HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01241995 - 2.3 w
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -
FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF DIRECTOR OF GMEDA — `
ra
!' Costa
DATE: JANUARY 24, 1995
County
T
SUBJECT: REPORT FROM GMEDA DIRECTOR ON OPTIONS FOR SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION FRANCHISE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. ADOPT Option 5, below, as recommended.by the Board on December 20, 1994.
Request Central County JPA to consider issues identified by County as critical. Should these
concerns not be met, then Ad Hoc Committee to work with staff to develop anRFP for the
unincorporated area.
1. The County is acknowledged to have exclusive franchise authority for the
unincorporated portions of the area currently franchised by Central San.
2. County Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee and County staff be allowed to review RFP
and make reasonable modifications reflecting County's role and participation.
3. The County would be full participant in Central County JPA with all rights and
privileges afforded to other members.
2. CONSIDER franchise recommendations proposed at the January 19, 1995 Ad Hoc Solid
Waste.Committee meeting, and with other unincorporated area as provided in Attachment
A and direct staff to take appropriate action. (See page 4)
3. REVIEW comparison of fees in Alameda and Solano counties.
4. DIRECT staff to proceed with Deloitte Touche presentatio
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE: v �J
RECOMMENDAMON OF COUNTY ADMINISTRA OR RECOMNENDITION
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON January 24, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
See addendum attached for various actions and votes of the Board on
the above matter.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS See attached addendum I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT
COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE
DATE SHOWN.
AYES: NOES:
ATTESTED January 24, 1995
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ,DEPUTY
VA:dg
solidwst.bo
Contact: Val AlexeeR(646-1620)
CC: County Administrator
County Counsel
Community Development
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Don Blubaugh, City Manager, Walnut Creek
Dezi Reno, General Manager, Valley Waste Mgmt.
Ken Ethrington, General Manager,BFI
Randall Morrison, Attorney for VWM
Tom Bruen, Attorney for BFI
Ken Alm, Attorney for CCCSWA
1 ,
1 1
j f
REPORT FROM GMEDA DIRECTOR ON OPTIONS FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE
JANUARY 24, 1995
PAGE 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
Impacts to the County General Fund cannot be established at this point; impacts are most likely
to be on solid waste programs. Reduction in revenues will cause a reduction in programs.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION 1 - OPTIONS
On December 20, 1994, the Board considered options regarding solid waste collection
franchising for certain unincorporated areas of the County located in Central County,
specifically the areas of Pacheco and Clyde, the Pleasant Hill B.A.R.T. Station, Saranap,
Alamo,.Blackhawk, and small geographic areas near Walnut Creek and Lafayette:
Q12tion 1
Direct staff to complete negotiations with Valley Waste Management to execute the attached
draft waste collection franchise agreement for the areas of Pleasant Hill B.A.R.T., Saranap,
Alamo, Blackhawk, and other small geographic areas near Walnut Creek and Lafayette; and,
Direct staff to include in the franchise agreement:
1. an effective date of either (a) July 1, 1995 upon expiration of the transitional permit or
(b) March 1, 1996 upon the expiration of the existing franchise between the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District and Valley Waste Management,
2. provision for a rate structure which maintains the existing reduced collection rate and an
additional 5% to 10% reduction in collection costs,
3. provision for a rate which maintains the existing 3% solid waste administration fee for
solid waste programs and franchise administration,
4. provision that the-rates established for the unincorporated areas shall be the same as the
lowest rates charged to any jurisdiction served by Valley Waste Management within
Contra Costa County (most favored nation clause);
tion'2
Pursue membership the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority and participation in the
Authority's Request for Proposal (RFP) process currently underway for the unincorporated
areas of the County excluding Pacheco and Clyde, and end negotiations with Valley Waste
Management.
tion 3
Propose to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and the Central Contra Costa Solid
Waste Authority full membership of the County in the Authority with the County assuming
the current franchise with Valley Waste Management for the unincorporated areas of Pleasant
Hill B.A.R.T., Saranap, Alamo, Blackhawk and other unincorporated areas near Walnut
Creek and Lafayette, and fully participating in the current RFP process for these areas; and,
with the County assuming the franchise for Pacheco and Clyde and removing these areas
from the current RFP process and from the boundaries of the Authority.
REPORT FROM GMEDA DIRECTOR ON OPTIONS FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE
JANUARY 24, 1995
PAGE 3
Option 4
Direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposal and outline an RFP procedure for
the County to carry out, on its own, such a process for the unincorporated areas
of Pacheco and Clyde, Pleasant Hill B.A.R.T., Saranap, Alamo, Blackhawk,
and the unincorporated areas near Walnut Creek and Lafayette to effect new
waste collection franchises for these areas in 1996 upon the expiration of the
current franchises between the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and
BFI/Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal and Valley Waste Management.
After discussion, the Board directed GMEDA staff to review the Board's
direction and discussions and prepare appropriate wording for Option No. 5 for
the Board's consideration and approval. The Board's general intent for Option
5 was as follows:
Option 5
Request Central County JPA to consider issues identified by County as critical.
Should these concerns not be met, then Ad Hoc Committee to work with staff
to develop an RFP for the unincorporated area.
1. The County is acknowledged to have exclusive franchise authority for the
unincorporated portions of the area currently franchised by Central San.
2. County Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee and County staff be allowed to
review RFP and make reasonable modifications reflecting County's role
and participation.
3. The County would be full participant in Central County JPA with all
rights and privileges afforded to other members.
RECOMMENDATION 2 - FRANCHISE RECOMMENDATIONS
On November 1, 1994, the Board directed staff to prepare franchise proposals
for Board consideration. Staff prepared preliminary analysis. These items have
been taken to the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee and their recommendation is
attached as Attachment A.
RECOMMENDATION 3 - FEE COMPARISON
In September, 1994, staff prepared a comparison of fees among Alameda,
Solan, and Contra Costa counties. Those fees have been updated for this
report and provided as Attachment B. A recommendation has been made by
Supervisor Bishop to lower the County mitigation fees in order to become more
competitive.
REPORT FROM GMEDA DIRECTOR ON OPTIONS FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE
JANUARY 24, 1995
PAGE 4
RECOMMENDATION 4 - DELOITTE TOUCHE
In October, 1994, the Board raised an issue pertaining to the Keller Canyon
Landfill franchise. Staff contacted Deloitte Touche for a proposal which is
attached as Attachment C. This proposal calls for a presentation before the
Board with consultant cost of $5000.
OTHER REMARKS
In reviewing these matters, Supervisor Bishop requested that a comparison of
rates charged at transfer stations/landfills and an analysis of alternative fee
levels for Keller Canyon Landfill and the permanent transfer station be
provided. These are Attachments B1 and B2.
Lastly, in considering landfill and transfer station fees, the Board should take
into consideration the December 20, 1994 report from the County Administrator
which is Attachment D.
AD HOC SOLID WASTE MEETING
At the Ad hoc Solid Waste Committee meeting on January 19, 1995, the
following issues were raised before the Central County JPA Committee:
- Recognition of sole franchising authority of the County for the
unincorporated area.
- Equal membership status for the County to other members.
- Exclusion of the Clyde, Pacheco and North Concord areas from the RFP.
- Prvailing wage standards included in the RFP.
- Special services designation established within the agreement.
- Any Pleasant Hill BART unincorporated area diposal subsidy to remain
within County discretion.
- Direction of waste to specific locations to be under authority of the JPA.
- Each jurisdiction can balance commercial and residential rates.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM 2 . 3 ON THE JANUARY 24 , 1995 AGENDA
The Board reviewed and discussed the report from GMEDA
Director on options for solid waste collection franchises .
On recommendation of Supervisor Smith, seconded by
Supervisor Rogers, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Recommendation
No. 4 authorizing staff to proceed with securing a presentation
from Deloitte & Touche, at a cost of not more than $5, 000, is
APPROVED. Supervisor Bishop voted no.
Supervisor Smith noted corrections on Appendix B entitled
"Table of County Solid Waste Circumstances for Unincorporated
Areas, " suggesting that Oakley, Bethel Island, Byron and
Knightsen are included in Ironhouse and should not be shown in
West County, that Kensington should be listed separately, as
should Rodeo Sanitary District who currently franchises with BFI .
Following further discussion; Supervisor Bishop moved that
the County become a full participant in the Central County JPA
with all the rights and privileges afforded to other members .
Supervisor Smith suggested discussing some of the items not
resolved by the Ad Hoc Committee and noted that the way that the
RFP is currently structured, it essentially puts the Orinda
Moraga Disposal Services out of business; the way the RFP is
written, there will be one hauler for the entire area and the
Orinda Moraga Disposal Services is too small and can' t compete to
provide the same amount of services in the expanded area of
Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill BART, Lafayette, Saranap, Alamo and
Danville.
Following further discussion, Supervisor Smith moved that
the Board agree :
• To exclude Clyde, Pacheco, North Concord and Pleasant
Hill BART.
• That there' s been recognition of the sole franchising
authority.
• That there' s been an offer of equal membership status .
• It acknowledges that there' s been recognition that each
jurisdiction can balance its commercial and residential
rates as it sees fit.
• To ask that the special services designation areas be
incorporated into the agreement along with the
prevailing wage agreements,
and, with those conditions, join the JPA.
Supervisor Bishop seconded the motion if Supervisor Smith
would clarify that it says prevailing wage except as it applies
to the recycling component.
Supervisor Smith did not agree and declared he would leave
the motion as made.
Supervisor Rogers asked for clarification on what the motion
does with the issues of direction of the waste to specific
locations .
Supervisor Bishop advised that the Board does not have the
authority to direct the waste stream, that it becomes a component
of the competitive bidding process.
1
Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion.
Following further discussion, the vote on the motion was,
unanimous .
Supervisor Bishop suggested that all the fees, such as the
LEA fee and the Eastin fee, come out of the franchise fee at
Keller, and proposed that the $1 . 34 Eastin fee, the $1 . 50 host
community mitigation fee which is precisely that, to be used in
the host community, and a $5 franchise fee, for a total franchise
fee of $7 . 84, with $2 . 12 Household Hazardous Waste on top of
that, which represents a substantial reduction of about $5.
Supervisor Bishop suggested that said reductions will have the
effect of making Keller Landfill once more utilized. She
advised that she felt. the Board was in need of having more input
from the Keller Canyon Advisory Committee on how the mitigation
funds are to be spent.
Supervisor Bishop advised that she had wanted the staff to
come back to the Board with a specific proposal that does set out
the $1 . 50, the $5, and what impact that could have on the
programs that are listed on the last sheet of this order, noting
that the RFP for the Central County JPA is being responded to on
February 6th and she felt it would be to the County' s advantage
to discuss the possibility of utilizing Keller rather than
Altamont . She reiterated her desire for a specific proposal, in
chart form.
Supervisor Smith announced that with regard to the action on
the JPA, he wished to clarify one thing relating to the
prevailing wage requirements in the JPA. He noted that the
garbage haulers have a different prevailing wage than the
recyclers and that the language that is currently suggested by
the JPA is appropriate language and he was mistaken in his
understanding of that language . and how it compared with the
Valley Waste proposal, so he wished to make a motion to clarify
that particular part of the previous action.
Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously.
Supervisor Smith requested that the Board move forward and
consider franchise recommendations proposed in the Ad Hoc
Committee with other unincorporated areas as provided in the
attachments, commenting that it was on the agenda and appropriate
for consideration, noting that the rate payers should be given
the chance to get lower rates .
Supervisor Torlakson advised that he would second that if it
were a motion to proceed.
Supervisor DeSaulnier requested that Pacheco area be
included.
Val Alexeeff, Director of the Growth Management and Economic
Development Agency, advised that he had sent Board members a memo
as requested at the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee, that identified
the issues for the Garaventa franchise agreements .
Supervisor Smith advised that the franchises in place for
Discovery Bay and Bay Point need to be modified to allow them to
reduce the rates that will be realized because of rate changes
the Board made with regard to the BFI Franchise and rate changes
that were made by Garaventa with regard to those franchises, that
if the Board doesn' t act, the rates can' t be reduced.
Supervisor Smith moved that staff be given direction to
modify the current franchises in the Discovery Bay and Bay Point
area with Garaventa and BFI in order to allow the rate changes
that were proposed.
2
Supervisor Smith further moved to place the areas which are
currently served under permit into an overall BFI franchise
agreement; and to move to franchise directly with Clyde, Pacheco
and North Concord.
Supervisor Smith stated that he thought that the Board
should decide about Ironhorse, Kensington and Rodeo in a separate
motion, and moved the above should be considered with the
specific details set forth in the memo Val referenced, with
specific language changes necessary to clean up loose ends and
allow the rate changes and reductions and decisions about how to
define the territories .
Supervisor Rogers asked for clarification on whether these
matters had gone to the local municipal advisory councils in the
affected areas, and if the motion was limited to the matter of
passing through the rate decrease, or does it also include making
other decisions about which hauler is going to serve which area.
Supervisor Torlakson noted that he was saying as part of the
motion that the Board should move forward with implementing, but
go and inform the Municipal Advisory Councils of what is going on
and touch base with them, but not delay the rate decrease.
Supervisor Smith clarified that it includes making changes
to the current franchises the Board controls, and making
decisions about what will happen in the unincorporated areas that
the Board has responsibility for and does not currently have
franchises in.
Supervisor Bishop noted that the memo Val Alexeeff had
provided is about the Garaventa Enterprises and their franchise
agreement, and asked for clarification if that is what is being
brought up at this time.
Supervisor Smith concurred.
Supervisor Bishop noted that she had a request to speak card
from Mark Armstrong.
Mark Armstrong appeared on behalf of the Garaventa
Companies, and commented that the issues regarding franchising in
the Bay Point area have been the subject of discussion with the
County since April, and it is their desire to have uncertainties
with respect to the Bay Point franchise areas resolved. Mr.
Armstrong noted that in October, Garaventa sent a letter
indicating it would like to reduce the rates, and asked for a
rate reduction, and asked for direction from the Board to staff
to prepare to negotiate with Garaventa to complete a franchise
agreement that would cover all of the unincorporated areas to be
serviced by the Garaventa Companies handled under one franchise
agreement with one rate structure.
Supervisor Bishop announced she would be abstaining from the
motion because she had not had an opportunity to read the memo
from Louise Aiello to Val Alexeeff entitled Franchise Agreement-
Garaventa Enterprises, and dated January 20, 1995 .
Supervisor Rogers advised he was not quite clear on the
motion, and inquired if staff recommended the options that were
described in the motion.
Val Alexeeff advised that staff has been taking direction
from the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee and has not prepared its
own independent proposals, and that the memo responds to the
Committee' s request to come up with some clarification of issues
pertaining to the Garaventa franchise.
3
As Chair, Supervisor Bishop expressed concern that the
proposal was not listed on the Board' s agenda as a possible
action item, and that she had not had an opportunity to review
the memo . Chair Bishop called for a vote on the motion. The
vote on the motion was four ayes and Supervisor Bishop voting no.
Val Alexeeff clarified that staff will come back with the
full franchise agreement and include those items discussed today.
Supervisor Smith moved to proceed to take over the
franchising of the area of the Rodeo Sanitary District .
Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion.
Chair Bishop objected to taking action on items that she
believed were not properly noticed.
Supervisor Rogers requested County Counsel to comment on
whether the documents before the Board properly identified the
issues, and if he believes that those items are fairly flagged in
the documents before the Board.
County Counsel suggested that the matter be put over for a
week and calendar the particular items since there are other
parties who are interested in them, and the Board' s posted agenda
says receive report from the Solid Waste Sub-committee concerning
the issues of the Joint Powers Agreement franchising of garbage
in the unincorporated area.
Supervisor Torlakson advised that he would like to have at
least two weeks in the case of Ironhouse Sanitary. '
Supervisor Roger inquired, with respect to the motion just
passed, if those items were properly noticed in his opinion.
County Counsel suggested that the Board have it back again
next week for ratification and confirmation of what the Board
intends, and that certainly staff has the flavor of the
discussion today as to how to be prepared to address these
matters next week.
Supervisor Smith requested that there be appropriate notice
in the agenda and appropriate signatures -and everything so that
when it is agendized next week, the Board does not run into the
same problem. He requested that agenda include taking final
action on modification of the current franchises that the County
has in the Discovery Bay and Bay Point areas, giving staff
direction with respect to the unincorporated areas that are
currently franchised through sanitary districts, which are
Pacheco, Clyde, Concord, and Rodeo, leaving out Ironhouse and
Kensington because the Supervisors from those areas want two
weeks .
Supervisor Smith further advised of the need to make
decisions about the permit areas which are Alhambra Valley,
Franklin Canyon, Port Costa, East Concord and Antioch East, and
requested some suggestions from staff.
Chair Bishop asked if the intention was to withdraw the
prior motion.
Supervisor Smith moved to withdraw the prior motion and to
place on next week' s agenda all of the items mentioned above .
The motion was seconded by Supervisor Rogers and passed
unanimously.
4
ATTACHMENT A'
CON'T'RA COSTA COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: January 19, 1995
TO: Members-Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee
FROM: Val Alexeeff, Director
SUBJECT: Franchise Issues
The Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee will be discussing a variety of franchising
issues. Staff has attached a potential program for resolving the issues and will
provide an update based upon actions of the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee.
VAAg
adhoc Rtl
ATTACHMENT A CONTINUED
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: Val Alexeeff, GMEDA Director
FROM: Louise Aiello, County Solid Waste Programs Mgr.
RE: Proposed Work Program for Consideration by Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee
---------------------------------------------------------------------Because a
large number of solid waste issues are pending and involve various communities haulers, special
districts, it seems appropriate to establish a regular meeting schedule for the Ad Hoc Solid Waste
Committee to consider these matters in the most expeditious manner possible. Without policy
direction from the Board on these matters staff cannot complete any franchise negotiations, prepare
rate setting policies/models for consideration by the Board, or prepare any RFP(s) the Board may
wish to pursue for waste collection and/or transfer and disposal. Following is a listing of the solid
waste policy issues which must be resolved by the Board of Supervisor and a proposed schedule
showing when these matters would be considered by the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee. The Ad
Hoc Solid Waste Committee would then transmit recommendations/analyses to the full Board for
action on each of these matters.
Policy Issue Initial Date Scheduled Ad Hoc Comm Review
for Ad Hoc S. W. Comm. Completed On
1. Does the Board of Supervisors 1-19-95 2-2-95
want to include unfranchised
unincorporated territories in
the Central JPA's RFP?
2. Does the Board want to include 1-19-95 2-16-95
unfranchised unincorporated
territories under existing franchises
as additional service areas?
3. Does the Board want the 1-19-95 2-16-95
unfranchised unincorporated areas
put out for a County only
RFP or RFQ as separate areas or as
one combined service area?
a. Does the Board want such an 2-16-95 3-1-95
RFP to be for only waste collection,
for waste and recyclable collection,
for only residential or for
residential and commercial properties?
The unfranchised unincorporated territories which these policy questions must address are:
+Alhambra Valley (Dist. II) served by BFI
+Franklin Canyon (Distr. II)served by BFI
+Morgan Territory (Dist. IV) served by BFI
+Unincorporated Areas around southeast Concord (Distr. IV) served by BFI
+Unincorporated Areas around Antioch (DIst.V) served by BFI
+Unincorporated Port Costs (Distr. II) served by Wally, an Independent Hauler
4. Does the Board want the 2-2-95 2-2-95
unincorporated areas of California
Skyline and the "neutral" area in
Bay Point included in an RFP?
included in the BFI existing franchise?
included in the existing Garaventa franchise?
5. Does the Board want any direction 1-19-95 2-2-95
given to Central San regarding the 6
commercial (or industrial) properties now
served by Garaventa in unincorporated
North Concord but within the Central San
franchise area in which BFI has an
exclusive franchise?
6. Does the Board want to negotiate MOU's with
Rodeo Sanitary District (served by BFI); 3-2-95 4-13-95
Mt. View Sanitary District (served by BFI) 3-2-95 "
Kensington Comm. Serv. District (served
by Bay Disposal) 3-30-95 "
Ironhouse Sanitary District (served by Garaventa) 3-30-95 "
Each district's current franchise must be reviewed and policies presented to the
Ad Hoc Committee for contents of the MOU's to assure consistency with County
goals to divert 25% and 50% of the wastestream and to provide similar services for
residents throughout the unincorporated areas.
7. Does the Board want to consider an RFP 1-19-95 2-2-95
for transfer and disposal? Does the Board
want to include transfer and disposal in any
County only RFP similar to the RFP prepared by
the CCCSWA?
8. Does the Board wish to consider accepting 2-2-95 2-16-95
the proposal from Garaventa Enterprises to lower
collection rates in Bay Point and Discovery Bay
thereby committing the wastestreams in these
areas to either the West County Landfill and/
or Potrero Hills Landfill?
Staff will prepare analyses on these matters for consideration by the Ad Hoc Committee. At this
point, while a number of items are listed for consideration on January 19th, some additional
background information may be wanted by the Ad Hoc Committee which could push back the dates
shown on the above schedule.
la/schcomm.mem
Table of County Solid Waste Circumstances for Unincorporated Areas
Current Franchise Permits Sanitary District
Location Hauler
Discovery Bay (GAR) Alhambra Valley (BFI) Crockett Done
Bay Point (GAR) Franklin Canyon (BFI) Pacheco BFI
(BFI) Port Costa (Wally) Clyde BFI
(Free) South East Concord (BFI) North Concord (GAR)
(Disp)
(Skyline) Antioch East (BFI) Iron House (GAR)
West County (IRRF) Oakley, Bethel Island,
Byron, Knightsen,
Kensington (Bay Disp)
Rl Al:adhoc.an
1-19-95
ATTACHMENT B1
M oo 14to � o °0
W-
6 c C ai o ui
</► N N iA N N N f? {A d! N
cn
cn
m
E y Li G:
urf 01 UU FMLL mD
c
cO n, c O d
m g
O m O «- w
•:_. 41 E U
V
rn a
Q O H v
< J:s: CD LL O d m c
�. *' r7 L r >
IO m
o eO (No N cn CD U O FO- w
N
_N r O) a
N HG H LL
LU
W o
U. 1O0 Ln Ln CSO m
Qci O O •- O u) to N O a) n '
(/� •- CC C c0q* � � CO c
O N N tl► N N t? t? N to N fA sA N N « «
a >
m N c C
D LL E 'D E
cm y � �
W `> _ CZ co
IL 7 c 9 c
to T v° ` f
Z <z' 3 in ami p `m m o` o
Q # E H cc •«, N
m = 3 � 3
o o s a� CO
z..9Z
} ;># cm U gLL 0 ` c m c
C 7 d u" o 0 0 0
Q O V C m O _ O C m ° m
d >< > d O co a v O y a .�
Vcn LT
«< 41 4O e7 t`o c x a a aU. a
i Q;: ICO fl Q O Q) a « «
G �"' cC0 tCO Q J CL to m a•2 >
C > C d - m •p
cc
O O O C1 d C C Cm H
•' r 7 C N +-
4)
> o °
(n O G1 r per, O 7 O 5 a G a
r � y U U a
U m �- � E5E
G N O O U m
Q y O
a G a
a LL O U.
r O LL
O
U �
oLn 0 Loet
pM 00 O ^ d•
N
O
t7
. �
? L< t cli N C
of N O
N
i� .. 9 r
w!? C o N
G W m w v
An O e0 0) H t9 ` 1
`s
4.LL ` C md p co
:' N c r m m LM cc
cc e- wm C y cQ j�
JI-
L d C Ln = 10 m u) LL C
H IO N Lr = C
C CC M O .O fA O o�
d t0+ a0+ n CA Id f~0 r j < W
m t!1 U Q LUJ i N d U J Q N � n
a`� O Ca J J v
CL — V — `►' Li '�- w
V! y
� l0 C1 ICO � d c
H J LL J H U.
1993 tom $3.85 $4.40 $2.00 $1.00
lot qtr. 121276 $466,912.60 $533,614.40 $242,552.00 $121,276.00
2nd qtr. 109535 $421,710.00 $481,954.00 $219,070.00 $109,535.00
3rd qtr. 77394 $297,967.00 $340,534.00 $154,788.00 $77,394.00
4th qtr. 49980 $192,423.00 $219,912.00 $99,960.00 $49,980.00
total 3581851 $1,379,016.45 $1,576,018.80 $716,372.00 $358,186.00
$600,000.00
$500,000.01
$400,000.00
$300,000.00
$200,000.00
$100,000.00
$0.00
$3.85 $4.40 $2.00 $1.00
Quarterly Fees
Z
ij.
ATTACHMENT C
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DA'L'E: January 18, 1995
TO: Members-Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee
FROM: Val Alexeeff, Director
SUBJECT: Deloitte Touche
We are presenting you with the response of Deloitte Touche as reque3ted last
year. Deloitte Touche is very concerned that their work is subject to innuendo
that inadequate public safeguard occurred in the analysis.
Deloitte Touche comments on the Keller rate and offers to make a
presentation to the Board of Supervisors related to rate setting, market
conditions, additional audits, and related information. They propose to provide
this work for a fee of $5000 to cover activities listed. Staff will be happy to
receive direction to proceed with the study.
VA:dg
dcloittc.tl
. ..... __....... . ..... _..._... .
ATTACHMENT C CONTINUED
Deloifte &
Touche LLP Management Consulting
/\ 50 Fremont Street Telephone:(415)247-4000
San Francisco,California 94105-2230 Facsimile:(415)247-4717
November 30, 1994
RECEIVED
Mr. Phil Bachelor CONTRA COSTA CouNTY
County Administrator
Contra Costa County DEC 1 2 1994
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND
Martinez, CA 94553-0095 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Dear Phil:
We appreciate the opportunity to serve the County in clarifying the basis for setting rates at
Keller Canyon. We share your concern regarding the innuendo that the rates at Keller
provided an excess profit to the owner,Browning Ferris.Industries (BFI). We are
prepared to assist the County in supporting the basis for the rates and/or establishing a
basis which would allow BFI to set rates consistent with the competitive market. This
letter provides some background on the Keller Canyon rate setting as well as our
recommended next steps to mitigate the concerns of the Board of Supervisors and
interested rate payers.
Background on Keller Canyon Rate
The purpose and legal requirements of regulatory rate setting is to set as low a rate for rate
payers as is fair to the company. Fair is defined as providing an adequate return for the
riskiness of the company's business,based on the prevailing and expected business
conditions at the time of the rate setting. The setting of the interim rate at Keller Canyon
Landfill derived a fair rate to rate payers and service providers combined.
Some parties have claimed that the$38.48 rate is too high because it is higher than the rate
currently charged by other landfills. We believe,however,that this reasoning is flawed.
The Keller Canyon landfill's purchase,development and construction costs ($63 million)
were far higher than any of the purportedly"comparable"landfills because it is newer, and,
as per the County and environmental groups' concerns,exceeds state and federal
requirements. Setting Keller's rates based on older,less environmentally sensitive landfills
is an apples-and-oranges comparison. Such a comparison also ignores the competitiveness
of the Contra Costa County waste market. Many landfills enjoy a virtual monopoly on the
waste generated in their region. In contrast, few of the municipalities within the County
had agreed to commit waste to KCLC at the time of the rate setting. This significantly
increased the riskiness of KCLC's business, and hence the fair profit levels and rates.
Another question that has been asked is whether the rate setting process set too high a rate
in light of the Acme Hill Corporation's offer last fall to lower their combined transfer
station and disposal costs from$75.97 to$59.00 per ton. This included a$4.00 reduction
in the Keller base rate(the rate the company receives)from the regulated$38.48 to a rate of
$34.48. While we do not know exactly what KCLC's motivations were in making this
offer, we can hypothesize several possible explanations.
Delo'riteTouche
Tohmatsu
International
.. r
.... ............................,,.._ ........ ...................;... .... _.
Mr. Phil Bachelor November 30, 1994 Page 2
First, it is important to note that KCLC's offer was contingent on the County lowering the
portion of the Keller Canyon gate rate it receives by$6.00, a reduction which is much
larger than KCLC's reduction. When combined with the drop in this base rate, this leads
to a significant drop in rates at Keller(from$49.08 to$39.08) which would most likely
increase volumes,perhaps, despite the drop in unit price,raising KCLC's revenues
overall. This could improve overall returns, given the extremely high fixed cost component
of operations (amortization of$60 million investment). We doubt whether KCLC would
be willing to lower their rate if the County did not also lower its rate. In contrast, the
regulated base rate of$38.48 was set assuming the$10.60 in County fees, and the
consequently lower volumes.
Fortunately for the County's rate payers, but unfortunately for KCLC, the market has
become more competitive; indeed,numerous other landfills,some from as far away as
Utah, are bidding to accept cities' wastes. This is a significant change from conditions at
the time of the rate setting. Moreover, we understand that KCLC's actual volumes have
averaged less than half the volumes projected. For example,its tonnages in 1993 were
reported to us to be 371,529 tons, or 35% less than had been projected when rates were
set. In other words, the perception of volume risk turns out to be quite warranted.
Given the less-than-expected volumes, KCLC would most likely not be able to earn a fair
return under the regulated$38.48 base rate. KCLC is thus faced with a choice: it can either
continue to charge the regulated rate,fail to attract adequate volumes, and generate small
revenues; or it can lower its rate, attract larger volumes, and hope to boost its overall
revenues. It appears that KCLC would prefer the latter. We would expect that, regardless,
KCLC is having difficulty earning the projected return.
Recommended Next Step
We are prepared to assist in any way possible. An appropriate first step may be to prepare
a presentation for the Board of Supervisors which provides a high level summary of how
the rates were set and how current market conditions are making it difficult to attract
projected volumes. At this'time, we could provide the County with a complete set of all
our Keller Canyon Landfill rate setting files to be made available to interested parties for the
cost of reproduction. Following this presentation, and at your discretion, we can meet with
any third party to answer questions.
We are confident we can support the basis for the rates given the underlying facts.
However, as you are aware, although we confirmed the reasonableness of costs and
performed a limited review of KCLC's documentation, we did not audit the underlying
information. The rate setting process anticipated such an audit after all costs were in and
prior to finalizing the rate.
Therefore, a second step would be to perform such an audit of the books and records of
KCLC. This step may not be required if KCLC would voluntarily provide audited .
information to review. In order to move this process forward, we suggest first presenting
the facts to the current Board of Supervisors. We have estimated approximately 30 hours
will be required to prepare and present this information to the Board.
Gary Brayton,Principal,will have overall responsibility for directing our efforts and
presenting to the Board. Bill Tara, Senior Consultant,will assist Mr. Brayton. Bill has
r,
y
Y
Aw
............ . ... ... .. -..
Mr. Phil Bachelor November 30, 1994 Page 3
significant landfill rate regulation,experienceand is very knowledgeable regarding KCLC
rates. We are prepared to review our proposed presentation for the Board within two
weeks of your notice to proceed. Our fees for this work will be$5,000,including the cost
of report production and travel. Subsequent assistance will be provided on a time and
materials basis as your needs dictate.
We look forward to serving the County in resolving these issues. Please feel free to call
Gary Brayton at 415/247-4039 to answer questions or discuss next steps.
Sincerely,
Deloitte&Touche LLP
cc: County Counsel
Victor J. Westman
94
' 1
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Cont ra
FROM: Phil Batchelor 3; _ ;S ;Costa
County Administrator
. '. County
DATE: December 20, 1994 °Srq dry J
SUBJECT: Two Year KellerCanyon/Acme Landfill Revenue Forecastand Program Appropriations
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. ACCEPT the report)of estimated Keller Canyon revenue and program appropriations for fiscal
years 1994-95 and 1995-96. (See attached spreadsheet)
2. Tentatively APPROVE the two year financial plan, which reflects a reduced waste stream,
rates, revenues and the implementation of new franchise fees at Acme Transfer Station
3. DIRECT staff to explore alternatives for reducing the $292,200 shortfall as a result of this
plan.
BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S):
Over the past several months, the Board of Supervisors has worked to reconsider Keller Canyon
mitigation fees and appropriate Keller mitigation fees to specific projects. Staff has incorporated
the work of the Finance Committee, the Transportation Committee, the Internal Operations
Committee and the EBRPD Liaison Committee into a proposed budget and expenditure plan for FY
94-95. (See attached spreadsheet) Staff is also providing a preliminary reconciliation of accounts
and a projection of the amount of funds that will be generated for FY 94-95 and FY 95-96 in new
fees, to enable departments and project proponents to make projections for future budgets. We
have, therefore, prepared a budget forecast based on anticipated revenues, including estimated
revenues from the Acme Transfer station as a result of new franchise fees. Staff is not asking the
board to adopt the FY 95-96 budget at this time; however, it is important to consider areas of
shortfall in future planning.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: Za��c �,�
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_APPROVE _OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
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
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact Tony Enea,646.4094
ATTESTED M
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: GMEDA
Steve Goetz-Community Development
Van Mager-CAO
BY DEPUTY
0 0 0 000000000 � -� -� -� � 1 00000 cp (i) cpcn
13 10 L a "D "a 'o 'a d d 01 C1 p d O O O O O 1 1 C
m cn m m m m cn m m > > > > > > 3 3 3 3 3 0 n 0 n
3 3 3 3 3 SSSS n 'o
D cp cp cp cn cp N cp cp N3
0 0 0 0 c c c c c 0 0
"ac c c c c tG tD tG fGi fn tG
S N 07 d 01 d n1 61 d .� Z .Z .Z
16 c OM v °: °3 P? °: °: e cn cn cn cn c d
EA co c� cn �D �O c� �D �n o 0 0 o c o• Z 3
T N y > > > > 7 7
vNi cin
O
r m 0 0 0 > m 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 (n C) 0 0 (n C) D_ W � O
c n to 0 0 0 3 W MCC 0 0 0 0 0 ? ( 0 0 ? m y
3 3 3 3 0 � � c 3 3 3 o m. M 3 = � m o $.
o co
o d c c c c 0 v c c c d c qo d
o H > > > > o
o ? > > D D 3 D °� c� con
o ° a m a 3 Z — v
(�(��. o ov �• 37�7� (��
fn cD cD t9 N fD cn fD p p N M p N N 3
7 0 „ $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M O fD
o n 3 a 10 "D v "0 v 13 a s a o
0 9: °, c3n m can can M m can can
d W
c N O UG
O cn
,: x
° O vDv � O -+ � � cn m m m m m � 2C7m � G7cn (7m
c co o o 0 � 0 0 0 ? o -c = o m 3 0 cn cn m cn
M D � �O Oda c� _ c MN Oam d m o d 0CA M �icn .o Oo 0
o 3 N G D m g m cn cn o v D H m CL CL cn i� vai D n m cao o D d a o 2
o r -• o a m -0A r � as o: r '' o o r — < 9'
S f m ^o, < w o► > �, o o cn cn m 3 c n n 0 cn
N y s O `� D n co 3 � n► cn r = o r 3 M M o < 0
d+ r 0 : 3 cn a H coo d 3 '� �o
M a � � C) 2L (� 'Zgcn � c 3 3 -9o
1 3 0 c a Mcn
w, 0 a p 0 7 M ; 61
CLN c 0 c c 0 3
° o p cc V o D
o�
a $ g con C
3 cn
<cr 021 o
m
'm A
3
�O o
C) a
3 N v+ 4A 4A en to to to 4A bn 4A EA 4A 6s 40 to to 44 to coo co
3 ' A O w ch ACO NJV
V
A 1p
NoDONNO0
1A
mrCg 'O O O 2.S8oO og3goo 000 $ g0go
CL o g0Nd
. •0
o
° IE $
D
o
a 3
D
0 N EA EA 69 d► fA 4A lA 4A 8 -0 lD
0 R a dltAv+ tAtAtr► � tAtA a 69bnv► tAtA A �q � v9 � fA M C) 6 to
A N O — co c0 O — A CO N -+ V A O c0 .. O -. �p
m V 0 0 0 Cn 0 o O g 0 0 C CO co N N O � � Cn � O � O O �j O U1 � CJ1 0 - 7
4
c' to N 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0
3 o 0 0 0 0 o g o g o o $ 0 0 0 0 0 $ o o o 0 o g c $ o o g 3 a. -
0 <
o
c
cc
Pr "LL N N N ? N MZ w
N O O O N 3 < = a
O O O O d 0 C �
o g o S o fDM
. Oo
� 2 �
0
Z
r to EA EA di fA di m 7
N N Ln 46 �. -+ CA
4 0 0 0 cDC) � w 3' < s
c 0 0 0 03 0 a, cco c`
M
yiy► m
N A A 1a M
Go
O O j to O
C O O pOp
O O O
O g o v+
O c
(D
4A 4A 4A 4A 40
N
Ab 0) co D N X yN M y_
O O O O A fD A to M 3
O O QO co M -� O Y'C 0
g o o G7 0 -- g (n a
a 4A m D
N CO � M �
N 00 O N O 3 0
O O N O
7
H► (A cn N
CD N O O O N 3
O O O1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: January 23, 1995
TO: Memb rs Boa of Supervisors
FROM: Val Al Director
SUBJECT: Franchise Agreement - Item 2.3 on Tomorrow's Agenda
Among the items raised by the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee was the issue
of the Garaventa franchise. Since our meeting Thursday, we have identified
franchise issues listed in the attached memo.
VA:ag
frandul
attachment
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
Date: 1/22195
Time: 15:13:22
Pages: 4
To: VAL ALEXEEFF, GMEDA DIRECTOR
Fax#: 646-1599
From: Louise Aiello
Address: P.O. Box 2442
Martinez, Ca 94553
Fax#: 370-1096
Voice #: 370-1096
Message:
TO: VAL ALEXEEFF, GMEDA DIRECTOR
FROM: LOUISE AIELLO
RE: FRANCHISE FOR GARAVENTA ENTERPRISES/POSSIBLE
CONSIDERATION FOR TUESDAY'S BOARD MEETING
FOLLOWING IS A MEMO COVERING ISSUES ON GARAVENTA FRANCHISE
WHICH MAY BE A PART OF BOARD CONSIDERATIONS ON JANUARY 24.
i
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DRPARTMENT
January 20, 1995
TO: Val AlexeeK GMEDA Director
FROM: Louise Aiello
SUBJECT: Franchise Agreement--Garaventa Enterprises
As you know a number of issues have been pending with Garaventa Enterprises in relation to their
waste collection franchise for Bay Point and their request to lower the collection rate paid by their
customers. At the request of Sil Garaventa,Jr., I met with him and Sil Garaventa,Sr. earlier today to
review with them their concerns and interests regarding territories they serve,the franchise,and their
interest in lowering the rate for customers. Since it seemed,in the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee
meeting on Thursday,that Supervisor Smith would like to expedite "oleaning-up"franchises for the
unincorporated areas,the items outlined below provide information for the Solid Waste items to be
considered on Tuesday,January 24th by the Board.
Language which appears in bold below identifies the matters on which Board action is required to
effect any changes and to direct staff on how to proceed in resolving matters.
Territory
Presently, a number of areas in Bay Point,.the area near Clyde,unincorporated North Concord,and
unincorporated areas around Antioch are served by Garaventa Enterprises and have been for some
years.
In Bay Point,three areas remain enfranchised: (1)California Skyline which is a new subdivision in
which Garaventa Enterprises provides over 90%of the homes collection service with Pleasant Hill
Bayshore Disposal/BFI providing service to only a few homes; (2)the"neutral area" un which
Garaventa Enterprises provides about 90%ofthe homes collection services and Pleasant Hill
Bayshore/BFI provides about 10%of the homes collection services;and(3)a fairly large and
relatively vacant area which is intended to be developed for industrial and light industrial uses as part
of the County Redevelopment efforts. Garaventa Enterprises would like to include California Skyline
and the"neutral area"within their franchise;they are willing to relinquish the intended Redevelopment
area to BFI.
Both California Skyline and the"neutral area"are contiguous with the existing area under franchise to
Garaventa Enterprises. If the Board of Supervisors intends to maintain.earlier Coiuity policy that
current service providers be allowed to maintain their existing service areas under franchise,it world
be.consistent to extend the current Garaventa Franchise to include California Skyline and
the"neutral area",and to extend BFI's franchise to include the proposed Redevelopment area.
Garaventa Franchise Issues,pg.2
In the incorporated North Concord area, Garaventa Enterprises-has been providing services to a
number of businesses. Recently,the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and BFI approached
Garaventa Enterprises advising them that this North Concord area was within Central San's service
area and under exclusive franchise. No prior claim with regard to this matter had ever been made.
Since Central San appeared to agree, in the Ad Hoc Committee meeting, to relinquish its franchise
-within its northern boundaries,if the Board's policy continues to be to.give current service
providers the same areas they are serving,Pacheco and Clyde should be included in the
existing Franchise with BFI, and North Concord should be included in the Garaventa
Franchise.
Lastly, two other areas need to be considered. One area lies between between Clyde,North Concord,
and the California Skyline and is presently undeveloped flatland and an undeveloped hill--this
area is bounded by Evora Rd on the South and the waterfront road on the North. Since this
area would be contiguous to areas currently served by Garaventa Enterprises,it may allow for greater
efficiency in providing service to include it,as requested by the Garaventas,within their franchise.
The other area is an unincorporated pocket outside the city boundaries of Antioch. This area is
presently served by Garaventa Enterprises and should be included in their franchise if the Board
intends to allow existing service providers to maintain their existing service areas.
If the Board wants to include all these areas in the current Garaventa franchise,it night make sense to
incorporate the Discovery Bay area(for which the County has a separate franchise with
Garaventa Enterprises)into the same franchise. This would place all unincorporated areas of the
County served by Garaventa Enterprises and franchised directly by the County into one franchise
thereby consolidating and,perhaps,reducing staff costs for monitoring and future costs for rate
reviews,customer service surveys,and so forth.
Franchise Language
As part of amending the existing franchise with Garaventa Enterprises to include any or all of the
above outlined territories, the County needs to assure that AB 939 diversion goals are met. The
Garaventas would agree to include both compliance with the County's Materials Diversion
Ordinance and indemnification for any failure to meet AB 939 diversion based upon the
language used in the Franchise Agreement with Richmond Sanitary Services which assures the
pass-through in the rates of program costs.
Additionally,to allow for the rate reduction proposed by Garaventa Enterprises,the franchise should
be amended to include the language approved by the Board on November 1,1994 providing
for alternative proposals from the hauler for transfer and disposal of waste at the lowest cost.
Garaveenta Franchise,pg.3
Terris of the Franchise
Presently,the Garaventa Franchise for Bay Point is for 10 years with a 5 year extension;under this
term,the current franchise expires in 2000 with the 5 year extension brining the expiration to 2005.
Garaventa Enterprises would like a franchise covering all the unincorporated areas they serve that is
consistent with the franchise they have with Ironliouse Sanitary District,which is for 20 years and
expires in 2013. Given that the County would be obtaining AB 939 compliance and indemnification,
and consistency with the Ironhouse franchise term would allow the County either(1)to more readily
assume the Ironhouse franchise or(2)to more effectivyly coordinate programs with Ironhouse,
extending the current term of the franchise with the County seems reasonable..
If the County extends the current franchise term for an additional 10 years bringing the
expiration to 2005 and maintains the 5 year extension option,then the franchise between the
County and Garaventa Enterprises would expire in 2015 which is only two years beyond the
expiration of the Ironhouse franchise.
Rates
Garaventa Enterprises has proposed to the Board an immediate rate reduction of$2.00 and an
unspecified amount for an additional rate reduction at the time their Transfer Station opens. This
proposal would be allowed under the language for alternative proposals approved by the Board on
November 1, 1994. Board action to accept and approve this rate reduction is necessary before
any lowering of the rates can be effected.
The above information covers matters which may be raised as part of the Board's review of solid
waste matters on Tuesday. If the Board does not direct any actions regarding the above items on
Tuesday, January 24th,these matters should be scheduled for consideration by the Ad Hoc Solid
Waste Committee as soon as possibe. I plan to be working in Community Development on Tuesday
and will be available if you need additional information.
hal/xp6 a/b:garvnta.mem
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
January 23, 1995
Page 2
franchised by the CCCSWA. As President of the CCCSWA, I would not expect any
objection to this proposal provided that the CCCSD Board concurred. It is my
understanding that CCCSD will bring this matter before its Board at the earliest
opportunity. CCCSWA will respond promptly to any changes in area to be served
which are mutually acceptable to the County and CCCSD.
The CCCSWA Board is scheduled to act on the County's request to join the CCCSWA at
its meeting to be held on January 26, 1995.
The Board of Directors of the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority welcomes you as a full
partner in the CCCSWA and urges you to take action to join the CCCSWA at your meeting
on January 24.
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
en�eW o I f e "Ch a
Board of Directors
cc: Board of Directors, CCCSWA
Board of Directors, CCCSD
Roger Dolan, CCCSD
Paul Morsen, CCCSD
Don Blubaugh, City of Walnut Creek
Janet Schneider, City of Walnut Creek
Fred Davis, CCCSWA
Kent Alm, Legal Counsel
Bob Hilton, HF&H
Val Alexeff, CCC
Louise Aiello, CCC
ADS/Morsen3A/BoS-Pach.ltr
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
January 6, 1995 .
Page 3
establishment of support facilities to manage and service the operations. By joining the
CCCSWA prior to February 6, 1995, the County will be able to participate fully in finalizing
any RFP conditions and in developing the provisions of the solid waste service agreements.
Perhaps it bears repeating that the goal of the District with regard to solid waste is to ensure the
highest levels of service commensurate with successful compliance with AB 939 at the lowest
possible cost to the constituents. The District has concluded that the history of public solid
waste management within this county and elsewhere demonstrates that "cost-plus profit" rate
regulation, even at its best, does not motivate private industry to cut costs, innovate, or provide
the required.services in the most efficient manner. We hope that the County's observations, as
well as its experience with rate setting in the Keller Canyon Landfill, has led you to similar
conclusions. It is therefore the goal of the District to ensure that all of its customers, including
the customers in the unincorporated areas, are provided with the benefits of the competitive RFP
process. This goal provides for a competitive market rate for the needed services on a regional
basis, thus maximizing operational efficiencies, while minimizing the cost of governmental
supervision through use of a regional joint powers agency.
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
Barbara D. Hockett, President
Board of Directors
cc: CCCSWA Board of Directors
Mayor S. Donley Ritchey, Town of Danville
Mayor Gayle B. Uilkema, City of Lafayette
Mayor A. G. Dessayer, Town of Moraga
Mayor Joyce Hawkins, City of Orinda
f:\DHS\KLA.DIR\0110683.WP
J.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
�b....
ROGER J.DOLM'
Genera/Manogcr
- CJtidEngint+rr
KEATON L ALN
Counsel/or the District
(510)938-j430
JOYCE E.MURAW
January 6, 1995 Secretary o/the District
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553-1229
Reference: Pursuit of County Joining the
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Honorable Board Members:
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) followed with great interest the action taken
by you on December 20, 1994 with regard to the County joining the Central Contra Costa Solid
Waste Authority (CCCSWA) in lieu of immediately entering into a long term solid waste
collection franchise for the unincorporated areas of Central County. The District commends the
Board for this action. The District appreciates that there has been a long history of struggle
within Contra Costa with regard to solid waste issues;.however, it appears ever more clear that
the interests of all the constituents of Central County'.-would be best served by cooperation by
all the interested local agencies to pursue high quality solid waste services at the lowest possible
cost. By working with the CCCSWA, two levels of efficiency are being achieved:
1) - Solid waste management is being achieved for five cities and the unincorporated
communities of Central County by one organization; and,
2) Through an open, public proposal process free market competition is being used
to get the best deal for the customers.
F:\DMS\KLA.DIR\011
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
JON.''B.CLAUSEN WILLIAM C.DALTON SUSAJ%'McVUU)'RAtA'E)' BARBARA D.HOCK= MARIOM.MENESIM
President
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
January 6, 1995
Page 2
Accordingly, the District looks favorably upon the County joining the CCCSWA, and looks
forward to cooperating with the County through that vehicle to best serve the interests of our
joint constituents.
We understand, that the action taken by the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 1994 was
to join the CCCSWA, provided that certain conditions could be satisfactorily met, to wit:
1) That CCCSD cede its authority (or not challenge the County's authority) to
franchise solid waste collection services within the unincorporated areas of the
Central County at the termination of the existing franchises in 1996; and
2) That CCCSWA provide a further opportunity for County staff to review the
CCCSWA RFP documents and make comments, if necessary; and
3) That the County be allowed to join the Joint Powers Authority as a full and equal
member under the same terms as applicable to existing members, including the
terms with regard to withdrawal.
CCCSD Board of Directors held a publicly noticed workshop on these issues on January 3,
1995, and has further considered the matter at its regularly scheduled Board meeting of
January 5, 1995. As a result of these meetings, the District can respond on its behalf, although
the Authority will not meet until January 13, 1995. It would appear the pivotal concern of the
County is the role the County would play on the Authority with regard to the unincorporated
areas within Central County. The District has always envisioned that if the County were to
become a member of the Authority, the County would be seated as a full member representing
the unincorporated areas within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Authority. Accordingly, the
District would agree to cede its authority, or agree not to challenge the County's interest in
franchising within the Central County's unincorporated area, provided that the County joins the
CCCSWA and participates in good faith in the RFP process concluding with the execution of
long term agreements providing for solid waste services within the jurisdictions represented by
the CCCSWA.
Lastly, CCCSD urges the County to join the Authority prior to February 6, 1995, the date on
which the RFP proposals will be opened. CCCSD believes that it will not be possible for the
CCCSWA to delay this proposal opening date because of the need to move forward with the
RFP process in time to allow for the collector to properly prepare for start up of operations in
the Spring of 1996. The new franchisee will need time for the acquisition of equipment and
F:%DMS\KLA.DIR%0110683.WP
r
•
e�etitl ,
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SOLID -WASTE AUTHORITY
4737 Imhoff Place, Suite 4 MARYLOU OLIVER,Chair
Martinez, California 94553 JOHN B.CLAUSEN,Vice Chair
GREGORY L.CARR,Director .
EVELYN MUNN,Director
Januar 23, 1995 SUSAN MCNULTYRAINEY,Director
January GENE WOLFE,Director
FRED DAVIS,Interim Executive Director
JOYCE E MURPHY,Secretary o1 the Authority
(510)229-4861
Fax:(510)229-5182
Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553-1229
Reference: Contra Costa County Joining the
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Honorable Board Members:
This letter is a follow-up to the letter addressed to your Board from the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District, dated January 6, 1995 (a copy is attached), and the meeting, on
January 19, 1995, of your Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee with representatives of the
Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA).
After a great deal of discussion concerning the County joining CCCSWA, the Board's Ad
Hoc Committee requested that certain matters be clarified in writing so that this
information would be available to your Board for its decision concerning joining the
CCCSWA, which CCCSWA understands will be discussed at your meeting to be held on
January 24, 1995.
1 . In the matter concerning the setting of rates,the Board of Supervisors will have the
ability of recommending to the CCCSWA the amount of commercial subsidy and
franchise fee that the County desires for the unincorporated area included in the
boundary of CCCSWA.
2. The CCCSWA will (with information provided by the hauler) designate "hard-to-
serve" areas.
3. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) has agreed to cede authority
to the County to represent the Pacheco-Clyde-North Concord area on the CCCSWA
Board which would be the franchising agency. The County has requested that
responsibility for this area be ceded to the County without the restriction that it be
Member agencies: �• Central Contra Costa Sanitary District • City of San Ramon • City of Walnut Creek
® Recycled Paper