The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10271992 - 2.4 y 2 . 4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1992 SUBJECT: WEST COUNTY TRANSFER STATION/WEST COUNTY JNA SPECIFIC R1 QIJ1:s'1-(S)o1Z REiCOMME.NDA ION(S)& BACKGROUND AND JIJSTICICA-110N RECOMMENDATIONS: DIRECT staff to prepare County position on joining West County JPA. FISCAL IMPACT: Participation in JPA requires$25,000 advance for JPA operations per seat to be reimbursed over time. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: Contra Costa County has been participating in discussions with the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA) for nearly a year. The issues include the transfer station, JPA operations, and the County's participation in the JPA. Bill Davis will present outstanding issues. CON'ITNIJI.:D ON AI"I'A(:IIMI?N1': —YES SIGNAI7)RE: MCOMMI:NDAI'ION OIC COUNTY ADMINISTRAI'OR RI?COMMI NDA711ON OIC BOARD COMMITIT.1: APPROVIs 0711ER SIGNA I1J W-:(S): ACI'ION Ol;BOARD ON October 27, 1992 API'ROVIsD AS RGCOMMI-:NDI D X 071Ir:R X The Board APPROVED the recommendations of the Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, on the West County Transfer Station/West County Joint Powers Agreement; and REQUESTED a report to the Board on November 17, 1992, recommending a position on joining the West County JPA. VO11:O SUPERVISORS 1 III:RI-MY cuxnizY 'MAT '11-IIS IS A TRIJ1 AND CORRI::C1' COPY OI-' AN ACI'ION TAKEN AND X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) f.XIERf:D ON •1111:; MINIJ'I'IS OP—11111" BOARD OF SUI'I:RVISORS ON 11 II?DA11:SI IOWN. AYI-:.S: NOES: Arllsrl:D October 27, 1992 ABSENT-. ABSTAIN: PHIL BA'IVI11iLOR,(:I.I IZK Olz'I1 I1 BOARD OF- SUPERVISORS FSUP RVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISIRXFOR I3Y ,DI:11l)7'Y VA-dg davis.bo Contact: Val Aloxceff(6464620) Cc: County Administrator County(A)"nsel GME:13A Depi tmcnts #JAO., w(:(:IwMA 0" C h D a r BENEFITS OF JPA PARTICIPATION N Y 1. Long term stable solid waste disposal g. 2. Compliance with AB 939 i k 3. Precedent for City/County cooperation } 4. Avoidance of conflict A. West County / County interests become more closely aligned B. Solid waste disposal more effectively controlled by public sector C. State intervention avoided D. Better public information and coordination of increases 5. Unified local control of IRRF solid waste management and rates 6. Lack of coordination clarity will drive up costs 7. Jeopardized cooperation in other areas of interest 8. North Richmond mitigation fees 9. Avoid annexation dispute DRAWBACKS TO JPA PARTICIPATION 1. County giving up rate setting authority 2. County commits solid waste for long term 3. County may be out voted on some issues UNRESOLVED ISSUES 1. Use of County landfill 2. Jurisdiction over transfer station site VA:dg solichvas.00 (1020/92) A OPTIONS FOR COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY October 7, 1992 COMMON TO ALL OPTIONS 1. Directors and Alternates to be members of the governing body of the respective Member Agencies. 2 . Authority to be sole franchisor of the IRRF. 3 . Authority to be sole regulator of rates charged at the IRRF. 4 . Member Agency costs to be included in IRRF rates limited to: (a) Reasonable, necessary and 'prudent,. and verifiable costs actually incurred for services reasonably related to regulation. and permitting. of _the IRRF. pursuant to State Law or regulation provided said costs are not the responsibility of the IRRF owner. (b) Reasonable, necessary and prudent, and verifiable costs actually incurred in accordance with an agreement between the Authority and the Member Agency. (c) Reasonable share of County solid waste management costs allocable to the area within the boundary of the Authority. (d) Increases in the foregoing costs resulting from change in state law or regulations occurring after date of joint powers agreement. 5. Member Agency collection franchise agreements to contain provisions which have been outlined in "Business Arrangements for the IRRF" , August 27, 1992 and which are further detailed in the draft MOU dated September 28, 1992 . These provisions pertain to flow control, rate covenant, in lieu charge and establishment of competing facilities. 6. IRRF rates to be uniform for all areas except that Authority may set different rates for: (a) Areas whose. collection franchise agreements do not meet the requirements of Item 5 preceding, (b) Areas whose franchising authority does not, within 15 days of a request from the Authority, deliver collection franchise agreements meeting requirements of Item 5 above. ` OPTIONS FOR COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY October 7, 1992 7. %Authority's responsibility mor implementation of AB 939 limited`-to the IRRF. Authority and individual Member Agencies• may contz::hct for Authority's performance of additional work necessary to a Member Agency's implementation of AB 939. If law changes to permit achievement of diversion requirement or implementation of the Act on a regional basis, each Member Agency to identify, by resolution, the work to be performed by the Authority. Negotiation of agreements with individual Member Agencies or amendment of joint powers agreement would follow Authority's receipt of resolution(s) . 8. County would make a contribution of $25,006 per Board seat to the Authority's Joint Operating Fund upon becoming a member of the Authority. BOARD SEATS AND VOTING ARRANGEMENTS BACKGROUND 1. Current Board of Directors = 7 Voting members representing 5 Member Agencies 2 . Richmond has 3 votes, E1 Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole & San Pablo - have 1 vote each. 3. County is an ex-officio (non-voting) member. OPTION NO. 1 (2 - SEATS OPTION) 1. Unanimously approved by Authority Board of Directors on March 12, 1992 2. County gets 2 seats on Board of Directors and: (a) Quorum to consist of: (i) A• majority of Directors (5) and . (ii) A majority of Member Agencies (4) , and (b) Actions by Board of Directors would require approval by: (i) A majority of Directors (5 Directors) and (ii) Half of the Member Agencies (3 Member Agencies) . 3 . Total Number of Directors = 9 Total Number of Member Agencies = 6 2 dop r OPTIONS FOR COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY October 7, 1992 OPTION NO. 2 - (DEFERRAL OPTION) 1. Approved by Authority Board of Directors Committee on Authority - County Relationship and included in Draft Memorandum of Understanding and Joint Powers Agreement `j amendments submitted to County. r t 2. County gets 1 seat on Board of Directors representing the area encompassed by West Contra Costa Sanitary District. 3 . Upon Authority's receipt of collection franchise agreements for Rodeo, Crockett & Kensington containing the necessary terms and conditions to the financing of the IRRF, consideration given to an additional seat for the County and modification of quorum and voting arrangements to be the same as described in Item No. 2 of Option No. 1. 4. Initially, total Number of Directors = 8 and Total Number of Member Agencies = 6 5.. Upon receipt of collection franchise agreements, Total Number of Directors = 9 Total Number of Member Agencies = 6 OPTION NO. 3 - (AUTHORITY - COUNTY AGREEMENT OPTION) 1. County would not become a member of the Authority. County and Authority would enter into an agreement whose content and provisions have not been discussed. County to provide proposed terms of agreement for review. 2 . Content and provisions of an agreement would need to be (a) equally binding and contain same terms and conditions as joint powers agreement and MOU and (b) reviewed and discussed with financing advisors and bond counsel to determine impact on financing of- the IRRF. 3 . Total Number of Directors = 7 Total Number of Member Agencies = 5 OPTION NO. 4 - (1-8EAT, NO CHANGE IN VOTING) 1. County would get 1 seat representing the area encompassed by the West Contra Costa Sanitary District with no further consideration of additional seats for County. Quorum would consist of a majority of Directors (5) . Actions by the Board would require a vote of a majority of Directors (5) . 3 alp OPTIONS FOR COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY. October 7, 1992 2. Total Number of Directors = 8 Total Number of Member Agencies = 6 s OPTION NO. 5 - (2-SEATS NO CHANGE IN VOTING) 1. County would get 2-seats on the Board of Directors. Quorum and voting arrangements would be the same as Item No. 1 of Option No. 4. 2. County with 2 seats and City of Richmond with 3 seats would constitute a quorum and a majority of the Board of Directors. 3 . Total Number of Directors = 9 Total Number of Member Agencies = 6 NORTH RICHMOND MITIGATION FEES COMMON TO ALL OPTIONS 1. Mitigation fees levied by the County will be placed in trust for exclusive use in North Richmond.area. 2. Mitigation fees will be for reasonable costs of mitigation of impacts which are reasonably connected (i.e. nexus) to the IRRF based upon a budget and work plan. 3 . Authority and County will review budget and work plan annually or at other times mutually agreeable. OPTION NO. 1 1. County and Authority will establish and advisory committee to identity work plan and prepare budget. 2. Authority and County will review the work plan and budget recommended by the Advisory Committee to determine that Mitigation Fees are for reasonable costs of mitigation of impacts that are reasonably connected (i.e. nexus) to the IRRF. 3. Mitigation Fees found to be for reasonable costs of mitigation of impacts which are reasonably connected (i.e. nexus) to the IRRF will be included in IRRF rates. 4 r a - r. 7' L OPTIONS FOR COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY October 7, 1992 OPTION NO. 2 1. Same as Option No. 1 4 2 . Same as Option No. 2 3 . Mitigation Fees approved by the Authority as being for reasonable costs of mitigation of impacts which are reasonably connected (i.e.. nexus) to the IRRF will be included in IRRF rates. OPTION NO. 3 1. Same as No. 1 under Option No. 1 2 . Same as No. 2 under Option No. 2 3 . Mitigation Fees approved by the County as being for reasonable costs of mitigation of impacts which are reasonably connected (i.e: - nexus) to the IRRF will be included in the IRRF rates. OPTION NO. 4 r 1. Establish $2 per ton as the North Richmond Mitigation Fee to be placed in trust for use in North Richmond to be collected in the IRRF rates. 2 . County to prepare a work plan and budget for use of North Richmond Mitigation Fee based upon use of the Fee for reasonable costs of mitigation of impacts which are reasonably connected (i.e. nexus) to the IRRF. 3 . County to annually report to the Authority on the uses of the North Richmond Host Mitigation Fee. LANDFILL OPTION NO. 1 1. Authority to designate the landfill that will receive West County waste. OPTION NO. 2 1. West County waste to go to Keller Canyon Landfill 5