employees of
the DISTRICT
B. Prepare a compensation plan for those classes of
positions recommended by the Board.
In performing the services incident to the preparation of a classifi-
cation plan, the Board shall:
(1) Make job analyses of all positions agreed to between the parties,
prepare appropriate class specifications, and allocate all positions to
their proper classifications.
T/C - 1
12/70
(2) Prepare such rules and regulations as may be necessary to
administer the classification plan.
(3) When requested, advise and assist the
in technical matters of personnel administration.
DISTRICT
In performing the services incident to the preparation of a compensa-
tion plan for the classified service of the
Board shall:
DISTRICT the
(1) Prepare salary range recommendations for all classes of positions
in the DISTRICTS service.
(2) Perform all necessary technical work in connection with the above
function.
(3) Prepare guidelines necessary for the administration of the compen-
sation plan in the DISTRICT
Schedule A
In consideration of the performance of the above functions by the Board,
the DTSTRTr.T agrees to reimburse the Board for all direct expense
of performance and reasonably proportionate shares of the indirect expense and
overhead expense as required by State Administrative Manual, Sections 8755-
8755.1, provided that the reimbursable costs shall not exceed $ 3,400
If additional services are requested of the Board, costing in excess of such
amount, this agreement shall be suitably amended in writing by mutual consent
of the parties in order to provide the additional funds.
In addition, the DISTRICT agrees to cooperate fully and
to furnish such clerical help and materials as may be necessary to the proper
performance of the above -mentioned services.
T/C - 2
12/70
The Board shall, from time to time, submit invoices covering services
rendered, and the DISTRICT agrees to pay such invoic:as within
sixty (50) days following receipt thereof,. This agreement may be ta. ji ina-ted
by either party hereto upon thirty (30) clays written notice prior to the date
of termination.
STATE PERSONNEL BOARD
By
Executive Officer
CENTRAL CONTRA-:�O�S.T TRYY DT. TRTC1°
By�
T/C e 3
12/ 0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA RONALD REAGAN, Governor
CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD
COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES
1217 H Street 714 W. Olympic Blvd.
Sacramento 95814 Los Angeles 90015
Mr. Jack Best
Office Engineer
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
P.O. Box 5266
Walnut Creek, California. 94596
Dear Mr. Best
i
N
Sacramento, California
October 30, 1972
.
a I I 11�.�i.
Iifs
=��:�
AC151
Mao �
— O
--II A
Is
o ~a
I *
In response to your recent request, this letter contains a work plan
and cost estimate for a comprehensive classification and salary study
for the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.
Cooperative Personnel Services is a unit of the State Personnel Board
which provides technical personnel services at cost to local govern-
ment agencies. In conducting the survey for your agency, we would
generally follow the procedures outlined in the attached'Steps in a
Classification and Salary Survey, up to and including the submission
of a comprehensive survey report.
The end result of this survey would be written recommendations on the
classification of positions and the assignment of classes to salary
ranges. We would not make organization or staffing recommendations.
It is our understanding that the survey would cover approximately
110 positions in approximately 40 classes. We would plan to interview
approximately 40% of the employees in the various positions. Class
specifications would be prepared for all classes.
We estimate that the classification and salary survey can be completed
for a cost not to exceed $3,400. This figure is a firm, maximum amount
for work up to and including the submission and presentation of a com-
prehensive report of our findings. It also includes the cost of a
salary recommendation for your General Manager - Chief Engineer position.
This cost estimate does not include the cost of an employee review
period and the preparation of a final report. If you desire a review
period and final report, we can provide them on an additional, actual
cost basis. This cost will vary depending upon the number and nature of
"appeals" and the procedure used to respond to them. While it is
difficult to make a firm cost estimate at this time, in our judgment
the additional cost should be approximately.$600.
Mr. Jack Best -2- October 30, 1972
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
According to our present work schedule, we could begin the project in
May 1973, with a comprehensive report ready in August 1973.
We are required to enter into contract with agencies of local government
for whom we provide service. If you wish to have us provide the survey
as indicated, please execute the enclosed contracts and return them to
Cooperative Personnel Services.
Should you have further questions regarding the proposed survey, please
feel free to call me at (916) 445-3494. A ,/
Ve
WFS : j g
Ear..
. S
fornia Manager
California State Personnel Board
Cooperative Personnel Services
IM A 'CLASS] FICATION AMID SkLARY SURVE:Y
These are the steps noimaliy followed by Cooperu;'.ve Personnel Services in performing a classi-
fication and salary survey for an agency of local government. —Local conditions may indicate
need foF chrdnge�' to meet thv, regin'Tementz of a porliculm- jurisdicHon,
m PiIREUMINAIRY MFETINGS
Three lypss of preliminary meetings, care normcl.,,, cold. At the option of the local jurisdiction,
these may be preceded by a letter to all persons involved which describes our organization
and the purpose: and procedures of th,-., survey, if desired, we would prepare a draft of such
n letter for issuance by the administiwive authoiiiy of the. jurisdiction.
A preliminary iriceting witfi the, administrative --,?off oil the jurisdiction is held to explain the
methods of the survey and to discuss their role hi the conduct of the survey. phis discussion
assists in identifying existing classification and salary policies of the jurisdiction and
specific areor, for attention in the mudy, and considera?.qcn of such subjects as the
sources of salary information to be considered in the survey.
Meetings with representatives of employee orj,-Ilnizcttions or other employee representatives
are held to discuss the purpose and procedures of the survey and to receive their comments
on subjects '?hat relate to the survey.
Meetings with all avoilobie empioyevs are nele to inform them of the purpose and procer,ures
of the survey and to distribute job description forms on which the employees are asked to
describe their duties and responsibilities. Mhon completed, these forms are reviewed by
supervisors and administrators and one copy is sent to Cooperative Personnel Services. In
these meetings We encourage discussion Of our survey methods and standards and indicate
that any employee may request u member of our foaff to meet and tans with him.
ci GATHERING JOB INFORMATION
After reviewing the job description forms, th,survey staff interviews many employees to
verify job information and to obtain c good understunding of representative jobs. The exact
number of interviews depends on the kinds of 'obs involved and the questions they present.
Normally, it is desirable for us to meet and ;elk to at least a third of the employees. We
interview any employee who requests an inte:-iow, employees whose duties are unc leor or
uncertain, those in newly established positions, sand some in each kind of work Vane. le:
also interview supervisory and odrnin�istrotive .,unsonnel to clarify our understanding of jobs
and of the organizatior
x CLASSIFICATIOM OF POSMONS
Based on thorough job knowledge, the next step is to group positions into classes:
When their duties and responsibilities a-c -sufficiently similar so that they can be given
the same title.
When the same minimum qualifications anti t:ie same tests of fitness can I oe required.
When the same salary standards can be applied with equii-y.
The classification process involves comparison and ranking of position,; on the basis (if
their duties and responsibilities.
CPS-Sacto (9'68)
Steps in a Classification and Salary Survey -3-
n CLASSIFICATION AND SALARY REPORT
A comprehensive report of the survey findings and recommendations is prepared. The survey
staff is available to present and discuss this report with the administration and the governing
board. The report contains:
An explanation of the purposes and objectives of a classification and pay plan, and
suggestions on its administration and maintenance.
Discussion and comments on areas of change or potential disagreement.
Class specifications and a list assigning each position to a class,
Salary survey data, class relationship charts, and salary recommendations.
A method of converting to the new schedule if the recommended salary schedule differs
from the one in use.
An estimole of the cosh of adopting classification and salary recommendations.
is REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS
With the agreement of the local governing board, the report is made available for review by
employees, employee representatives, and supervisory and administrative staff.
Opportunity is given for employees to raise questions in writing. The survey staff reviews all
comments received. As appropriate, the survey staff may meet with administrators, employee
representatives, or individual employees for further discussion of survey recommendations.
This step gives the survey staff an opportunity, to make further studies or reevaluations.
n HNAL REPORT
Upon completion of the review of recommendations, the staff prepares final comments and
recommends any necessary changes in the survey report. Cooperative Personnel Services
then issues a final report to the governing body.
CPS-Sacto (9'68) Paue 3
. ALIFORMIA STATE PERSONNEL BO A
Cooperative Personnel Services
INSTRUCTIONS
For the Completion of Standard Form Contracts and Resolutions
Authorizing ?pork to be Performed by Cooperative Personnel Services
Resolution Frovidihorization of the Contract and
AuThority Ste„
If you �7ish Tv enter into a co'S trac'T with The State Personnel B(ds`rd, Two zlem,Esws
in addition to the signed ca t 'act are r6,'Csiaived LAP our .'segal division, These e1rs
(1) an action of yuuz, govephing boats zpproving the enter!ng Atenvvrsc
into a contract forthe ��erfo��� r:;c,cv of E-echo`,caX, bav€
pavy onnel servicea ; and provided a
sample of V,
(2) an action of your governing bua= & au°3;hovADg a person. Board
to KgR the c ovtvact in their behalf,. Resolution.
Certified copies of.both these actions (ov they. may be combined into one action)
ius ttached to Wh cc 7 r of the contrnc O Wea se refer to the other si.d.p.
of this form for sample resolutian.
Number of Co aies and Signature of Standard Form Contracts
Cities and Count Les ; Return four copies each bearing orig5 nal signature
of the person authorized to sign for the city or
aountya We Fil..;l, return pane copy c;f t'hc �ixvcyutE€,d
contract to, you for your files
School Dig T&M; Return dive copies each bearing original, siguasur
of the persona authorized to sign for the schcol
district, We mill oaturn two copies: of the e ec uZe
contTzct to yc uy distri.c o
Corrections or Changes
,any additions, deletions, or changes in the printed contract roust be
initialed on each copy by the person authorized by your governing board
to sign the contract.
Return of Executed Contract
After your agency has affixed the authorized signature and attached the
required certified copies of gOVLrning board actions, send I M contract;
to us. They will then be signed by the Executive Officer of the State
Personnel Board. Certain contracts also require approval of the State
Department of, Finance® Upon final execution, we will return a signed
cosy or cosies to you for your, files.
SAMPLE 'RESOL J S I CANT
Exoarp t from the minutes of the
s��_xae -of�ai ®.�ad���
mse ti-nv held _ -
!���.ca
On the recosmilandatlon of
it Was DIOV d by
(n.Fime and
and sal=onded by
g�� tit lei
that
be authorized to enter into and si,gu an agreament with the State O
Ca.l,i.fa nia California State :Persoranal Baiiard, Cooperative Personnel Services
Div3,sioxi, ue the purpose of performing ra position classification arad/car
sa.la survey fear.the
de a r 2�� � title of Va.�diction r_g
The motion was carried, as i.ndirated
Ayes
Noes
Absent
1 certify that his is a true cope of a portio-n of the minutes at -shy; „
- exact legal, tit.. of governing bodyw
of the � � ,��_� _�_ �, e.x Ti `;ji-D t E1e 0 Ia-01sdicfi scan .=rt
da-ted
.�.��a41t�a d=��,���ea�. J—•,�.�.
Name and title of Board Secretary —
or other authorized person.)
ategh*A**hhikzk**A a.ira`s****sih,` r,;" 'shAY& ;
Essential elements of the required Resolution are:
(1) Exact legal titles and exact dates.
(2) Statement authorizing tr.s agreement between the Governing Body and
the State of California.
(3) Brief statement of the service(s) to be performed under contract.
(4) Name and title of person authorized by the Governing Body to execute
the agreement.
(5) Certification by the Secretary or other authorized person that a
true copy of the Resolution has been provided.
V11. MW J=INEbb
11. a.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
IISION Gil- AJVATJ-_::-2 QXJAL1'rf CONTROL
(M 1015, "RESOURCES BUJLDJPIG
1416 M.:MTH STREET o SACRAMENTO 95814
Octcbs� 25, 1972
77
1
ONAL,,qEAC1 I
RONAL, qEAQ"
CD
AIR,
Governor
r!
i
M
< po
ttl
I—t00--
16 � MOTICCE, TO AGIMTC13S SEEMING CCLEAM TffATFR G,�XSTs
�E
he SLt:-Ote 'J7atar R,:: BoL 'A,9hS�13 'LIC QC ch` 1qs to Gx5,M'L
,rha chF_�:nga 'wien-,ild Jrkava t;h
wata,c pxoject prc-�
a o �__3
1,6 .-1 �Xltival Zia
cz-ozzit-Y lava! suffician, - to r-selt
of gxo'',Ttla� Y11h � 0 p 44; i on `c; 0 bu i I a a,32 al t ozl_zl 1 0 1-1,T- b a --I:,
ba axa:rcisa4 by tha loczl aganzy but tLa
&A
mu---Pluz V70uld bz cz1Qu1ztaa on z pxo,-c,7FVZL-1R `b-zsio �Lna ba
en aL-y �111a,,Qc-n-tazd to the laczl zgwway-
Thli'� ef 'Ll-ALo Cl�wtnkgZ,� ba to -�
1,, an�chia_va;, batta:4, ',1bz1@_:,nca o�� zinticl - ip.
�aail-ity neado va EaZta��zuL g3:,ELyA,, f
t-0 gas mzntla Mvailzbla-,
zlcq
in �F�xa�,,-JE3
_quch au.cplu� aL
I U t i a n zmd C on t ;,;l di c3 "at, a U 1, -4 -7 n I i C
po W, an clean, L19 eff oc�cta,,
As it relates to tha f- r9t obje--tive,
17 n c a
that federal, grant funding -,A.1.1. nct I p:,Taj.�ict naeds
currently identified on the Lunicipa-1 'WrIFts,4atar TraatmanL Projec�,
Lists and therefore must search for Tgays "to trim costs aligible
for grant support. The precedent for limi-ting grant- aid for surpIU5
capacity beyond 20 years is al:raady pxovidad for in -action 2144.
Prohibition of 'aid for new independent develo __):r.ent i� also alread-y
provided for. -Reducing grant aid for su::?,1L1,'B capacity acroas-than
board in all projects was considered but rajactea by the Board in
favor of 'the proposal to limit aid for aurplu.i capacity in critical
air araas.
Objective 2 is sought by both the 3nvironmental Protection A-ziency
and the State Air Razourc�n Board as evidencad by letters
from those two entities on fila with the Ste ll%_- Water Resou-_-c,,a3
Control Board. This objective would also Fvp,pgar to be
with the intent of -the State Environment-a..,L 6u�ility Act of 19710
2-
The proposed regulation change would leave designation of
aaL.' ritic l air airacss V up to the State it Ras'curC4 5 Boar& P1-_
report identifying such ar ao prapzr d by the Airs Board staff
is enclosed as Zttzcb=nt B. Mote that he last page of the
attachment i entifiao �. Mee types of arers defined zs C-1, C-2,
and C-3 . he d f faxanc a ba kwazn tha three aps n4s on severity
one ;the air pollution in terms of oxidant concan xat one o The
staf prppoaaa thzt application of the propooma new grant limitation
nolicy_ ould be to the arazo del N 0 as C- - and C-a o
We solicit youd testimony at a 2 timing to be tilt in Lao Angeles
on DeceWjer.7o 1972o Iz efer to AtMcbmant A) Plazas oubm t wri � teT'
statements TO Myo in advance of he hearing if at all pos&ble o
R11 written ata taman ts xecs A Dyad will be ncorpox ted Wo h
hearing record.
Sincerely
John Olaf
Assistant
Manager -
MCA= Chief
Grznts for Clean Watex
A t achmants
ATTAACHNFA13T A
STATE w CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor
5',"ATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ROOM 1015, RESOURCES BUILDING
6 NINTH STREET 0 SACRAMENTO 95814
YOT7.CE OF PROPOSED CzERLYGES TO SECT1,10,-S 2144
OF CLEM, IMMER GPk'IT PROGRAM REGULRMIUYS
NOTICE IS Z2-_,R1K8Y GIVZKY that the St-rl�'-_e eater Resources
Control Board, pursurzuft -to the autho.rity vcstad by Sections 7058
and 13976(h) of the Water Code, and to implement, interpat, or
make specific Chapter 8 of Division 7 of the Uater Code, proposes
to amend Section 2144 of Subchapter 2,, Chapter 3, Title 23 of the
Califo,niia Administrative Code to raafl;, as fallaws,_,
112 144 Wastewater treatment projects
shall be designed to accommodate normal anticipated growth 'baosel
uP8!a Oeund -Planni-R9T 'Airzteriz and euk-ren-t pspulatien t5senda7
88-4nA da eg aphie Prejeetirenar and se-und engineering and
eeensmi,-_ pvineiples® consistent 7j,7ith applicable land use
and oep�Iati�qn_p2licies_, Except as provided in the last
paragraph of this sectiqs2_2 '��-Ihe eligible project cost-"
hwgavauF shall -generally be limited as follows (where "x"
means that capacity needed to serve existing development
within the p_�opos,,sd sarvice area), -
(a) Treatment plant - the cost of that plant or
addition which would not increase "x" beyond the capaci.,11---y
indicated in the following table:
Total Eligible
Existing "X"
1 mgd or less --------------
4�0
31X14
2 ingd
305
NIX It
3 mgd -----------------------
.'j (),
IJ
ifX IN
4 mgd-----------------------
2�5
11x11
5 mg,44 or creata Z -----------
2.0
11XII
or beyond the ca?acitY pl:oiecced 20 years hence, whichaver is
rest--icti.va, e;,ccep.- that aooronria-M--ly das-Lqned headwork
facilit-,ias 'to accomY7,o(�a'!-.e Zaasonable foreca-.-t. a.xpansion 3"".all
ba considered an eligibla project cost cor;jpom�ent.
ko) ln"_-erceotors and the cosl%z of that facility
V"hich vould not incraasa bayond the capaciCy indicated in
,.he following tabla
5 Mgt or lazz; -
5 Mgd or gxwat r -----------
is Bona xaotric iva o
Total Eligible
`�-w 1 I`' Lv `l, Ste. `� t
3 A U 0)
U tr
2 A JOa"
costs of facility capacity in anclon of the capacity
limitationo in (a) and Jb) Wave although Wligibla would
will not he provisos to accommudats xcess vy infiltration
that can ba Cornactas by MOX0 KOALA mzznvcapacity tax
More inflltrmtion ahzll 5a lim tal to f ov z that can a
During thozz fiscal YzzXa that GXQVP III Projacts, Zoe not
zlig ble for grans PzrWWPMWon' zpzw y AsIUM in lass B
tha c saxiz zpylis t to lass A intaxnaptaxa oball ba eligible
for grant mzAa WnQz an a p roratz b asM
which serve ampanzion of amiating communities in accartance
�7��withthe pxoMiosSs of � � � shi o awstirJno Gr`:Ls`-1t:7 will not be made
z;lviailFl1ble for projects to Ozxve new inlap.ynC` ant Rnc1
pollu-
tion problem io of o zxxi«` ing impoxUncs, In the lattax came,
grant pans o pnon �3� 11 be MlaxminM in ascon d,ance with the
axon Sona of ZO auction axcep`s is zt costs of facility
wbovD although inalig Nle nill he alcula ` ad on a pxoyatz basis,.
facil tiaz too nwaza WcMwO nova, j, nexally should not ba
. 'wp?noa 02 G _ v I 'op3xa e TVA Pwavizion in not intan4ad to
control aavalopi ank P"t, az y but 1z nacn 3 eoy can is the
limitad funds ZVOIa; la to ooTract polrsyticn PToblamzo
curnan t mv, by Mat title
ile nhich his y 4 a asic a s ed
Ail, gouuzca
a3v)cialad with
b v no tM data
niiwiwatad
C i dS S
ioracwt abill be bnoad on cunX,aMt Man - It 'an! ci Finince
2=1042a
iYOTICE Is AD-90, rzavv- wy panson intawanad may
pxeaant vtztzmantz ax orguranto ozally or in nwiting xelavant to
the action pxopowi at a havring to bw held on Thursday,
Decabbax 7, 1972, at 10 a.m.; Room 1138, 107 Bwoav--a,;�my, Loo Angslus,
colifaxnia 90012< Ma BOW; watwx ROZOUXcez Control Bowd, UPC -(A,
mcion OK at the WWc, W wy Waywykad perzon, way
thwaaftaw zRopt thn nbow pxopnonlo aubatznVally zo zbove wt
forth vithout fuXthar noWca''
Wted, Octobar 25, 1972
S-�RAOE 'IDATESl RISCUMBS CUTMOL TGARD,
hill Brandly
EwcuOva Officw
(J ATTACED=T B
Air .Resources Board
IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL AREAS
OF CONCERN
REGARDING URBAN DEVELOPMENT
September 20, 1972
The Air Resources Board, in reviewing environmental impact
statements for projects which are planning a net increase in
capacity to accommodate increased population, is concerned
with projects proposed in areas where there is difficulty in
achieving air quality standards. The standard of primary
concern in urban areas is the oxidant standard. The federal
air quality standard for oxidant is .08 ppm as an -hourly
average. In 1970 levels approximately eight times the standard
were reached in the South Coast Air Basin.
Oxidant results from photochemical reactions involving oxides
of nitrogen and organic gases. The major source of these
pollutants is the motor vehicle and emissions are generally
in proportion to the number of people. Thus increased
population results in increased air pollutant emissions and
makes achievement of the oxidant standard more difficult.
The Air Resources Board has divided the State into eleven
air basins (Figure 1). An air basin is an area of common
air pollution problems. Emissions of pollutants in one part
of a basin influence air quality in other parts of the basin.
The degree of influence one part of a basin has on other
parts of the basin depends on many factors including topog-
raphy and a number of meteorological variables.
The State has developed an implementation plan for achieving
air quality standards in each air basin in the State. The
plan for control of oxidant depends largely on reduction in
emissions from motor vehicles through addition of emission
control syste-ms, changes to a lower polluting fuel and a
reduction in number of vehicle miles driven. Some of the
control strategies proposed will be difficult to carry out.
Federal law requires achievement of the oxidant standard by
1975 with a possible extension to 1977. The Air Resources
Board does not project complete achievement of the oxidant
standard in the South Coast, San Francisco Bay Area, or
Sacramento Valley Air Basins by 1975. If the Board is able
0 to accomplish all of the reductions it proposed, them achieve-
ment of the oxidant standard is expected in 1977 ir_ the
-2-
Sacramento Valley and San Francisco Bay Area.. Air ;basins
However, if a 20% reduction in motor vehicle use and other
control strategies are not accomplished, the standards may
not be achieved in these two areas by 1.977o Achievement
of the oxidant standard in the South Coast Basic is not
expected by 1980, even with all of the control ,strategies
proposed.
Within the South Coast, San Francisco Bay Area, and Sacramento
Air Basins, the Board is most concerned with additional
development in areas in or near where high oxidant levels
have been reported. Figure 2 shows areas of oxidant levels
equal to or above the federal. standard in 1970 and. 197.1. o
The areas sho';,Yn represent these for which there was air
quality data and presumes that air quality in the area
sur_z-ounding the station' is similar to that measu ed at the
station. There are about 85 air monitoring stations in the
State that measure oxidant. It is possible that.the.axidant
standard was equalled or exceeded' in other urban areas. of
the State where oxidant was not monitored,
.In reviewing environmental impact statements for projects
planning for increased capacity to accommodate increased
population, the Air Resources Board is most concerned with
projects in the South Coast, :San ;Francisco Bay Area, and
Sacramento Valley Air Basins that may delay achievement of
air quality standards. In addition the Board is concerned
with projects in or near urban areas where air quality
standards were exceeded in 1970 or were likely exceeded.
The degree of concern with projects -in urban areas depends
largely on oxidant levels. The greater the oxidant level,
the greater the concern,
v
i a
v
�� Y•RI ii'
T`A SaN M♦NCI'-
I.y
S i S k I T O u 1 Y 0 D O C I
• j� I
i�
f i
I o L ♦ S 9 E N I
f r.�n1rT 1 9�N • e r a II
1 T E X ♦ Y A
AN Ball
Gatti
M E N D O C! N O �--� 4 L E N N
wr ./L A X E ) c o l a s at
y �• l Y r� AYOYrn�'� �'�
T 0 L 0 RPI..-MI. �J
Y l ..a ww IM hZ
��'�-Sr y ^.qA♦ L I I N E )){S
/.T v O L u N N E
►MEN`
W 0
r
:0�0 rT�� .rdi•1104
Y EDA PO
\MARI P05A
} Jew � � Yn.fa \ ! •
X GLANAL'
.:y. SWiyr ` T� �(\ fr "`ice✓/
1
Y O N T E N EL T�
SAN Luit 0515Po�
Lo. C." 1
AIR POLLUTION IN URBAN AREAS
1970 -1971
MAXIMUM HOURLY AVERAGE
OXIOANT CONCENTRATIONS
C — 3 0.08 TO 0.19 p p m
C - 2 0.20 TO 0.29 ppm
C - t 0.30 ppm & Greater
71 Te11
SANTA RARDA PR A
t '-•\ _ D.nT�4r�.S# vl�.J1T u R A t
D 5 A N a E R N A R 0 1 N 0 ((\`
11I•
NDSL EE
'54
S A a L
(...111.'.'. . —j— - .....►...
_"J'] C-3, 7 _r" S C, 7 i10 < I
November 6, 1972
Mr. P. L. 3oneysteele
Central costa County Sanitary District
1250 SPrincrbrooll-1 Road
Walnut Greek, California 94596
Dear Mr. Boueysteele,
VII. NEW BUSINESS
:1
till ti1 1via.
1 , ll 9
0
M C
C
44
3
L I
0
0
The Golden Gate Section of the Technical 1�ssOciatioa of the Pulp and Paper
Industry is sponsoring a one day Western Fiber Recycling Conference to be held
December 6, 1972, at H's Lordships Restaurant in Berkeley. 'The conference will
be held between the hours of 10:00 a,mo and 5gO0 pm., followed by a no -host
reception.
On behalf of the Golden Gate Section, I wound like to invite you br your
representatives to attend and take part in Our conference. We believe you would
be able to contribute your own special kno�,;Iedge about various aspects of paper
recycling and solid waste management, and you would also have a chance to learn,
more of the technical and other aspects of the subject.
Only through the free exchange of ideas by all interested grcu-
e 0 �s can w2
effect fair and equitable policies and procedures in the recyclinti field it future
years. One of the major aims of this conference is to (!st-abj.is,.1 C, e�
communicatioa among all sectors of recycling --- consu ) tter lines of
mers, wasta Collectors,
waste paper dealers, pulp and paper mills, and public agencies.
We respectfully invite your participation in our conference. The reg:istrat,'1ran
cost is small, only $15.00, which includes lunch. Please let me knoll
wolild be able to ahead and if you desire to be called upon for comments during
the conference.
CS
0
Sincerely yours,
Edward H. Jaeger, Chairman
COLDURI GATE SECTION TAPPI
C/o Crown-Zellerbach Corp., Box 10
Antioch, California 94509
Novecuiber 1, `1-972
FI-MAX, EXPWOPPURE STNUIM, - Pljj)'r jp,0,jECT
cccs-o Total ExpercU.tureEZl'rolT�gh June
$372,819,8)
EPA A-pp-zove4l Vouclu,,;: RUjj ,£p r
$31fi,772,65
VUL31'71,— NO 2 Rf,oe:�ved D-j
$24!,,00, 69
e
Funds Rece:Lv d '-36.319!!.)l
AFRA ATPP7,n--ov�!d our- lea: Funds Received 3ti,,637 o 28
�177, 17`? 88
EPA Apprave,,c', Vciuctle-c Funds Receivcd 07
GCC'8) CJI.,-�tl.v— Youcher No, 24 898-17
15,783.8J
Ccs ) F ivial Cll !.Zal , Vot%clie-f" 140 B 8 817 68
94,286.15
Due CCCSD from, CCCWr, through Juue 30, 1972 k 38,05-/.41
CCCSD TOTAL COST FOR PROJECT $ 56,228.711
Equipment W,048.73
Contract #8493 _28-200-8.68
*TOTAL s3-89057-.4--1
!�,FINANCAL REPORT ON,
CENTRAL CONTRA CC
PERIOD
A. SALARIES & WAGES
B. FRINGE BENLFITS
D. EQUIPMENT :.
E. SUPPLIES
Spent
Bud et
%
Spent
Bud et
%
Spent
Budget
4
%
Spent
B,
Through
$51,108.00
100
$13,250.'00
100
$47,600.00
19
$2,,
30 SEP 70
is t TR
$2,056.72
4
$ 534.75
4
$13,769.62
-0-
.2nd QTR
$49,051.28
96
$12,715.25
96
$33,830.38
71
$2,-,
31 DEC 70
$ 8,488.12
17
$2,206.91
17
$65,802.18
195
$ 1,439.25
3d QTR
$40,563.16
79
10,508.34
79
1110,752.26
A 11
$ 1f 3
31 MAR 71
$6,498.41
13
$11689.59
13
$ 3,500.50
$ 678.29
4th QTR
34,064.75
66
$8,818.75
66
= 6,385.34
7
$ 6'
30 June 71
$7 091.82
14
$1,843.87
14
$ 499.72
$2,338.28
lst QTR
26,972.93
53
6,974.88
53
* 5,885.62
r
;6
30 SEP 71
$6,654.79
13
$1,730.23
13
$ 646.86
12,102.57
2d QTR
20,318.14
40
53,244.63.
40
*5,238.76
*(1,0
31 Dec. 71
$4,996.47
10
$1,299.08
10
$ 795.08
� 0
$ 776.92
3d QTR
15.321..67
30
3,945.55
30
* 4,443.68
5
*(1,81
31 Mar.72
$1,994.88
4
$ 518.67
4
-0-
r0
$ 32.17
4th QTR
13,326.79
26
3,426.88
•26
* 4,443.68
5
*(1,8
1 Aprjj0junp
$ 408.07 1
12,918.72
1
$ 106.10
3,320.78
1
$ 196.38
* 4,247.30
1
$ 120.00
*(195
$38,189.28
25 $9,929.22
.
25
4
CONTRA COSTA G
Through
$17,338.00
100
$ 5,201.00
100
$47,600.00
100
$2,77
30 SEP 70
A4.021.14
23
$1,206.34
23
$21.94
st QTR
-.. _._..
__.. _
$ 4,495.32
,_9
2nd QTR
$13,316.86
77
3,994.66
77
$43,104.68
91
$2,75
31 DEC 70
4 645.45
27
1,377.88
27
$ 380.62
3d QTR
$ 8,671.41
50
$ 2,616.78
50
$42,724.06
p0
$2,75
31,MAA 71
$1,600.86
9
$ 480.25
9
$ 866.42
2
-0-
4th QTR
7,070.55
41
t2,136.53
41
$41,857.64
�8
2,75'
30 June 11
$4,038.17
23
$1,046.45
20
-0-
-o-
lst QTR
3 032.38
�
17
$1 090.08
21
$41,857.64
8'8
$2,75u
30 SEP 71
$3,395,41
$1 018.62
20
-0-
-0-
2d QTR.
(.363.03)
(2)
$ 71.46
1
$41,857.64
818
$2,753
31 Dec. 71
$ 960.61
(6)
$ 288.18
6
-0-
1
-0-
3d QTR
(1,323.64)
(8)
($216.72)
(4)
'$41,857.64
8.8
$2,753
31 Mar. 72
-0-
0
-0-
0
-0-
1
-0-
4th QTR
(1,323.64)
(8)
($216.72)
(4)
$41,857.64
8$
$2,753
Ap193")r-30 Ju
-0-
(1,323.64)
(8)
-0-
($216.72)
(4)
-0-
$41,857.64
88
-0-
$2,753
TOTAL PROJE
HRU 12/31/7
T 18%
$68,446.00
100
19%
18,451.00
100
89%
95,200.00
100
26%
$5,55C
$19,211.43
49,234.57
72
$5,325.88
13,125.12
71
$84,447.74
$10,752.26
11
1,461.19
$4,08E
DOTAL PROJE
T 56%
56%
94%
81%
W 6130/71
$38,440.69
$30,005.31.
44
$10,386.04
$ 8,064.96
44
$89,314.38
$ 5,885.-62
6
$4,477.76
$1,07
COTAL PROJE
T 80%
80%
95%
?
133%
IRU 12/31/71
$54,447.96
$14,722.17
$90,756.32
$73,357.25
TOTAL PROJE
T 83%
$13,998.94
20
81%
$ 3,728.83
20
96%,
$ 4,443.68
6
($1,80
RU 63j
f,:50.;a91
$11r59S.09
17
15,146.4
$_3,104.06
17
$9095270
r
$4470
7,509.4
01,95!
*Includes $496.79 *Includes $149.04 *Total amount �°f funds remaining in
Installation Labor Installation Fringe Proj-661-_" Biidge� of $95,200.00
*Includes $3,,260.28 Benefits (Labor *This amount decreased $1,242.00 *Total amount of
,,Installation labor *Includes $962.33
to reflect apn_roved Vouch maining in budge
Installation fringe benefits f $5;550.00% _
!:-F,NANciL REPORT ON WATER RENOVA*1
PR04KCT
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY D
STPTCT
TRIES & WAGES
B. FRINGE BENEFITS
D. EQUIPMENT *
Q
E. SUPPLIES
F. TRAVEL
Budget
%
Spent
Bud et
%
Spent
Bud et
%
Spent
Bud et
%
Spent
Budget
$51,108.00
100
$13,250.M
100
$47,600.00
i00
$2,775.00
1f)n
$ 1,095.
2
4
$ 534.75
4
$13,769.62
w`29
-0-
$2,775.00
-0-
100
6.82
$49,051-.28
96
812,715.25
96
$33,830.38
�71
$1,088,
2
17
$2,206.91
17
$65,802.18
195
$ 1,439.25
52
26.7
$40,563.16
79
10,508.34
79
*10,752.26
11
$ 1,335.7-9
48
$1,061.
L
13
$1,689.59
13
$ 3,500.50
$ 678.29
24
$.470.00
34,064.75'
66
$8,818-75
66
= 6,385.34
,7
$ 657.46
24
$ 591.
2
14
$1,843.87
14
$ 499.72
$2,338.28
-0-
26,972.93
53
6,974.88
53
* 5,885.62
r
6
*$1.,072.24
19
-
$ 591,
9
13
$1,730.25
13
$ 646.86
1 0
02.102.57
(3
�.
-0-
20,318.14
40
5,244.63
40
*5,238.76
;-6
*(1,030.33)
(19
$ 591.
7
10
$1,299.08
10
$ 795.08
0
$ 776.92
-0-
151321.67
30
3,945.55
30
* 4,443.68
5
*(1,807.25)
(33
$ 591.
8
4
$ 518.67
4
-0-
�0
$ 32.17
0
-0-
13,326.79
26
3,426.88
-26
* 4,443.68
5
*(1,839.42)
(3
$ 591,
7
12,918.72
1
$ 106.10
3,320.78
1
$ 196.38
* 4,247.30
1 1
$ 120.00
*(1959.42)
(2
-0-
f
$ 591.
I
I
I
28 25 $9,929.22 25 4 (35)
CONTKA COSTA COUNT`? '44ATER DI, ICT
$17,338.00
100
$ 5,201..00
100
$47,600.00
1.00
$2,775.00
100
$ I , 095.
23
k$1,206.34
23
'$ 4,495.32
�9
$21.94
0
152.75
13,316.86
77
3,994.66
77
$43,104.68
91
$2,753.06
100
J
$ 942.
27
1,377.88
27
$ 380.62
.1
-0-
*$352;62
$ 8,671.41
50
$ 2,616.78
50
$42,724.060
$2,753.06
100
c
Y 589.
9
$ 480.25
9
$ 866.42
2
-0-
$ 711 o
7,070.55
41
1
$2,136.53
41
$41,857.64
8
$2,753.06
100
$ 515
23
$1,046.45
20
-0-
-0-
$ 2C.8
3,032.38
17
$1,090.08
21
$41,857.64
88
$2,753.06
100
$ 494
$1 018.62
20
-0-
-0-
-0-
(. 363.03)
(2)
$ 71.46
1
$41,857.64
818
$2,753.06
100
i
$ 494
(6)
$ 288.18
6
-0-
t
-0-
-0-
(1,323.64)
(8)
($216.72)
(4)
$41,857.64
818
$2,753.06
100
$ 494
0
-0-
0
-0-
i
-0-
-0-
(1,323.64)
(8)
($216.72)
(4)
$41,857.64 1
88
$2,753.06
100
$ 492
(1,323.64)
(8)
-0-
($216.72)
(4)
-0-
$41,857.64
88
-0-
$2,753.06
100
-0-
$ 492
$68,446.00
100
19%
f18,451.00
100
89%
$95,200.00
100
26%
$5,550.00
100
257.
$2,190.
0
49,234.57
72
$5,325.88
13,125.12
71
$84,447.74
$10,752.26
11
1,461,19
$4,088.81
74
533-92
1,651.
56%
94%
81%
50%
i9
$30,005.31
44
$10,386.04
$ 8,064.96
44
$89,314.38
$ 5,885:62
6
$40,477.76
$1,072.24
19
1$1,-103.79$1,086.
80%
95%
1
133%
501
16
$14,722.17
$90,756.32
$7,357.25
$1,103.7
$13,998.04
20
8n
$ 3,728.83
20
96%,
$ 4,443.68 r
fi
($1,807.25)
(33)
507.
$1,086.
1
$11 595.09
17
P15,346.94
$_3,104.06 1
17 1
$90y952.70
$4 A47 .,30 r'
+�
�7,509.42
01,959.42
351
$1,103.7
i
$1,086.
$496.79 *Includes $149.04 *Total amount f funds remaining in
rof-66"t" it
of $95 , 200. 00
Installation Fringe
$3,260.28 Benefits (Labor) *`his amount decreased $1,242.00 *Total amount of funds re -
ion labor *Includes $962._3 to reflect apn_roved Vouchmaining in budget of
Installation fringe benefits
CONTRACT 8398
CONTRACT 8493
1. CONTRACT TOTALS
GRAND TOTALS
%
Spent
Budget
%
Spent
Budget
%
Spent
Budget
r
Spent
Budget
100
$1.0,000.00
100
$110,750.00
100
$120,750.00
100
$2363-578.00
100
1
$6,637.31
66
$25,244.32
23
$31,881.63
26
$48,249.54
-
20
99
$3,362.69
34
$ 85.505.68
77
$ 88,868.37
74
$188,328.46
80
2
$2,464.36
25
$42,236.03
38
$44,700.39
3!
122 663.58
52
97
898.33
9
$ 43,269.65
39
$ 44,167.98
3j7
$ 65,664.88
28t:
43
$ 898.33
$
$34,878.90
31
$35,777.23
' 3�
t 48,614.02
21
54
-0-
0
8,390.75
8
t 8,390.75
:7
$ 17,050.86
7
-0-
$30,573.08
$30,573.08
'
$ 42,346.77
54
-0-
0
$88,567.67
40
k$88,005.17
3�
*$134,119.51
31
-0-
$33,555.76
15
$33,555.76
13
S 44,690.23
10
54
-0-
$55,011.91
25
*$54,449.41
2.j
$ 89,429.28
21
-0_
0.
25 458.87
11
$25,458.87
141
$ 33,326.42
8'.:
54
-0-
_
*$29,553.04
13
*$28,990.54.
1-2
$ 56,102.86
13
-0-
-0-
0
$18,581.06
8
1
$18,581.06
8--
$ 21,126.78
5'
54
-0-
0
k$10,971.98
5
*10,409.48
4r
$ 34,976.08
8
0
-0-
-0-
1 0
-$10,971.98
-0-
0
$10,971,98
*( 562.50)
-
$ 11,802.53
$ 23,173.55
3
54 0 0 0' 5
100
�10,000.00
lOfl
8110,750.00
100
$120,750.00
100
$194,759.00
100
14
$8,721.41
87
-0-
-0-
$ 8,721.41
*18 618.90
10
86
1,278.59
13
S110,750.00
100
$112,028.59
93
$176,140.10
90
32
*S1,841.09
13
-0-
$ 1,841.09
2
$ 8,597.66
5
54
-0-
0
$110,750.00
100
$110,187.50
91
11
$-'-7,s'2.44
85
7
-0-
-0-
$ 3,021.60
47
-0-
0
$110,750.00
100
$110,187.50
91
$164,520-84
$ 5,105.42
3
45
-0-
0
8110,750,00
100
$110,187.50
91'
$159,415.42
82
-0-
-0-
$ 4,414.03
2'.
45
$110,750.00
100
$110,187.50
91,
$155,001.39
803
-0-
0
-0-
-0-
S 1,248.79
1'
45
$110,750.00
100
$110,.187.50
91,
$153,752.60
79
'
-0-
0
-0-
-0-
-0-
0
9
7 45
-0-
0
$110,750.00
100
110,187.50
91
$153,752.60
79
7 45
A
0
-0-
$110,750.00
100
-0-
110,187.50
91
-0-
$153,752.60
79
100
91%
$20,000.00
100
30%
$221,500.00
100
36%
$241,500.00
100
46%
431,337.00
loci
75
*19,664.17
898.33
9
67,480.35
154,019.65
70
$87,144.52
154,355.48
64
$198,129.68
233,207,32
54
100%
60%
4%
50
$20,562.50
-0-
0
$132;932.33
$ 88;567.67
40
$153,494.83
$88,005.17
36
'$297,217.49 $134,119.51
31
100%
87%
88% •
�88%
$20,562.50
$191,946.96
$2123,509.46
$380,896.96
50
100%
_0_
100%
$ 29,553.04
13
100%
$28,990.54
12
ij6%
50;440.04-
12
50
$20,562.50
($562.50
0
$221,500.00
-0-
0
$242,062.50
-0-
0
$413,826.27
P 17,510.73
.4'
*Includes $562.50 *Total amount of funds remaining in *This amount decreased'$1,242.00
Legal for contract budget of $221,500.00 and $241.,500..00., to reflect approved Vo#cher #1
*Total amount of fug remaining
in get of $431,337,00.
Kl� NEW BUSINESS
NO',
570 RACE s,rREE1 - P.O. E30X 5040 . SAN JOSE, CA. 95750 - AREA CODE (408) 294-7470
November 7,
COSH
SA1111TARY DJSTR9GT
C E: 1
E D
NOV 10 '72
Admin. I!-
AdmTn. Ant.
Oisidct Counsel
LID
Mr. W, C. Dalton
Acting General Manager - Chief Engineer
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Po 0. Box 5266
WaInUt Creek, CA 94596 Milint-ninc ---
OPevations
Permits
Reference: District Sewer ing Project No, 1380
Dear Mr. Dalton:
Please refer to your letter dated November 2, 1972 regarding District
Sewering Project No. 1380.
The newspaper article you refer to was correct in that we will not be
processing agricultural products at Martinez in 1973. We shall
con' to warehouse and ship canned goods at Martinez during most
of 1973.
If we can provide YOU wit-h additional information for your planning
purposes, we would be happy to do so.
Very truly yours,
CC FOOD CORPORATION
A. Davey
Director of Operations
FAD/eb
VllNEW BUSINMI
11. eo
Li
f
;=914 f
Tbolan
of 'I"1"�rtinuz
C4
tr
-anrl-atta 'Street
vtlnols California cflt -3
191
California
30,, 1972
In ths Tnttrs�t Of tb.e p,00plo ama'prop.-artles concerned, Mt
tr-at the DlstrLct *
Zoard o� thO,tdatro,
0 1 Contra Cost*
an OqUI-Itable mathod of asse3l-
thenowrV1463 1Uartima tn-T")n--T8r$ An
none rm ?147,000 tab that
h,3 LID 5j ara'a for '067-Plet!"O.Ya 010 Oontactinn to ths
Zau1nqp--1,nh1ut1a is now t':,,a Proposed
;)thod for paynnent, doa3 pot aaem 1:0 be, the P-ns-.iar, USAG34'
t;3 1P.8 1*
Is only right tj�_qt coo
pays for the ul2a of
party p of
As--Oi�led aacordlng &6, a u
-nad to 4 , a o. t potantial at a I S
",se. -mad for fi-Irth" ts'r tie o,,�m a r
opert-1,3-s as Well,
��,ropartjp. a shotild be a:!� fo.
r he --nnou"n 3-4 of
s
Iota �,,;Ould b-
j
Ir7n S x 3 C -3 - :7
.9 ucass
,, tha C
arr 01 t a D -,.Iouid b a
vou will check -t-h.a Meent centr9l Spni"Inry aZSessr:wt
t1_9 P"Orle 4"tedg 35n`bor 7197-m9 2o YOU W111 f1nd
asse'""ed ?'Ould be on the b9als
of b 0-1 a f I -than, are Yan, igno-r'ling thl-s statenen.t, ar
nztaad d's",riblation on a land zoning bc?sis? d
a
0 0
v3 large you to aive
d ,�.� dd ��.e`SA .n�� bs�a�� .��X ���� �i7ii (.� Wd,�eS�(�g9 ®n! .�.� !,�•,w irPl� �+r/�yRi- $YV +►•+r ��iM7 ����Fr Y7�
it 3`�"?1d'v` 039 i++i1.. "v+g `v1a. �"!'►'•
.Tolul zuppary x i3tagnt
Cal Gantr 1 ConXl:ra Cogta IS)aIitnry D, o,ri,r,`I'�
C_�
MT. VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT
SANITARY BOARD
ZELNIO P. LINDAUER
Resident
ROBERT J. BARTOLONIE1
Director
I ` JULIO L. "BEN" GRIFFANTI
Director
DANIEL H. HULT
Director
RAUL H. LONIELI
Director
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
POST OFFICE BOX 2366
TELEPHONE (415) 228-5635
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553
_November 13, 1972
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
P. 0. Box 5266
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Attention: W. C. Dalton and. Ernest K. Davis
Gentlemen:
At their regular meeting of November 9, 1972, the Board of
Directors of the Mt. View Sanitary District discussed your
offer of negotiation in the matter of consolidation of
facilities as contained. in your letter of October 27, 1972.
EX-OFFICIO OFFICERS
DAVID J. LEVY
Atrornev
GUENTER K.LEPTIEN
Fngineer-.V.neger
ROGER L. BENNETT
Superintendent
NiRS. JANICE WHIPPLE
Secretnrv-Bookkeeper
Our Directors expressed. interest in meeting with your Directors
in a special meeting to discuss preliminary proposals. We wish
to invite your Board and Staff to meet with us, and have tenta-
tively set a meeting for 7:30 P.M., Wednesday, December 6, 1972
in the library of Las Juntas School, 4105 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez.
If this meets with your approval, please let us know, and we will
make firm arrangements.
Very truly yours,
MT. VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT
Roger L. Bennett
Manager
RLBrjw
cc David. J. Levy
Leptien-Cronin-Cooper
M z
0
jYj i I ib
j3 < �iA
J. S. CONNERY
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PHONE 229-3000
EXT. 2221
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SECOND FLOOR. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553
November 10, 1972
Rhoda M. Owen, Secretary
Valley Community Services District
P. 0. Box 2206
Dublin, California 94566
Dear Mrs. Owen:
COMMISSIONERS:
L B. AZEVEDO, CITY COUNCILMAN',
A.M. DIAS. COUNTY SUPERVISOR
L. E. GROTE. CITY COUNCILMAN
E. A. LINSCHEID, COUNTY sUPERVISOR
S. H. WELCH, JR., PUBLIC MEMBER
W. N. BOGGESS, SUPERVISOR ALTERNATE
A. L. WEATHERS, COUNCILMAN ALTERNATE
Reference is made to your Notice of Public Hearing
on November 14, 1972 on the matter of the district
Wastewater Treatment Plant Stage 3 Enlargement. The
notice requested comment on the subject matter.
As you are aware, Local Agency Formation
Commissions were recently mandated to develop and
determine spheres of influence of each governmental
agency within its area of concern. This commission has
currently under review the recommended spheres of cities
within Contra Costa County. When these spheres are
adopted, it is the intent of this commission to take
under consideration the spheres of influence of the
several special districts within this county, including
that of the Valley Community Services District. Your
district will be requested to comment and recommend as
to the district probable ultimate boundary line.
In the attachment to your Notice of Public Hearing
reference is made to "treatment of wastewater from an
expanded population in areas served EBMUD water." Would
you please advise this office, in order that I may
appropriately advise the commission, as to the territory
expected to contain this "expanded population"?
This question is raised for several reasons, aside
from the possible future expansion of your district boundaries.
As you know, there is scheduled an incorporation election
in January, 1973 of a proposed city in the San Ramon Valley.
a III��I
l�
yG
3 3I ° o i. �o
ry�o na nl n
1�
CD
M
�ra-
olyl^
n
Rhoda M. Owen
2. November 10, 1972
If this proposed city, which includes almost all of the
territory of your district in this county, incorporates,
it will become the legal duty of this commission to
determine its probable ultimate physical boundary. It is
my opinion that the new city, if formed, will probably
press for a voice in the decisions concerning new areas
of probable expansion of urban services in the valley
area.
Secondly, a portion of the southern boundary of the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District "butt -joins" a
portion of the northern boundary of your district. As
such, a sewage pump station will have to be installed at,
or near, your northern district boundary line.
Because of the future installation of such a southern
pump station, it occurred to me that another alternate
might be considered although it may have been considered,
to alleviate the severe sewage treatment problem of your
district. Has any serious consideration been given to
the possibility of having the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District serve the territory southerly to the
common county line in the valley? Such a consideration,
it seems, could relieve your district of considerable
pressure from the damage claims filed against your
district by developers because of the inability of your
district to provide certain sewerage services.
It is realized that, from a Eurel�r engineering
review, the county line is not a 'good' line, topograph-
ically, for sewage gravity flow, but sewerage pump
stations are becoming quite common and are used exten-
sively in this county. As you know, that portion of the
common county line, artificial as it may be topographically,
does exist also as a water service (EBMUD) boundary, a
possible city boundary, and a school district boundary.
The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, as I
understand it, could handle that portion of your district
sewage effluent originating in this county by either
Rhoda M. Owen 3. November 10, 1972
annexation of a portion of your district to the sanitary
district or possibly by contract. Your district did the
same thing, in effect, with the water service within this
county when that portion of your district within the
county was annexed to the East Bay Municipal Utility
District several years ago.
Very truly yours,
J . %J S . CONNER
Executive Of icer
JSC:bgg
CC. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District f
Executive Offices. LAFC of Alameda County
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DON L. ALLAN. President
CHARLES J. GIBHS
PARKE L. AONEYSTEELE
RICHARD J. MITCHELL
GEORGE A. RUSTIGIAN
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA
SANITARY DISTRICT
1250 SPRINGEIROOK ROAD
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. SOX 5266
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
TEL. 934-6727 AREA CODE 415
November 16, 1972
MEMORANDUM OF RECORD
G. A. IIORSTKOTTE, JR.,
GeneralAlanager—Chief Engineer
ERNEST K. DAVIS
Secretary
At the invitation of Mr. Don L. Allan, President, Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District, a meeting was held at 8:00 o'clock P.M., November 13, 1972,
at the Holiday Inn, Concord, California.
Present at the meeting:
Mr. Don L. Allan, President, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Mr. Daniel L. Yee, President, San Pablo Sanitary District
Mr. Zelmo P. Lindauer, President, Mt. View Sanitary District
Mr. U. S. (Lyss) Barbachano, President, Stege Sanitary District
Mr. Sam Belleci, President, Crockett-Valona Sanitary District
Mr. Sal Lopez, President, Byron Sanitary District
*Mr. A. F. (Austie) Regan, Secretary, Rodeo Sanitary District
Mr. E. K. Davis, Secretary, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Not present:
Mr. V. J. Chastek, President, Oakley Sanitary District
*NOTE: Representing Mr. Mel Marcos, President, Rodeo Sanitary District
Mr. Allan, acting as temporary presiding officer, made an introductory
statement wherein he stated Presidents of all sanitary districts within Contra
Costa County had been invited to this meeting to consider the action taken by
the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 1972, in regard to regulation of solid
waste dump sites.
Mr. Allan explained that the purpose of this meeting was to select three
sanitary district directors to serve on the Solid Waste Management Policy Com-
mittee as established by the Board of Supervisors action and also to select
two staff representatives from the sanitary districts to serve on the Solid
Waste Management Technical Committee.
Mr. Allan noted that no formal minutes of this meeting would be taken.
After presenting a brief background report on the status of solid waste
management in Contra Costa County, he invited discussion.
After discussion in which all present expressed their views, the fol-
lowing action was taken:
Memorandum of Record 2 November 16, 1972
A. ORGANIZATION
Motion was made by Mr. Lindauer, seconded by Mr. Belleci, that, be
it known and recognized henceforth, that there is now formally organized,
"The Contra Costa Sanitary Districts President's Council".
B. NOMINATIONS TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY
COMMITTEE - THREE VACANCIES TO BE FILLED
Mr. Lindauer placed in nomination Mr. Julio Griffanti, Director,
Mt. View Sanitary District.
Mr. Yee placed in nomination Mr. Daniel L. Yee, President, San Pablo
Sanitary District.
Mr. Allan placed in nomination Mr. Parke L. Bonneysteele, Director
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.
Mr. Lopez placed in nomination Mr. Earl Wetzel, Director, Byron
Sanitary District.
Mr. Regan placed in nomination Mr. A. F. Regan, Secretary, Rodeo
Sanitary District.
Motion was made by Mr. Barbachano, seconded by Mr. Lindauer that
nominations be closed. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
After secret written ballot, three nominees selected by majority
vote were:
Mr. Daniel L. Yee, President, San Pablo Sanitary District
Mr. Julio Griffanti, Director, Mt. View Sanitary District
Mr. Earl Wetzel, Director, Byron Sanitary District
C. NOMINATIONS TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE - TWO VACANCIES TO BE FILLED
Mr. Lindauer placed in nomination Mr. Al Baxter, Secretary - General
Manager, Stege Sanitary District.
Mr. Allan placed in nomination Mr. William C. Dalton, Administrative
Engineer, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.
Motion was made by Mr. Lindauer, seconded by Mr. Barbachano that
nominations be closed. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
As two vacancies exist and only two names were placed in nomination,
by unanimous vote, nominees selected were:
Mr. Al Baxter, Secretary - General Manager, Stege Sanitary District
Mr. William G. Dalton, Administrative Engineer, Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District
Memorandum of Record 3 November 16, 1972
D. PRESIDING OFFICER, CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICTS PRESIDENT'S
COUNCIL
Motion was made by Mr. Belleci, seconded by Mr. Barbachano, that Mr.
Allan be acting Chairman of the President's Council until a permanent Chair-
man_ is selected. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
E. MEETINGS
Motion was made by Mr. Barbachano, seconded by Mr. Belleci, that
the Contra Costa Sanitary Districts President's Council meet regularly on
a quarterly basis. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
F. ADMINISTRATIVE
Mr. Davis was requested to prepare a Memorandum of Record of action
taken at this meeting and also to prepare a Sanitary Districts President's
Council Resolution for submission to the Contra Costa County Board of Super-
visors indicating that the President's Council has been formally organized
and place before that body the names of the individuals selected to serve on
the Solid Waste Management Policy and Technical Committees.
Copies of the Memorandum of Record and the Resolution to be made
available to all Contra Costa County Sanitary Districts.
Mr. Lindauer stated Mt. View Sanitary District would host the next
meeting.
Mr. Barbachano expressed appreciation to Mr. Allan and to Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District for hosting the first meeting.
At 11:17 o'clock P.M., Acting Chairman Allan adjourned the meeting.
The next meeting to be called by Mr. Lindauer.
Respectfully submitted,
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
5.
E. K. Davis
Secretary
EKD:ms
ADDRESS LIST OF THE CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICTS PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL
Daniel L. Yee, President
San Pablo Sanitary District
4422 Macdonald Avenue
Richmond, California 94805 Phone: 237-5822
Zelmo P. Lindauer, President
Mt. View Sanitary District
P. 0. Box 2366
Martinez, California 94553 Phone: 228-5635
U. S. (Lyss) Barbachano, President
Stege Sanitary District
7500 Schmidt Lane
El Cerrito, California 94530 Phone: 526-8730
Don L. Allan, President
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
1250 Springbrook Road
Walnut Creek, California 94596 Phone: 934-6727 �^
Sam Belleci, President
Crockett-Valona Sanitary District
205 Virginia Street
Crockett, California 94525 Phone: 787-2221
A. F. "Austie" Regan, Secretary
Rodeo Sanitary District
185 Parker Avenue
Rodeo, California 94572 Phone: 799-2393
Sal Lopez, President
Byron Sanitary District
P. 0. Box 222
Byron, California 94514 Phone: 634-4711
VIII. REPORTS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE RECYCLING
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22, 1972
7:30 O'CLOCK P.M.
AGENDA
A. IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
B. DRAFT OUTLINE OF FINAL REPORT
MINUTES OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
SOLID WASTE RECYCLING MEETING
HELD NOVEMBER 8, 1972
The Advisory Committee on Solid Waste Recycling met at Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District, 1250 Springbrook Road, Walnut Creek, California,
on November 8, 1972, at 7:30 o'clock P.M.
Vice Chairman Robert R. Grinstead called the meeting to order.
Present at the meeting:
Vice Chairman Robert R. Grinstead, Dow Chemical Corp.
Secretary E. K. Davis, Secretary, CCCSD
Mrs. Kris Hiller, Secretary, ECO-INFO, Inc.
Mr. William Treadwell, Contra Costa County Health Dept.
Mr. John O'Donnell, Industrial Relations Mgr., Glass Containers
Corp.
Mr. Fred Fagliano, President, Valley Disposal Service, Inc.
Mr. Lee B. Hertzberg, EBMUD
*Mr. George A. Rustigian, Director, CCCSD
*Not an official member of the committee.
AGENDA
A. IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
Vice Chairman Grinstead acknowledged Mr. O'Donnell who stated he
had a film he wished to present concerning the packaging industry. Mr.
O'Donnell stated the film had been prepared by the Glass Containers Associa-
tion for the sole purpose of ensuring that Legislative Committees would have
pertinent data when they held hearings on legislation banning non -returnable
containers for the State of Oregon. Mr. O'Donnell stated that the State of
Oregon has adopted the legislation banning non -returnable containers and this
law became e<fective October 1, 1972.
The twenty minute film depicted the various types of package con-
tainers used by industry to present their products and which are normally
available to the consumer through normal retail outlets such as supermarket
stores. As related to the new Oregon law, the basic containers regulated
are those containing beer and carbonated soft drinks. These containers now
require a monetary deposit at time of purchase. In relation to the total
number of products utilizing non -returnable or one-way containers, the re-
gulated products, beer and carbonated soft drinks, represent only 5 per
cent. Products such as fruit drinks, high energy drinks, wines, powdered
drinks, dairy products, vegetable juices and liquid and frozen fruit juices
are not affected by the new law even though these products utilize 90-95
per cent non -returnable or one-way containers. As an example of the disparity,
the tab can container used for Seven -Up is identical to that used for Nestles
Tea, however only the Seven -Up container is regulated.
Committee Members queried Mr. O'Donnell regarding certain aspects
of the packaging industry with emphasis on glass containers. Discussion h
followed with Mr. O'Donnell suggesting it was improper to discriminate against
one segment of industry ;;hen the problem of solid wastewas basically universal.
He stated the impact of the Oregon law would affect only 5 per cent of the
solid waste being generated by the packaging industry, the remaining 95 per
rent would still enter the solid waste stream.
Interest was expressed by Committee Members regarding technology
for the manufacture of glass and potential markets for reclaimed Gullet.
Parr. O'Donnell stated industry requires 10 per cent of reclaimed glass to
manufacture new glass and that it was feasible that this percentage could
rise to 50 per cent if industry were so properly equipped to handle it. He
indicated he was not prepared to comment on whether the local glass industry
would be prepared to enter into a long term contract for the supply of Gullet
He did emphasize that in any contractual agreement for supply of Gullet
economics would be a primary factor.
In response to opinion regarding enactment of legislation similar
to the "Omnibus Container Bill", Mr. O'Donnell deferred comment suggesting
Mr. Robert Vans, Western States Manager, Public Affairs, Glass Containers
Manufacturing Institute, Inc., would be best qualified to reply. A copy
of the "Omnibus Container Bill" was provided Mr. O'Donnell for forwarding
to Mr. Vans for comment, hopefully by November 22, 1972.
Mr. O'Donnell extended an invitation to Committee Members to tour
his plant facilities if interested. Mr. Rustigian and Secretary Davis ex-
pressed interest.
Vice Chairman Grinstead expressed the appreciation of the Committee
Members for Mr. O'Donnell's participation.
Committee Members held preliminary discussions regarding the Com-
mittee's implementation statement with primary emphasis on the legislative
element. Initial discussion centered on clarifying the meaning of "legisla-
tive". It was agreed that action that can be implemented by the Sanitary
Distr4_ct is considered "administrative" and action that must be implemented
by other governmental agencies is considered "legislative".
While Committee Members expressed their views, discussed various
sections of the legislative element and made tentative amendments, no de-
finitive action was taken.
At 10:15 o'clock P.M., Vice Chairman Grinstead adjourned the meeting.
Agenda for the November 22, 1972, meeting is:
A. IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
B. DRAFT OUTLINE OF FINAL REPORT