The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12051995 - D4 TO:, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CclnL FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR, :.�� `• ra c^r„}a GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY ost DATE: December 5, 1995 COU* SUBJECT: WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (WCCIWMA) LANDFILL REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE WCCIWMA AND THE COUNTY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Consider payment of mitigation fee for West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (IRRF) in order to improve competitiveness for in-County landfill. 2. Authorize County Administrator to allocate $2.00 of in-County landfill surcharge (franchise) fees received from West County solid waste disposal to offset the $2.00 mitigation fee charged at the IRRF. 3. Request the WCCIWMA to honor Section 9 of the contract between Contra Costa County and the WCCIWMA. 4. Caution the WCCIWMA that opportunities to increase rates should be monitored as tightly as they are in the Central County Solid Waste Authority (SWA) contracts. FISCAL IMPACT Based on 137,600 tons per year the revenue returned to West County for mitigation will be $275,200. The revenue retained for landfill mitigation and franchise by Contra Costa County will be $688,000. BACKGROUND: On November 7, 1995 the Board of Supervisors directed staff to take appropriate action to improve the competitiveness of the in-County landfill, which is intended to result in waste remaining in-County and therefore subject to in-County fees. The in-County disposal grew less competitive when action by Solano County in October, 1994 reduced their related fees by $2.50 from $6.12 to $3.62. In Solano County's staff report they stated the purpose of this reduction was to attract Contra Costa waste. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: VdA-- At4----\ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON December 5 , 1 995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER x SEE ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND AYES: NOES: CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Val Alexeeff (510) 646-1620 cc: Community Development Department ATTESTED_ December 5 , 1995 County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE County Administrator's Office BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND West County IWMA (via CDD/GMEDA) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR v BY: omo DEPUTY VA:rw RCZ6:IRRF$2.bod Board Order WCCIWMA Landfill RFP and County/WCCIWMA Contract December 5, 1995 -Page 2- BACKGROUND (CONT'D) The opportunity for enhancing the County's competitiveness is based on Section 9 of the contract between the County and the WCCIWMA. The relevant passages are highlighted as follows: SECTION 9. DISPOSAL OF IRRF WASTE STREAM 9.1 The waste stream from the IRRF shall be disposed of at the most cost effective landfill. 9.2 The Authority shall determine the most cost effective landfill to receive the waste stream from the IRRF. In making this determination, the Authority shall consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to, transportation costs, closure and post closure requirements, costs and liabilities, disposal fees, fees levied by government entities and costs of compliance with County ordinances and requirements affecting the disposal of IRRF waste at in-County landfills. Both short and long-term potential costs shall be considered by the Authority. 9.3 The Authority agrees that, after consideration of all relevant factors, landfill(s) within Contra Costa County will be used provided that such in-County landfill(s) is demonstrated to favorably compare in total cost to alternative out-of-County landfill(s). 9.4 Authority will initiate a review and verification of the total costs of in- County and out-of-County landfills and shall make the determinations required by Section 9.2 and Section 9.3 not less than 90-days prior to the expiration of the time periods specified in Section 9.4 (a). If the results of the Authority review disclose that total costs for use of out- of-County landfill(s) is 95% or more of the total costs for use of in- County landfill(s), in-County landfill(s) shall be afforded adequate opportunity to match or better the proposal by out-of-County landfill(s). By reducing our fees we enable Keller Canyon landfill to come within 5% of the rate offered by Portero Hills Landfill Inc. If BFI/Keller Canyon can match the rate the above contract provision will benefit the County. The contract between the County and the Authority is based on achieving the lowest rate. The procedures to achieve this rate are not spelled out. The procedure established by the Authority to accept bids is not incompatible with the contract provided that Contra Costa County and BFI are allowed to exercise the relevant contract provision. The County reduces fees and BFI is able, if they can, to reduce rates. The basis of this provision is founded on the fact that there is a public benefit to the County and West County Cities to pay franchise fees to Contra Costa County rather than Solano County. Since the franchise fees collected in Contra Costa County contribute to services and welfare of West County. RCZ6:IRRF$2.bod ADDENDUM Val Alexeeff, Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, presented the staff report to the Board. Supervisor Rogers requested clarification on the outcome of the Portrero bid. Mr. Alexeeff responded on the ability to change things under our contract, how much is a major question and what does count and what doesn' t count . Supervisor Rogers requested clarification on interference with the bid process . Mr. Alexeeff agreed that we would be interfering with the bid process . Victor Westman, County Counsel, advised that if the Board were to pursue this matter, he suggested consideration of Browning Ferris Industries giving the County a written commitment that they would defend the County and hold the County harmless if the County were involved in litigation relative to interfering with a bidding relationship. Supervisor Rogers requested clarification on the possible re-opening of the bid process with this change . Mr. Westman advised that he had not looked into that issue . Supervisor DeSaulnier commended Mr. Alexeeff' s entrepreneurial spirit but commented that if the Board were to pursue this matter, it would have to be referred back to the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Sub Committee and County Counsel for a possible broader consideration. Supervisor Smith expressed concern with using general purpose dollars to subsidize rates in West County when they would not be used in Central County, and he commented on the issue of competition between the garbage companies, and advised that he supported the concept of a level playing field. The following persons presented testimony: Janet Callaghan, 914 Sandy Cove Drive, Rodeo; Tom Bruen, 1990 N. California Boulevard, Walnut Creek, representing Browning Ferris Industries . The Board discussed the matter. Supervisor DeSaulnier recommended returning the matter to the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Sub-Committee with the charge of making the County fees more competitive, and request Community Development and County Counsel work with the Committee to make proposals for recommendation to the Board and advise West County Integrated Waste Management Authority that this would be the process . Supervisor Bishop commented on the difficulty of the issues . The matter was before the Board, and Supervisor DeSaulnier moved to refer the subject of making the County fees competitive with Solano County' s to the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Sub-Committee with recommendations how to do that through County Counsel and Community Development . Supervisor Smith seconded the motion. Supervisor Rogers clarified that the motion was to refer this both in the sense of the specific issue and the sense of revisiting the broader issue about the tradeoffs, about what fees the County is getting out of Keller and related issues . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the issue of making County fees competitive with Solano County fees is REFERRED to the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Sub-Committee for report and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors; County Counsel and the Community Development Department are DIRECTED to work with the Committee in formulating the recommendations to the Board on the above issues . Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box neer the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. CLI NAa rhone• Address: Q' (4 s cu-N ACo v�t Dr 1 am weaking for )� or , � CHEM ON& 6irne d apnisatioN i wish to speak on AXenda Item # la My CO will be: #ene W _for I wish to speak on the subject of . 1 do not wM to speak butIftsumh comments for the �� to consider "r v 5 Q 5 k"; C z Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' moum before addressing the Board. Name; J� �rw Plone: �qg. 3 t .KC 119010.�Ita-frj LTi o�` C tom: I 1 am speaking for myself_or l -T' Omm of slip atioN CHECK ONE: wish to speak on Agenda Ilan # kt-L Oeste: is-ate-�`— My - — -in b will be: Berwil I wish to speak on the subject of . w 1 do not wish to speak but leave these oanrrrents for the Board to COmide-