HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09171991 - IO.4 I O. -4
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEEji'
Costa
September 9 1991
I'Ty
County
DATE: p i 'iJ y c;JS
REPORT ON THE REQUEST OF THE CONTRA COSTA MAYORS' CONFERENCE
SUBJECT: THAT THE COUN'T'Y SHARE WITH THE CITIES A PORTION OF THE REVENUE
FROM THE RESOURCE RECOVERY FEE IMPOSED AT THE LANDFILLS AND
TRANSFER STATION
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Request staff from the Community Development Department to
submit to our Committee copies of the County' s budgets for
resource recovery activities and AB 939 activities.
2. Request staff from the Community Development Department to
conduct an analysis of what resource recovery activities
cities in the County are engaged in and identify any
overlapping or duplication of programs with those being
operated by the County and report their conclusions to our
Committee.
3 . Request staff from the Community Development Department to
summarize for our Committee what the cities have requested
the County to collect for them in the way of tipping fees
for AB 939 Programs from the 80 cents which the Board has
identified for this purpose.
4. Request the Community Development Department staff to report
to our Committee on these requests at our meeting on October
28, 1991.
BACKGROUND:
On March 12, 1991 the Board of Supervisors received a request
from the Contra Costa Mayors' Conference that County
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENP:eS YES A, / SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY AD RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OT ER
SIGNATURE(S): RO SCH R 47
WRIG,/H�T�'f(M�cPEAK
ACTION OF BOARD ON_ September 17,-7991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON T E DATE SHOWN.
CC: ATTESTED /'') If -91
PHIL BATCHE R,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Please see Page 3 .
M382 (10/88) BY- DEPUTY
I .O. -4
representatives meet with the cities ' representatives on the AB
939 Task Force to establish:
1. The division by percentages between the cities and the
County of AB 939 money, and
2. The allocation of the $200,000 per landfill per year
recycling fee to existing municipal recycling programs.
On March 26, 1991, the Board of Supervisors acknowledged the
request of the Mayors' Conference. After reviewing the AB 939
program budget, revenues and expenditures, the Board agreed to
provide 80 cents per ton to the cities for AB 939 purposes,
effective July 1, 1991.
On September 9, 1991 our Committee met with Councilwoman Rosemary
Corbin, on behalf of the Mayors' Conference and our Solid Waste
Manager, Sara Hoffman.
Ms. Hoffman reviewed the attached report with us and recommended
that while it is appropriate for the County to provide funding to
the cities under the AB 939 tipping fees, it is not appropriate
for the County to share with the cities the resource recovery fee
imposed on the landfills as a condition of approval of their Land
Use Permit. This fee is seen as more in the way of a franchise
fee which is imposed at the sole discretion of the Board of
Supervisors. Staff reminded our Committee that since the County
does not franchise the collection of solid waste in the
unincorporated area of the County, the imposition of this fee at
the landfill is the only opportunity the Board has to raise
revenue similar to the franchise fees which are imposed by the
cities and sanitary districts. Staff also distributed a chart
showing the amount by which the franchise fees imposed by the
cities and sanitary districts have increased between 1989 and
1991 and how the franchise fee is determined.
Councilwoman Corbin indicated that the tipping fee should be
divided with the cities depending on the amount of AB 939 work
which is being done. She noted that of the 15 cents being
imposed by the County, 12 cents is for countywide AB 939
activities and 3 cents is used in the unincorporated area of the
County for the County's Source Reduction and Recycling Element
and Household Hazardous Waste Element of the AB 939 Plan. Ms.
Corbin feels that the cities should not have to contribute to the
3 cents which is used for the unincorporated areas of the County,
since they do not benefit from it. Since the tipping fee is
imposed countywide, she maintained that city residents are paying
toward this 3 cents of the fee from which they derive no benefit.
In terms of the resource recovery fee, Ms. Corbin indicated that
if the County could give the Mayors' Conference assurance that
the developers of the new landfill sites would have to pay the
resource recovery fee and that it would not be passed on to the
rate payor, they would be satisfied. However, she indicated that
no one has yet been prepared to give her that assurance. As a
result, the cities believe that they should receive a share of
the resource recovery fee since their residents will be paying
the fee if it is passed back to the collection companies and
eventually the rate payor.
Ms. Corbin also claimed that the County is duplicating some
resource recovery activities which cities were operating prior to
the time the County got into the resource recovery business,
something which the members of our Committee denied. Supervisor
McPeak noted that if there were any duplication, it is because
the cities have started up programs which the County was already
operating and have not coordinated their efforts with those of
the County.
-2-
I .O.-4
In view of the disagreement over the factual circumstances with
which we are faced and should be considering, our Committee is
asking for additional factual information from staff, following
which we will again consider the request from the Mayors'
Conference.
cc: County Administrator
Director; , G.M. & E.D. Agency
Community Development Director
Solid Waste Manager
County Counsel
Councilwoman Rosemary Corbin
114 Crest Avenue, Richmond
' I
� -3-
I
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
I
DATE: September 4, 1991
TO: Supervisor Sunne McPeak
Supervisor Bob Schroder
Internal Operations Committee
I
FROM: Sara Hoffman
Solid Waste Manager
SUBJECT: Mayors' Conference Request on Resource Recovery Program
I
I
Recommendation:
RECOMMEND thatl the Board of Supervisors authorize the Chair to respond to the Mayors'
Conference request that the County split both the AB 939 tipping fee and Resource Recovery
Program fees with the cities by pointing out the County's actions in providing AB 939 revenues to
the cities and the inappropriateness of such a split with the Resource Recovery Program fees.
Reasons for Recommendation/Background
On March 12, 1991, !the Board received a request from the Mayors' Conference to meet with city
representatives to discuss allocation of AB 939 tipping fees and Resource Recovery Program fees to
the cities by the County. (See attachment #1)
I
On March 26, 1991, the Board of Supervisors acknowledged the Mayors' Conference request. After
review of the AB 939 program budget, revenues and expenditures, the Board agreed to provide
$.80/ton to the cities for AB 939 purposes, effective July 1, 1991. The central and east county cities
are currently working together to determine if allocation based on city population or solid waste
tonnage is preferable.) Cities are:in�various states of considering, or have passed, resolutions on the
issue.. The County would be prepared to distribute funds following receipt of all the resolutions and
payment by the landfill operators. Payments are received quarterly, approximately 30 to 60 days
in arrears so that revenues probably will be available in November.
While it is appropriatel for the County to provide funding to the cities under the AB 939 tipping fees,
staff does not believe this is true for the Resource Recovery Program fees. The Resource Recovery
Program fees are a function of the Land Use Permit authority of the County and, like the franchise
fees of the cities, are wholly within the discretion of the permitting agency.
I
I
I
I
b
The Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval for the ACME Transfer Station and for the Keller
Canyon Sanitary Landfill and the Marsh Canyon Landfill require an annual Resource Recovery Fee
be paid to the County for the purpose of developing and implementing a. County Resource Recovery
Management Program. Attachment#2 is a copy of Conditions of Approval from the Transfer Station
and the landfills.
The Conditions of Approval for the two landfills also require programs aimed at reducing the
amounts of waste disposed by 25% and 50% by 1995 and 2000, respectively. This waste disposal
reduction is equivalent to the AB 939 mandates, but, as part of the Conditions of Approval for the
County Land Use Permits, is a County requirement. The AB 939 mandates do not negate the
County's Conditions of Approval; compliance with AB 939 is funded separately--by the AB 939
Tipping Fee--and a formula has been developed to share this AB 939 Fee with the cities.
Currently, the County's portion of the AB 939 Tipping Fee covers the costs of staffing the AB 939
Task Force and its three subcommittees; preparing the Countywide Plan and EIR; and preparing our
own County Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste
Element (HHWE). Implementation of programs identified in our own SRRE and HHWE for the
unincorporated areas of the county can come from the AB 939 Tipping Fee.
County programs aimed at assuring adequate landfill capacity and reducing or diverting waste from
the landfills would still be funded, appropriately, by the Resource Recovery Program Fees. Since
such programs carry out the purpose of the Land Use Conditions of Approval, they are not subject
to review or concurrence of any jurisdiction other than the County. Similarly, franchise fees
collected by cities and sanitary districts are subject to only the review and concurrence of the
governing body. A 1989 staff report showed that the franchise fees for all but one jurisdiction, are
General Fund monies rather than funds dedicated for solid waste management activities (attachment
#3). Updated information obtained last week by telephone shows.that the franchise fees continue to
be used as General Fund monies with a few exceptions.
Activities aimed at reducing/diverting waste from the landfills and funded by the Resource Recovery
Program Fees include the Schools Recycling Pilot Program; the Buchanan Airport Recycling
Ordinance implementation; our own County Government Recycling Center; the ordinance mandating
the diversion of PET, HDPE, polystyrene, and polyethylene from disposal at the landfills; the
upcoming litter control and Adopt-a-Road programs; the Plastics Task Force; preparation of materials
for Market Development Zone application by the County; development of a countywide computerized
Recycling HOTLINE; Precycling and Source Reduction Procurement Policies committees; and, other
related activities.
From 1987 through December, 1990 approximately $361,000 was expended as part of the County's
Resource Recovery Management Program. Activities and related expenditures were restricted
pending the outcome of the November, 1990 ballot measure on the Marsh Canyon Landfill because
funding was uncertain.
Expenditures from 1987 through June, 1990 included staff costs at $100,000 and consulting fees to
RMA Associates for$135,000. Staff costs covered staffing for the Plastics Task Force, development
i
I
I
of the Annual Recycling Awards Program, and handling the 1990 Earth Day Conference. RMA
Associates prepared the Recycling Action Plan and carried out planning and assistance to cities and
special districts on Irecycling, markets, and data collection. Additionally, $200,000 has been
budgeted to assure adequate landfill capacity by funding County Counsel costs to defend the Land
Use Approvals for the landfills.
I
From June, 1990 to December, 1990 $126,000 was expended. This covered the Annual Recycling
Awards Program, biochures and posters, the equipment for the County Government Recycling
Center, the contract with the Community Recyclers for their Recycling Hotline, the Schools Pilot
Recycling Program, staffing the Plastics Task Force, assistance to the Contra Costa Council on their
Solid Waste Management Handbook.
As noted above, FY91-92 expenditures will include operation of our County Government Recycling
Center, continuation) of the Schools Pilot Recycling Program, implementation of the Buchanan
Airport Recycling Ordinance, completion of the plastics diversion ordinance, market development
zone application, countywide HOTLINE, and a variety of public information/education efforts.
I
cc: Rosemary Corbin, Mayors Conference
I
I
h22:fees.mem
I
I
I _
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
. ATTACHME14T #1
Contra Costa County Mayors' Conference
REPR F-*%1riG 1078 Hacienda Drive
THE i RECEIVED Walnut Creek.Ca. 94598
Mll'ORS (415)934-3963
i
OF: hiFvt l 2 1991 �
x\'71pCH
ORE\-M-OOD March 8, 1991 t�RKBOARDOF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
CL&ATON
CONCORD The Honorable Tom Powers
LLE Board of Supervisors
D�`\,� 651 Pine Street
ELCERRITO Martinez, CA 94553
I
HERMES
Dear Mr . Powers and Members of the Board :
LkFA1'ETTE '
NwIlNil The ContralCosta County Mayors ' Conference adopted
ktOR,G+ Resolution 191-3 at their March 7 meeting in San Ramon:
ORINDA The Mayors ' Conference of Contra Costa County hereby
PINOLE requests that representatives from Contra Costa County
PIiTtBLRG with the authority to make decisions meet with the
cities ' representatives on the AB939 Task Force to
PLl=ti�A\TH1LL establish: 1 . the division by percentages between
RICH%IOND the cilties and the County of AB939 money, and 2 . The
st\PABLO allocation of the $200, 000 per landfill per year
st\ R1%IoN
recyclling fee to existing municipal recycling programs .
I
UALNLTCREEK The resolution was unanimously passed and the Mayors hereby
respectfully request such a meeting .
since,,rely ours ,
,/ i;
Peg ovar I
Executive Secretary
I _ -
I "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT #2 �
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: Supervisor Fanden DATE: March 8, 1989
FILE: R-27
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon,
Director of Community p n
SUBJECT: Franchise Fees for So Waste lection
Per your request, franchise fees for solid waste collection in the County are
tabulated below. The "flat rates" may be adjusted according to the population,
collection rates, Consumer Price Index, etc. Please note that in some cases,
these are estimates.
Y915" also asked how these agencies spend franchise fees. Generally, franchise
ees are put in the agency's general fund. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District is the only agency that charges franchise fees in an amount to only
reimburse their costs in administering the franchise. We are not aware of any
other agency that dedicates franchise fees for solid waste related purposes such
as recycling.
FRANCHISING AGENCY FEE ($/YEAR) FORMULA
Antioch 100,000 flat rate
Brentwood 21,293 5% of receipts
Clayton 11,197 flat rate
Concord 361,033 5% of receipts
El Cerrito * 6.5% of receipts
Hercules 21,120 flat rate
Martinez 60,000 5% of residential receipts
Pinole 25,692 flat rate
Pittsburg 55,032 5% of receipts
Pleasant Hill 200,000 7% of receipts
Richmond 126,000 flat rate
San Pablo 36,408 flat rate
San Ramon 189,116 10% of receipts
Walnut Creek 349,503 5% of receipts
•1t. View Sanitary Dist. 0
Oakely Sanitary Dist. 10,000 2% of receipts
';Jest CC Sanitary Dist. 45,336
Kensington Com. Srvs. Dist. 2,000 flat rate
- Central CC Sanitary Dist. 31,949 (Orinda-Moraga Refuse)
( includes Orinda, Moraga, 80,450 (Valley Waste Management)
Lafayette and Danville) 1,990 (Pleasant Hill/Bayshore)
TOTAL $1,728,119
* The City Attorney is investigating whether this information is confidential .
HEB/DBO/jn/168: fees.mem
cc: Supervisor Powers
Supervisor McPeak
Supervisor Torlakson
Supervisor Schroder
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
I
I '
i
ATTACHMENT #3
EXCERPTS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF TRANSFER STATION AND LANDFILLS
I
• County Resource Recovery Management Program. When directed by the County,
the Landfill operator shall impose a tonnage surcharge adequate to support a
County Resource Recovery Management Program consisting of the Office of
Resource Recovery Management an its program. The cost of the program to be
supported by the surcharge shall not exceed $100,000 at 1987 levels. If other
solid waste disposal facilities are subject to this or a similar condition, the County
may pro-rate the cost of the program among them according to a formula
approved by the Board of Supervisors.
• Resource Recovery Program Fee. The Landfill developer or operator shall pay
to the County of Contra Costa a resource recovery program fee of $200,000
annually, beginning July 1, 1990. The developer or operator shall deposit the
monies in a segregated account established by the County. The extent of the fee
shall be subject to reconsideration when a franchise or agreement is established
for the Landfill. The resource recovery program fee from its inception shall be
a passthrough business cost for the purpose of rate setting. The fee shall be
adjusted annually to reflect the current Consumer Price Index.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
September 9, 1991
TO: Sara Hoffman
FROM: Julie Fis er
RE: Solid Waste Fr nchise Fees
Franchise fees for solid waste collection in the County are
tabulated below. The "flat rates" may be adjusted according to the
population, collection rates, etc. Please note that in some cases
these are estimates.
Generally, franchise fees are put in the agency' s general fund,
except as noted below.
FRANCHISE AGENCY 1989 1991 FORMULA
Antioch $100, 000 $126, 580 flat rate
Brentwood 21, 293 30, 000 5% of receipts
Clayton 11, 197 13 , 500 flat rate
Concord* 361, 033 606, 568 5% of receipts
El Cerrito N/A 116, 880 6.5% of receipts
Hercules 21, 120 30, 000 flat rate
Martinez 60, 000 70, 000 5% of residential
Pinole 25, 692 30, 000 flat rate
Pittsburg 55, 032 84 , 178 5% of receipts
Pleasant Hill 200, 000 309, 000 7% of receipts
Richmond 126, 000 262 , 555 flat rate
San Pablo 36, 408 33 , 000 flat rate
San Ramon 189, 116 560, 000 10% of receipts
Walnut Creek 349, 503 350, 000 5% of receipts
Mt. View Sanitary N/A 15, 000 N/A
Oakley Sanitary 10, 000 10, 000# 20 of receipts
West CC Sanitary 45,336 46, 696 N/A
Kensington Comm 2 , 000 2 , 000 flat rate
Central Sanitary* 31,949 199 , 000 (Orinda Moraga)
80, 450 535, 000 (Valley Waste)
1, 990 1, 990# (PHBD)
ESTIMATED TOTAL $1, 728, 119 $3 , 431, 947
*Concord charges 6. 4% on residential receipts, 1. 4% of which is
dedicated to solid waste planning. Central Sanitary dedicates all
of its monies to solid waste management.
#These figures were not available but were assumed to be the same
as 1989 to provide an estimated total.
jf\
jf4 : franchise fee