HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10111994 - H.2 +. H.1 -.a
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR County
GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENY AGENCY
DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1994
SUBJECT: REPORT FROM GMEDA DIRECTOR TO CONSIDER TIPPING FEES (THEIR AMOUNTS AND
LEVELS) AND OTHER LANDFILL RELATED ACTIONS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept Reports from GMEDA Director dated September 27, 1994; October 4, 1994,
and October 11, 1994; and, accept addiitional information regarding options for
administration of landfill mitigation fees.
EISCAL IMPACT
Reductions to the General Fund will occur.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On September 27, 1994 and October 4, 1994 the Board of Supervisors continued
Items 2.4 and H-3, respectively, for consideration on October 11, 1994. On October
4th the Board requested that staff provide for consideration options for the
administration of landfill mitigation fees. Attachment #1 is a memo outlining such
options. Attachment #2 and #3 are the complete Board Orders from the previous
Board meetings.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_ APPROVE _ OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON11-t APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER.Zt,,
.VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:.;__ OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Val Alexeeff (510/646-1620) ATTESTED &-e,� ZI /19 57 41
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE
County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
County Counsel COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Building Inspection Department
Public Works Department
BY DEPUTY
939t\bo1SWcompar.3.
i
Attachment #1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: October 5, 1994
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Val Alexeeff, Director
SUBJECT: OPTIONS FOR ADNM41STRATION OF LANDFILL MITIGATION FEES
(OCTOBER 11 BOARD AGENDA ITEM #H-1)
As part of your Board's consideration of Item H-3 on October 4, 1994, staff was requested to
prepare options for the administration of the landfill mitigation fees. Five options are outlined
below.
tion 1
Continue the existing method for administering the fees using the Land Use Permit Conditions
of Approval to lock in $2.00 for Transportation Mitigation and $2.00 for Open
Space/Agriculture Mitigation and uses the Franchise Agreement to set a$2.00 Host Community
Mitigation Fee.
tion 2
Modify the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval so that the $2.00 Transportation Fee and
the $2.00 Open Space/Ag Fee are moved into the Franchise Agreement as part of the Host
Community Mitigation Fee for a total Host Community Mitigation of $6.00 and within the
budget setting process determine how much shall go to transportation, open space/ag, and host
community as presently constructed.
tin
Modify the Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval so that discretion over the Transportation
and Open Space/Ag mitigations are moved into the Franchise Agreement with alternate amounts
to be set on an annual or bi-annual basis for budget purposes.
Qption4
Modify Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval as in Option 3 but identify a total mitigation
amount for all interests, such as current Transportation, Open Space/Ag, Bay Point area, City
of Pittsburg, and area around the Acme Permanent Transfer Station.
ti n
Consider other methods to provide for area mitigation other than tipping fees or surcharges.
939t:\swcompanmem
Addendum Item 2.4
Attachment #2 from 9/27/94 To Be Heard at
2pm on 10/4/94 with Item H-3
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR co "'
GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 1994
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADDENDUM TO 9-27-94 BOARD AGENDA ITEM 2.4 ON TIPPING FEES AND
OTHER LANDFILL RELATED ACTIONS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND-AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept report from GMEDA Director on additional information requested by Board
members on.Tipping Fees and other Landfill Related Matters.
FISCAL IMPACT
Reductions to the General Fund will occur.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On September 27, 1994 the Board of Supervisors continued Item 2.4 to the meeting
of October 4, 1994 and requested information regarding estimated disposal
tonnages/revenues and use of the fees originally required at Keller Canyon Landfill.
The requested information is contained in Attachment 1 b and 1 c.
Additionally, Attachment 1 a now includes information obtained from all solid waste
hauling/disposal companies which have indicated an interest in providing disposal of
solid waste generated in Contra Costa County. Attachment 1 d is the letter received
from the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE,
fC_A A-f—�
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOP _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_ APPROVE _ OTHER
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_ OTHER _
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Val Alexeeff (510/646-1620) ATTESTED
cc: Community Development Dept. (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR,
GMEDA Departments
939u:�WSWccmpar.2 BY , DEPUTY
cn
C
C
e�S d a
a
co
d c oco _
O
_ t79
cc �
"4 '� N U >•
U c o
E -T. m, 0,., v
?� N m
0 En —' O ; n)
CO 0 N F 0 +
g E 1" a o
d cc = a' us
41 4
m Q Q Q _ Q Q
a>
4 "n
N O C
CL cc
N
C
a
O p () N
N
° 0 O 3
c « a
C is m ar U
y J o N p y Q O
o c v
? C
p. C C c`p CO v c'�c 0 cc
.. > N d m O C41
N .. tb G
to +� N d y w Hca o 4o
-
d .o 0 °� p `� v N V = +O.' Ga co
ACL ? N U u Q N Q1 O N C O O }
CL CCD " O CO m V N Q %- M O N
? d. S d to 1
U N OW LC) 0N '7
O O
W
Z `t C OG
C:
N �
W C
t/1 N 0
-- m a
3 a
D a a O N
O O
9 s
C N O O cc O U
O p co t C. .. p
Z C > O C m co d O) U U m d H
U3 co
N °' tyo 0 v N y0.
cc C >• N
0 co >.
Q M N 41 XQ C C i
U E CD fl m o O C ,sro co pp o i
t- 0 U U r. Q +
O
Q 7 OuOi 0 y cYv o 0 NC6p o
0 _p c� J
N
C• p = 0 o N J W d
C a W Z N d
N •-• of
c0"a `-
C p v v
0
C V n CA d >.
O ca C d
a a 0
>_ y VOLoyi N o o>
c 0 0 0 U � n C o C
r_a M .0 45 0 0 ya 0 p ,. O
U
� m d � } y C d- +'
° m a 4-1 n- d 3 a m c
CM
0 ..
+ Ry i ttS �p -0 C O O
C CO �'- LL w- , tU U 7► O
0 +, V O t7 O Q . �0, O 0 a S Cc
0 C _ CL
mN O 0 ��— w- to U Q cb a0i
CD ,. W w- m O coo 0 U C..
y N N C d m @ d Q V
2 LLo Lr1
LU N
r_
L
u
`m
a
> o
+>+ 7
m
LL 00
c c Lo O
tq (n N
D '
m O =
7 Ln
m y N
V O N
.; i N N
O ll
O O
y C O O
(O
O " a� N �° O N m
d O U Q
m m �' O L C
N Z Z � rami 4 00 y
E m a
y
N * Z Z Z Z Q
a� a�
c c
y
In O O
Ln
d rn
- r y
Q .a O
Q N U
w C N
d -a O
y O CL
r > U- d
C V
m C �> y+ O
+L+ 0 a) N L C U
y O m m O O) m C_ 0 �j O O CV) RC1 O
a) E Z Z vai aci ? E c0 O O O ca O
— O a`) m smir +ten N N N
y > M
N �'
(n
y
O
a
C �
a� a� O
c c ? Ln y0
o + m n 0
D 'O C N C w
O O
> +' y � U LA
C d m i
m +
ELL > C N
O Ln ice. +m, O
U j O V)
N O CL C
c O =
C C
L O cl ma y -O O
NO y N N O c 0 CL 0 '� O
EZZ 0 mm c m m U� O� N m
Lo `- O �, N Cc U) N O ++
E' N C7
O O ++ N. N. N U
c0 C O) � c
N J
•
N w d O n O c
N O O
* �• Z Z Z N U
+�
U
N
O
U
O) N
N c O
O U = O
N N
O 41
m m y U C O� O U
I H U N cL6 ? O Gf C
'O -a -E +' c .0 G i a C O
y c O W -o CD w j c v
m c CD
m _ °' c m —ami m m
m ° +' O L E It (40 0
c E v � E � O �? c c o °0 cm U
0 0 C c = � .- H m O �+ 4 d)
in V a� 41 0
0 ayi c E E m m 'L' rn f6m a� '�-i
U °' O O U O)Q (D a) m O d c Q }. L d
0 fC0 O Co m y N C �- Ol y � LL Q J O In LU N
c y E Z Z a� c '� O C d a� m O
J `~ m 0 H �' N J m U- (A J
ch * to O O
L—LL 11
Z U
1
ATTACHMENT 1B
O na2t S 1:00rron Esti mated Revenue
January 23,402 $23,402.00
February 22,036 $22,036.00
March 35,936 535,936.00
April 32,009 $32,009.00
May 37,616 $37,616.00
June 30,831 $30,831.00
July 28,238 $28,238.00
August
September
October
November
December
Total(Jan.-July) 210,068 5210,068.00
Estimated Projected Total(]an.-Dec.)* 340,068 5340,068:00
(' Estimate excludes San Ramon only and is baud on 26,000 tons/month.)
Tonna ee/Reven tih•Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Hauler 1990 Tonnage SI:00?on Estimated Revenue
Antioch phbs 51,280 551,280.00
Brentwood gar 6,147 56,147.00
Clayton phbs 5,989 $5,989.00
Concord gar 108,733 $108,733.00
Danville vw 28,403 528,403.00
Lafayette vw 20,459 520,459.00
Martinez phbs 31,029 $31,029.00
Morega om 12,431 512,431.00
Orinda om 14,711 $14,711.00
Pleasant Hill phbs 29,017 $29,017.00
San Ramon vw 39,047 $39,047.00
Unincorp Central Co. (PHBS/CCCSD) phbs 15,814 S15,814.00
Unincorp Central Co. (VW/CCCSD) vw 35,830 $35,830.00
Unincorp East Co.(County) ccc 27,328 $27,328.00
Unincorp East Co. (Garaventa) gar 26,071 $26,071.00
Walnut Crtek vw 77,494 $77,494.00
7'nt:d 529.783 5529,783.00
Tonna2e/Revenup by It sdiction (Centri)
Jurisdiction Hauler 1990 Tonnage S 1:00/Ton Estimated Revenue
Clayton phbs 5,989 55,989.00
Danville vw 28,403 $28,403.00
Lafayette vw 20,459 $20,459.00
Martinez phbs 31,029 $31,029.00
Morage om 12,431 $12,431.00
Orinda om 14,711 $14,711.00
Pleasant Hill phbs 29,017 $29,017.00
San Ramon vw 39,047 $39,047.00
Unincorp Central Co.(PHBS/CCCSD) phbs 15,814 515,814.00
Unincorp Central Co. (VW/CCCSD) vw 35,830 535,830.00
Walnut Creek vw 77,494 577.494.00
Tot:d 310.224 $310.224.00
RUl:twmp.tbl
9.29.9
1
Attachment #1c
SURCHARGE :1992/93. 2993/94
Revenues: $1,437,515 $1,235,488
Expenditures:
SSI Advocacy 60,000 60,000
Recycling Center 572,912 210,000
Career Development - 15,000 15,000
GA Workcrews
Solid Waste Administration 458,648 -0-
Sheriff/DA -0- 876,200
Expenditure Total $1,106,560 $1,.161,200
Difference Between Revenues & $330,950 $74,288
Expenditures Per Year
TOTAL BOTH YEARS
$405,243
Tonnage for July 1994 was 28,238 with equivalent revenue of $109,062.80
VA.drg
c:surchge
(revised 928/94)
TRANSPORTATION. ::: .4992/93 1993/94
Revenues: $831,716 $641,812
Expenditures:
Bailey Road Widening 300,000 29,204
Traffic Signs -0- 6,000
Evora Road -0- 147,000
Litter Pickup 245,427 202,000
Route Restriction 50,000 70,000
Enforcement
Transportation & Congestion 10- 100,000
Relief
Roadside Hazardous Cleanup -0- 12,000
Expenditure Total * $595,427 $566,204
Difference Between Revenues & $236,289 $75,608
Expenditures Per Year
TOTAL BOTH YEARS : . $311,897
Mitigation fee revenues remaining after expenditures are retained in the Keller Canyon
Mitigation Fund.
*Staff administrative costs are not included.
TONNAGE FOR JULY 1994 WAS 28,238 WITH EQUIVALENT REVENUE OF$56,476.
VA:drg
cArnspon
(revised 9/28/94)
,i
COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE_ 1992/93 1993/94
Revenues: $831,716 $641,812
Expenditures:
Code Enforcement 60,000 60,000
Property Cleanup 90,000 90,000
Patrol/Bay Point Res. Deputy 190,000 140,000
Community Mitigation 160,000 162,815
Contracts
Pittsburg Library Homework -0- 51,000
Help Center
Family Service Integration -0- 46,85
Expenditure Total * $500,000 $550,000
Difference Between Revenues & $331,716 $91,812
Expenditures Per Year
TOTAL BOTH YEARS $423,528
Mitigation fee revenues remaining after expenditures are retained in the Keller Canyon
Mitigation Fund.
Please see attached list of contractors.
*Staff administrative costs are not included.
TONNAGE FOR JULY 1994 WAS 28,238 WITH EQUIVALENT REVENUE OF$56,476.
VA.drg
cxmtyasst
(revised 9/28/94)
OPEN SPACE/AGRICULTURE 1992/93 . 1993/94
Revenues: $831,716 $641,812
Expenditures:
Rodent/Thistle Control 86,661 60,000
Tree Planting 100,000 100,000
EBRPD Trail Maintenance -0- 90,000
Ambrose Open Space -0- 90,000
Wetlands Mitigation -0- 50,000
Delta Env. Science Center -0- 35,x00
Audobon Conservation Outreach -0- 10,000
Farm Bureau -0- 5,000
Ag/Soils Bank 250,000 250,000
Expenditure Total * $436,661 $690,000
Difference Between Revenues & $395,055 - $ 41,812
Expenditures Per Year
TOTAL BOTH YEARS $346,867
Mitigation fee revenues remaining after expenditures are retained in the Keller Canyon
Mitigation Fund.
*Staff administrative costs are not included.
TONNAGE FOR JULY 1994 WAS 28,238 WITH EQUIVALENT REVENUE OF$56,476.
VAdrg
c:opnspc.agr
(revised 9/28/94)
Attachment #1d
CONTRA COSTA
'ID,
CENTRAL CON TRBbS[iDr61HbVI61D WASTE AUTHORITY
4737 Imhoff haae, suite 4 COP;;,UNITY Dawe.CLAUSEN,Choir
Narim evitorma 91553 DEVELOPMENT DEPT 6MMXFE,VaChoir
WG0RYL CARR,DkWor
EMYNUL M,&foo r
AWYLDUafig Diwor
A54NA1*M7Yli WY.Dr1Wor
September 26, 1994 RDQ'"S MW"EdM0WDrWVr
Xa E WA RW SioMy of to AXvify
x'110)229+861
fw(510)229516?
Honorable Tom Powers, Chairperson
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 11 th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Reference: Request of County to join Central Contra Costa Soad Waste Authority
Dear Chairperson Powers and Honorable Board Members:
At its meeting of September 22, 1994,the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa
Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA) considered the request of your Board for County
membership in this Authority. The Authority Board members present unanimously
supported the County's request for membership and approved in concept the County's
entrance into this organization pursuant to the general terms set forth below.
Supervisor Smith and County staff member Louise Aiello provided some insight into the
County's intentions regarding joining the CCCSWA. We welcomed Supervisor Smith's
comments although he made it clear that his remarks could, of course, not bind the entire
Board of Supervisors with regard to the terms and conditions under which the County
would join the Authority. For that reason, we have outlined below the terms under which
the Authority Board of Directors would welcome the entrance of the County as an equal
member to the Authority. The following is a brief outline of those terms:
• The County shall join as equal member with two (2) voting members.
• County Board Authority members shall be supervisors.
• The CCCSWA plans to issue the RFP or extend a franchise (in order to
provide the ratepayers with the earliest potential date of rate reduction) at
Its next meeting to be held on October 13, 1994. The County's
consideration of membership should bear this timeline in mind.
sta/o►01o8088: • Central Contra Costa Sonitary District • City Of San Ramon • Cq o/ Walnut Creek
® ftopoa Row
Honorable Tom Powers, Chairperson
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
September 26, 1994
Page 2
• County must agree to delegate franchising authority to the CCCSWA for the
unincorporated areas within the current Authority boundaries (within RFP
Zones 1 and 2).
County must agree to participate in CCCSWA with an acknowledgment that
the intention of the Authority Is to pursue and contract for the lowest cost
collection and disposal options for the designated service levels, without
respect to the location of ultimate disposal of the solid waste collected from
the jurisdiction (e.g., in-county or out-of-county).
• County must acknowledge that an Authority decision with regard to
collection, franchising, and/or disposal may not :ie consistent with the
County's historic position. Accordingly, the County must in good faith
commit to working constructively within the Authority to implement that
decision, rather than contest it through litigation or similar actions.
In addition to the general terms set forth above, the Authority Board discussed the issue
of a buy-in charge for the County, given the substantial sums spent by the current
member agencies to fund the JPA's current operations, including the ongoing negotiations
and the development of the RFP process. The Authority Board members'initial conclusion
suggested that there should be no buy-in cost for the County with regard to the areas
currently under the franchise of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, since
contributions of members have been on a waste volume basis. However, to the extent
that the County joins the JPA to administer solid waste franchies for unincorporated areas
not within the current CCCSD franchise areas, an appropriate buy-in fee would be
calculated. The .Authority assumes that there will be no such areas initially, and
accordingly, no required buy-in charge.
The Authority Board further indicated that the County should understand it is the
Authority's intention to impose a liability/closure fee surcharge on the collection rates for
both the incorporated and/or unincorporated areas within its current jurisdictional
boundaries for costs and liabilities arising from the Acme lawsuit. The Authority's intent
is that the waste shed areas should pay their proportional share of any liabilities or costs
arising from the Acme Landfill, without regard to whether the County, CCCSD, or the
Authority In fact issues the franchise in the future.
Honorable Tom Powers, Chairperson
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
September 26, 1994
Page 3
On behalf of the CCCSWA, 1 would like to commend the Board's agreement in concept
that the ratepayers' best interest are served by the County joining with the other solid
waste franchising entities as Authority members to address Central County waste
challenges.
Sincerely,
L�
John B. Clausen, President
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
cc: G. Carr
J. Clausen
E. Munn
M. Oliver
S. Rainey
G. Wolfe
D. Blubaugh
R. Dolan
H. Moniz
F. Davis
Attachment #3 2.4
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COI'ltl'a
FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR Costa
GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGE'"y cunt�
%
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 RECOMMENDATION(S) & 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.
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 COMMIT,�EE,
APPROVE OTHER ,
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I 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 ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Val Alexeeff (510/646-1620) ATTESTED
cc: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE
County Counsel BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
GMEDA Departments COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
939u�WSWcompsr BY , DEPUTY
TIPPING FEES (THEIR AMOUNT SND LEVELS) AND OTHER LAN[ _L 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.
t4
Mcv
G p �
W
o _
6A "
G 4 �2
w Q
3 2 o m
ti. in
ca V
40
C6 N O 7
0 O G APO
O
o. d � O ✓ c
A
00
o. N t, cvo ✓ C
yd r: eTo a o
Z N C cOD ✓ N Y G a m ✓ y '^ ✓ o d T
O d J .. ? A ✓ Q' •G o a o o � is:,- >
N 00 N V
t v v A N r
wA+
° t
N � c G Q s 4 O iV oN
O A
d o n
N � y
y O
Nd o �► ' .p
0 � G ty'6 � 'C A d � > •� y
O Zf d
O C Qy At✓o eo � ✓� "p'' r` w Y �,. N C T
O J N
i Qs CP w
G cc G � O Z % N c�
G
r
'a' ,Ap G d O � �, A ''•� W r
GO N pA.
4 O d N i
r � G p ✓ r A
.d► � G° �y m 00- G '�
•G m d a ct'- 6 0
O d � 'a '� p ." r ✓
't7 O ✓� a v w A7) 4 Atp W m
oo d O G G v E
O io Q O %.-
0
vu
,ovo o t
O m p. cs � i i b O G v > ✓
L C •E cva � v Y �y �O °' uA 4 m J'
A r V r !G ✓ 7- d V+ a'
A � :r° E 10 0, � �
v « ✓ d .r r �j CP 0 O 0? A J
� N r
G to Z N
U N
F
i
S
m
n
s
d O)
C C
Ip t0
r r
N_ N_
r
C
A
L
r m �
E Z Z
•
c c
�o e�
a n O
O
� m
CL a
G N N
y C O
q- !0 fl
c �
r L
a� m
E cEo G CM m C C O
cm o V
E ° to
cn o o r- Ln o
1� Oyi O CcV a> N .- IA t0 r-
• Z Q
m
CL
7
N
O
V
r
N
O
ep ep t0
T _y •� N
V C ^ Q)_ V
� r N •y �
O
C •� m C w
d Q rV U)
E Q m °?
' V r C fA
r r m
7
C C v y y
d O m m m CL m CL
G V y O 0 �°' O =
E E m
E ECL
ZZ o m c L M N C a o w 0
m ° o o V Q CN
ed vs c E Im a N 4 a. c
N as O n 0) 0) H V- Ln .- O
r • } Z Z Z N N N N J N
r
V
_d
O
V
c41
m
m y C
O V U
> C 7
y V
c°i v c °' f° ni E c
o m
C mM r V1 V C O V
y y c`°i = o E c
H •° � c r c n � � O
o m
»' °' cm'~
� �n � •_ a; N L � E �
c �
G M C O y
O O r G
Mm ca
t0 r-
m m
w « EZZ oyi o c ? E c' in aLU a
CD w LL Q J � Q w
O C L O C O
J Q t0 L 0 H H fn J M Ill V) J Lu C
M • to O O
Z u
Attachment #1 b
RO
LANDFILL
September 21, 1994 TRANSMITTED BY FAX
Mr. Valentin Alexeetf, Director
Growth Management and Bconomic Development Agency
Contra Costa County
$51 Pine Street, North ping, Second Floor
Martinez, California 94553-1599
Re: Garaventa/Potrero Hills Landfill Inc. Disposal Proposal
Dear Mr. Alexeeff:
This letter is a follow up to the September 20, 1994
correspondence fror. 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 $41.50 includes transportation to and disposal at the
landfill.
Potrero Bills Landfill is permitted to receive 650 tons per day,
seven days per week (TPD7) . The landfill has applied for and
expects to receive permission to receive up to 3400 TP07. The
remaining capacity at Potrero Hills Landfill is 10 million tons.
The landfill can facilitate a peak of 120 one-way vehicle trips
per hour. At the rate of 1500 TPD7 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 usetui 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 applic*tions.
�pOCV0059Q111108356
P=M HU9 LME-SUMA.CA-(M 42944 * P.O. BOX 08-PAIMELD,CA 94633
r
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 Nast Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, Inc. , with respect to
all waste received by the VCCSL 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 Stations
State Pees $1.34 - AB 1220
1.00 - Closure/Post closure
1.00 - PRC 43040
Local Pees $5.00 - County Business License
0.473 - County LEA fee
0.65 - Iditigation
TOTAL BEES 19.49 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
TranBfer 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 LAIODFILL, INC.
14wf7 pjt�q. . .
Larry Burch, P.E.
Director of Environmental Management
cc: John Rowden
tpOC1�OC9901t�1�3S6
to ICA to= Ci aam vs- TZ-d3S
SEP-21-94 WED 14:44 RECEIVABLES AND PAYAKES FAX N0. 00000000 Attachment #1 C
Contra Costa Waste ie�
rvice
1080 MALLARD DRIVE • P.O.BOX 5397
CONCORD.CAUFORNIA SAUD
(510)173-0180
September 20, 1994
Mr. Valentin Aleseeff, 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 follor�ing responds to your
September 16 letter requesting information concerning the
Recycling Center and Transfer Station and Mr. Garaventals offer
to use the facility. Information concerning the Potrero Hills
LandZ111 will be provided by the owners of that facility. The
information is organized according to the format of the
questionnaire sent with your letter.
1. Cost
Transfer station & haul : A $41.50 gate rate will be charged
which will include the landfill gate rate, the transfer
station gate rate, 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 of
Tonnages committed: No tonnages are legally comitted to the
facility, however, the Garaventa collection coupanies intend
to use the Garaventa 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
nolld aowpostable material rill be transferred separately to
recycling facilities in order to meet diversion goals.
SEP-21-94 WED 14:45 RECEIVABLES AND PAYABLES FAX N0. 0000000000 P. 03
Freeway Access/connection: Loveridge Road to Higbray 4
Peak Rour Traffic Protection/Restriction: Restrictions will
be placed oo transfer trucks and other traffic as prescribed
by a traffic plan approved by the City of Pittsburg,
canaistent with Mitigations identified in the City EIR and
the program EIR for the County Integrated Waste !management
Plan
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 collected
recyclables. The Concord facility has a capacity of
processing up to 250 tans of material per day. Compostable
material will be hauled to composting facilities in Contra
Costa or San Joaquin co%mty.
3. Landfill
Name: Potrero Hills Landfill
Distance from transfer station: 47 miles
4. Term
Short-term: Any length terse is accepted including "no term"
Long-term: 7 to 20 years
Break-away options: Determined by the waste supplier
S. Fees (per ton): All included in gate foe, see 1.
If you have any questions about the responses, please call me at
68.2-0977.
Since ely,
•',John Rowden
Project Manager
Attachment #2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: August 25. 1%4
TO: Members,Board of Supervisors
FROM: Vat Akauw f. Dir
SUBJECT: Acrm Flt Transfer Station
Recently a number of questions have been asked about Acme Landfill temporary trar.afer
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 lei us know.
VA•d
c:acrneques.t8
ATTACHMENT
CC F.Batchelor,CAO
L ftyii,County Council
C.Zahn, Community Development
L Aiello, Community Development
a.Smith, Community Development
Dr.B. Walker, hlealth Services
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CONEWUNM DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: August 17, 1994
TO: Val Alexeeff, Director, GME
FROM: Belinda Smith, Senior Plane
SUBJECT: . INFORMA77ON ON RATES FOR THE ACME DiTERIM TRANSFER
STATION AND 7HE ACME LANDFI2.L
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 lune 7, 1994 the Board of Supervisors eliminated the floor on the rates for the Keller
Canyon Landfill and the Acme ITS. Provided below is i 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
f
tate 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
S25 a ton to$41 a ton to collect fends 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 ram until the completion of a study by Touche-Ross on Acme Fill
closure/post-closure host 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 lune 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 S.41
to $2.12), etc. which would be considered in current and future rate reviews.
Rau Review Chronology
2
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 $4.32 per ton. The operating ratio was set at 95%. The disposal rate (including mitigation
fees to Alameda and Solano Counties) included in the transfer station rate was for export to
Altamont Landfill and Potrero Hills Landfill. Although included in the Acme ITS rate
application, closure/post closure assessments for the Acme Landfill were not allowed as part of
the rate since other options were being explored at the time to handle closure fees. Since the
este was based on projections prior to actual operations, the Board directed Acme to file a rate
application in time for a one year rate review. Other fees included in the rate were the per ton
AB 939 fee of S.95 and the LEA fee of$.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 submitteda 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
r
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 rue charged for the Acme Landfill was the same
tate as the transfer nation, $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 razes were adjusted twice for the Acme ITS: the fust 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 5.41 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. Solano 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 575:97 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 Solan 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 5.73 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)
SUW+ =Y OF THE PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
METING IN ALL ITS CAPACITIES
P RSahNT TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 24-20402
TuzsDAY,SEPTEMM 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. )
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 Rum ill 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 Torlakson'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.
H.4 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.
COtrWw-.LEE REPORTS:
Internal Operations Committee - APPROVED the recommendations as
presented.
REIOBS OF BOARD HERS:
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.
POSLIC COMMM -
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 i.s
before the Planning Commission. I think Lhere 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-haulrates. 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
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 ynu
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
I
I
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
I
from now. Okay. Fine very good. Okay, let' s try to get to some
of the timed hearings that we did have. . . . . . . .
17
Attachment #4
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
4737 Imhoff Place, Suite 1 AW I CL4 M,cAUr
A4rtinu, Cififorw 91553 a*waif,vex coir
EYQvWit(Ml Ou�ctor
/IAllf'LDU OLA9l Duda
�iJdWMMd1f AMEY,Di�cta
September 16, 1994 fi�Da►�lrrrimEso,eKDaarcr
,p1'CFE MAoliK3ienrydetAoo►My
a�ofz
�a�ofa�s�a�
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
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.
fSee 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 e/enefes: Centel Conte Cosh Soniury Diolet co of San Ramon City of Walnut Croek
® rare►.oM
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
NORRIS 5®I NORRIS
RICHARD E.NORRIS HILLTOP OFFICE PARK - TELEPHONE
M.JEFFREY MICKLAS
3260 BLUME DRIVE, SUITE 200
DOUGLAS C.STRAUS (510) 222-2100
CY EPSTEIN • I
COLIN J.COFFEY RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA 94806- r Elven
JOSHUA G.GENSER Q CC _ FACSIMILE
EDWARD L.SHAFFER ,` (5101 222-5992
DAVID S.SMITH
SHARON M.IVERSEN
JUSTIN D.SCHWARTZ
NOEL M.CAUGHMAN
J.ERICK DIMALANTA
October 4, 1994
CLERK SUP
CONTRA COSTA
The Honorable Tom Powers, Chair BY FACSIMILE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 510-646-1059
100 - 37th Street, Room 270
Richmond, CA 94805
Members of the Board of Supervisors 510-646-1059
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
651 Pine Street
Martinez , CA 94553
Dear Mr. Powers and Members of the Board:
This. letter is in. response to Thomas Bruen's- letter to you
dated October' 3, 1994. . . In that letter, Mr. Bruen, on behalf -of
his clients, .. BFI, Ke1ler..Canyon Landfill and Acme (hereinafter
referred:to . joiiitly, as. BFI)_, incorrectly claims that Solano
County has acted.'to-lower landfill_ business license fees. in
Solano County. While the matter is currently being considered,
no such action has been taken by Solano County:
BFI goes on for the better part of three pages arguing the
fine points of whether the fees which Potrero Hills Landfill
collects are "State Fees" or "Proprietary Fees. " In any event,
BFI does not deny that the fees are a part of the cost to Potrero
Hills Landfill of doing business and are included in the $41.50
rate.
Potrero Hills has advocated lower government fees in Solano
County. But the government fees at issue in Solano County are
not mitigation promised to local communities in order to get
permits approved when Potrero Hills was opened. However, the
fees that are at issue in Contra Costa are, for the most part,
the money that was promised to Keller Canyon Landfill ' s neighbors
to mitigate the development of the landfill. It is a plain fact
. . that if BFI had not promised to pay all of the mitigation fees
that are currently in effect, Keller Canyon' Landfill would not
have been approved.
The- overarching .theme of. BFI 's desperate-attempts to .secure
a waste stream-by government intervention has `been BFI '_s breach
of the trust of the .community in which it ..has chosen to do
business: 'It is interesting that Mr. Bruen does not.-deny the -
specif.ic charges against BFI included in my letter of .September
22 , 1994 , which are:
\DOC\P0059011\109171
&M,
t
Mr. Tom Powers and Members of the Board
October 4 , 1994
Page 2
1. BFI tried and failed to use closure litigation at Acme
as a club to coerce Contra Costa County to direct waste to BFI.
2 . BFI has tried to blame the Contra Costa Board of
Supervisors for the high cost of disposal at BFI when the fact is
that BFI agreed to all of the fees and costs which go into the
BFI rate - and charged Contra Costa rate payers a risk premium on
top of the costs.
3 . BFI advocates have made false statements regarding
Potrero Hills ' environmental record, its permitted life, and the
cost of direct haul of waste to Potrero Hills Landfill in order
to attempt to gain an unfair competitive advantage.
4 . Acme paid Potrero Hills Landfill over $1, 000, 000. 00 in
damages per an award by a retired Supreme Court justice in an
arbitration, for having directed waste to more expensive
landfills (than Potrero Hills) notwithstanding a contractual
obligation on the part of Acme to direct waste to Potrero Hills.
BFI cannot and does not deny the specific facts. Rather
they argue that there will be no funds to mitigate the impacts of
Keller Canyon Landfill if it does not receive waste. The BFI
position begs the question: if Keller Canyon Landfill ceases to
receive waste, would there be impacts to mitigate? Of course,
the flow of waste to Keller Canyon Landfill and the flow of
mitigation dollars from Keller Canyon Landfill will balance out.
Potrero Hills Landfill is the best and the least cost
alternative to Contra Costa County rate payers for disposal of
waste, and will be regardless of the amount of fees charged by
Contra Costa County.
Very truly yours,
NORRIS & NO
BY RICHARD E. NORRIS
(Colin Coffey for Richard Norris)
REN:slh
cc: Richard Granzella, by delivery
Dennis Varni, by delivery
Caesar Nuti, by delivery
Joe Della Zoppa, by devliery
Thomas Bruen, 510-295-3132
\DOC\PO059011\109171
H. 1 and H. 2
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on October 11. 1994 by the following vote:
AYES: See below for motions and votes (Supervisors Present: Smith, Bishop,
DeSaWnier, Torlakson and Powers)
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SUBJECT: Report From The Director, Growth Management and
Economic Development Agency, to Consider Tipping
Fees and Other Landfill Related Actions; and
Hearing On Amendment 1 to Land Use Permit 2020-89
Regulating Keller Canyon Landfill, Bay Point/Pittsburg
Area.
On October 4, 1994 the Board of Supervisors continued to
this date the hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa
County Planning Commission on the request of the Keller Canyon
Landfill Company (applicant and owner) for approval of Amendment
1 to Land Use Permit 2020-89 which regulates Keller Canyon
Landfill . Amendment 1 proposes to delete or revise conditions of
approval established by LUP 2020-89 pertaining to fees paid by
the Landfill to Contra Costa County. These include fees for
transportation and open space, and resource recovery. Some fees
may be eliminated or reduced. Rate setting conditions would be
modified. Area-of-origin provisions would be revised for
consistency with recent federal court decisions . Amendment 1
does not propose any physical changes to the Landfill facility or
site, or any changes to its operating requirements . None of the
fee changes affect mitigation measures imposed by the Landfill' s .
Environmental Impact Report . A Notice of Exemption has been
filed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, in
the Bay Point/Pittsburg area; and
On October 4, 1994, the Board of Supervisors also continued
to this date the report from the Director, Growth Management and
Economic Development Agency to consider tipping fees (their
amounts and levels) and other landfill related actions .
Val Alexeeff, Director, Growth Management and Economic
Development Agency, presented the staff report addressing
concerns raised by the Board at the October 4, 1994 meeting.
The Board discussed the designation of two Supervisors to
attend the October 13 , 1994 meeting of the Centra Contra Costa
Solid Waste Authority.
Supervisor Powers advised that unless there was objection
that Supervisor Smith and Supervisor Bishop will be designated.
The vote on the designation was unanimous .
Victor Westman, County Counsel, commented on a memorandum
before the Board. advising that staff had received the fully
executed franchise agreements from Acme and Keller for the
transfer station and disposal site and that those agreements were
now in the Clerk of the Board' s office.
41
Supervisor Powers indicated he had requested the franchise
agreements on the agenda this week and that he had not signed the
agreements but if the Board directs him to sign them he will do
SO. He also indicated he would like to take testimony from those
wishing to do so and then discuss the franchises .
The following persons appeared and presented testimony:
Frank Aiello, 1734 Bridgeview, Pittsburg, representing
Citizens United, requested that the Board not decrease the fees,
but go back and collect the CPI' s that are due by contract and he
suggested the possibility of a Grand Jury report on a possible
refund to Contra Costa citizens;
Lance J. Dow, 2232 Concord Drive, Pittsburg, requested that
the Board deny the applicant' s request;
Tom Bruen, representing Browning Ferris Industries,
commented on a letter that he had delivered to staff today
confirming that Browning Ferris Industries is committing for an
eighteen month period upon the commencement of operations of the
permanent transfer station to a gate rate of $39 per ton net of
taxes .
Supervisor Bishop commented on her understanding of the
approval of the franchise agreements .
Supervisor Torlakson expressed his discomfort with the land
use permit change issue and he moved to keep the land use permit
in place and not to follow the Planning Commission' s
recommendation to change that language but to leave- the $2 per
ton for open space and $2 per ton for transportation as it is in
the permit .
The motion died for lack of a second.
Supervisor Powers commented on a memo he had provided to the
Board (no copy to the Clerk) and had given to County Counsel
earlier today.
The Board. discussed the approval of the franchise
agreements .
Victor Westman advised the Board that the Board of
Supervisors had approved the agreement and it is really
ministerial who signs agreements .
The Board further discussed the issue of the approval of the
franchise agreements .
The Board discussed the options as provided in the report
from Val Alexeeff, Options for Administration of Landfill
Mitigation Fees .
Supervisor Powers expressed that he did not think that the
franchise conforms to what the Board' s direction was .
Mr. Westman advised that there was a concern that staff did
not completely understand the Board' s direction as to what the
fees should be with the adoption of the franchise agreements .
Supervisor DeSaulnier suggested that perhaps the Board
should discuss how the fee was going to be spent and that the
concerns raised by Chairman Powers be addressed in a report from
County Counsel on the existence of the agreements .
Supervisor Bishop concurred and commented on a need to
address some of the issues that Supervisor Powers raised but to
do that in a collaborative environment, recognizing that the
Board is in a contractual agreement with Browning Ferris
Industries .
Supervisor Powers moved to put the item over, directing the
Chair not to sign it until next week, ' and having an opportunity
for staff to look more into this matter.
Supervisor Smith commented that most of the proposed
amendments before the Board coming from the Planning Commission
are unnecessary except for two minor changes on conditions 35 . 1
and 35 . 2 which deal with the transportation fee and the open
space fee, the adding of permissive language, and he moved to
clarify the language to read the landfill operator may pay to the
County of Contra Costa a transportation impact fee of $2 per ton
for waste received at the landfill to mitigate the general
impacts of the landfill generating traffic on County roads and
that similar language should be changed in the other paragraph.
He added another sentence for clarity, that the specific amount
of the fee shall be determined by resolution of the Board of
Supervisors .
Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion.
The Board discussed the motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows :
AYES : Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier and Powers
NOES : Supervisor Torlakson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Supervisor Powers requested that the matter of the franchise
issue be put over for a week to allow the Board and the staff to
review any recommendations and for further advice from the County
Counsel on whether or not additional provisions can be placed in
the franchise agreements .
Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion.
Supervisor Bishop indicated she would not support the motion
because she opined the Board has an agreement and advised that
the points Supervisor Powers raised should be discussed.
Supervisor Powers added to his motion with no objection that
in the meantime that staff and County Counsel can sit down with
representatives of Browning Ferris Industries and Acme and
discuss these issues .
The vote on the motion as amended was as follows :
AYES : Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers
NOES : Supervisor Bishop
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Supervisor Smith moved to request County Counsel and the
County Administrator to meet with Deloitte Touche and return to
the Board with an explanation of the difference in the
proprietary rate and potential rights and duties and
responsibilities of the County are with regard to that
differential and the potential of a full or partial refund.
Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows :
AYES : Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Bishop
Supervisor Smith moved a $2 fee for host community
mitigation at the transfer station, at least $3 at the Keller
landfill to be distributed among host community mitigation, ag
and open space and transportation as the Supervisor from the
district sees fit and removal of the resource recovery fee and
fund that out of the remainder of the surcharge .
Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion, and he proposed an
amendment to consider when the Board can remove the other fees,
that the Board would reinstate the fees that are being eliminated
from the Keller mitigation but to suspend them in some way at
this time rather than eliminating them, and he also suggested
consideration of a floor in the land use permit so that the floor
is established in the land use permit and any resolution that the
Board passes that can be implemented in the franchise agreement .
The maker and seconder of the motion discussed the proposed
amendment and Supervisor Smith clarified that he would include
the floor in the land use permit but expressed a need for County
Counsel to draft language to accomplish. that and Supervisor
Torlakson expressed agreement with that intention.
Supervisor Powers clarified that the motion before the Board
was only designating at this point in time the differences within
the framework of the previously reduced fees, and the research
recovery dollar is moved to the host mitigation and there is a
designation of $2 for Acme Transfer Station.
Supervisor Torlakson further clarified that by the motion
the Board was setting a floor of the $3 for mitigation to Keller.
The Board discussed the issues .
Supervisor Powers suggested that since there' s an intention
that' s clear between the maker and seconder of the motion but not
clarity on the specific language, perhaps County counsel could
draft that language and return it next week for Board
consideration and that the Board could vote it' s intention.
Victor Westman clarified that the Board would be leaving the
land use permit hearing open before the Board and continuing it
for another week for further consideration.
Supervisor Powers concurred and further clarified that it
would be directing the Board' s intention to Mr. Westman to draft
a provision and return next week.
The vote on the motion was as follows :
AYES : Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers
NOES : Supervisor Bishop
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Supervisor Torlakson expressed his concerns with the Keller
Mitigation fund process for this fiscal year and he moved a
request for a report on the fund balances in the ag and
transportation fund and to commence the process for expending
them.
Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion.
The vote on the motion was unanimous .
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Supervisors Smith and Bishop
with Supervisor DeSaulnier as alternate are DESIGNATED to attend
the October 13 , 1994 meeting of the Central Contra Costa Solid
Waste Authority; it is DETERMINED to amend Conditions 35 . 1 and
35 . 2 of the Keller Canyon Land Use Permit; the franchise
agreement issue is CONTINUED to October 18, 1994 and County
Counsel is DIRECTED to advise the Board of Supervisors on the
possibility of additional provisions to the franchise agreements;
and staff and County Counsel are DIRECTED to discuss these issues
with Browning Ferris Industries and Acme representatives; County
Counsel and County Administrator are DIRECTED to meet with
Deloitte Touche on the difference in the original and the present
proprietary rate and related matters and provide a report to the
Board of Supervisors; the hearing on Amendment 1 to Keller Canyon
Landfill Land Use Permit 2020-89 is CONTINUED to October 18, 1994
at 2 P.M. and County Counsel is DIRECTED to prepare specific
language for the land use permit amendment and language
expressing the Board' s intent relative to the distribution of the
mitigation fees, including $2 for Acme and $3 for Keller, and a
proposed floor on mitigation funds; and staff is DIRECTED to
report to the Board of Supervisors on fund balances in the ag and
transportation mitigation funds for Keller and to commence the
process for community and Finance Committee review of the
expenditures .
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Suthe date shown.
ATTESTED:p�i�� , I I. 144 4
PHIL BATCHELOR,Cleric of the Board
u and Administrator
CC : GMEDA
Community Development BY Decuty
County Counsel
Browning Ferris Industries