Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10021990 - IO.6 IOC.6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS contra FROM: Internal Operations Committee Costa , - nl s County DATE: September 20, 1990 r�A-couK`� SUBJECT: Proposed Response to the Report of the 1989-90 Grand Jury: "Solid Waste Disposal" SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt this report of our Committee as .the Board of Supervisors' response to the Report of the 1989-90 Grand .Jury: "Solid Waste Disposal." 2. Remove this item as a referral to our Committee. BACKGROUND On June 15, 1990 the 1989-90,Grand Jury submitted the report entitled "Solid Waste Disposal" which was subsequently referred to the Internal Operations Committee. On September 20, 1990 our Committee met to discuss the recommendations and review proposed responses. At the conclusion of these discussions we prepared the attached response utilizing a format suggested by a previous Grand Jury which requested that responses clearly specify: A. Whether the recommendation is accepted or adopted,; B. If the recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible for implementation and a definite target date; C. A delineation of constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be implemented within the calendar year; and D. The reason' for not adopting a recommendation. Responses to Grand Jury recommendations .coming from our Committee will follow this format as closely as possible. In our discussions with the Grand Jury, several comments were made regarding the fact that misleading statements were made to voters regarding the proposed Marsh Canyon Landfill Site in an effort to convince voters to sign petitions to qualify a referendum for the ballot. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): Sup icor T. Powers ACTION OF BOARD ON October 2, 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT III ) 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. CC: County Administrator ATTESTED- Grand TTESTED Grand Jury Foreman PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Community Development Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY 61_6 ,DEPUTY M382 (10/88) SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Recommendation No. 1 The Board of Supervisors grant permits for all of the proposed landfill sites that have met environmental requirements and that .have.not been defeated in public referenda. Response A. This recommendation was adopted. B. The Board of Supervisors has approved all landfills meeting the Grand Jury's criteria. Land Use Permits were approved on March 20, 1990 for the Marsh Canyon Landfill and on July 24, 1990 for the Keller Canyon Landfill. Throughout the landfill siting process, the. Board of Supervisors has acted to preserve as many options as possible for landfills. In October 1989, the Board approved General Plan Amendments for five landfills. The remaining three landfills are no longer under consideration due to public referendum and/or lack of complete EIR documentation. Recommendation No. 2 The Board of Supervisors act as quickly. as possible to establish a new public agency, in cooperation with the cities and the involved special districts, that would be responsible for the selection and the franchising of •the operation of any new landfills. Response A. If the intent of the Grand Jury, as indicated to our ,Committee orally on September 20, 1990, was to include all aspects of the solid waste issue, including recycling, collection, transfer and disposal, rather than just landfills, then the Board of Supervisors is entirely in support of the Grand Jury's recommendation. B. By its approval of the Keller Canyon and Marsh Canyon Landfills, the Board of Supervisors resolved long-term landfill capacity issues for Contra Costa County. The conditions of approval of the landfills, as well as County Ordinance 88-81, ensure protection of the public interest in the rates charged at the landfills through requirements for franchises and rate review. by the Board of Supervisors. ' Similarly, public interest has been protected regarding overall landfill operations through parameters established in the conditions of approval of the land use .permits and development agreements. Daily operation of the landfills .is regulated under State law with enforcement responsibilities delegated to the: County Health Department and the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Public policy attention now needs to' focus on the next stage: maximizing the life of our landfills and preserving natural resources through source reduction, recycling and, as appropriate, incineration. New State law (AB 939, effective January 1, 1990) has established the regulatory framework for this effort with the identification of targets for diversion of solid waste from landfills; requirements for plans for source reduction, recycling and incineration; and establishment of a public agency to coordinate these efforts. This public agency, the Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Task Force, was approved by the County and the cities in accordance with the State law. The Task Force is charged with ensuring that Contra Costa County has coordinated and cost-effective recycling programs.. . In recent years, we have come to realize the growing complexity of the solid waste system: ?� collection recyclables - solid waste sc processing/transfer facilities — sorting and consolidation of recyclables transfer operations * disposal - incineration - landfills Historically, only the collection portion of the solid waste system has been regulated. The cities have franchised solid waste collection in the incorporated areas and sanitary districts have franchised in the unincorporated areas. With the adoption of Ordinance 88-81, the Board of Supervisors began to franchise processing/transfer and disposal facilities in the unincorporated areas (Note: franchises for such facilities could be issued by a city if located in an incorporated area). Currently, coordination and cooperation is achieved under the auspices of the AB 939 Task Force and the Solid Waste Commission. Both these bodies have advisory responsibilities. The Solid Waste Commission and the Mayors' Conference have recommended the formation of a Joint Powers Authority to supersede the County Solid Waste Commission. However, at this time the proposal would continue the current split levels of authority over the various aspects of solid waste by recommending that only landfill franchising be under the aegis of the JPA. Rather, the JPA should have the same authority over all aspects of solid waste; that is, either advisory or regulatory. Recommendation No. 3 City Councils and Special District Boards of Directors react responsibly and realistically to new County efforts to establish a public agency in the solid waste field. Response A. This recommendation is not within the purview of the Board of Supervisors. Recommendation No. 4 The Board of Supervisors become actively involved in regulation of the rates charged by landfill facilities to ensure the interests of customers are protected or designate another public agency to assume this responsibility. Response A. This recommendation is accepted to the extent that it applies to new landfills, since the Board of Supervisors has no existing-, authority to regulate rates at existing landfills and no mechanism to obtain that authority unless and until the operator(s) seeks a future land use entitlement which the Board of Supervisors can legally condition with rate regulation for the very limited remaining useful life of the existing landfill sites in Contra Costa County. B. The Board of Supervisors established its authority to regulate rates at landfills and transfer stations in 1988 with the adoptionof Ordinance 88-81. Ordinance 88-81 provides that a franchise (or agreement) from the Board of Supervisors is a prerequisite to the establishment or operation of any solid waste disposal facility or solid waste transfer/processing station in the unincorporated area. The franchise must include provision for the Board of Supervisors' review, approval and control of the rates charged to users of the facility. Ordinance 88-81 is being implemented as new solid facilities are placed in operation. ' Currently, the Board of Supervisors sets rates for the Acme Interim Transfer Station. For both the Keller Canyon Landfill and Marsh Canyon Landfill, the Board of Supervisors established rate regulation parameters as part of land use permit conditions of approval. The Board of Supervisors will set rates for the landfills prior to their operation. Currently, the Board of Supervisors has no authority to regulate rates at .existing landfills. The Board has the right to establish rate control upon the expiration, renewal or major modification of the land= use permit of an existing solid waste facility. The existing county landfills were established in the mid-19501s, a time when disposal ratesl; were inconsequential. In addition, these landfills have extremely limited life. The Acme Landfill in Central County is substantially closed. The Contra Costa Landfill in East County is under a notice to close by the local enforcement agency, although a pending height increase application- may extend its life by several years. The Richmond Sanitary Landfill in West County is also near closure with less than three years of remaining, life. Recommendation No. 5 The Board of Supervisors take an active part in the. negotiation of tipping fees for any contracts to export solid waste to sanitary landfills in other counties'. Response A. This recommendation is accepted to the extent of the Board of Supervisors' authority to accomplish what is suggested. B. Under a Memorandum :of Understanding among Contra Costa County, 17 cities, two sanitary districts and one community services district, export agreements between Contra Costa. County and other counties are negotiated by a designated Export Negotiating Committee. This committee is comprised of representatives of the cities, the sanitary districts and the County. Both the Alameda County Export Agreement and the Solano County Export Agreement were negotiated by the Export Negotiating Committee in conformance with the Memorandum of Understanding. The cost of landfill disposal in other counties is a function of two charges: a mitigation fee paid to the jurisdiction; and a tipping fee charged at the landfill. The Export Committee negotiated the mitigation fees with elected representatives of Alameda and Solano Counties; however, the Committee had no jurisdiction to negotiate the tipping fee, which is a fee paid by the privately owned transfer station to the privately owned .landfill. The Board of Supervisors has no more authority than the Export. Negotiating Committee in negotiating tipping fees. Request the County Administrator to advise the Board of Supervisors of ways the Board of Supervisors can inform the general public of the factual history of negotiations for export agreements and the general history of what has occurred in regard to the issue of siting a solid waste landfill in Contra Costa County.