The Castro Valley Sanitary District Board of Directors meeting was held on Tuesday December 2nd.  Melody Appleton and Ralph Johnson were given the oath of office after being elected to the board in November.

Each of the CVSan board members nominated a person to serve the next term on the Citizen’s Advisory Committee for CVanN.  These five members were unanimously approved.

There were some local issues including a discussion about “scaling” on the sewage pipes on Northeastern section of the district and the East Bay Discharge Authority.

The primary reason we were attending was to hear about the solid waste services in the Canyonlands.  General manager, Roland Williams explained at the beginning of the meeting that this meeting was informational and the board was not going to take any action at this meeting.  He mentioned that some people at the MAC meeting resented the name “Canyonlands”, but for ease of use, or until something better comes along, we will continue to use the term.  He then proceeded to summarize the November 17, MAC meeting .  Mr. Williams explained that the county would like to proceed with annexation based upon the idea that CVSan  is the most efficient and effective agency to service the area.  There are some one-time costs involved in annexation that Supervisor Miley believes can be absorbed by the county and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).  Alameda County will be the applicant for annexation, and then will hand the contract over to CVSan.  Supervisor Miley is committed to mitigating these costs as much as possible, but there are no guarantees that the other Supervisors are going to vote for this, how much will be mitigated, how much will need to be paid, or who will pay it.

Mr. Williams expressed that the primary discussion at the meeting revolved around the details of costs and service.  CVSan has examined the current Waste Management (WM)  contract and has determined that if the Canyonlands were to be annexed, all of those homes would receive the same service for the same price as the rest of CVSan.  This was communicated with Waste Management and WM responded that the area has a higher cost of service.  The WM proposal is that the additional costs be shared with the entire customer base of CVSan.  While the costs still would have to be determined, these additional costs would amount to less than $1 per customer if spread between the approximately 18,000 households that CVSan services.  In addition, Waste Management has the exclusive contract with CVSan, so if the Canyonlands were annexed, they would have to be serviced by Waste Management.  Solid waste, solid recyclables, and organics would all be picked up weekly.  The current contract does not allow for tiered pricing and service.  CVSan currently offers curbside service, and there are a few properties in the Canyonlands that this is problematic due to their distance from the street.  Requiring curbside service may streamline the route process, but further discussion about this will need to take place before any changes are implemented.  The current contract with Waste Management is set to expire in 2019, and at that time, the new contract could include tiered pricing and service if it deemed necessary.

Director Appleton voiced the concern that if CVSan forces the issue upon Waste Management, is there a long term guarantee that WM will not raise the rates during the next round of contract negotiations?  She also expressed the concern that CVSan is responsible to their current ratepayers and even if the rates were “only to rise fifty cents, is that fair to the existing customers to ask them to subsidize the Canyonlands?”

A representative from Waste Management was at the meeting and she detailed how “hard to service” some areas of the Canyonlands are.  Currently, the area is serviced by a large pickup truck for solid waste only, and to expand the service to the recycling and organics would increase the costs.  She expressed that Waste Management wants to provide service, but does not want to lose money.

Director McGowan also expressed concern with the long term costs of this.  He wants some long term cost guarantees and promises and is worried that we cannot promise future costs.

Director Johnson pointed out that because the existing contract precludes CVSan from negotiating with other service providers; it is both “good news and bad news.”   He noted that treating the Canyonlands separately with different service or pricing could backfire and wanted to know if there is a rationale for different rates.

Director Sadoff focused on the “many moving parts” and cautioned that they need to think about unintended consequences.  He believes that they need to make a point to listen to the Canyonlands and the existing ratepayers.   There are lots of Canyonlands residents who do not want to be annexed, and that may open CVSan up to litigation.  He suggested that Alameda County include protections for CVSan in the application to limit their exposure to lawsuits.

Bob Feinbaum, a resident of the Canyonlands, believes that annexation is not in the best interests of CVSan or the local residents.  He said that the initial survey from CVSan shows that 30% of the residents objected to annexation, even without a detailed cost analysis.  Since LAFCO only requires 25% of the residents protest in order to require a vote, it should be rejected.  There are some areas like Sunnyslope Drive that could easily be annexed, but the vast majority of homes are more rural and would require additional effort.  He has come up with one solution that he has discussed with Mona Palacios from LAFCO and she agreed that it could be a good idea.  He believes that instead of annexation, the Canyonlands should apply for a “sphere of influence.”  This would allow for the area to be a planning area and the contract could be put out to bid without requiring mandatory service from the residents.  Tri-San could handle the limited recycling for the area, and a solid waste hauler could be found to service the residents who would like it.  He does not need or want garbage hauling and he pointed out that most all of the residents already compost organics on site, so they do not need that service.  He also pointed out that Supervisor Richard Valle, not Nate Miley services the Canyonlands and wanted to know why Supervisor Miley is involved (we believe that Mr. Finebaum does not realize that the district boundaries were redrawn in 2011  The Canyonlands are almost entirely in Supervisor Miley’s district.)

Director Johnson asked if the economics of the process would require all of the residents to have garbage service.  Is there an opportunity for residents to decline service?  He also questioned if the there was chaos before Waste Management took over the service.

Dan Davini is another resident of the Canyonlands with an alternative proposal.  He has a varied business background that includes a stint as a garbage man, and he is proposing that he become the service provider for the area.  He has done research and anticipates some pitfalls, but he believes he can offer similar service to what the residents currently have for the same price.  He has contacted Supervisor Miley and is planning to arrange meeting where he can submit his proposal to the Supervisor and the rest of the BOS.   He pointed out that the concerns over the 15 mile rule for hauling should not affect this area because it only applies to municipal providers.  He also pointed out that the emergency waiver that Stopwaste has passed about the 15 mile rule has a sunset clause and will expire at the end of 2015.

Dan related the concerns that many of his neighbors have about the annexation and what the details are going to be. Some of them are worried about contracting with Waste Management, when they were the company that raised the rates originally.  They worried that their true rates may be far more than they are now, and the residents will be forced to pay them without any choice in the matter.

One of us from CVM raised a few points about the community input and how there seems to be a heavy handed push to find a “one size fits all” solution.  We repeated the concerns that Dan and Bob had with requiring all the residents to be included.  It was suggested that the board send an updated survey that would include the potential services and the potential costs so that the wishes of the community can be truly considered.  Whatever decisions are made needs to balance the concerns of the existing CVSan customers with the differing needs of the Canyonlands residents.  Director Sadoff referred to this as “many moving parts”, and whatever happens, it will require a bit of juggling.

The proposal for LAFCO to proceed with initiating the potential annexation process was heard at the Board of Supervisors Transportation committee meeting on Monday December 8th. Two local residents spoke against the annexation, but the committee reccomended that LAFCO proceed.  Supervisor Miley (who also sits on LAFCO) agreed that LAFCO should start looking at this issue now.

Carey Sanchez Para also contributed to this summary.