Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12221992 - 2.3 TO: ' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra r; FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE '•. Costa Coun • tY DATE: November 30, 1992 Ua SUBJECT: REPORT RESPONDING TO THE REQUEST OF THE CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY THAT THE COUNTY JOIN THE AUTHORITY SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)6 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Create and refer this matter to a special committee consisting of the 1993 County representatives to the AB 939 Task Force, with the hope that there can be some continuity between the membership of the 1992 Internal Operations Committee and 1993 County representatives to the AB 939 Task Force. B. Provide conceptual concurrence to the following points and direct staff to work with representatives of the CCSWA in developing a contractual agreement based upon these points for presentation to the special committee created in "A" above: 1. The County and the. Authority will commit to the development of an agreement for a period of 3 years but renewable for 5 years with the agreement to be reviewed at the end of the first 6 months for affirmation of its continuation for further consideration by the Board of Supervisors and the Authority. 2 . This agreement will include a commitment on the part of the County to include export of solid waste as part of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP) . In return, the franchising agencies will assure that, if they export waste, export agreements will provide mechanisms to: (a) monitor the location and costs of disposal, and (b) pass on to the rate payers any cost savings resulting from lower export rates. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER '�- SIGNATURE(S): SCHRODER SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK ACTION OF BOARD ON Q APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER ai Avon Wilson, 4737 Imhoff Place, #4, Martinez, representingthe Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority; Jim Sweeny, 296 Birchwood Drive, Moraga, a member of the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority; and Gretchen Mariotti, 100 Tennent Avenue, Pinole of the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority; Barbara J. Woodburn, 621 Brackman Lane,. Martinez, member of the Martinez City Council, all appeared and spoke in favor of the County participating in the Joint Powers Authority. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ONTHE DATE SHOWN. o � r, J -�i 9 f 1 ATTESTED / eer✓ Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: See Page 4 . SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY ,DEPUTY r In addition, the final agreement will recognize that agencies outside of Contra Costa County may dispose of solid waste at landfills in Contra Costa County and that this may preclude the ability of or need for the County to later provide capacity for jurisdictions which have entered into export agreements . 3. The County will respond to all comments on the CoIMP from the cities . A comment will be incorporated in the CoIMP where: a. the County and cities are able to reach concurrence on the comment, and b. inclusion of the comment will not jeopardize State approval of the CoIMP. 4 . The County will complete the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIMP) and secure approval by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 5 . Closure of ACME Landfill is being addressed through the hands of a "Special Master" adjudicating the lawsuit between the parties. The member entities of the Authority will cooperate in this process with the County. 6 . During the first 6 months of the agreement, the County, the Authority and the subregional joint powers authorities will delineate their roles and responsibilities as solid waste entities . 7 . During the first 6 months of the agreement, the County and the Authority will develop a model garbage collection franchise agreement and a rate review model . B. During the first 6 months of the agreement, the County, the Authority and the subregional joint powers authorities will develop a method for evaluating the number and cost of transfer stations proposed and suggest criteria to assure the most cost effective and efficient system for agencies as well as rate payers. 9 . During the first 6 months of the agreement, the County and Authority will discuss staff resources and financing. 10. The cities acknowledge the right of the County to enact the Materials Diversion Ordinance on December 15, 1992 and the County will review comments from the cities regarding the Ordinance during the hearing and following its adoption. Such comments will be used to modify or amend the Ordinance at the end of the six month review period. 11. The allocation of funding for the Authority based on population will be continued and paid by each participating agency either directly or via a tipping fee. The County, or other appropriate entity, will agree to collection of a tipping fee at transfer station(s) or landfill(s) sufficient to fund the activities of the County/Authority partnership upon the request of a majority of the entities using the transfer station or landfill . 12 . Nothing herein is intended to be in conflict with any agreement currently being negotiated by Contra Costa County and any subregional joint powers authority. Furthermore, subregional joint powers authorities will be consulted on a regular basis during the course of negotiations between the Authority and the County. -2- Y• C. Remove this item as a referral to the 1992 Internal Operations Committee. BACKGROUND: On April 13, 1992, the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority wrote to the Board of Supervisors asking that the County join the Authority. On June 15, 1992, our Committee met with representatives of the Authority. On July 28, 1992 , the Board of Supervisors declined to join the Authority, but authorized our Committee, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, to meet with representatives from the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority in order to obtain additional information on the advantages and disadvantages of joining the Authority. In an effort to establish a context for cooperation on solid waste management, the County, cities, and other franchising agencies should seek to work together to build the trust necessary for a viable organization representing all parties. For this purpose, the Internal Operations Committee met with representatives of the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority on November 30, 1992 and December 8, 1992, and came to a conceptual agreement on a number of points, as is outlined in the above recommendations. As a part of this meeting our Committee received and reviewed the attached proposal from the Authority. Our Committee also received and reviewed in detail the attached report from Community Development Department staff dated November 25, 1992 . Val Alexeeff, Director of the Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, noted in his presentation that the cities had a number of concerns about the language of Recommendation # 2 as it was originally proposed in the November 25, 1992 memo from Louise Aiello to our Committee. This recommendation was substantially reworked and reworded by our Committee in response to the concerns which were voiced by the cities. Supervisor McPeak, in particular, noted that while she had originally opposed any extended export agreement, she had changed her position, on the condition that the rate payer would benefit from the reduced tipping fees which might be paid by franchising agencies in the short term by exporting solid waste out of County. However, she noted that in exchange for this concession, the franchising agencies had to recognize that the County might not be able to guarantee any long-term disposal capacity at the Keller Canyon Landfill, since the County might have to allow the importation of solid waste to Keller in order to maintain the economic viability of the Landfill. Supervisor McPeak also noted that none of the franchising agencies will be able to export until the County has an approved AB 939 Integrated Waste Management Plan and it was, therefore, in their own interest to insure that the plan was approved as quickly as possible if they were interested in exporting solid waste out of Contra Costa County. We also explored the positions of various cities which had expressed strong feelings about export and the use of the Keller Canyon Landfill, but were unable to get a clear statement of the position of these cities, particularly the City of Pittsburg and the City of Concord. Supervisor McPeak also noted her concern about the possible proliferation of expensive full-blown transfer stations which might not be necessary. She suggested that the total number of transfer stations needed to be contained, and that certainly the number of expensive (i.e. , $35 million) transfer stations needed to be restricted in preference to smaller, less expensive ones or a much smaller number of the larger, expensive transfer stations. This discussion lead to the proposed wording of recommendation # 8 above. -3- A, Following a very candid and forthright discussion of the issues and concerns on both sides, our Committee agreed to the above recommendations, to which we understand the representatives from the Authority with whom we met also have agreed. We are suggesting that a special committee of the Board of Supervisors be formed to continue this dialogue with the Authority. In order to provide some continuity, our Committee would strongly suggest that Supervisor McPeak be continued as one of the Board's representatives on the AB 939 Task Force, and thereby one of the members of this special committee. cc: County Administrator Director, GMEDA Community Development Director Louise Aiello, CDD County Counsel Avon Wilson, Executive Director Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Don Blubaugh, City Manager City of Walnut Creek Dave Rowlands, City Manager City of Antioch Kevin Carunchio, City of Pittsburg -4-