Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 09271994 - 2.4
J R 2.4 TC,1: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR Costa GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC.DEVELOPMENT AGE County. DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 SUBJECT: REPORT FROM GMEDA DIRECTOR TO CONSIDER TIPPING FEES (THEIR AMOUNTS AND LEVELS) AND OTHER LANDFILL RELATED ACTIONS ' SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Accept Report from GMEDA Director and confirm September 13, 1994 fees/surcharges and any changes thereto. FISCAL IMPACT Reductions to the General Fund will occur. i BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR-,,RECOMMENDATIONS On September 13,; 1994, the Board of Supervisors referred a number of issues back for further consideration on September 27, 1994. Primary consideration was given to comparing the proposals from BFI, Garaventa, RSS, and Waste Management. In considering available information, staff had some unanswered questions so a questionnaire in matrix format was devised and sent to the companies. The results of this quick survey are provided as Attachment 1 . Further direction to staff may be given based upon review of information provided. The Board wished to discuss the history of the Acme Transfer Station and the report is provided as Attachment 2. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _ APPROVE _ OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON Sept ember 27 , 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER x IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above matter is CONTINUED to October 4 , 1994 at 2 P.M. in the Board chambers . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE —{UNANIMOUS (ABSENT T AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Val Alexeeff (510/646-1620) ATTESTED September 27 , 1994 cc: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE County Counsel BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND GMEDA Departments UNTY DMINISTRATOR 939u\bolswcompar BY , DEPUTY 1 , TIPPIN'.G FEES (THEIR AMOUNTS AND LEVELS) AND OTHER LANDFILL RELATED ACTIONS Page Two - Continued The Board action taken on September 13 is provided along with the transcript as Attachment 3. The charge, as understood by staff, is as follows: a) Charge the following separately: At Keller (Eastin Bill fee).................. $ 1 .34 At Acme (LEA and AB 939)*.......... 1 .15 TOTAL ................................................................................... $ 2.49 (* charged at Keller for direct haul) b) Couple cost of all current programs, including HHW and host mitigation fee at Keller and Acme Transfer Station, into a flat, combined 25% surcharge, of which 5% is to be deposited in a trust fund for closure and post-closure, or related litigation expenses. At a $39.00 proprietary rate, the County's surcharge will total ...... $ 9.75 GRANDTOTAL ...............................................................................$12.24 c) After six months, the Board will re-evaluate all fees, including HHW ($2.12) and 5% ($1 .95) component of surcharge (1 .95) to determine whether any should be modified, reduced, or eliminated. The Board may wish to provide additional clarification in fees in light of the LUP 2020-89 consideration (Item H-1 ) and take action as appropriate. Additionally, the Board may wish to direct staff to allocate surcharge amounts. The staff report, prepared by Fred Davis to the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA) for September 22, is provided as Attachment 4. Staff will provide an update on the actions of the CCCSWA. The Board may wish to direct further action with regard to the CCCSWA. The Citizens United letter dated September 6, 1994 will be responded to in the LUP staff report. N N_ C UA 7 � y = UA a U.1 r o U" _ �o O �? UA Cfl N d O 0 o fi N C- p 0 cl. a1 NO ° O cb `" a> 0 p O N o 7-V 00 C t � N = o C C 4-1 co co 0 10 -O ZN cCo G co 0 co r0. ' - 0 O O © � p T N U p O d <C 's N O r ° d m E d N N q N 06 m N d' a *.# ;l N 6 0 SJ e- O a _ ° ° COo a o C N 0. t0 O CO N N 2co cr a r» N JA fp 0 N 1J� V O O O 0 cTa 3 a 7, w v a N A d l N Q 00 40 t Nall R PillOar u cs T E a AA co 0 O G '' A p ✓ O w G C G O O d Z to d? co N ✓ co }7 O- 7- �C? co o N '' G cls �N d d o C o'er co O U O tL ss w m a) 0 V a a :° a g y CO m o @ U y o o C si�- u ,°° co (D `0 ° 0. 0 o m 0 o C', a C6 O 0) to .. .n G co 0 CR v U 'N C W O N Y - v . , 4 * O N c6o p N N d o CC -ti 4 9 c o 0 `a> ? C O cn O v O C a co _ > O 0 U p V ytt5 N N d y w% n O d d CD C- 6? O N co eco @ co `ca C o N ? 0 C- 0 F �� p O N t�C O tl- d OU T +' O ; O V '� i'O co M cc co m 6 } ° o -o Q 5 ? 4- v d o C 0 u o C 0 o � 'o Z o O «+ a to N c}a Z - C r +� b -v .► �// co N O O �o G t�6 CO- U C7 C �� u OCO tC o co y N N �'1 L U E � u � N 7 W M W a) a) U U C C N N -O 17 C (6 � I N E E Z Z "- ca I a� m U U C G m !6 _ T O 'a =p L LO I a) _ a cl 7 N y C O -O U CL � N cc6 > c a 1•+ .Q N D N a) Z C. EZO C O O U N N > E m It O O M O E - c6 O m t" M O O r` LO O N r- a) O C N N .- ui r r Z Q I�, V). a� L 7 I N O U N O O O . C c C>� 0 f6 M m _y N m N O t7 C t\ y O O Oj a U C � C + '� C. O CD U LO E O t6 L O L U ? -0r C N 41 D C N N c6 C N m CL Q +.. O CL O .2 2 N N E E •}, N N a) O L L p c6 c6 C +C C d w C O E E Z Z O c6 c c6 i6 N•t -+- a a) ��`- O �+ +� O O c+1 LO I O v N E 01 N o d 1 L N a) O Il N a) u LO N C * ? Z Z Z <r> N V� V> J {n I U CD O O U _ D7 C6 N C "O E a) 7 N O V V L C c G +_ C C m •O N cL6 N O E U L }, L C C C a L I O N C >cuO a) O N C L UCD � a) +, 'D N M D) U a) C - ++ C ` c6 m I C +L+ a) _m E a d C d O O) I U V OU L a) ch O +r •iC O O c i > T cn 0 m y E t O N++ a 6 rn rn a� '—D N O f6 f6 N C ? ` N N LL Q J O N L CL h E Z Z 0 ? 0 Q 0 N 41 UO O (6 O 4-• I- �. �- (n J m LL I V) J > W C ch * d Ln O O Z U SEP—a 1 -94 W ED �a Attachment #1 b �tR�R° �►i� _ _ - LANDFILL September 21, 1994 TRANSMITTED BY FAX Mr. Valentin Alexeeff, Director Growth Management and Economic Development Agency Contra Costa County 651 bine Street, North wing, .Second Floor Martinez, California 94553-t599 Re: Garaventa/Potrero Hills Landfill Inc. Disposal Proposal Dear Mr. Alexeeff: This letter is a follow up to the September 24, 199+4 correspondence from John Rowden on behalf of the Recycling Center and Transfer Station to be developed in Pittsburg, California. As you know, Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. has entered into an agreement with the Recycling Center and Transfer Station to provide for disposal of waste delivered to the facility. The purpose of this letter is to provide information to Contra Costa County responsive to the questionnaire which the County promulgated entitled "Comparison of solid Waste Transfer and Disposal Costs. " Mr. Rowden has responded to questionnaire items 1 and 2. I reiterate that the total cost at the gate of the Recycling Center and Transfer Station is $41.50 including all government fees_ Of course, the $41.54 includes transportation to and disposal at the landfill. Potrero Hills Landfill is permitted to receive 850 tons per day, seven days per week (TPD7) . The landfill has applied for and expects to receive permission to receive up to 3400 TPD7. The remaining capacity at Potrero Hills Landfill is 10 million tons. The landfill can facilitate a peak of 124 one-way vehicle trips per hour. At the rate of 1500 TP07 the landfill has a remaining life of 22 years. We have acquired large tracts of adjacent land and we believe that it is possible that the landfill could expand beyond its present foot print and thus have a significantly longer usetul lite. Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. will provide a full and complete indemnification from all future closure liability at the site. There will be more than sufficient capacity at the landfill to accommodate the requirements of Contra Costa County upon approval of pending permit applications. �D�C�PDD59011�1D8356 PQTAMO MILLS LANE-SUISUN,CA-(707)429.9800 * P.O. 13OX 88-FAIRFIELD,CA 94638 10 In the interim period prior to the opening of the Recycling Center and Transfer Station, Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc, has offered to accept waste by direct haul at the Potrero Hills Landfill and at the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL) . The offer is to accept waste by direct haul at either site at the rate of $33 .62 per ton, including all government fees. WCCSL will also serve as a back up to Potrero Hills Landfill once the Recycling Center and Transfer Station commences operations. Potrero Hills Landfill., Inc. will provide a full indemnity, along with West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, Inc. , with respect to all waste received by the WCCSL under the terms of agreements with Contra Costa cities and the unincorporated areas. The following fees are paid by Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. for each ton of waste received at the landfill. These fees are included in the $41.50 tipping fee at the Recycling center and Transfer Station: State Feea $1.34 - AH 1220 1..00 - Closure/Post Closure 1.00 - PRC 43040 Local Fees $5.00 - County Business License 0.473 - County LEA fee 0.65 - Xitigation TOTAL FEES $9.46 INCLUDED IN $41.50 TIPPING FEE I believe that the above information, together with the data provided in Mr. Rowden's letter, responds fully to the request for information included in the "Comparison of Solid Waste Transfer and Disposal Options" which we received from the County. Please give me a call if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, POTRERO HILLS LANDFILL, INC. Larry Burch, P.E. Director of Environmental Management cc: John Rowden t%1\ccc9-21.54 \OOC\�0[t598i i\i 08356 T 0 ' cl L0 = S T QOM bE.— i Z—d�S OEP-21-94 WED 1444 RECEIVABLES AND PAYABLES FAX N0. 00000000 Attachment #1C w- �IPP Contra Costa Waste Service 4080 MALLARD DRIVE • P.O.BOX 5397 CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 8457.0 (510)473-0180 September 20, 1994 Mr_ Valentin Alexeeff, Director Growth Management and Economic Development Agency Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing, Second Floor Martinez, California 94553-2599 Dear Val, On behalf of Mr. Garaventa, the following responds to your September 16 letter requesting information concerning the Recycling Center and Transfer Station and Mr. Garaventa's offer to use the facility_ Information concerning the Potrero Gills Landfill will b@ provided by the owners of that facility. The information it organized according to the format of thg gpastio3'ana.ira Oent with your letter. I. Cost Transfer station & haul: A $41.50 gate rate will be charged which will include the landfill gate rate, the transfer station gate mate, the haul cost and all governmental fees_ 2. Transfer Station and AB 939 Diversion* Name: Recycling Center and Transfer Station 1300 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg, Contra Costa County Size of structure: 182,000 sf Tonnages committed: No tonnages are legally committed to the facility, however, the Garaventa collection companies intend to use the Garavenita owned facility. The Garaventa companies collect between 600 and 700 tons per day_ Area of land (acreage) : 17.5 Materials to be separated: Paper, metals, plastics, glass, wood, appliance, tires, concrete, asphalt and other inerts will be separated from loads of commercial, industrial and self-haul loads. Presorted loads of yard waste and other solid cqwpostaDle material will be transferred separately to recycling facilities in order to meet diversion go4l$, SEP-21-94 NED 14:45 RECEIVABLES AND PAYABLES FAX M0. 0000000000 P, 03 Freeway Access/connection: Loveridge Road to Highway 4 Peak Hour Traffic protection/Restriction: Restrictions will, be placed on transfer trucks and other traffic as prescribed by a traffic plan approved by the City of Pittsburg, consistent with mitigations identified in the City EIR and the program EIR for the County Integrated Waste Management Flan Additional Facilities Proposed/phasing Dates (i.e. , material, recovery, composting, etc. ) capacity of additional facilities: The Recycling Center and Transfer Station will operate in conjunction with the Mt. Diablo Recycling Center located at 4050 Mallard Drive in Concord. The facility will be devoted to processing residential curbside colieeted, recyclables. The Concord facility has a capacity of processing up to 250 tons of material per day. comapostable material will be hauled to composting facilities in Contra Costa or San Joaquin county. 3- Landfill Name: Potrero Hills Landfill Distance from transfer station: 47 miles 4. Term Short-term: Any length term is accepted including "no term" Long-term: 7 to 20 years Break-away options: Determined by the waste supplier 5. Fees (per ton) : All included in gate fee, see 1. If you have any questions about the responses, please call me at 682-0977. Since e11' �,. John Rowden Project Manager Attachment #2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: August 25, 1994 TO: Members-Board of Supervisors FROM: Val Alexeeff, Direo; SUBJECT: Acme Fdl Transfer Station Recently a number of questions have been asked about Acme Landfill temporary transfer station and permanent transfer station. Community Development staff worked with County Council to provide answers. Please review the response. Previous answers have prompted follow up questions so, if you have additional inquiry, please do not hesitate to let us know. VA:d c:aReques.t8 ATTACHMENT cc: F.Batchelor, CAO L Fujii, County Council C.Zahn, Community Development L Aiello, Community Development B.Smith, Community Development Dr.B. Walker, Health Services 1� l CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMArIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: August 17, 1994 TO: Val Alexeeff, Director, GME FROM: Belinda Smith, Senior Planne SUBJECT: INFORMATION ON RATES FOR THE ACME INTERIM TRANSFER STATION AND THE ACME LANDFILL Summary This is in response to your request, on behalf of Supervisors Torlakson and Smith, for information on rates for the Acme Interim Transfer Station (Acme ITS), the amortization of the Acme ITS investment capital, and disposal at the Acme Landfill. 1. We understand that the amortization of investment capital for the Acme Interim Transfer Station, through the Acme ITS rates, concluded in December 1993. The per ton cost included for amortization remains in the rates but most likely has been offset by C.P.I., fuel costs, worker compensation, the recent increase in Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Fee and other associated costs. 2. The Transfer Station rate structure was developed in 1989, at the time emergency export to other counties began. Due to settlement efforts for closure/post closure funding of the Acme Landfill, Acme and the County have not requested adjustments to the Acme ITS rates. 3. The County does not have mechanisms in place to rate regulate the Acme Landfill. Acme Landfill has charged "transfer station rates" since 1989. Acme Landfill has also charged a gate surcharge of$8.63 to all customers, except franchise haulers, per Board of Supervisors approval. 4. Stage 1 of the Acme Permanent Transfer Station has been completed. The transfer facility could begin operation on September 7, 1994. On June 7, 1994 the Board of Supervisors eliminated the floor on the rates for the Keller Canyon Landfill and the Acme ITS. Provided below is a summary based on file information: a brief description related to direction by the Board of Supervisors on the Acme Landfill and of the rate setting history of the Acme ITS. More detailed information on the Acme Landfill and 1 rate setting can be obtained from County Counsel. Overview: Disposal at the Acme Landfill Supervisor Smith's question related to the rates currently charged by the Acme Landfill and how those rates were established. The County does not rate regulate the Acme Landfill. Previous to Keller Canyon Landfill, franchises and rate regulation were not included as conditions of land use permits. The rates historically set at the landfills were a reflection of market demand, but beginning in the early 1980s were driven by regulatory requirements. In January of 1989, in response to new closure laws and regulations, Acme raised its rates from $25 a ton to $41 a ton to collect funds for closure. This action appeared as an item before the Board of Supervisors on April 11, 1989. The Board of Supervisors requested Acme not to make any rate changes to the rates until the completion of a study by Touche-Ross on Acme Fill closure/post-closure cost justification and payment means. On August 15, 1989 the Board of Supervisors referred to the City/County Memorandum of Understanding Committee on Export the issues of assessment and collection of closure/post-closure. The Revised November 28, 1989 Touche Ross report on the Interim Transfer Station Policies and Rate Review stated th-t the County had elected to assess each city proportional to its use of the landfill through the franchised hauler. It also stated that closure/post closure,and if applicable, landfill costs would be reported with the Acme ITS rate application. The Board of Supervisors subsequently adopted the Touche Ross recommendations. It should be noted that Condition of Approval 15.4 of the Acme Transfer Station Land Use Permit allows for closure/post closure costs to be collected through the transfer station. When the County started export of MSW to the Potrero Hills and Altamont Landfills, the rate established at the Acme ITS became the rate Acme Fill Co. charged for disposal at the Acme Landfill. The chronology of the rates at the Acme ITS is summarized below. Essentially, a lower price charged for disposal at the Acme Landfill could have resulted in cities or haulers demanding the lower rate. Rate Overview: Acme Interim Transfer Station Supervisor Torlakson's inquiry related to amortization of investment capital and if it was included in the current rate. The last rate review of the Acme ITS occurred on November 24, 1992. At that time the amortization period was extended from June 1993 to December 1993. The rate set included amortization of$1.16 per ton. It is our understanding that the ITS is now paid-off. However, there are several other factors now affecting the rate that offset the continued collection of the per ton cost of amortization. Those factors include adjustment to CPI, increases in fuel cost, worker compensation, the recent increase in HHW fee (from $.41 to $2.12), etc. which would be considered in current and future rate reviews. Rate Review Chronology 2 r - The Acme Interim Transfer Station started operations in December of 1989 as a requirement of emergency export to Alameda and Solano Counties. The initial rate set for the Acme Interim Transfer Station was approved on December 5, 1989 for$52.22 per ton. The rate methodology set a 31 month amortization for the ITS. The cost per ton of the amortization of invested capital was $4.32 per ton. The operating ratio was set at 95%. The disposal rate (including mitigation fees to Alameda and Solano Counties) included in the transfer station rate was for export to Altamont Landfill and Potrero Hills Landfill. Although included in the Acme ITS rate application, closure/post closure assessments for the Acme Landfill were not allowed as part of the rate since other options were being explored at the time to handle closure fees. Since the rate was based on projections prior to actual operations, the Board directed Acme to file a rate application in time for a one year rate review. Other fees included in the rate were the per ton AB 939 fee of$.95 and the LEA fee of$.25. The AB 939 fee had been imposed by Resolution No. 89/738 on all disposal sites and transfer stations, including the interim station. The LEA fee was already being collected at the landfills. Acme disagreed on the operating ratio and the length of amortization. On January 16, 1990 the Board of Supervisors reconsidered the Acme rate. The matter was deferred to January 23, 1990. The Board did however, impose a gate surcharge of$8.63 per ton assessed to all customers. except franchised haulers, at the Acme ITS. These customers pay a prorated rate of the per ton fees plus $8.63. The Acme ITS rate approved by the Board of Supervisors applied to the franchised haulers. Although not directly applicable to the Acme Landfill, the rate approved for the Acme ITS was applied to Acme Landfill. Although unwritten it was important that Acme not to make a distinction as to where waste was being landfilled since there were differences in tip fee at the three landfills being used. On January 23, 1990 the Board approved a change to the operating ratio and amortization of the Acme ITS. The operating ratio was set at 93.4% and the amortization.was extended to 37 months. The Board also reaffirmed the previously approved rate of$52.22. As directed by the Board, Acme submitted a rate application for review proposed to be effective January 1991. On December 18, 1990 the Board of Supervisors approved a rate of$59.68 to be effective January 1, 1991. The rate increase was due to increased regulatory fees, operational costs, lower than anticipated volumes, and hauling contract changes. The rate did not include closure/post-closure surcharge for the Acme Landfill since a Pledge of Revenue Agreement for historic Acme users was being reviewed by the Internal Operations Committee. Acme was also directed to submit a mid-year rate application. A significant issue for future costs included put- or-pay requirements at the receiving landfills and resulting revenue deficiencies (the Export Agreements were sized to accommodate all Central County wastes, but not all was being sent through the Acme ITS. The export agreement with Alameda County ended December 1991. As of December 1991 the cost of disposal for Altamont in Alameda County was $21.25 per ton tip fee plus $6.10 mitigation fee. The cost for disposal at Potrero Hills in Solano County was $23.15 per ton tip fee and plus $8.25 mitigation fee. The rate used for disposal costs at the Acme ITS were a 3 1' blended rate of Potrero and Altamont. The amount of tonnage being disposed at the Acme Landfill was limited, approximately zero to 30-50 tons a day of hard to handle material while both export agreements were in effect. The rate charged for the Acme Landfill was the same rate as the transfer station, $59.22 per ton. Technically, all material passed through the transfer station, from the transfer station floor waste was sent to Altamont, Potrero, or Acme. On December 3, 1991 the Board of Supervisors approved a rate of$65.69 to be effective upon approval. Acme ITS was also directed to submit a mid year rate application. It should be noted that the rate recommended by Deloitte & Touche was $71.61. In 1992 the rates were adjusted twice for the Acme ITS: the first occurred on May 12, 1992 in response to the tipping fee set for Keller Canyon Landfill which had just opened. A subsequent rate was approved after the aforementioned rate review in November 1992. In both instances fees for closure/post-closure were not allowed. The rate set on May 12, 1992 for transfer and disposal at both Keller Canyon Landfill and Potrero Landfill was $77.07 per ton. The change in rate was to adjust for the tip fees established at Keller Canyon and to provide direction to Acme regarding export to Potrero Hills Landfill. Solan County had allowed accelerated disposal after the Altamont Agreement with Alameda county expired in December, 1991. The Board directed Acme to limit the amount of export to Potrero Hills Landfill to 242 tons per day to meet the minimum put or pay. At this time the LEA fee was increased to $1.00 per ton and the Household Hazardous Waste Fee was added at $.41 a ton. The Keller Canyon Landfill interim disposal rate was set at; $33.00 per ton; County surcharge of $3.30 per ton; open space/ag, transportation, host community mitigation fees at $2.00 each; and a $.75 State Eastin Fee. Solan County had raised the rates at Potrero to $25.50 per ton tip fee and $9.65 per ton mitigation fee. The Solano County franchise fee was unknown. Since the agreement with Solano County had not yet expired, continuing export to Potrero allowed for a blended rate which lowered the overall rate. The second rate adjustment occurred on November 24,1992. The rate set after a rate review was $75.97 per ton. In the interim a rate at Keller was set for$38.40 per ton. The rate set was based solely on the Keller Canyon Landfill disposal fee since the rate was effective after termination of the inter-county agreement for export to Solano County. Export to Solano County, under the agreement, stopped on December 8, 1992 when the tonnage cap was reached. It was at this time the amortization of the capital cost of the Acme ITS was extended from May of 1993 to December of 1993. Extending the amortization period for the Acme ITS reduced the rate by $.73 per ton. The actual per ton amortization based on the extended time period, was $1.16 per ton. cc: Chuck Zahn, Community Development Louise Aiello, Community Developement County Counsel 4 Attachment #3 (see 2.3 below & attached transcript) SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MEETING IN ALL ITS CAPACITIES PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 24-20402 TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 CONSENT ITEMS: Approved as listed. 1 .17 DELETED 1 .20 CORRECTED Subdivision number on agenda from 7820 to 7280, and ACCEPTED completion of improvements for Subdivision 7280, being developed by Dame' Construction Company, Danville, area. 1 .50 DECLARED vacant the seat on the Contra Costa County Advisory Council on Aging held by Mario Estioco, Hercules Local Committee representative, and DIRECTED the Clerk of the Board to apply the Board's policy for filling the vacancy; as recommended by the Advisory Council on Aging. 1.120 APPROVED and AUTHORIZED County Counsel to execute a Contract with Marke Estis in the amount of $14, 640 for the provision of temporary legal services during the period October 3, 1994, through December 31, 1994 . 1 . 139 DELETED 1 . 157 REFERRED to Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency for report on September 27, 1994, letter from President, Garaventa Enterprises, advising that the company is developing a transfer station to serve Central and East Contra Costa County, is entering into an agreement with Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. , and West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, and is applying for a rate of $41 . 50 per ton at the gate of the transfer station, subject to the approval of the City of Pittsburg. ETERMINATION ITEMS: Approved as listed except as noted below: 2 . 3 ACCEPTED report from the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee (unam. ) ; DIRECTED staff to work with the Crockett-Valona Sanitary District in developing a Memorandum of Agreement continuing franchising of solid waste and recyclable collection and disposal by the District, and assuring the attainment of the AB 939 diversion goals (unam. ) ; APPROVED amended Franchise Agreements for Keller Canyon Landfill and for the permanent Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station (III voted no) ; DIRECTED that BFI make any compensation to property owners if required as a result of a valuation study (unam. ) ; AMENDED County fees to total $12.24 per ton based on a proprietary rate of $39.00 (III voted no) ; AGREED to apply to the Central County JPA for membership and request it not to franchise unincorporated areas without the County's participation (unam. ) ; and REQUESTED a report on September 27, 1994 from the Director of Growth Management & Economic Development Agency on the proposals from Garaventa/Richmond Sanitary Service, BFI/Acme and Altamont/Valley Waste, an update on the JPA, and further information on rates for Acme Transfer Station and Acme Landfill (unam. ) . 1 (9-13-94 Sum. ) i TIMED ITEMS: 9 A.M. H.A PRESENTED to Peter Emmons of the Blue Devils staff, Resolution 94/437 honoring the Concord Blue Devils as the 1994 Drum Corps International World Champions. Paul Morris, Trumpet Player for the Blue Devils, played the National Anthem. H.B RECEIVED Certificate of Appreciation to the Board of Supervisors and the Community Development Department and staff for support in the Rumrill Affordability Housing Project in San Pablo by the Lao Family Community Development Inc. and other Southeast Asian and refugee communities. 11 A.M. H.1 a) GRANTED JURISDICTION to the Building Inspection Department for the abatement of 800-814 Bella Vista Avenue, Martinez area, Somalia Inc. , owners. b) GRANTED JURISDICTION to the Building Inspection Department for the abatement of 2200 Tule Lane, Knightsen area, Kam S. Law and Linda L. Lederfeind, owners; and invited Mr. Law to meet with the staff in Supervisor Torlakscn' s office and the County Health Department in seeking a permit for a septic tank on the property. c) GRANTED JURISDICTION to the Building Inspection Deparment for the abatement of 1828 Dixon Lane, Concord area, John Cusick, owner, allowing 60 days for the new owner to clean up the property. H.2 ADOPTED Resolution 94/440 creating Zone 120 in County Service Area P-6, ADOPTED Ordinance 94-61, and AUTHORIZED election on November 15, 1994 on whether to implement special tax for police protection services. H. 3 ADOPTED Ordinance No. 94-58 increasing certain fees in the Sheriff-Corner' s Department relating to concealed weapon permits. HA CONTINUED to September 27, 1994 at 11 : 00 a.m. hearing on proposed exclusion of land within the boundaries of the City of San Ramon from Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Drainage Area 1010. H.5 APPROVED proposed Disposition and Development Agreement with Community Development Housing Corporation of North Richmond/Eden Housing, Inc. , for the development of a senior housing project in the North Richmond Redevelopment Area. 2 P.M. H. 6 REFERRED back to the East County Regional Planning Commission the request of Boe and Company Architects to amend the Land Use Element of the County General Plan to change the land use designation on 1.75 acres from Multiple. Family Residential, Medium Density to Commercial to accommodate a proposed expansion of an existing retail facility, along with additional parcels added by County Staff in the southwest portion of the enlarged general plan amendment area making the total land area about 2.25 acres in size (GPA 7-93-EC) ; and on the request by Boe and Company (applicant) and The Customer Store (owners) (3009-RZ) to rezone land in the Bay Point area from Neighborhood Business (N-B) , Multiple Family Residential (M-29) and Two Family (D- 1) to Planned Unit District (P-1) with a requested variance, along with Final Development Plan 3012-93 to construct a new 2 (9-13-94 Sum. ) 8, 000 square foot grocery store with a triple island gasoline canopy to replace the existing 4, 000 square foot store, and Land Use Permit 2045-93 for a take out food establishment in an 8, 000 square foot grocery store, Bay Point area; and REQUESTED the Redevelopment Agency to look at the three remaining properties in the area that have been adversely impacted by the Highway 4/Bailey Road Project. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Internal Operations Committee - APPROVED the recommendations as presented. RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOARD MEMBERS: S.3 AGREED to establish an Ad Hoc Committee of the Board, appointed Supervisors DeSaulnier and Torlakson thereto, and charged it with the specific task of (1) recommending independent bond counsel for the Board of Supervisor's consideration to obtain a second opinion on the legal consequences of defeasance of the Certificate of Participation financing used to fund the Merrithew Memorial Hospital Replacement Project; and (2) recommending an independent underwriter for the Board of Supervisor' s consideration in hiring to provide the financial review of the funding requirements for a defeasance of the Merrithew Memorial Hospital Replacement Project financing (Unanimous) ; and REFERRED to staff for report to the Ad Hoc Committee, Supervisor DeSaulnier' s proposal to request recommendations for an outside hospital consultant for the Board's consideration to give a cost- benefit analysis of the identifiable options for replacing Merrithew Memorial Hospital such a securing Los Medanos Community Hospital as the county's acute care facility, contracting with district hospital, consolidations of services, etc; and, for the Ad Hoc Committee to meet immediately with the court ordered receiver of Los Medanos Hospital to discuss various options for Contra Costa County to purchase Los Medanos Hospital . S. 6 AUTHORIZED Supervisor Torlakson to present congratulations on behalf of Contra Costa County to the Contra Costa Water District commemorating the ground breaking for the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. CLOSED SESSION: MR.1 The Board returned from Closed Session and announced that it had agreed to place on the September 20, 1994 agenda an ordinance to make the position of Fire Chief of the Contra Costa Fire Protection District an exempt position, and to announce its intention to appoint Allen Little as Fire Chief of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. PUBLIC COMMENT - MR.2 Frank E. Lehmkuhl, 1731 Claycord Avenue, Concord, appeared and spoke on conflicts of interest. MR.3 Rev. Curtis A. Timmons, P. 0. Box 8213, Pittsburg, requested that the Director of Health Services, Mark -Finucane; and Dr. Jerry Rice, representing Los Medanos Hospital; through the sponsorship of the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board, attend a community forum in East County to address the specific concerns of the individuals with respect to the hospital issue in East County, including provision of future services and past use of taxpayers' funds. Mark Finucane advised that he would be happy to participate. Supervisor Torlakson advised that he would be happy to work with Rev. Timmons and Mark Finucane in this regard. Rev. Timmons also suggested that the Contra Costa Grand Jury look into the handling of the funds at Los Medanos Hospital and advise the taxpayers. 3 (9-13-94 Sum. ) Transcription Partial Text of item 2 . 3 from September 13 , 1994 - Supervisor Bishop: I would like to respond to the $2 . 12 and then some other comments. The $2 . 12 Household Hazardous Materials . I think some months ago, it was represented to us by various cities that they would assume that responsibility. I don' t think we can decide that today. I think that is something that would factor into our considerations however. I want to share with you again. I hear and I can understand Mr. Aiello' s concern when the expression by staff is we want to help BFI . I think one I don' t know what was going on in someone' s mind when we wrote that, but I think what we really want to do is two things . One, we want the most important thing we want to get the rates in this county down and that' s a bifurcated process that has to happen with Keller. Keller/Acme and it has to happen with us . I think you know the comments by Miss Fanden and Mr. Schroder that we do have a landfill that is state of the art . We want to keep Keller viable and it is clear that the message has come out from the cities . One of the other reasons frankly that I want us to do something today is the Central County JPA and the cities therein have asked us to do something today. And I didn' t hear them wailing and screaming. I've heard them week after week, month after month, asking us to do something about our rates and I think we really have to act now. I am in concurrence with Miss Fanden when she says she doesn' t think the issue is particularly complex. I don' t think the issue is very complex. I think it is numbers . I think there are policy issues that require working out . As far as the mitigation fees . The six dollar mitigation. The two and two for open space and transportation. That is before the Planning Commission. I think there is legitimate, there is merit for a mitigation fee. I think it is very important . I am convinced it is a state of the art landfill but at the same time, I don' t live next to the landfill and I think we have to insure that there is something there that protects those communities, that gives us a source of revenues to mitigate those impacts . It may not be physical impacts . There are intangible involved. I frankly wouldn' t want to live next to a landfill . I think the preferable most people would say landfill in Pittsburg. If they have a landfill we should compensate for the intangibles inherent in having a landfill in their community. I think that' s very important . I agree. I think you know I hear BFI saying minimizing the risk involved as far as the valuation is concerned but I think we do need to address that . And I think if they are not very concerned about the risks that are involved with the valuation, then maybe they bear the risk. Coming back again to numbers and I must say there' s been no collusion here but it' s interesting. I had some numbers in front of me . I look at the $1 . 34 . That is not only a mandated fee but it is a fixed fee . The remaining fees can go up and down. Some of them are mandated but the amount is not mandated. I believe if we take the $1 . 34 and we make a commitment to get the remaining part of the fees down to $7 . 00 . And I want to assure Nancy Fanden that that' s just not a number that we' re throwing out there . It' s a number that I've given a good deal of thought to. The remaining $7. Right now we have an obligation for $212 . We have an obligation for $1 . 00 on LEA. We have an obligation for $4 . 00 that the Planning Commission is going to look at tonight and then, we have the additional $2 . 00 . Quite frankly, that does not add up. I think there is no question in my mind that we can move that $2 . 12 at some future point to the cities and to Central San. That that can be moved at some point . I believe that what is left out of the pie, there is a priority for mitigation, host mitigation and if there' s someone that comes in on the short end of the pie I think it' s going to have to be the County and its franchise fee . I think the LEA fee if other counties can get by with an administration, with a fee of . 09 in one county and .47 in another county and no AB 939 because they wrap it all in together, I think we can do that as well . I think it is very important for us to look at this in the context of what is occurring now not historically. Now we have a proposal before us 1 that we could consummate today of $39 . 00 . I see $8 . 34 which I think is reasonable and I think perhaps it becomes more reasonable and there is a benefit to the County if that $2 . 12 goes to the cities, then we can look at that and going toward the host mitigation, look at it going toward the franchise and I think at this point, I have a question, can we simply say $7 . 00 without breaking out where that $7 . 00 can go and we wait to see what happens with the Planning Commission but we can set what our priorities are, that number one priority out of that remaining $7 . 00 is host mitigation with what is remaining to be and then a $2 . 12 that we have a commitment to, the remaining amounts go toward the County and that the County will have a responsibility out of that remaining amount for LEA and 939 . Other counties are doing it that way and to me I'm not a genius at mathematics but I do know that 100 percent or 50 percent of something or $8 . 34 percent, $8 . 34 as a portion on a ton is better than $16 . 00 which is where we're close to right now of 0 . $16 . 00 on 0 tonnage. And I think that' s where I'm coming from. I would look for support from the rest of the Board. I would prefer, I will make that a motion. I look at the franchise agreement and on page 19 under 6 .4 . This is for the Landfill . Page 19 . That we set out and I've looked over the alternatives, number one, two and three which are Jeff very complex. To me, the 1 .34 to the Eastin fee with a $7 . 00 setting forth priorities that number one priority is mitigation fee, second priority being the $2 . 12 that we are currently required to pay. The third level of priority being those mitigation fees that are considered with the land use permit and then the franchise fee so it' s incumbent upon us, that' s the end of my motion, it' s incumbent on us to move as much as we can out of that $7 . 00 . The 2 . 12 . To reduce the transportation and the open space if not eliminating it or hopefully the Planning Commission will address that or maybe I'm understanding from Mr. Zahn that we can consider that in a different context . That it doesn' t necessarily have to be involved with a land use permit . Supervisor Powers : Did anybody write that motion down? You have it on tape . Okay, well let' s see if we get a second. Supervisor Bishop: The motion would be to reduce our mandated fees and surcharge to be all inclusive with or at $8 . 34 . $1 . 34 for the Eastin Fee, the remaining $7 . 00 to be allocated as follows . Number one priority going toward mitigation, host mitigation, the second being the $2 . 12 Household Hazardous Waste which may be considered at some future point to be assumed by the cities . The next tier would involve the transportation and open space mitigation fees that are under the land use permit with the final tier being a county surcharge or franchise out of which LEA and AB 939 are paid. Supervisor Powers : Is there a second to that motion? Supervisor Smith: If I understand, that' s even more of a cut than BFI is asking for, right? Supervisor DeSaulnier: No. Supervisor Smith: Because they' re saying $8 . 00 excluding the State fees, right? $8 . 00 including the state fees? Supervisor Bishop: I think it is exactly what they asked, Jeff, because I was surprised I had it written down on my paper. Tom Bruen: The suggestion made by one of the negotiators for the Solid Waste Authority was $8 . 00 total on all County and State fees . Supervisor Powers : Okay, second to that motion? Hearing no second, let me let' s try to clarify this thing that you gave us . 2 There are some changes across the Board. $1 . 34 for the Eastin fee is changed correct and that' s in all three counties . And then in our County, we eliminated the $ . 80 for the 939 to the cities already. So, that' s off . That would make a grand total in fees for Contra Costa County of $13 . 79 . That' s what I compute. I'm trying to get feedback for you. Alameda County would be $14 . 73 and Solano County would be $9 .46 with the increased Eastin fee . Supervisor Smith: Mr. Chair, can I ask some questions? I notice Sue Rainey there and Herb from the JPA and I wanted to ask what effect San Ramon' s actions will have on the future function of the small JPA if somebody could answer that . Answer: None . Supervisor Smith: Nothing. So, am I misunderstanding then that San Ramon' s going to franchise separately for San Ramon and then the JPA' s going to franchise differently or in a separate situation. Answer: From audience . The actions taken by San Ramon and directly by Solid Waste . . . .was taken under the current existing franchise agreement . . . . Supervisor Smith: So, that' s just for 16 months . And the franchise that the small JPA is considering is to take over after that 16 months this time . Correct . Okay. Supervisor Powers : I wrote down some issues and so we can begin trying to vote yes together, I thought I would take begin with the simple issues that have arisen. One is that Mr. Bruen asked to have ACME a party to the Keller Franchise agreement . Is that a problem. Mr. Bruen asked to have ACME a party to the Keller Franchise agreement, didn' t you ask that? Vic Westman: No, BFI would still be a party in effect and would still be responsible. . . . Supervisor Powers : Maybe you can clarify that . I didn' t understand what you said Tom. Didn' t sound like a big issue but . Tom Bruen: No, it was not to the Keller Franchise, it was the permanent transfer station franchise . Because they' re the landowner, it made sense to obligate themselves to the franchise and not just obligate the tenant but rather obligate both. Supervisor Powers : Is there a problem. . . Supervisor Smith: That' s a great idea. I move that . Supervisor Powers : Okay. Motion and a second to add that . Is there any discussion. Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye . Passes unanimously. And provide in the Keller Franchise agreement some provision to implement the valuation issue, that' s the least controversial one that I could find next in order. Is there some. . . Supervisor Torlakson: I would move to direct staff to add language and make it a BFI obligation if it' s a cost . . . Victor Westman: Well, first of all, could I indicate staff has not completely failed. The franchise does say that the franchisee will comply with all the conditions of the land use permit unless they' re varied somehow and the land use permit does have a condition that says when the program is adopted by the Board, the landfill operator shall comply and fund it in the manner specified by the Board. So, I mean we have covered it in that sense. 3 Supervisor Powers : Do you think that' s strong enough to get the message across or would it be better if . . . Victor Westman: Well, if you wish we can certainly provide in there they' ll fund it but I think it has to be appreciated that that will be a cost that will somehow be passed on. And I'm not arguing against the condition, but I think there' s sort of a misconception. You dropped out of rate regulation. Therefore, they will add that I'm sure at some point to their cost if that is a cost and you will remember if you were still engaging in rate regulation, you have to insure that you provide a rate that is not confiscatory, therefore that would be an item that would be reflected in determining the cost for a rate . Supervisor Smith: I think it' s important from looking through what happened before I got here . It was clearly the understanding I think from at least reading the paperwork that when rate review happened if there was some valuation detriment that was required to be paid, it would be included in the proprietary side of the scale and set by the Board in order to pay back those people who lost value. And so it seems to me we should at least make it clear that the County is not going to set another fee in order to pay for that and that the repayment that is due based on the valuation study is considered by the Board to be a cost of doing business . Supervisor Torlakson: That was my motion and I think it' s important to get that clarified because if we are in a competitive rate environment, that leaves with the language Mr. Westman read, and I'm glad we have that for the record, but it leaves an uncertainty an open endedness to the issue . Where the motion that I made and that Jeff' s clarified so well would pin that number down so it' s not an uncertaintied variable that different cities have to look at . Well maybe we' ll get hit with some kind of new fee sometime in the middle of any kind of term of a waste commitment or a wastestream rate allocation. Supervisor Powers : Let me just get if there' s a motion and speakers, you made the motion to include it as a part of the proprietary rate and you second that . Okay, go ahead. Supervisor Bishop: I have problems with that because I'm listening to Mr. Westman' s co you know the language sounds like we' re adding another indefinable here and there is a point which we can define it and I think the part that there' s uncertainty is over our fees not over this element of our fees . I think if we would you read the last part of that again for me . Vic, because it sounds to me it' s like at some future we will agree depending upon the appropriateness of who bears the cost . I think the appropriate of who absorbs the cost kind of is contingent on what the actual amount is and as a cost of doing business if we' re talking about $39 . 00 instead of $77 . 00, the ability and word you used was confiscatory, there' s a potential for being confiscatory, if we inject that as well as fees that are in my mind excessive, so we' re combining excessive fees with having them bear the total burden of this cost as well . Victor Westman: If I understand what Supervisor, I think the point Supervisor Torlakson was making, if I understand it correctly, is that whenever that amount is determined, it will not be borne within the County, whatever $7, $12 or $13 and it' ll be the responsibility of the operator to fund that either through the proprietary rate or otherwise is that correct . Supervisor Torlakson: Yes . Supervisor Smith: Right . And since we' re not regulating rates, they can increase their proprietary rate to pay for that but of course that' s a business judgement they will have to make. 4 Supervisor Powers : Okay, we understand the motion. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye . Those opposed. Passes unanimously. Okay, we did that . Did the request . There was some concern about the providing in the franchise agreement for Keller that at some point in time the Board be able to impose the $2 . 00 ag and transportation fee which we are recommending be suspended at this point in time to the Planning Commission but that and you' d raised that Tom, is there desire to add anything to that franchise agreement to insure that it' s not only in the land use permit but also in the franchise agreement which is the arrangement that regulates fees . Supervisor Torlakson: I think some reference in the franchise agreement would be appropriate. I think there' s a major question that I don' t have answered yet in my own mind and I need Counsel' s guidance on it and the benefit of the public hearing process at the Planning Commission as to whether it' s appropriate to take those out of the LUP or to restructure them in some other way that guarantees nonetheless that the community would still receive the $6 . 00 that they have currently received as mitigation. So, how that' s best done, I'm not exactly sure and what the best mechanism for that . Victor Westman: Well, if I remember correctly the LUP requires that $2 . 00 for open space and $2 . 00 for transportation be paid and there isn' t any discretion to vary that at this point and when this matter does come back to you, you' re going to have the discretion to amend the Land Use Permit and that discretion could be that the fees will be whatever you fix them to be for those two items but not to exceed $2 . 00 per ton or its equivalent . I mean that discretion will be available to you when that comes back if it' s next week. Supervisor Powers : So, the idea would be to put a provision in there that we reserve the right to do it in the franchise agreement if it' s varied in the land use permit . Victor Westman: Well, the land use permit will still provide that those fees will be paid but at the amount you specify by some subsequent action, either in the franchise agreement or some other way. Part of I think your endeavor here though is at some point to fix the total parameter of what all these costs are going to be for certainty for the operator but to answer Tom' s question, you' re going to have the discretion next week or the week after. You don' t have to eliminate the ability to collect those fees completely from the LUP. You can simply give the Board discretion to be able to charge less than $2 . 00 a ton and that discretion will be exercised either as part of the if you so chose the franchise agreement whenever you fix the total amount of fees whatever they' re going to be for that . Supervisor Powers : So, is one of the alternatives in the franchise agreement sufficient to cover that . Victor Westman: Yes, well we do say we can add something but I think we also at some point before we can finalize writing all that, we have to know what you finally do. Supervisor Powers : Right . Okay, fine very good. Supervisor Torlakson: And just to register my concern. I am concerned about changing that $6 . 00 amount and that is an issue that we have to debate subsequent to the hearing process that comes up. . . Victor Westman: Well, now remember the host mitigation fee only appears in the franchise agreement . Okay. Supervisor Smith: Can I make a motion about something we might agree on. 5 Supervisor Powers : Sure. Please do. Supervisor Smith: In the transfer station franchise agreement on page 23 , well 22 and 23 , the issue of self-haul rates . I strongly believe we should use something similar to alternative two which says that essentially the self-haul customers will be charged no more than the market rate and what I would suggest is that we modify the language to say notwithstanding 6 . 1 the gate rate charge to customers delivering less than one ton of solid waste per day shall not exceed the average of the charges of all other landfills and or transfer stations providing the same service in Contra Costa County with similar customers . So moved. Supervisor DeSaulnier: Second. Supervisor Powers : There' s a motion and a second to provide that language in the self-haul section of the ACME Transfer franchise . Any further discussion. Supervisor Bishop: I do have some questions . Alternative two, you say it' s similar to alternative two. Supervisor Smith: Yeah, I just excluded Solano and Alameda counties . And included transfer stations in addition to landfills so that essentially it' s saying it has to be the average or in the market for self-haulers going to other landfills or transfer stations in Contra Costa County. Supervisor Bishop: Their gate rate? Supervisor Smith: Um, humm. Self-haulers . Supervisor Powers : Further questions . Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Those opposed. Okay, passes unanimously. You had mentioned Jeff also host community mitigation in relationship to the ACME situation. Supervisor Smith: Okay, that' s on page 16 of the transfer station franchise agreement and the way it' s written here, it' s an amount to be paid out of the total surcharge and I would suggest that it should be $2 . 00, so I' ll make that motion. Supervisor DeSaulnier: Discussion. I'm a little concerned that we' re going to get up past the $10 range by going taking these thing incrementally. I mean is it the point and can we get to it by doing what you' re suggesting, Jeff, but still get to a cap as Supervisor Bishop has tried to do. Supervisor Smith: Well, I have an over-all suggestion. I don' t know if people will like it . Supervisor DeSaulnier: We' re going to have to face it sooner or later. Why don't we get to the cap now and work backwards . Supervisor Smith: The overall suggestion. Oh.Oh. Well, I think if we go back to the origin of the fees, this will at least clarify what I was thinking. I don' t know if the rest of the Board will think it' s a good idea. But at Keller the state fee, the Eastin fee, $1 . 34, should be charged separately as a dollar per ton fee. At ACME, I would suggest that the LEA fee of $1 . 00 and the 939 fee of $ . 15 be charged separately as $1 . 15 per ton as will need to be modified for future action and then I would suggest that the Household Hazardous Waste fee and all other programs which are currently paid for by different fees in addition to the $2 . 00 that I just suggested for the host mitigation be coupled into the franchise and that franchise percentage be 25 percent for both proprietary fees at ACME and Keller. That' ll end up making the total fees $12 . 24 if BFI really reduces it to $39 . 00 . I' d also suggest that 5 percent of that or $1 . 95 be reserved in a trust fund by the County to assure 6 y that we have funding for potential costs of litigation and closure . And that if that is not needed, we' ll be able to refund it to the rate payers . So, I' ll make that motion. Supervisor DeSaulnier: Since you took your calculator, what' s the base rate excluding the closure cost, the trust fund. Supervisor Smith: Well, if the base rate stays at $39 . 00 and there' s no need for the trust fund, that brings it down into $10 . 00 range total . That includes the State fees, the Eastin fee . Supervisor Bishop: 25 percent of $39 . 00 is roughly $10 . 00 . Supervisor Smith: $9 . 75 . Supervisor Bishop: Right and if $2 . 12 goes away. And then you' re talking about, we' re still talking 2 , 2 , and 2 . We' re talking about 6 and then you' re saying that $4 . 00 of that, are you suggesting that when that is reduced by the $2 . 12 if that goes away, that that 25 percent is reduced or are you just suggesting that the County get more of that 25 percent . Which is what basically what I suggested except my percentage amount was less . Supervisor Smith: Well, what I'm suggesting is that the $1 . 34 stay at Keller, the $1 . 15 stay at ACME which is a total of $2 .49 fixed dollar per ton fees, that the rest of all of the programs be paid for out of a franchise which is set as a percentage surcharge of both the proprietary rate at Keller and the proprietary rate at ACME and that that be 25 percent which will end up if they reduce their proprietary rate to $39 . 00, it will end up being $9 .75 . And that all the other programs, mitigations be paid for out of that money. And then I made the comment and I think it' s important that we reserve a quarter of that, 5 percent essentially for potential costs of closure and litigation and that we be able to refund that to the rate payers if it' s not needed. So that turns out that isn' t a necessity, that it' ll end up in the $10 . 00 range . Supervisor Bishop: Is that a motion? Supervisor Smith: Yeah. Supervisor Bishop: Okay, at this point, I would not be supporting that motion. Supervisor Powers : Well, is there a second to the motion. We might not go anywhere with it . I' ll second the motion for purposes of discussion. Supervisor Bishop: Okay, I will not be supporting the motion. I think you know as a suggestion if I hear no interest in exploring the suggestion, my feeling is the $1 . 15, other counties do not charge an AB 939 and their LEA is much less . It' s absorbed in what the County receives . I would prefer seeing the $1 . 15 going down and being absorbed. I think what we would be doing by this action is not enough. I think I'm not in agreement with Miss Fanden. I think $4 . 00 is too little. I think there is a cost of administration of these programs . I think there is a need for mitigation but I believe I'm someplace between you two folks and it looks like Nancy we're not going to be good guys today as you said. But I cannot support the motion. I think we are not going down low enough. I think at this number we will continue to see the Central County JPA and those jurisdictions go out of County. Supervisor Powers : Okay, now one thing I didn' t hear was how we handled the $2 . 00 and $2 . 00 on the ag and transportation and I assume thats I mean we have to consider where to spend that money within this framework. 7 Supervisor Smith: Within the 9 . 75 that the Board will then have the responsibility of determining that, those mitigation needs within that amount . Essentially, right now it' s all of those numbers that I included together are $13 almost $14 so it' s a bit of a cut . Supervisor Powers : What' s almost $14 . Your motion was $12 . 24 right . Supervisor Smith: Right . It ends up being $12 . 24 if they reduce their proprietary rate to $39 . 00 . Currently it' s 5 . 25 plus 5 . 90 plus . . . Supervisor Powers : Now, is there any minimum involved in that? Supervisor Smith: Actually,we should have a minimum. I' ll leave that for the Board' s discretion. Supervisor DeSaulnier: What a coward. Supervisor Smith: Hey I took the first shot . Supervisor Powers : Okay, we got a motion on the floor. It' s got a second. Is there any discussion on that . Supervisor DeSaulnier: My only further discussion is I agree with Supervisor Bishop. I don' t think it' s enough. We' re getting closer but when you look at not being partners with BFI but looking at who we' re competing with and I realize to a certain degree, we' re comparing apples and oranges, Potrero Hills their County fees are $9 .46 . I think we at least have to be fair and get to that rate and for me I think they should be less than that . And waste is $14 . 73 and if BFI can absorb more costs maybe the charges will go even less . So. . . . 9 . 75 is we' re getting there but it' s not close enough. Supervisor Smith: Well, I would suggest that you know we reserve the right to review these fees in the future . If it' s in the right direction, maybe what we should do is implement this for a month or two months and then reevaluate it and see if we have gone low enough because it seems to me that we' re not going to be able to cut absolutely to the quick unless we know what effect this is going to have on the bottom line, the operation of County programs . Supervisor DeSaulnier: Well, I think we have to make a commitment today Jeff or we' re going to lose even more waste . I mean we can' t just go on ad nauseam like this until those kids are all in college. Supervisor Smith: Okay. Supervisor Torlakson: I think what we' re all trying to do is find a way to get legitimate reasonable approach to doing our share in terms of lowering the fees issue and some accommodation. I think it' s going to be difficult finding the right combination, the right formula but we' re all headed in the same direction. And I just want to put in context again, the amount of the fees that our county discretion, around $11 . 00, which translates to about $1 . 10 per household per month on your average bill of $22 or $24 per month so our the fees we' re debating here are important but the big issue is the market competition out there is forcing the rates down somewhere you know over $2 . 00 and that' s going to be beneficial . We' re working on the edge that will make some difference in a couple of percent one way or another on the household garbage bill rate and it' s important to try to fine tune that . I had, I can' t support this motion, maybe I don' t understand it all together but I also think it may be a little high in terms of what' s out there that needs to be competed with and I know in several people' s discussions we said 8 the County you know didn' t get into this business originally to set up a cash register for County programs but a lot of those programs by the way are very important ones in the County and they are related to solid waste. We have crews going around in the conservation corps, welfare workers that are cleaning up the roadside dumping, cleaning up a lot of the garbage and litter problems that are part of our solid waste problem in Contra Costa County. If we eliminate some of those fees, some of those programs will disappear and that' s going to be the consequence and we' ll have messier streets and creeks and so forth as a consequence . We may find other ways innovatively to pitch together. I had scratched out on mine the Household Hazardous Waste. Let that go to cities or regional sanitation district efforts or whatever or some other mechanism. So, that was $2 . 00 . I'd taken the LEA and Resource Recovery and cut them both in half . That was another dollar and the franchise fee and rate review added up to $4 . 00 . So, I came up with $7 . 00 by that mechanism in terms of some way to eliminate fees . I guess I'm concerned in the current motion of the lack of specificity regarding the 2 , 2, and 2 or the various mitigation fees and I understand that would be left for future discussion but I am you know not comfortable at this point with that motion and that way of doing it . Supervisor Powers : Well, Tom, one of the problems is that the LEA program dollar is the amount that is budgeted and likewise the $2 . 12 is what is budgeted, so if you want to eliminate them, be sure that you understand what' s going to happen is it' s got to come out of the mitigation fees unless we find some money elsewhere . And that' s the bottom line problem. It' s easy to eliminate a specific fee but somewhere along the line we' re going to have to put it back in if we' re going to provide the program. So, Local Enforcement Agency program and Household Hazardous Waste Program we all got to be funded. Supervisor DeSaulnier: Excuse me, we wont' have to worry about host mitigation if there' s no trash going there at all . Supervisor Powers : That' s true . Supervisor Torlakson: True the hazardous waste mitigation, well in one sense maybe and in one sense not because there is special waste that will continue to go there . The fact that the landfill is there is you know it' s a state of being, it' s a state of impact . Regardless if you could clear up every environmental issue which is always going to be hard to do, you have the reality no one wanted the landfill in their community because of the image issue and the other impacts of just having it there . and there will still be some waste going. The Household Hazardous Waste just to explore Mr. Power' s comment further. As I understand it again in the earlier discussions where the cities had agreed and supported a proposal on the BFI landfill closure to take that off of the landfill tipping fee and collect that at a different place and I know Delta Diablo is exploring a regional issue where we may collect through the sewer fees the monies to do the household hazardous program and not have it be on the tipping fee and again various counties have done it in different ways . I'm just exploring that may be one way to get $2 . 00 off the table from this discussion. Supervisor Powers : Well, if you put it on the can, then they' re paying the same amount anyway, so you know it' s just putting it from one pocket to the other. You' re putting it on the surcharge. You' re putting it, I mean it' s not like a net savings to the public . If we want the program, we've got to pay for it and if you want to pay for it on the sewer tax, you want to pay for it on the garbage can, you want to pay for it at the transfer station, it doesn' t matter but right now, there' s no other source of money for that Household Hazardous waste program other than what we budgeted in the tipping fee and nobody' s agreed, I mean 9 they talked about it but nobody' s laid anything in writing on my desk that says that, so if we reduce it and we have an overall fee, we have the choice of taking out Household Hazardous Waste to meet host community mitigation or anything else . So, I want you to understand that . Supervisor Torlakson: Right . I do understand that . I have discussed with Pittsburg the possibility of collecting it at their transfer station. I mean there' s different places to collect it . I guess the question is is this the appropriate place to collect it or is there a more local place to collect it whether it' s through the regional sewer district or whether it' s through a transfer station. Supervisor Bishop: Could we it would seem simple that we make the amount contingent and say it will be this amount until such time that the cities take over and then it will be reduced by that amount with the understanding that all cities would work in concert . As we've heard today, Antioch has already got that moving in that direction. I think it will happen that maybe we say rather than just saying 25 percent, maybe we put that $2 . 12 someplace else and then make a reduced percentage amount of the rest and maybe you know if you want to work on a motion Mark, have at it, okay. . . Supervisor Smith: Well I wanted to try to still argue for my proposal with respect to the Household Hazardous Waste Program. I think the reason that I think it would be best to incorporate it into the surcharge at this point is because of these uncertainties . We've talked about possibly funding it through the storm water assessment . We've talked about possibly funding it through City franchises . I know that Central San and the mini JPA have been interested in funding it possibly through franchises there or at least funding part of it . There' s a lot of debate about where it will actually end up. Seems to me that if we include it as a requirement at this point to be paid out of the franchise fee that subsequently when we finally find a way to do the program with a different funding source, we have the ability at that point to reduce the franchise or reduce the surcharge and save that money but if we eliminate it now, we' re essentially terminating the program. Supervisor Powers : Did you want to make a motion? Or did you just want to interrupt this discussion. Did anybody ask you a question or did you. . .okay, does somebody want to ask him a question or do you want to help us . Supervisor DeSaulnier: I move to call for the question. You've helped us enough. Supervisor Powers : Okay, let' s go a little further in this Household Hazardous Waste situation. There is a desire on the part of many jurisdictions to handle it differently. Right now, we have a County wide program that' s being upgraded by the County in most areas. Clearly Central San would like to operate the program in Central County from what I understand from their so if we eliminate this funding source, someone will step into the breach and provide the program that' s . . , yes . Supervisor Smith: How bout we make it a one year commitment at this point, so that we' re committing ourselves to find another funding source for the program after the end of the year. Supervisor Powers : Yeah, we do have a program going now, so if we do eliminate that fee the program goes bye, bye . And you recall the public reaction to that when it wasn' t funded or when ACME didn' t pay the bill in central County. It wasn' t very pleasant . The people like that program and they like it did you have a thought, that' s an amendment to your motion. 10 Supervisor Smith: Not . I' ll leave my motion the way it was . Supervisor Torlakson: Trying to understand on one more point . I don' t know. I think the public likes the idea of the program but it' s very, very low utilization as hard as we've tried. It' s a fraction, it' s a very dismal number actually in terms of the number of people actually utilize the program and so there are efforts to reevaluate the effectiveness of the appointment system process that I know Delta Diablo is in the midst of doing that . So, whether we keep it in place until there' s a replacement, I think that' s you know part of this discussion. If you take this out of your numbers Jeff, what does that leave the rate to be . So, if there' s a replacement type fee put in place by some other mechanism whether it' s a sanitation district . Whether it' s a transfer station surcharge. Or some other mechanism for collection at the household you know point of origin on the haul contract . Supervisor Smith: If we don' t need to use the trust fund for closure and if we find another source for the Household Hazardous Waste, then the fees become $8 . 17 using my formula. Supervisor Bishop: I didn' t get that . Become $8 . 17 . You took the $2 . 12 out . Supervisor Powers : Okay take $2 . 12 out and $1 . 95 out and it becomes . . . Supervisor Smith: $8 . 17 . So using the formula that I suggested if we find place for Household Hazardous Waste, if we don' t need to use the closure trust fund, it' s $8 . 17 . Supervisor DeSaulnier: So if, jump in here and make it more obtuse . And if it' s $8 . 17 and we did a timeframe where we could give the options to the jurisdictions, we could do household hazardous waste and charge it for the $2 . 12 for the 6 months and in the meantime they could try to find a way to do it . Could we make that as part of the . . 6 months . . so basically what we' re doing is giving the jurisdictions the option to either include the be part of the $2 . 12 we do it for 6 months and they' re trying to find other options . Supervisor Smith: Yeah, we could say let' s do this for 6 months . At 6 months, we' ll reevaluate and adjust the surcharge as needed to address the Household Hazardous Waste and/or the closure costs . Supervisor DeSaulnier: So, it' s $8 . 17 with that added for 6 months and in the meantime, the jurisdictions are out trying to find other alternatives if they choose . Supervisor Bishop: How did we get down from $12 . 24 to $8 . 17? Supervisor Powers : $1 . 95 and $2 . 12 minus $12 . 24 equals $8 . 17 . Supervisor Bishop: Okay, what was the $1 . 95? Could you run that by me again. Supervisor Smith: that' s 5 percent for litigation and closure cost trust fund. If we don' t need it, we refund it back to the public . In reality, that' s to me if we get tagged for some closure costs, and litigation fees, public obviously is going to have to pay it . All we' re saying is let' s keep it apart for the moment until the case is resolved. So, you' re saying Mark, let me understand, you' re saying go ahead with the proposal that I suggested, reevaluate in 6 months with the intention to drop out the household hazardous waste and closure fees if we can based on new information at that time . Supervisor DeSaulnier: Closure fees aren' t going to be part of 11 it is that right? Supervisor Torlakson: Eliminate those now? Supervisor DeSaulnier: Right . Supervisor Powers : Closure fees, eliminate them. Supervisor Smith: The closure trust fund. Supervisor DeSaulnier: So, we' re at 8 . 17 plus the household hazardous waste for 6 months . Supervisor Powers : You don' t want to include the litigation fund is what we' re saying. Supervisor Smith: It just means we' re going to have to pay it out of the general fund someplace. Supervisor Bishop: That 8 . 17, does that you' re not including the $1 . 34 and you' re not including the LEA are you. Supervisor Smith: What I'm saying, go back to what I said. What I'm saying is $1 . 34 per ton at Keller. $1 . 15 per ton at ACME to pay for 939 and LEA plus 25 percent of the base rate of both, base proprietary rate, the proprietary rate of both ACME and Keller, all of that combined is $12 . 24 , if their rate is really $39 . 00 and then in 6 months we can eliminate $1 . 95 and $2 . 12 if we can find alternate funding for those revenue streams because otherwise if we eliminate the $2 . 12 now, we eliminate the Household Hazardous Waste Program. If we don' t plan for potential liability and lawyers fees, it' s just going to come out of the general fund. And that' s specifically allowed for us to pay those charges out of the surcharge by reason of the franchise fee and if we don' t need it, we refund it to the public . Supervisor Powers : Okay, that' s an amended motion. Is that right . Supervisor Smith: Yeah, I think that was basically it . Supervisor Powers : Now, let me just ask the question. We are not assuming that we are eliminating the $2 . 00 open space or $2 . 00 transportation. Supervisor Smith: Right . Supervisor Powers : Or the $2 . 00 mitigation. So, if you look at that it may all go to that . Supervisor Smith: Right . It might all go to that . Supervisor Torlakson: I can support it in that context . We' re not making a decision, not having that debate today. Supervisor Powers : Okay, is there any further discussion? all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye . Those opposed. Passes 4-1 . (Supervisor Bishop voted no. ) And we have that . Now let me see if there are a couple of other things that we missed in the process . Supervisor Smith: Oh, we didn' t make the motions about the Solid Waste Authority. I move that we send a formal letter signed by the Chair of the Board requesting membership on the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority in a membership status equal to the other members . Supervisor Powers : Now let me just raise one issue with regard to that . Do we want to also indicate to them that we are looking at undertaking the franchising of the unincorporated areas and 12 therefore they should not enter into agreements with the current franchisers until such time as we all sit down at the table and work that out . Because we had indicated previously to but we had not given formal notice of that . Supervisor Bishop: Let me respond to that . I would prefer just going with the resolution as it' s stated because there are several unexplored issues on the takeover of franchising. We have given notice to Central Sanitary District that we may exercise our right to take over the franchising. I don' t think we want to muck this up at this point . Let' s just stick with consider requesting membership and explore that as a separate . Supervisor Powers : The only reason I suggest that is that heretofore the JPA has not really been serious about considering our membership and unless we have garbage to direct and to franchise, we will not be a player in the program because we have just given up rate regulation on the landfill and there is if we do not exercise our authority that we adopted in an ordinance to take over these franchises in the unincorporated areas, there' s actually really no reason for them to invite us to the table . Supervisor Smith: Well, I think we should say don' t franchise our territory without us . Supervisor Powers : Fine . Why don' t we do it that way then. That will probably get the word across . Say that' s included in the letter. Supervisor Smith: That' s included in the letter. Supervisor Powers : Is that okay with the seconder. Fine . Supervisor Bishop: Before we vote can we hear from Miss Rainey. Supervisor Powers : We sure can. Sue . Sue Rainey: thank you. I know you've had along hearing. I will be very brief. I did want to correct one thing that Tom mentioned. Tom Torlakson on the Central San Franchise . Ours runs just about a little between one and two percent because we don' t make any money off it, just cover expenses only. So there would be nothing for us to contribute back to the pot . Having said that, first when we started the small JPA we did invite the County. We had hoped that you would join us and we have worked for the last three to four years on trying to be a cohesive unit to do some good bargaining to get the best rates for our rate payers . I think the cohesiveness of the group having all of Central San' s area, all of Walnut Creek' s and all of the City of San Ramon proves that the American process works . Competition works . When we started as a JPA, we were looking at tipping fees in the 70' s and the landfills could not live with that amount . With the competetive process, we are looking at rates in the 40' s wherever we go. We would hope and we are inviting the County to be an equal member within our JPA hoping that it will continue to work with us in a spirit of keeping that as a cohesive unit . Supervisor Powers : Okay, with that we have a motion that' s on the floor. Supervisor bishop: Could we add to that motion, amended to include number one with respect to the Crockett Valona. . . Supervisor Powers : We already did that . Victor Westman: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question. With your action today though the notices which we gave some years ago that all of these franchises in the unincorporated area would expire in 95 or 96 remain in force and you' re not varying that . 13 Supervisor Powers : Yes . Okay, then we' re asking them to be a member and we're asking them not to execute the franchises without our participation and approval in the unincorporated areas . All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye . Those opposed. Passes unanimously. Supervisor smith: We need to do one other thing which is we didn' t actually approve the franchise agreements . Victor Westman: Mr. Chair, that' s what I was going to speak to. I assume you' re going to clarify your prior action was to approve the franchise agreements with all the amendment and changes you had asked for together with your discussion and approval of Mr. Smith' s proposal as to the fees and the direction to staff to put that in final form and have that executed. Supervisor Smith: One other thing to add also in the sub committee discussions and I've been operating under the assumption of a commitment from BFI that waste went through the transfer station would not be deposited at the ACME landfill and I understood that that was something that everybody agreed to and I don' t see it specifically stated in the transfer station agreement, so I'd like to include that . Supervisor Powers : Okay, is there any objection to that? Victor Westman: I think there' s some, well, could I just comment . There is some question under recent U.S . Supreme Court cases about that but assuming that' s your preference and after Mr. Bruen if he' s going to speak, we could put in a provision that to the extent allowed by law or something and to the extent it can be done, they will so do it . Supervisor Powers : Okay, Tom. Tom Bruen: . . . . If I could just add. . .basically specifies that with few exceptions, the waste will be transported at BFI' s direction to Keller Canyon. There are rare situations in which hard to transport loads come in that would be directed away from the transfer station to the east fill of ACME Landfill and that is really I think to everyone' s benefit to extend the life of that fill and avoid closure requirements . Large loads of concrete or something like that that might show up at the gate of the transfer station might in the future be directed to the fill . Supervisor Powers : You know, here' s one thing that seems to and it bothers me and maybe you can answer it Tom. You know, you are just about to get a franchise for Keller Canyon and for ACME but ACME still continues to accept waste at in substantial amounts at the ACME Landfill avoiding. . Tom Bruen: I don' t think that' s true, not since the lease agreement was executed between ACME and BFI . Supervisor Powers : Okay, well at some point in time and I haven' t had the numbers and it' s been a very hard one for me to grab a handle on but I continue to hear and see trucks going to ACME Landfill and that avoids paying fees that the County has imposed on Keller expecting certain amounts of waste there . Tom Bruen: Well, I can tell you Mr. Powers that' s not my understanding as of the date when the lease agreement was executed which I believe was in March. And that basically provides that all garbage coming into the facility is directed to the transfer station except hard to transfer loads which are very infrequent and that' s my understanding what the status quo 14 is . Supervisor Smith: Well, can I just clarify, but in the sub- committee meeting you said you'd be amenable to having this kind of language. Tom Bruen: But I thought I did discuss that exception that I'm discussing with you now. At least that' s my recollection. Supervisor Smith: Well, I guess my presumption is that for those loads they wouldn' t go through the transfer station, they' d be delivered directly to the ACME Landfill and since we don' t regulate the ACME Landfill, those fees would be charged would be totally your proprietary fees . Tom Bruen: Jeff as a lawyer, you're being precise in your phrasing and if you' re that precise then that' s fine . Certainly waste that goes through the transfer station will not go to the ACME Landfill . Supervisor Powers : Well, I guess the question Tom, then is how much waste is going to go to the ACME Landfill on what' s your estimate of that and would you agree to any limits in the franchise agreements that would prevent it from going in excess of some stated amount . Tom Bruen: Well, I think we could certainly agree that any waste processed through the transfer station would be would not go to ACME but with respect to waste that might go to ACME, I think there' s a chance that ACME might have a composting project on the east parcel at some time in the future . Strictly speaking, green waste is solid waste, so I think ACME would like the opportunity if it does obtain a permit for a composting facility to have that option and I think that' s addressed in the agreement between ACMe and BFI . I would expect it would be extremely infrequent that other loads would be directed from the transfer station to the landfill . I don' t think that . . . Supervisor Powers : Could we put some general language like that in either one or both of the franchises? Tom Bruen: Well, I guess we'd like, the other thing I' d like to mention is ACME' s receiving dirt to assist it in closure . Because technically speaking waste dirt is . . . Supervisor Powers : Okay, no composting. How bout some municipal solid waste . Tom Bruen: Well, MAW includes compostables and chemically dirt . But . . Supervisor Powers : Subtract those two. Dirt is dirt and compost is compost . I mean it' s pretty clear in your business at least What about other stuff . Tom Bruen: I think the only other possibility that I'm aware of would be hard to transfer loads which really weren' t capable of being processed through the transfer station. Supervisor Powers : Could we put that in the . . . could we put that in the Tom Bruen: You could yes . Supervisor Powers : Okay, why don' t we do that . Supervisor Smith: So, with those modifications and everything that Vic said I' ll make that motion. That we approve the franchises . Everything that we said. 15 Supervisor Torlakson: Let me also check for clarification. In the franchises does it what does it speak in terms of any commitment of wastestream? Any of our franchises like Bay Point, Discovery Bay, it doesn' t speak to that? Okay. Supervisor Smith: Doesn' t say anything about it . Supervisor Powers : Okay, then we need to vote on the franchise agreement . Supervisor Bishop: I don' t think we've had a second to the motion. Great because I wanted to comment or a question. I did not vote on the rates, however, the policy issues that are covered in the franchise agreement, I'm in agreement generally on so I would a vote with this mean that I implicit that I also agree with the rates . So, I don' t want to vote on this okay. Great . Supervisor Powers : All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Those opposed. (Supervisor Bishop voted no) Supervisor Torlakson: Mr. Chairman, there were just a couple of very small loose ends but one thing I just thought to make sure I have it summarized correctly and I think I do. Sue Rainey mentioned that their franchise fee was around 2 percent something on that scale and I wanted to say that the action that was taken today within six months or sooner if BFI wants to absorb some of the costs that the five percent that our charges had previously had some rough impact on the garbage bill, on a household per month basis would be cut in half basically by the motion that Jeff put together and was passed and in the meantime, I think it' s going to be a challenge for each of the communities to look at this household hazardous waste . We' re not collecting that money and putting it in the County General Fund. It' s not for a County program to serve the County. It was being collected as you said earlier, Mr. Chairman, for all the rate payers including the cities for a County wide program including the cities and there seems to be some interest in looking at that or reformulating that in another way. The other issue was related to our Bay Point and Discovery Bay Franchises and any others we may have . I think we should get a report back from staff on the other alternative disposal locations and costs and have them direct them to meet with the Portrero/Garaventa, Richmond Sanitary proponents since they have submitted the letter. We've referred the letter to staff but we haven' t said when we' d like it back. I' d like to sort of get a read out back fairly soon. Both on that and whatever Waste Management is doing in San Ramon Valley. Are they making that offer available on a wider basis so that we can have our staff report back on the details of those other agreement because there are still seems to be some very strong competition and healthy for the rate payer to consider for our rate payers for alternative proposals . Supervisor Powers : Could we do that in two weeks, Val, to have a report on sounds like the three proposals maybe there are more here to the Board. The Garaventa RSS, the BFI/ACME and I guess Altamont/Valley Waste proposals on tipping fees and maybe at the same time if we've got can get an update if you don' t mind on what' s happening with the JPA at that point . Supervisor Torlakson: And finally, supervisor Powers, the memo dated August 17th on the ACME Interim Transfer Station that answers some of the questions . Not to go into it today but maybe have it rescheduled. I think the public and Citizens United have asked questions here and I'm not sure that they' re all that clearly answered in terms of what that interim rate is still there somehow in themix of things and maybe being used to pay for the Household Hazardous Waste Program and other programs . Supervisor Powers : So you want this memo back on. Say two weeks 16 from now. Okay. Fine very good. Okay, let' s try to get to some of the timed hearings that we did have . . . . . . . . 17 r • i � Attachment #4 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SOLIO WASTE AUTHORITY 4737 Imhoff Place, Suite 4 JOHN 6.CLAUSEN,chair Martinez, California 94553 MEWOLFE,ViaChair SUGORYL.CARR,Director EYELYN MUNN,Director MARYLOU OLIVER,DiWor 960 MWULTYW/eY,Director September 16, 1994 FWDAVIS,#&bEamti►sDiWor JOYCE E.MURPHY,SWRAvy of ft Authority (5f0)229-"1 Fair:(510)229.5162 REPORT TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY (CCCSWA) FOR: THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1994 FROM: FRED DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR r SUBJECT: REQUEST OF COUNTY TO JOIN CCCSWA BACKGROUND: The Ad Hoc CCCSWA Board Committee (Sue Rainey and Marylou Oliver) met with the County Solid Waste Ad Hoc Committee on September 5, 1994. The County Board Committee present (Supervisors Bishop and Smith) expressed interest in joining the Authority. At that time the Authority Board members informed the County of the current timeline for Authority decisions on solid waste franchising and waste disposal actions. They were also informed that they would be potentially welcomed as an Authority member, but that the County would be required to enter on an equal basis with the existing members. On September 13, 1994 the Board of Supervisors considered this issue and took action to request that the County be allowed to join CCCSWA. The Supervisors further took action to request that the CCCSWA not enter into any new franchise within the unincorporated area within the current CCCSWA boundaries without County participation. (See attached County memorandum dated September 13, 1994: "Garbage Action--Staff Summary.") STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the CCCSWA Board consider the County's request for joining the Authority. To the extent the CCCSWA Board concurs generally with the County proposal to join the Authority, the Board should develop conditions for the County's entrance into the Authority. Further staff suggests that the Board direct the Authority staff to prepare Member epencies: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District City of San Ramon City of Walnut Creek CCCSWA Page 2 , September 16, 1994 a letter for Board President Clausen's signature which would respond to the County's request with appropriate conditions. Staff suggests that consideration of the following issues should be addressed as possible conditions for the entrance of the County into the Authority: • County shall join as equal member with two votes. • County Board Authority members shall be supervisors. • County must meet current CCCSWA schedule for implementation of RFP or negotiated franchise option (in order to provide the rate payers with the earliest potential date of rate reduction). • County must agree to delegate franchising authority to the CCCSWA for the unincorporated areas within the current Authority's boundaries (within RFP Zones 1 and 2). • County shall agree to participate in CCCSWA attempt to pursue and contract lowest cost collection in disposal options without respect to location of ultimate disposal of solid waste(e.g. in-county or out-of-county). • Once an option has been selected by the Authority Board with regard to collection, franchising, and/or disposal, County must agree to refrain from attempting to delay or prevent implementation of decisions of Authority by litigation or similar actions. • Further conditions for consideration may include, but are not limited to: • Buy-in cost for County, if any. • Drop-dead date for County decision on joining Authority consistent with current schedule of RFP and negotiations. • Agreement to allow pass through of Acme Lawsuit litigation costs in rate structure arising from unincorporated franchise area(if required). ACTION REQUESTED: Provide direction to staff with regard to County's request to join Authority, outline conditions for County joining Authority, and authorize Board President to sign letter to County incorporating conclusions of Authority. ADS/Admin3A/CCCSWA.mem