1979-06-07 Joint CC PUB MinutesJOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD THURSDAY - - - -JUNE 7, 1979
Convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Corica presiding.
ROLL CALL: Council: Present: Councilmen Diament, Sherratt, Stone, Tillman, and
President Corica, (5). Absent: None. Public Utilities Board: Present:
Commissioners Cecchettini, Goss, and President Monsef, (3). Absent: Commissioners
Duren and Eierman, (2).
Also present: Jack Shepard, General Manager, Bureau of Electricity.
Receipt of the Notice and Agenda of this Special Meeting had been acknowledged by the
Councilmen and Commissioners and was on file. Purpose of the special session was for
a discussion of the status of the proposed Solid Waste Plant project; the Wistort
Report; status of the Northern California Power Agency activities; the Management
Overview Analysis (Feibusch Report); and action thereon, if desired.
President Corica proposed this meeting be conducted as a work session between the two
bodies, following which it would be opened for public comments. Councilman Sherratt
moved approval of the proposal, seconded by Councilman Diament, carried on unanimous
voice vote.
Note: The proceedings of City Council meetings are taped in their entirety. Tapes are
on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
79-420 Status of Proposed Solid Waste Plant Project: President Corica noted the
proposed plant fell within the realm of the National Energy Policy, was the ultimate
goal of the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan, and was included in the
State Plan.
On request, Mr. Shepard reported two major phases of the study had been completed. He
stated Phase 1, commenced early in 1975, consisted of two brief overview studies dealing
with engineering and economic problems and environmental problems; the studies were paid
in part by the Navy Public Works Center of the Twelfth Naval District, and they had a
written memorandum of understanding with the District to obtain all of the solid waste
from all military installations within the District. Phase 2 of the study was funded
by a $110,000 grant from the State Solid Waste Management Board, which they completed
under budget and were able to complete the first portion of Phase 3 using the same grant.
He stated they were now at a point where they could proceed with Phase 3-B, the final
economic analyses, the pulling together of the contracts to solidify and assure continuous
supply of solid waste from the various cities within Alameda County, and to begin to
prepare the comprehensive Environmental Impact Report. Following Phase 3, he stated
the next step would be the preparation and approval of a formal EIR.
Mr. Shepard presented a written summary of their expenditures to date on the project,
which indicated total Bureau of Electricity expenditures of $23,508, and showed the
various sources of funding. He noted they were in the process of receiving a grant
from the State Solid Waste Management Board in the amount of $176,000+ for Phase 3-B;
that following finalization of the contract procedure, they expected to be able to
commence this phase beginning July 1, 1979. He stated he wished to make it clear that
neither the staff nor the Bureau were promoting the construction of the Solid Waste
Plant.
Councilman Tillman questioned ' the dump site had been selected as a possible
location for the plant. He noted letters objecting to the location had been received
from the East Bay Regional Park District, the County Board of Supervisors, and other
interested citizens.
Mr. Shepard stated one of the reasons for considering the dump site was that it would not
increase truck traffic into the city proper; also to conduct the Phase 2 study a
particular site needed to be considered, the city already owned the land, and the site
was of sufficient size to accommodate the plant. He said other sites had been considered
which were accessible hv water, however there was no water access to the landfill site
in San Leandro where the ' solid waste would come from. He noted another site was under
consideration, however until contacts had been made it would not be proper to reveal the
location.
Councilman Tillman questioned the type of plant to be built and whether or not it would
be advisable for members of the Council and the Board to visit a similar installation and
make inquiries as to advantages and deficiencies. Councilman Stone asked why, in view of
the expenditures, the Bureau or Board did not have some type of outline of the plan
that could have been presented to the public.
President Corica stated it was his opinion no specific plan could be developed until it
was determined the proposed plant would be economically feasible and the source of fuel
obtainable.
Councilman Sherratt noted all documents had been made public, had been subject to public
discussions, had received newspaper coverage, and were available for review; also the
public would have opportunity for comment at the time the EIR was under consideration.
Councilman Tillman moved the meeting proceed to a discussion of the Wistort Report,
seconded by Councilman Diament, carried by unanimous voice vote.
r79-421 Wistort Report:
Mr. Shepard stated they did not find the report caused concern, as they had not reached any firm conclusion that it was a good idea to build a solid waste plant.
He said they
thought it as a promising endeavor
but it must prove itself before they could recommend
to the Board or Council to proceed.
Mr. Robert Pettibone, Vice President of Gibbs & Hill, stated they had seen Mr, Wistort's
critique. He said he wished to modify a statement of the report that refuse derived
fuel ` l RDF� meant garbage; that in reality it was a mixture of municipal and commercial
refuse collected, of which garbage and yard waste was only about 17%' Also another
that t�
statement in the report was � there was no history of existing successful plant of
this type. Mr. Pettibone described similar plants designed by Gibbs & Hill and equipment
which had been in existence for some number of years.
Mr. Gayle Boyd of Woodward-Clyde commented on environmental aspects of the proposed plant.
He referred to their most recent report of October, I978, and stated they had found there
were no major difficulties of a technical or environmental nature which could not be
overcome.
Mr. Ken Ough, of Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Municipal Advisory Services, Group,
reported they had reviewed Mr. Wistort's critique and the financing concerns which he
had raised, and based on the cost estimates and data supplied to them during the
development of the Bureau's Feasibility Study for a Solid Waste FirdElectric
Generating Station, dated November, 1978, they were confident their findings were
creditable and completely covered Mr. Wistort's concerns.
Messrs. Pettibone, Boyd, and Ough answered questions put by members of the City Council.
Mr. Robert Wistort, 1373 Mound Street, briefly reviewed his critique and suggested
the Council take a close look at the cost of the proposal.
Councilman Tillman recommended a copy of Mr. Wistort's report be included in the EIR
study. The Council concurred.
79-422 Status of Northern California Power Agency Activities:
Mr. Shepard distributed a written report of NCPA expenditures to date, broken down into
three general categories, namely, dues and assessments, legal costs, and the Development
Fund. He noted the Bureau's contributions to the Development Fund were in the nature of
an investment and would eventually be returned to the Fund with accrued interest at which
time the 10 cities involved would have the choice of either leaving the money in the
Fund to provide front-end financing for other projects or to withdraw those funds,
including the interest earned. He noted the Bureau's total contributions to NCPA
through June 30, 1979, amounted to $939,818, of which $287,276 was for legal costs and
$114,542 was for dues and assessments, both of which were non-returnable funds. Mr.
Shepard pointed out that one of the major benefits derived from this $401,818 expenditure
was the rebate from PG&E in 1977 which amounted to $1,255,040.
Mr. Shepard presented a verbal progress report and responded to questions on thermal
power projects being developed by NCPA.
79-423 Management Overview Analysis (Feibusch Report):
Mr. Shepard stated the Bureau staff would be presenting a detailed report to the Public
Utilities Board on June 18, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. at the Bureau office, where all
recommendations of the Feibusch Report would be considered and staff would present
recommendations to the Board as to implementation.
Councilman Stone asked if it had been the Board's intent in commissioning the report
to determine a market value of the Bureau. President Monsef stated this had not been
their primary intent; that they had desired an opinion from an outside consultant
concerning the operation of the Bureau to be taken into consideration when preparing
their 5-year plan for the future.
President Corica opened the meeting for public comment.
Mr. Edward Bennett, a Consulting Mechanical and Electrical Engineer, recommended the
Council maintain an overview of the Bureau to assure that they were asking the hard
questions and introducing the proper skepticism of the consultants' reports.
Mr, Fred Laughlin, 924 Versailles Avenue, questioned the reliability of the Feibusch
Report in the statement regarding the value of the Bureau, and alleged the Report was
based solely on Bureau records and information furnished by Bureau staff.
The following offered additional comments: Mr. Larry Patton, I020 San Antonio Avenue;
Mr. Joseph Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue; Mr. Robert Dwinnell, I328 Regent Street;
Mr. Russell Sisung, 22I Santa Clara Avenue, and MS, Maerose Evans, 3280 Thompson Avenue.
There being no further business, Councilman Sherratt moved the Council adjourn to
executive session for a discussion of personnel matters and litigation. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Did0ent and carried on unanimous voice vote. At the conclusion
of discussion, it was determined no action would be taken at this time.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned at
1I:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk