The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 09131988 - 2.4 V. TO� BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Gcntra Costa DATE . September 1, 1988 Qbu rly SUBJECT: Public/Private Ownership of Landfill Sites SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION• 1. Accept report from County Administrator on publicjprivate ownership of landfill site. 2. Authorize staff, if the Board so desires, to meet with public agencies that have the capacity to participate and/,or control of the waste stream to discuss public/private ownership of landfill sites. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. BACKGROUND: On July 26 , 1988 , the Board referred to the County Administrator for report the issue of public/private ownership of landfill sites. The apparent benefits from public involvement in landfill ownership are rate control, enhanced environmental controls, more direct involvement for public agencies in solid waste management matters, and a potential revenue source. Although public ownership is a way to, obtain these" benefits, !we wish to remind the Board that the proposed private landfill sites (East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill and Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill) were to be conditioned such that as many `of the aforementioned benefits could be secured as possible. The proposed sites are required to be subject to - full rate approval by the County. state and regional agencies require state-of- the-art environmental controls. Additionally, the County land use permit requires numerous additional mitigation measures and environmental controls. The environmental control conditions of the land use permit will be reviewed and revised on a regular basis, to keep up with technology. Finally, the proposed devel- opment agreements which would accompany both aandfalls provides: significant funding for ancillary solid waste management programs such as recycling, litter control and public education. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE.: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON September 13, .1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER i VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS 1S A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: I, II, IV, V NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: III OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. I I cc: Community Development Department' ATTESTED County CounselPHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF solid Waste Commission via CDD SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Administrator M382/7-83 BY DEPUTY 2. The public/private partnership discussed by the Board can take many forms. The simplest form would be for public ownership of the site with operation _of the site by the private sector. There are other variations of public%private partnerships, which will be briefly discussed later. The following discussion assumes public ownership of the site. The most likely funding mechanism for public ownership will be through a revenue bond with payment of debt service through the tipping fee. Before bonds can be sold; it ist necessary to fund certain up-front costs, estimated to be between $500 , 000 and $1, 000,000 . This includes activities such as site selection, preparation of the Comprehensive Project Report, the Environ- mental Impact Report, and property options. The County does not have funds for these up-front costs. In order for the County to pursue public ownership, it will be necessary for the County to become partners with other public agencies which have these funds. The most likely choices are special districts, such as the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and the Delta-Diablo Sanitation District. These up- front costs are reimbursable through the bond issue if the project goes through completion. However, if for some reason the proposed project is never built, these funds would be lost. The first step in the process is site selection. Since many sites have been proposed in the County, the simplest method would be to pick one site that has been identified. The selection of a site that has been previously identified can be a very easy selection or a very long, drawn-out process, depending on the ability of the public agencies involved to reach consensus. Once a site is selected, it is necessary to purchase the property or, more likely, to obtain an option to do geotechnical work to determine if the site is suitable. Since purchase of land by public agency is subject to CEQA, it is not possible to purchase the property until the Environmental Impact Report is complete. If the public agencies wish to take a comprehensive look ;at potential sites, including identification of new sites, a new siting study needs to take place. Again, there are variations in the level of effort for this type of siting study. i With any landfill site, it is necessary to obtain a commitment of waste stream from those who will use the landfill site. If a revenue bond is used to finance the landfill; pro,j,ect, this is: a requirement. The revenue bond will require a length of commit- ment equivalent to the term of the bond (usually 20 years) . Commitments will have to be sought from cities, districts and possibly private solid waste collection companies who control the solid waste stream. One cannot expect to get this type ot, commitment until at least after the EIR is completed. Public agencies that are potential customers would want to know the disposal costs at the landfill before they will commit their waste stream. The costs cannot be accurately determined until the environmental impact measures and mitigations are known and some additional technical work is completed. Potential customers to the landfill will naturally look 'at alternatives. It there are other landfills in the County that are available, it may not be possible to obtain as much of a commitment of a waste stream as one desires or is required. This could be a major difficulty with a public site. The Board cannot restrict other parties from proposing landfill sites, just because the County is involved in its own landfill site. i There are certain liabilities with public ownership of a landfill site. The greatest is the risk and liability from environmental damage from landfill sites. Insurance for these types of risks is expensive, if even possible to obtain. Environmental risk is a problem with ali .landfills, whether they are public or private. However, a new landfill built to modern landfill standards, coupled with proper operation of the site, should significantly reduce liabilities. The landfill could also be a financial lia- bility if not enough customers use the site. A public site could be more expensive than a privately-owned landfill site, based ;on the' stated intent of the Board to ,operate the landfill site "be,t- . ter" than a private site. This will likely mean that . there will be additional costs for environmental controls and mitigation measures that could be beyond those required for a private site. Also, participating agencies may seek "profits" from the operation. Additionally, if the landfill is more distant than competing landfill sites, the transportation and infrastructure costs would be higher. The timing of a public landfill or a public/private partnership is also a major factor. Organizing public ownership with part- ners, such as sanitary districts, could take 4 to 6 months. The site selection process could take 4 to 12 months. As with any landfill site, once a site is identified it is possible to complete the process and start operation of the landfill within three, to five years. Additionally, it will take additional time to secure a commitment of the waste stream before purchase of the property. This could take at least an additional six months !to acquire these types of commitments. In summary, it appears that it will take more time for a public site than a private site, due to the time for organization, commitment of waste stream, and property acquisition after the EIR. This could be partially off-set through reduced public hearing time, if there is a greater consensus countywide on a particular site. As mentioned previously, there are variations to the public ownership/private operation of landfill sites. In 1987 , the ,Board issued a request for proposals for public/private partner- ships. Some of these proposals offered the County an equity position in future landfills. This would entail sharing profits and risks. Such a joint venture would be complicated to develop, and a good argument can be made that if the County is to have partial ownership in the site, it might as well have full owner- ship and, therefore, full control. Another variation of a public/private partnership is public purchase of a landfill site after it has been fully developed (ready for operation) . There could be an agreement reached whereby public agencies would agree -to purchase the landfill project, for a determined amount, after the landfill has been constructed. A payment schedule could be negotiated to pay back the private developer through a surcharge on the tipping fee set by public agencies. PB%DBOjjn 154:owners.brd