Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 10261993 - 2.3
5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON Costa DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (�Ou�-1, f _ v ty DATE: OCTOBER 26, 1993 SUBJECT: REPORT ON CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY WORKSHOP AND PROPOSALS FOR SOLID WASTE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Accept report from GMEDA Director regarding Workshop II sponsored by the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority on proposals for solid waste management organizational structure; Authorize the County's two representatives (Supervisors McPeak and Bishop) to the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority to continue to work with the Authority on the development of solid waste organizations and organizational structures in Contra Costa County, including addressing funding and staffing of such organizations(s) and Director Community Development Department staff to continue to work with the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority in support of the County representatives to the Authority and in conjunction with existing regional solid waste agencies and individual jurisdictions not presently members of a solid waste organization. FISCAL IMPACT None to the County General Fund, at this time. Staff support costs and workshop activities performed by the County have been funded from county solid waste revenues. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURB s RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATI'OWO-V D COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON October Zb, 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: -= :a JE NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: S ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Louise Aiello (510/646-1550) ATTESTED October 26, 1993 cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Val Alexeeff, GMEDA Director THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CCSWA (via CDD) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY LA:gms 939u\bo\Workshop.1I Report on CCSWA Workshop II & Proposals for Solid Waste Organizational Structure Continued -- Page Two BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS As part of the Memorandum of Agreement between the County and the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority, executed in March 1993 , one of the work plan items was the development of an appropriate solid waste management organizational structure throughout Contra Costa. Funding and staffing for any solid waste organization structure were to be included as part of this work plan item. On July 29, 1993 a workshop was held including members of the Authority, members of the Board of Supervisors, members of regional solid waste authorities in West and Central County, and representatives from individual cities which are not members of any existing solid waste joint powers authority. That Workshop reviewed various organizational structures for solid waste management. As follow-up, those present directed Authority and County staff to further develop three (3) organizational structures: 1. A countywide solid waste authority based upon representation from regional agencies (see Option V attached) ; 2 . . A countywide solid waste authority including all jurisdictions as members (see Option IV attached) ; and, 3 . A regional agency coordinating council which provides for jurisdictions to be members on regional agencies and then representation of each regional agency on the coordinating council (see Option III attached) . Authority and County staff worked with the Executive Director of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA) --which is one of the regional agencies--in developing Workshop II, held on September 29, 1993 . In both Workshop I and Workshop II support was voiced for an organizational structure which provides local autonomy for local solid waste matter, but also brings all jurisdictions together in addressing inter-regional and countywide solid waste matters. The consensus in Workshop II supported further development of Option IIT--the Regional Agency Coordinating Council. Additionally, the two staffing alternatives supported for further consideration are: Alternative B--the Coordinating Council to be staffed through a contract with the County for a solid waste coordinator, secretary, and legal services or Alternative C--designation of a regional agency or the County to serve as the Lead Agency in providing staffing Authority and County staff were asked to incorporate some aspects of the other organizational structures--such as inter-regional dispute resolution--into the Coordinating Council structure and to address staffing and funding options. At the Authority meeting on October 7th, additional areas of information for development were included; these matters are outlined in the staff memo dated October 6th (see attachment #6) . The Authority has asked their own staff and County staff to make presentations to all jurisdictions on this matter to obtain feedback on the proposed structure, staffing, and funding. A final report is to be prepared and presented to the Authority and County in January, 1994 . Direction . from your Board will assist in completing the Work Plan item called for in the Authority-County Memorandum of Agreement. LA:gms 939u\bo\Workshop.II tta�hment A i 2 . o V t� 2 d v� Z p a r a d 2 a v� CG _ 1 u• d p e e O a m « : O O O O 2 o v ' o > cc C ¢ m � o -mla ec nom r ° ; gyp C5m5 3 ° mo m � o oao e m m m Z x ca LL occ c W V L ° N >p- 0 o a %. c > c o ::;:; mac°) ESU o n m3 3 oco m Q x n t o o e Co 0 m y� a > :>:<:: 1� {A 0 J C p J C OI 7 Q�_ O ° O r O t O o � m o w, cc c a <;>:; JO c "jO }f o Q >: Of W v o r. �a = o oje > c a O y W p y W e 0 i O :: O ~ e. O O n > a " K' U€ a ° c c a o 0 coULo UU o LUC:•:.:::�.:::: � •is � �t! c .a � m e e N E c e .. C n o - c p c p m p Cl v 3m ° v 75 p E co 0 � aa tmw Z 0 3 U c ro o m V ti c o t7 Q 2 i = 0o � I.- e ;? o o m ,o, E J m ui ° Ng ¢ n m > cc CL c E 0 ZO Q y a m CCL n F c c LU 0 W c c a s E O tr0 m U .. ............. a o m o a O E p J E a o3 ui Z :.ac � �:r _ _ t... O 1 in n p c c o c Co c_ m o V t I z g m o 0 o f 'o t o •- ,� E > J o O 1 VlL � u' m 0 0 0 0V mnn tm m o Q, c c U c m H N 1 W12 v c co m p o v LL o � c CC .. Q o 1cc cc plx > y m m m L N e m p 'e y E z 2 1= p QIW o a O o d cc U o O p 0. v llCSIlac a ° E ° E >Z m > 0 24 Ol p c0 O m a a E " WM 1 W I O O 9 o I.V Q I X10 E 'a `o I l oc a o «, E 0 p 1 t E c - �. lu a .................... Z ............. W t.�. tr _ Q AWL C C °D C as C O m « C 1 E C 2 ID v w ru o m o m aCr, mna CM oa 2 3 la 0 Qu o V � c � c oC `o o W Z V y p 0 ° o o u 06 o c o o c o c r. a `o = aaEul LL o2 E o o p p E e m `c o cc a o S m c c y E LJ.) a o a E o p U o - � :... : ::::::: .. .::,................................:...:..:.. z E r LL *a c E o .a c o o w E r e (� o p c o c r e p o c v LU o .W m c ID m ¢° U � °c 0. 0. ono : 3 CM c c c Q cm p N a� O o a ooC o m j o W J 3 a p E o C a m V >_ y ;; Z V N cc Q E — p o o >O > cp `o V u0i o Ep ° a E O L LJ oc — O 2 o a a c (7 n CL ac v o i CE E Q ui = 'a cC v1 Q O °'s• e Es ° Q ~ Z E e „ c e E n o c V C O •O�1 p Ow O C y. O O e O e 0 0 �' L : S c 9 f;: O C ► ► — 7 C 06 g a o S o n o LL O.2 a e = O C q > O C V V o V W O 6 0 LL 1V V a o a` z I 1 0 {L W ( r ; § � w k ■ ■ = ■ o ° - | k LL u $ $ § & f & � . I ----------- ! , - � ■ � | - IL IA zI � � � Q :)U) u § . | & { { | k - � § ■ 2 �� $ « | . � ■� ' LU | § § I �� k a ■ ; a LU • X20 � � | � ®� LU FAIL § • § � ■ � . � 022 § § k | ` o llz � ■ a ) �� | � | to § uZi03 § . » 0 u 2 . § ---- . . 7E ■ . . 2 � & ! � § _ | ' �| , ■ ■ § ILA | ■ _ .6 0 ■. . | a ■ E § | a ! ' - 0 r § � � � ! § § }- = � � i\ % 9 $ r � 10o-L � f •§ § §' « ! � 7 ( w � fw ; u o , kkk � . - . . s � t « 2 - a ! a � e . __ . . ! f ! § \ ! L � | ■ g � Lu } }! � § $ � ---� C� kula� } < LU ' | k ; % 2u � &r§. kc ` § (a cc c, T kkc � | e .§§ / Z � k :3: ' e � a &$ z � 8�} § • & ( s � � �fI $ -0CC a e - a ■ » ii ! } f ■ ! � � ■ � � ` ■ ) ! 22 . 27 -613 aU kklJj �- ! 0 � I � ;} }}k kF - 0 a . | | . � 2 ` lfc ) } � k T. & k 0 SOL A� � k « § 3 �� jj . i M W CD � € a z mFA to s $ 8i a b `o K u N 0 � O .•J 3 Yf N 4 N V Th gc ° Z O cf �' o o $ 1 •1 iii i o ° $ c 0 ; p iso ca 1 1 Q Z o 6 p°p o f° (Z K U H V 1 1 O Z 2 Z ¢ t Z O Q V w F s H J ° O Q _ 'b z cc c uj Z t r off $ = gra: c8 LL . _ 1 a Q a yp 7 H b i E i ri m F R y C y T O -F $ U 3 a V ° C e C �p 'f d N 13 U U ILO) So u 0V O a F • a B z z Z b O . O e u � � � .� 3 � a .E U H • b g y � LU � ygy p eE ° aZ3 3 Z 2123 _. a I c z.3 Attachment 2 E— t� C� I- Q t/3 W J 0 W O Z - 0 n W C� .E. H z D 0 t�1 m a iL i O G d G 01 V d N t9 � Od - p Owm N c i1p ' 4 � Nd .. N p -- y p N C9 N v tr 3 ' 'N Oy o -°?- ap. d o Q d N V d d v z� uo .N % N ° a' 'O N V _ T OpU N cdN� d ebb 7 p c� p cr. 3 � Nus u v a� N ✓ W c 'A cn 4 C4 c -- 0 .- V ■ ~ ■ | , ! i . | | | � � ' ■ � �»�2 � � � | | } ! ! ■ | � «< - ' . � � � � A� ■ ` ��% | | . | . . . LU l �a•� �as LL —�---- ------ ! I | { } !O ■ n | ■ . . f . . � 0A � �! � ■ §) , | � z � < . _ a , $ � ---- . ,f- - ■a , a2,! , | . . ! « , . !k O O O a N C C N C Co w O 0 0 O O M o o c a = m t V v m gr C a Cm 8m. C � d J - Y m o m m o c Qo o m m o m a o Q O CD c m q '+- " c m a CC o H C co 4 < oa+ w C Y. p O c O C CA 7 4 c U CC } O } p Q = « =TM a o0 " �O m 60 q Ir s m e O W O K W 6 0 In V $ Co a O U3 U4 0 o o o L o E cam`y o « E cc a o m O :. .'' Go 0 0 CL -.-....:v::•iii:t•::•::<-i:!:•:i:?.:::::-::•:::::..::.::.::..:::.::: .......... ..... . m m ° c o o a o m F' m o U c m fL a ;>' ro C CC Q m a U `m m atj m E c > Wd4 ° m mg ° o c _5 '�j G •m � E Q b Q m O pc W E as v m E X I C C E O CC C m O bf I y E m m ao aU Baa � a > cc 0 N •- N j z m� o m `c V u` _ 3 o m .a W W C W _ E a m o m E >>z Q cC oC 1 m O o m U CC la O WW I� vO a = Q � Q m Ja LLI LLA W iA fA !G. O C O Q Q m 4 I E m o C « z I U 4 N N N E ,A c °3 c c ID «m cm = m c o a m U C w a CC 1p z q oc m q m O W C p E .0 m i E 2 Q u = E p o 0 o o d = = m q ° = Q Q o oWc E na m o m nr o G C = m o � us Q •, �, E E m m o m m U aJ � Ots �iUU � � o ° c c = c m F m E . 0 ao U c io �Q 5 � to �� c of E > o p>p Z U ID •O E C J L "?3'ii2t<%��i't i-i m m m z s a c � c 0 O � a � � a £ C « C � p � O r � i qqy 'E V 0 w T" O. O ? O o q O .0 : O cC CI if G ti 8 Q Z. j Attachment 3 a cc 0 z J � W �- a �c 0 U) z cc C4 UD 'IP © -0 w W V 40) S o to tun) 15 1: t.) w 02, 4" co 7 0CP 1; % '7 % 0 .0 to o - c y-, 0 0 sIwo, o 0 C.4 0- ` ► 9� J l ► 1 , 1 i 1 , ! { + ' 1 ► { ► d ► 1 { { 1 i _ 1 ► ! < { { gg ► _ � �sy D 4 1 1 + r ► ► t , { or a 7, p 3 < w vel � LU Iwo ao o p o o a o 75 a Q C7 o a ai ¢ E ¢ ¢ H Q H Q c v e o o O p o o > ° Y+ Q c c o ° ESU ¢ o p o p '�y `c Q = 0 0 c p 0 m So So . o ;.;; p L cr o L tn4am 'mem 'U •Om = O L p :C;':: C V O O W O p W ¢ O O g Cly C «y o c U 7 CL C E 10 O � O •a ca « m p e O cm c ;_; c « 0 o c c ° c 'EO « o o c v ¢ o o > ad o a `> V o e ¢ p M °a �o ¢ em s3o ¢ � v Eo � L. p = o o10 t~A Q . ¢ o. O n a o U > > f LIS Q a c > o J m E - Q Q c — o o o > o 0 m C CL L E Qcl — Q « CL CL W H O C W O V — C o � Q � f' c — EllE « > Z I c c o e c m o IL a°o I Y o a a w v e c 9L CL d o N 2 0 o m `o V U. o 3 c ¢ �o - 0 a LU ujcc to we m o0.1 f p p o o E LL I W Z Q ° — oLU LU E M CL W m to c 1 ou'c E p p °° o 1 E 0 :.::..:.....::....::.: Z — U d u u c C C p O O p m e C p O C p e o f 'o s w a Y E ' m a o U c m a 'LO « e ¢ U = a LL cc - r o 0 O o e o p 2 Q Q E C E p o r e o p e e e o Li E v m m mall � � ov, 3U c c c 0 E o o f ° o r Q m V o e p to, U¢ r d d o d :;•;::;:;;;:;:;;.: SO _o 0 Wo 'G � c f0 Q c . 'U O V > ' i S yy� < p 45 E - a E o > 0 `o E p p ° e L :. p ; o E Q o o v _ p ° ° Q Q o wp = o o — g U c `0 0 W = d ¢ V1 S z V Is 'S E U. °ina ; $ e ¢ 0 IpL 0 O la Q V V d 0 it Z LL 0 1pLL Attachment 4 DISCUSSION PAPER This Discussion Paper was prepared at the request of the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority to provide additional detail regarding the Options for administration of solid waste management activities in Contra Costa County which were originally presented at the Workshop in July, 1993. The concepts described do not necessarily reflect the views of any City, the County nor any joint powers authority. The Discussion Paper is organized into the following sections: o Background o Regional Co-ordinating Council Structure o Goal o Discussion of Organizational Structure & Staffing o General Discussion o Countywide Solid Waste Authority o Goal o Discussion of Organization Structure & Staffing 1 ' BACKGROUND Discussion of roles and responsibilities for solid waste management needs to recognize the structure established by State law. I. Revisions to State Law made by AB 440 provide that cities and counties may create regional agencies to develop and implement SRRE's,HHWE's, NDFE's for those jurisdictions which are members of the regional agency. (a) Countywide Siting Element requirement continues to be the responsibility of the County and to need approval of the County and a majority of the cities having a majority of the population. (b) Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan continues to be required end must have approval of the County and a majority of the cities having a majority of the population. 2. State law assigns responsibility for solid waste management to individual cities and county for unincorporated area: (a) Development and Implementation of SRRE's which define: (1) Programs to be implemented to divert waste from landfills (2) Needed disposal capacity (b) Development and Implementation of NDFE's which define non-disposal facilities consistent with implementation of SRRE's (c) Development and Implementation of HHWE's which define programs to be implemented for reduction, collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of HHW. (d) Review and revision as necessary not less than every 5-years 3. State law assigns responsibility to County for: (a) Development of .a Countywide Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Siting Element which identifies areas for landfill, transformation facility sites, 2 and/or export of waste for disposal and total available disposal capacity and needed capacity. (1) Based upon disposal capacity identified in each SRRE (2) Areas must be consistent with City and County General Plans (3) Approval by County and majority of cities containing majority of incorporated area population (4) Review and revision as necessary not less than every 5-years (b) Processing Amendments to Countywide Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Siting Element: (1) Persons or agencies proposing amendments to Siting Elements must submit site identification and information to County Board of Supervisors (2) County to submit site identification and information to cities within 20-days of receipt (3) Approval of amendment by County and a majority of cities containing majority of incorporated area population. (c) Development of a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan which includes: (1) All SRRE's (2) All B HWE's (3) Countywide Siting Element (4) Summary of significant solid waste management problems facing the county (5) Overview of specific steps to be taken by local agencies, acting independently and in concert, to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste 3 (6) Statement of the goals and objectives of the Local Task Force (7) County and majority of cities containing majority of incorporated area population must approve except (a) Individual SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's are not subject to approval of the County or a majority of the cities containing a majority of the population within the incorporated area. (8) Review and revision as necessary not less than every 5-years 4 DISCUSSION PAPER REGIONAL OD-ORDINA71NO COUNCIL OP71ON Aupst 20, 1993 REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL GOAL Establishment of a process which: 1. Provides maximum local control of decision maldng. 2. Assigns responsibility for decisions regarding planning and implementation of the various features of the solid waste management system (e.g. solid waste collection, transfer, disposal, source reduction, recycling and composting) to the level of government closest to the ratepayers. 3. Recognizes the jurisdictional rights and responsibilities of each unit of government. 4. Provides a means for resolution of differences in a timely and cost effective manner. 5. Avoids and eliminates redundant activities. b. Ensures co-ordination of programs so that opportunities for elimination of duplication are seized and resulting cost savings realized. 7. Enables compliance with State law and regulations in a timely manner with the lowest possible cost. 5 DISCUSSION PAPER REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL OPTION A09M 20, 1993 REGIONAL AGENCY STRUCTURE, FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FIGURE 1 1. Figure 1 outlines the structure, functions and responsibilities for Regional Agencies FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION ONLY. 2. Assumptions underlying Figure 1 are as follows: (a) " Pending legislation (AB 440) will be enacted an allow regional agencies to prepare regional SRRE's, HHWE's, and NDFE's instead of individual plans by Members and thereby reduce duplication and achieve cost savings. (b) Members of the Regional Agencies will delegate to the Regional Agencies responsibility for preparation of SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's. (c) Pittsburg and Concord form a Regional Agency and Pittsburg does not participate in the Delta Diablo Global Agreement. (d) Cities which are not now members of a Regional Agency would become members of the Regional Agency as indicated in Figure 1. (e) County, Cities and Regional Agencies will determine if the County is to be a member of the respective regional agencies or contract with the regional agency(ies). (1) Matters related to Regional Non-Disposal Facilities and Disposal Arrangements are assumed to be addressed as part of these discussions. (2) This has been determined for the West County Regional Agency. The County and the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority have entered into a contract. 6 :DISCUSSION PAPER REGIONAL OO.ORDINATING COUNCIL OPTION Awa 20. 1993 2. The concepts described in Figure 1: (a) Envisions joint powers agreements which would provide Regional Agencies with authority to: (1) Prepare and implement single Regional SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's. (a) Those portions of Regional SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's applicable to each Member of the joint powers authority would be subject to the approval of the respective Members prior to approval by the Regional Agency. (b) Approval of Regional SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's needed to reflect provisions of current state law which requires the provisions of AB 939 to be binding and enforceable against individual Members of a Regional Agency. (2) Develop and implement Regional Non-Disposal Facilities and Non-Disposal Facilities for individual Members or groups of Members. (a) Rates at Regional Non-Disposal Facilities regulated by the Regional Agency (b) Rate Regulation at Non-Disposal Facilities for individual Members or groups of Members as provided in the joint powers agreement. (3) Arrange for disposal of solid waste for all members of the Regional Agency. (4) Authorizes the Regional Agency to review and approve the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and Countywide Siting Element on behalf of the Members. 7 DISCUSSION PAPER REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL OP71ON Ault 20, 1943 (b) Reserves to each City and the County responsibility for the following within their respective jurisdictions: (1) The terms and conditions contained in their respective collection franchise agreements, (2) Regulation. of collection rates, (3) Land Use regulation and control, (4) Permitting which is the responsibility of the respective cities and the county, and (5) Where applicable, the freedom to delegate any or all of the above. (c) Reserves to future decisions County participation in Regional Agencies and, where agreed to, shared Facilities. (d) Places primary responsibility for co-ordination of activities with the Regional Agencies. (e) Provides for review and approval of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and Countywide Siting Element by Members. (1) Current State law requires approval by cities and counties. 8 DISCUSSION PAPER REGIONAL CO-ORDINA71NG COUNCIL nrnm Aupat 20, 1993 REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL FIGURE 2 1. Figure 2 outlines the structure and responsibilities of the Regional Co-ordinating Council FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION ONLY. Figure 2 is envisions: (a) An agreement among the Cities, Regional Agencies and the County establishing the Regional Co-ordinating Council. The agreement would: (1) Provide for the establishment of the "Management Advisory Committee" and "Technical Advisory Committee" shown in Figure 2. (2) Assign to the Regional Co-ordinating Council the responsibility for: (a) Preparation of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and Countywide Siting Element. (b) Administration of the Contra Costa Industrial Shoreline Recycling Markets Development Zone. (c) Co-ordination of interaction with the State (3) Authorize the Regional Co-Ordinating Council to make recommendations regarding: (a) Co-ordination of Regional Programs (b) Co-ordination of Disposal Arrangements (c) County proposals regarding Disposal Facilities _ 9 DISCUSSION PAPER REGIONAL CO.ORDINAMNO COUNM OPTION August 20, 1993 STAFFING OPTIONS FOR REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL FIGURE 3 1. Figure 3 outlines four options for staffing the Regional Co-ordinating Council FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY. Option A: All staff would be employees of the Regional Co-ordinating Council Option B: Staffing would be provided by means of a contract between the Regional Co-ordinating Council and the County. The agreement creating the Co-ordinating Council could include such provisions. Option C: No permanent staff would be provided. The agreement creating the Co-ordinating Council would designate a Lead Agency. The Lead Agency would provide administrative services for the Co-ordinating Council, arrange for Co-ordinating Council meetings, execute contracts approved by the Co-ordinating Council on behalf of the Council and other functions which would be enumerated in the agreement creating the Co-ordinating Council. Option D: One full time staff person employed by Regional Co-ordinating Council with a Lead Agency designated to provide administrative support. The Co-ordinating Council would approve and let all contracts and the full-time employee would administer the contracts. 2. Other Options, or a combination of the options presented, may evolve as discussion progresses. 10 DISCUSSION PAPER REGIONAL CO-ORDINA71NO COUNCIL OPTION AWS 20, 1993 DISCUSSION 1. The Regional Co-ordinating Council concept focuses on Regional Agencies for co- ordination and administration of solid waste management activities. 2. Regional Agencies would provide the means for cities to co-ordinate activities with respect to: (a) Development and implementation of: (1) Source Reduction,Recycling,Composting and Household Hazardous Waste Programs for the region. (2) Development and implementation of Non-Disposal Facilities needed to implement the regional programs. (b) Regulation of rates at Regional Non-Disposal Facilities and other Non-Disposal Facilities if authorized in the joint powers agreement creating the regional agency. (c) Input and determination of acceptability of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and Countywide Siting Element and other Countywide issues. (d) Development and implementation of arrangements for disposal of waste, whether in-County or out-of-County. (e) Actions by individual Member Agencies to implement Program Features unique to each Member Agency. (f) Actions within the region with other regional agencies and the County. 3. The concepts described earlier reserves to the Cities and the County their rights and responsibilities with respect to: (a) Land Use Regulation 11 DISCUSSION PAPER REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL OP 77ON Aupst Z0,1993 (b) Local Permitting (c) Collection Franchising and collection rate regulation 4. "Balkanization" of the County is avoided by the Regional Co-Ordinating Council" which brings regions together to address inter-regional and Countywide issues and resolution of differences in a timely and cost effective manner. 5. The Regional Co-Ordinating Council would provide the means to: (a) Discuss opportunities for sharing of programs to eliminate duplication and develop arrangements for implementation of shared programs. (b) Co-ordinate development and implementation of disposal arrangements. (c) Provide co-ordinated recommendations to the County regarding the development and implementation of disposal facilities located within the unincorporated area and the establishment of rates at such facilities. (d) Resolve issues necessary to the preparation of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and Countywide Siting Element: (1) Countywide Plan is expected to be a compilation of the individual Regional Plans and County Plans for the unincorporated area if the County is not a participant in the regional agency plans. (a) Interregional issues (e.g. movement of waste or recyclable materials across the boundary of a region) will need to be- identified and resolved. (b) Goals and Objectives of the Local Task Force will need to be reviewed for acceptability. (c) Recommended policies will need to be reviewed for acceptability. 12 DISCUSSION PAPER REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNC L ornON Aupxt 20. 1993 (2) Countywide Siting Element would address disposal facilities only and be a compilation of information (i.e. quantities requiring disposal and planned disposal facilities) identified in the individual regional plans. (a) Interregional issues (e.g. use of common disposal facilities)will need to be identified and resolved. (b) Land Use control and local permitting would be preserved. (3) Amendments to Plan and Siting Element would be reviewed and recommendations regarding approval provided. .6. The Regional Co-ordinating Council avoids and eliminates redundant activities. (a) Membership would be representatives from each of the Board Directors of Regional Agencies and County Board of Supervisors. These are the same individuals who will be making decisions regarding the respective regions. (b) Quarterly meetings would be scheduled but meetings would be held only as needed. (c) A structure for management and technical staff input is provided which should eliminate need for meetings and focus staff efforts. (d) Duplication of staff efforts and resource expenditures should be limited. 7. The concepts described above are consistent with State law which assigns responsibility to cities and counties and would allow for formation of regional agencies to achieve cost savings. V**1LA:20Ap%W 13 DISCUSSION PAPER REGIONAL CO-ORDINA7714G COUNCII.OP`nON Aupst 20,1993 COUNTYWEDE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY GOAL Establishment of a process which: 1. Provides maximum local control of decision making while ensuring integrating and coordination of countywide solid waste activities and programs. 2. Assures consistency for ratepayers throughout the county by bringing all franchising entities and countywide issues into one organization. 3. Recognizes the jurisdictional rights and responsibilities of each unit of government. 4. Provides a means for resolution of differences in a timely and cost effective manner. 5. Avoids and eliminates redundant activities by delineating local responsibilities for facilities and countywide responsibility for solid waste policies and planning. 6. Ensures co-ordination of programs so that opportunities for elimination of duplication are seized and resulting cost savings realized. 7. Recognizes the continuing State requirement for a Countywide Solid Waste Facilities Siting Element and a Countywide Solid Waste Management Plan and enables compliance with State law with the least possible cost to jurisdictions and ratepayers. DISCUSSION PAPER REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNC[L ornON August 20, 1993 COUNTYWEDE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY (ORG STRUCTURE IV AND V) FIGURE 1 1. Figure 1 outlines the structure, functions and responsibilities for Org Structures IV and V— Countywide Solid Waste Authority for discussion purposes only. 2. Assumptions underlying Figure 1 are as follows: (a) AB 440 will be enacted allowing regional agencies to prepare regional SRRE's, HHWE's, and NDFE's instead of individual plans by Members and thereby reduce duplication and achieve cost savings. (b) Members of the Regional Agencies will delegate to the Regional Agencies responsibility for preparation of SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's. (c) Pittsburg and Concord form a Regional Agency and Pittsburg does not participate in the Delta Diablo Global Agreement. (d) Cities which are not now members of a Regional Agency would become members of the Regional Agency as indicated in Figure 1. (e) County, Cities and Regional Agencies will determine if the County is to be a member of the respective regional agencies or contract with the regional agency(ies). (1) Matters related to Regional Non-Disposal Facilities and Disposal Arrangements are assumed to be addressed as part of these discussions. DISCUSSION PAPER REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL OPTION Aupst 20, 1993 (2) This has been determined for the West County Regional Agency. The County and the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority have entered into a contract. (f) All franchising entities will want to have a voice and a vote in countywide solid waste planning and.policy development (Org Structure I� (g) Consolidation of solid waste staffing into regional agencies and countywide authority 2. The concepts described in Figure 1: (a) Envision joint powers agreements which would provide Regional Agencies with authority to: (1) Prepare and implement single Regional SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's. (a) Those portions of Regional SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's applicable to each Member of the joint powers authority would be subject to the approval of the respective Members prior to approval by the Regional Agency. (b) Approval of Regional SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's needed to reflect provisions of current state law which requires the provisions of AB 939 to be binding and enforceable against individual Members of a Regional Agency. (2) Develop and implement Regional Non-Disposal Facilities and Non-Disposal Facilities for individual Members or groups of Members. (a) Rates at Regional Non-Disposal Facilities regulated by the Regional Agency (b) Rate Regulation at Non-Disposal Facilities for individual Members or groups of Members as provided in the joint powers agreement. DISCUSSION PAPER REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL OPTION Ampst 2Q, 1993 (3) Reserves to each City and the County responsibility for the following within their respective jurisdictions: (1) The terms and conditions contained in their respective collection franchise agreements, (2) Regulation of collection rates, (3) Land Use regulation and control, (4) Permitting which is the responsibility of the respective cities and the county, and (5) Where applicable, the freedom to delegate any or all of the above. (c) Reserves to future decisions County participation in Regional Agencies and, where agreed to, shared Facilities. (d) Provides for review and approval of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and Countywide Siting Element by Members. (1) Current State law requires approval by cities and counties. (e) Provides for policy development and planning for countywide solid waste issues and required countywide plans FIGURE 2 1. Figure 2 outlines the structure and responsibilities of the COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION ONLY. Figure 2 is envisions: DISCUSSION PAPER REGIONAL CO-ORDINAMNG COUNCIL OPnON Aupst 20.1943 (a) An agreement among the Cities, Regional Agencies and the County establishing the Countywide Solid Waste Authority. The agreement would: (1) Provide for the establishment of the "Management Advisory Committee" and "Technical Advisory Committees" shown in Figure 2. (2) Assigns to the Authority the responsibility for: (a) Preparation of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and Countywide Siting Element. (b) Administration of the Contra Costa Industrial Shoreline Recycling Markets Development Zone. (c) Co-ordination of interaction with the State (d) Development of policies/programs which have implications countywide such as procurement policies, franchise model agreements, rates (3) Authorize the Regional Agencies: (a) Co-ordination of Regional Programs (b) Co-ordination of Disposal Arrangements (c) Consider proposals regarding Disposal Facilities STAFFING OPTIONS 1. Figure 2 shows staffing for a Countywide Solid Waste Authority. 2. ? Attachment 5 OCT-12-93 TUE 9 : 18 CC SOLID WASTE AUTH 5102299114 P. 02 CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY October 6, 1993 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: AVON WILSON AND LOUISE AIELLO SUBJECT: ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN SELECTING OPTIONS In responding to the Authority's direction there are critical details which will need to be fleshed out. Your Honorable Body may have some additional details which should be addressed. In order to accomplish our assignment we would like to go to each of the jurisdictions to get their input. In order to accomplish this, we are proposing to come back to you in December or January with a report which would include, but not be limited to, the following information: • Composition of the regional agencies and the role of non-member jurisdictions; • Under each option how the proposed coordinating council's activities could be funded; • Management and operating procedures between all participating jurisdictions and agencies; Suggested focus and work pian for the proposed coordinating council; 0 Resolving interagency differences; • Parameters of contracting and the contractual relationship; • Time needed to get documentation ready for dissolution of the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority.