HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12161997 - D6 TO: f BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . Contra
FR6'4: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP n.w Costa
INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
County
DATE: December 16, 1997
SUBJECT: CONSIDER RESPONSE FROM WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST FOR VOTING
MEMBERSHIP AND MAKE DETERMINATION REGARDING INTENT TO PURSUE
MEMBERSHIP.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Accept the staff report review of background; and
2 . Determine which action the Board of Supervisors will take:
a) Tentatively accept the principles approved by the West
Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority at
their Board of Directors meeting of November 13 , 1997
and proceed with seeking a voting membership on the Board
of Directors;
b) Determine how the financial contribution of $98,220 will
be funded; and
C) Direct staff to further review the documents that would
require modification and to report back to the Board
regarding any impacts or procedural changes that would
result from the proposed modifications.
OR
d) Determine that the Principles approved by the WCCIWMA
Board of Directors are not acceptable and direct staff to
inform the Executive Director that the County has chosen
to not pursue a voting membership on the Board of
Directors.
FISCAL IMPACT
There would be an up front cost of $98,220 to provide for equitable
cost sharing with the other member jurisdictions. There is no
approved budget for this expense. General funds may be needed to
provide for the cost of initiating the process.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
ACTION OF BOARD ON December 16,_1F97 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ER X
Please see Addendum (Attached) for a list of speakers and Board Action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT) -------------- AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: Mary Fleming (510-335-1230)
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED npcpmhpr 16- 1997
I4OFS
CL K OF THE
AISORS AND
OUTOBY PUTY
Chr
MF/mb
J:\groups\cdadpool\mary\consery\franch\wcciwma\bosl2-16.7bo
RE•3PONSCt;FROM CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY TO BOARD REQUEST FOR VOTING
MEMBERSHIP
Page,2
Additional costs would be paid through a surcharge on the Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal rates for the residents in the
unincorporated areas served by Richmond Sanitary Service. The
estimate of costs is $50, 000. The surcharge would add $. 30 per
month on the 32 gallon can rate and $.21 per cubic yard of bin
waste and $4.42 per ton for box service over a one year period. If
the costs are higher than estimated, the time period for collection
would be extended until the costs are paid.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On July 8, 1997 the Board of Supervisors determined that they were
interested in pursuing a voting membership for a Board of
Supervisor member on the Board of Directors of the West Contra
Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA) . At their
meeting in October the Authority Board directed their staff to
develop and submit recommendations regarding the principles for
full County membership in the Authority. The Board of Directors of
the WCCIWMA met on November 13 , 1997 and considered principles
submitted by staff. The resolution that was approved by the Board
is attached.
The Authority approved the submittal of the "Principles for Full
County Membership in the Authority" to the County for a response.
Upon receipt of a response from the County, the Authority will form
an Ad Hoc Committee to review the County response and to determine
what action the Authority should take next. If found to be
necessary, the response will be heard at a special Authority
meeting or, if that is not found to be necessary, the Ad Hoc
Committee could forward a request directly to each member City
requesting a determination by each City
There are several issues that the Board of Supervisors needs to
consider at this time. The first is the issue of cost sharing.
The Authority has compared the financial support provided by the
five City members to the amount that has been provided by the
County and the West County Wastewater District on behalf of the
County and has determined that the difference is $98, 220.
Principle number 3 requires payment of that amount to assure that
the County contributes in an amount equal to the Cities. If the
Board determines that the benefit of having a vote on the
Authority Board of Directors is adequate justification for
expending the required funds, a determination regarding the source
of funds should be made.
The Board could agree to pay the $98, 220
1) as a single payment as soon as membership is approved by the
Cities or
2) as soon as the documents are revised to allow for voting
membership or
3)the Board could request an alternative payment plan.
Since the City members paid their obligation over a 4 i year period
the County could propose that they have the same time period for
paying their share. If paid in a 4 year period the annual payment
would be $24 , 555. It is anticipated that the majority of West
County waste will go through the transfer station beginning in the
first half of 1999. There will be a $2 . 36 per ton Host Mitigation
Fee , z of which the County receives. It is projected that the
City waste will be approximately 113 , 100 tons in 1999. This would
result in fees of $133,458 originating from City waste. The timing
as well as the waste amounts are estimates. The County could
propose, to the Authority, that for the first four years of full
transfer station operation Host Mitigation Fees due to the County
could either be reduced by $24, 555 or refunded to the Authority.
If the $98, 220 cost is determined to be acceptable and a funding
source can be located, the next issue will be to determine that the
proposed surcharge as described in the following paragraph is an
acceptable means of paying for the cost of document review and
modification.
The Authority Board determined that the cost of amending documents
MF/mb
J:\groups\cdadpool\mary\consery\franch\wcciwma\bos12-16.7bo
RESPONSE, FROM CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY TO BOARD REQUEST FOR VOTING
MEMBERSHIP
Pagek3
and obtaining review and action by the Cities is a cost that should
be recovered by adding a surcharge to the cost of solid waste
service for Unincorporated County areas served by Richmond Sanitary
Service within the Authority boundaries. A cost of $50,000 could
be recovered by increasing the cost of a 32 gallon can by $. 30 per
month, increasing bin service by $. 21 per cubic yard and by
increasing box service by $4 .42 per ton for a one year period.
The final issue would be an examination of the implications of
modifying the documents as presented by the Authority. The attached
"Principles for Full County Membership in the Authority" identify
approved Documents that the County might want to request
modifications for since the County did not have a vote at the time
that they were approved by the Authority. The identified documents
include the following:
1) IRRF Service Agreement and IRRF financing
2) Regional AB939 Plan
In addition, the Authority requests that the County amend its
Franchise Agreement with Richmond Sanitary Service to bring it into
conformance with the City Franchise Agreements which were modified
in response to the IRRF financing.
Staff recommends that the Board make its determination regarding
the financial commitments and if there is still an interest in
pursuing the voting membership, that the Board refer the matter
back to staff and direct staff to complete the document review and
return with recommendations regarding desirable modifications to
the documents.
MF/mb
J:\groups\cdadpool\mary\consery\franch\wcciwma\bosl2-16.7bo
' b
t
D.6
ADDENDUM
Item D.6
December 16, 1997
The following persons addressed the Board relative to the issues:
Bill Kassel, El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council (MAC), 115
Renee Court, El Sobrante;
Milt Ketter, El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council (MAC), 4 Oak
Creek Road, El Sobrante; and
Reva Clark, El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council (MAC), El
Sobrante.
All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board members discussed the
issues and took the following action:
1. APPROVED Recommendation No. 1 accepting the staff report from the
Interim Community Development Director (Attached);
2. APPROVED Recommendation No. 2(b), and further DIRECTED that the
Interim Community Development Director review the report from the West
Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA) regarding
the issues relative to the County gaining a voting membership on the
WCCIWMA, including possible funding sources and the possibility of
negotiating a reduction in the proposed cost of membership; and DIRECTED
that the Interim Community Development Director report the findings to the
Board of Supervisors for decision; and
3. APPROVED Recommendation No. 2(c), directing staff to further review the
documents that would require modification and to report back to the Board of
Supervisors regarding any impacts or procedural changes that would result
from the proposed modifications.
cc: Community Development Department
t
I RESOLUTION NO. 97-17
2 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
3 WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
4 APPROVING PRINCIPLES FOR COUNTY VOTING MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
5 AND AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF A COUNTY AREA IRRF SURCHARGE
6 AND SPECIFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO SAID SURCHARGE
7 WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the West Contra Costa Integrated
8 Waste Management Authority ("Authority") in April 1991 provides that the Contra Costa County
9 Board of Supervisors may appoint a member of the Board of Supervisors to be an ex officio non-
10 voting member of the Authority Board of Directors;
11 WHEREAS, at the election of Contra Costa County("County"), the West Contra Costa
12 Integrated Waste Authority ("Authority") and County have entered into the "Contract Between
13 West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority and Contra Costa County" dated
14 May 25, 1993 as amended on December 1, 1995 ("Authority - County Contract");
15 WHEREAS, County by letter dated August 27, 1997, ("County Proposal') has requested
16 that the Authority Board of Directors consider the matter of the County becoming a voting
17 member of the Authority Board of Directors;
18 WHEREAS, amendment of the Joint Powers Agreement by the Authority Member
19 Agencies is necessary in order for the County to become a voting member of the Authority Board
20 of Directors;
21 WHEREAS, the Authority Board of Directors has considered the Authority Staff Report,
22 "Full County Membership in the Authority" dated November 3, 1997 and attached hereto as
23 Exhibit C;
y
WEST CONTRA COSTA
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION NO.97-17
1 WHEREAS, the Authority Board of Directors desires to establish principles under which
2 County would become a voting member of the Authority Board of Directors and to determine the
3 acceptability of said principles to the County prior to submitting the matter to the Authority
4 Member Agencies for approval in concept; and
5 WHEREAS, the next Regular Meeting of the Authority Board of Directors is on February
6 12, 1998, and the Authority Board of Directors desires to provide for timely response to actions
7 by the County Board of Supervisors.
8 NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste
9 Management Authority resolve as follows:
10 Section 1. The "Principles for Full County Membership in the Authority" set forth in
11 Exhibit A attached hereto are approved.
12 Section 2. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to
13 consider the Principles set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and to advise the Authority of the
14 acceptability of said Principles as the basis for further consideration of the County Proposal by
15 the Authority and its Member Agencies.
16 Section 3. The Executive Director shall transmit a copy of this Resolution to the
17 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and communicate the request of the Authority Board
18 of Directors set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution.
19 Section 4. The IRRF Operator and Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. are authorized to
20 collect a County Area IRRF Surcharge in the amounts specified in Exhibit B hereto subject to all
2
WEST CONTRA COSTA
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION NO.97-17
1 of the following conditions:
2 (a) The IRRF Operator shall convey all amounts collected as a result
3 of the County Area IRRF Surcharge to the Authority according to the time schedule for
4 transmittal of other amounts collected in IRRF Rates for conveyance to the Authority.
5 (b) The IRRF Operator and Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. shall
6 begin collection of the County Area IRRF Surcharge upon receipt of written notification from the
7 Authority and shall terminate collection of said Surcharge only upon receipt of written
8 notification from the Authority.
9 (c) It is the intent of the Authority Board by this Resolution to
10 authorize the Executive Director to provide written notification to the IRRF Operator and
11 Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. to begin collection of the County Area IRRF Surcharge after the
12 Authority's receipt of(1) notification of the approval of the County Board of Supervisors of said
13 Surcharge and (2) notification of approval in concept by the required number of Member
14 Agencies.necessary to amend the Joint Powers Agreement so that the County can become a
15 voting member of the Authority Board of Directors and that, insofar as possible, the start of
16 collection of the County Area IRRF Surcharge be co-ordinated with the start of other rate
17 adjustments for the County Area,provided that the Authority Board retains the right to start
18 collection of said Surcharge at any time after receipt of the notifications required by this
19 paragraph (c).
20 (d) It is the intent of the Authority Board by this Resolution to
3
WEST CONTRA COSTA
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION NO. 97-17
1 authorize the Executive Director to provide written notification to the IRRF Operator and
2 Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. to cease collection of the County Area IRRF Surdharge either
3 (1) upon the Authority Board's determination that all required approvals of affected documents
4 have been obtained and all costs incurred by the Authority and its Member Agencies, costs
5 associated with securing Union Bank consent, and costs incurred with securing the approval of
6 the California Integrated Waste Management Board have been paid and there are no remaining
7 unpaid costs arising from implementation of the County Area Proposal or(2) upon the Authority
8 Board's determination, made following receipt of written notification from County that it desires
9 to abandon efforts to implement the County Proposal, that all costs incurred by the Authority and
10 its Member Agencies, costs associated with securing Union Bank consent, and costs incurred
11 with securing the approval of the California Integrated Waste Management Board have been paid
12 and there are no remaining unpaid costs arising from implementation of the County Proposal.
13 (e) Any amount collected by the Authority, IRRF Operator or
14 Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. which is in excess of costs shall be returned to County Area
15 ratepayers by means of a reduction in IRRF Rates and IRRF Related Collection Rates beginning
16 the next January 1st, (i.e. the next ensuing IRRF Rate adjustment) following termination of
17 collection of the County Area IRRF Surcharge.
18 (f) The Executive Director shall periodically report to the Authority
19 Board the amounts collected via the County Area IRRF Surcharge and costs paid from funds
20 collected via said Surcharge.
4
WEST CONTRA COSTA
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION NO. 97-17
1 Section 5. Upon receipt of a response to this Resolution from the County Board of
2 Supervisors, the Executive Director shall arrange for a meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on
3 County Membership for the purposes of(a) the Committee's review of the response of the
4 County Board of Supervisors, and (b) the Committee's decision to either(1) call a Special
5 Meeting of the Board of Directors to further consider said response, or(2) schedule consideration
6 of the matter at the next Regular Meeting of the Authority Board of Directors, or(3) to determine
7 that said response is satisfactory and the matter is ready for submittal to the Member Agencies
8 for approval in concept.
9 Section 6. This Resolution shall be immediately effective upon adoption by the
10 Board of Directors.
11 Section 7. The Secretary shall certify passage of this Resolution and cause it to be
12 distributed to all Directors and Alternates, Authority Members, Contra Costa County, Authority
13 Officers, West County Resource Recovery, Inc., Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc., El Sobrante
14 Municipal Advisory Council and other interested parties.
15 ATTEST: CHAIR OF THE BOARD
16 175W
Bill Davis Executive Director Maria Ale 'gna Dateld `
5
WEST CONTRA COSTA
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION NO.97-17
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board of Directors of the West Contra Costa
Integrated Waste Management Authority at its meeting on November 13, 1997,by the following vote:
AYES: Directors: Alegria, Evans , Gomes , Jellison
NOES:
Directors: none
ABSENT: Directors: Corbin, Griffin, Paras
Bill Davis,Executive Director
A:109res9717
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A, Principles for Full County Membership in the Authority
2. Exhibit B, County Area IRRF Surcharge Rates
3. Exhibit C, Authority Staff Report, "Full County Membership in the Authority"
6
EXHIBIT A
TO RESOLUTION 97-17
PRINCIPLES FOR FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
1. The area represented by the County consists of the area
covered by the exclusive collection franchise agreement
between Contra Costa County and Richmond Sanitary Service,
Inc. dated October 12, 1993 . This is the area covered by the
Authority - County Contract (County Area) and waste from
this area is required to be delivered to the IRRF.
2. The County would occupy one (1) seat as a voting member of
the Authority Board of Directors. This is the County
Proposal.
3. A financial contribution by Contra Costa County in the
amount of $98,220 is needed to ensure equitable sharing of
the costs of the Authority incurred prior to start of IRRF
operation and paid by Member Agency contributions.
Prior to the start of operation of the IRRF on January 1,
1996, .revenue to fund the activities of the Authority were
obtained from (a) Member Agency Contributions, (b) a one-
time contribution by Contra Costa County at the time of
execution of the Authority-County Contract in May 1993 , and
(c) Transition Surcharge Revenues . Table 1 on page 8 of the
Staff Report provided as Exhibit C .to Resolution No. 97-17
lists the amounts contributed for each of the three revenue
sources . The information in Table 1 is taken from Authority
financial records provided by the Authority Treasurer.
Section 9 of the Joint Powers Agreement provides that
revenue contributions to the Authority prior to start of
IRRF operation are to be an equal amount per voting Director
seat to a maximum of $64, 000 per voting Director seat per
year. Applying this principle to the total revenue
contributions made over the 4-3/4 years since the formation
of the Authority ($1, 625 , 549) results in $203 , 194 per voting
Director seat if there are 8 voting Director seats .
Subtraction of the total revenue contribution from the
County Area ($104, 974) from $203 , 194 leaves $98, 220 as the
EXHIBIT A
TO RESOLUTION NO.97-17
PRINCIPLES FOR FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
financial contribution that would have been made by the
County had the County been a voting Member of the authority
from the beginning in April 1991 .
The Authority Board of Directors would determine the
appropriate use of the funds received after receipt of funds
from the County.
4. The County should affirmatively express recognition that
IRRF Service Agreement and IRRF Financing are constraints
and may only be changed with the mutual consent of signatory
parties and Union Bank in all cases. If the County believes
that changes are needed, the County should identify such
changes for the Authority prior to submittal of the matter
to the Authority Member Agencies.
While County staff were provided the information as part of
Board of Directors Meeting Agenda packets, completion and
approval of the IRRF Service Agreement and IRRF Financing
occurred without the County representative having an
opportunity, as a voting member of the Authority Board of
Directors, to cast votes on these matters in 1993 and 1994 .
If the County identifies changes, the Authority Board of
Directors will need to determine if the Authority should
pursue said changes through negotiation with appropriate
parties and Union Bank.
5. The County should affirmatively accept the Regional AB 939
Plan as being satisfactory for the County Area or advise the
Authority of changes which the County believes are needed in
order for the Regional Plan to be satisfactory for the
County Area prior to submittal of the matter to the
Authority Member Agencies.
The Regional Integrated Waste Management Plan and Regional
Education & Public Information Program (Regional Plan) were
approved by the California Integrated Waste Management Board
in December 1995 . The Regional Plan is also incorporated
into the Joint Powers Agreement by reference.
Although County staff had the opportunity to review the
Regional Plan during the preparation -and approval process,
A - 2
EXHIBIT A
TO RESOLUTION NO.97-17
PRINCIPLES FOR FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
the County representative did not have the opportunity, as a
voting member of the Authority Board of Directors„ to cast
votes regarding the approval of the Regional Plan.
Additionally, the Authority has received no communication
from the County as to the acceptability of the Regional Plan
for implementation in the County Area. Since the County
Area .would become a part of the State-approved Regional AB
939 area, the County should determine and advise the
Authority if the Regional Plan is satisfactory with respect
to the County Area or advise the Authority of changes which
the County believes need to be made in order for the
Regional Plan to be satisfactory.
If the County identifies changes, the Authority Board of
Directors will need to determine if such changes should be
made and how the costs of such changes will be paid. Any
such changes will also need to be prepared and submitted to
the California Integrated Waste Management Board for
approval .
6. Provisions in the Collection Franchise Agreement between
Contra Costa County and RSS need to be made identical with
the collection franchise agreement amendments executed by
the Authority Member Cities in connection with the IRRF
financing in order to eliminate a source of potential future
conflict.
The County and Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc . (RSS)
completed work on a final collection franchise agreement in
October 1993 during the final stages of completion of the
IRRF financing. This franchise agreement was prepared
against the requirements set forth in the May 1993 Authority
- County Agreement. Member City collection franchise
agreements were amended in December 1993 and January 1994 .
As a result, the provisions of the County - RSS collection
franchise agreement and the Member Agency collection
franchise agreements are not identical with respect to the
amendments completed by the Member Agencies in December 1993
and January 1994 .
In order to eliminate a potential source of difference that
could give rise to future conflict, all Member Agency
collection franchise agreements should incorporate the same
A- 3
EXHIBIT A
TO RESOLUTION NO.97-17
PRINCIPLES FOR FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
amendment as enacted by the Member Cities in December 1993
and January 1994 in connection with the IRRF financing.
7 . The County agrees that the Authority may levy the surcharge
on IRRF Rates for the County Area as specified in Authority
Board of Directors Resolution No. 97-17 to pay the costs
associated with implementation of the County Proposal and
that said Surcharge may begin to be collected upon the
approval of the County and shall be terminated in accordance
with Authority Board of Directors Resolution No. 97-17 .
Because of the number of parties involved (5 cities, Contra
Costa County, Union Bank and California Integrated Waste
Management Board) and the fact that it is not possible to
predict the responses of Union Bank or California Integrated
Waste Management Board, it is not possible to forecast with
accuracy the costs of implementation of the County Proposal .
The County has recognized that it will be expected to pay
all costs associated with implementation of the County
Proposal . Approval of the Surcharge by the County would
avoid further financial demands on the County and result in
costs being paid by the ratepayers directly affected.
The Surcharge Amounts set forth in Exhibit B to Resolution
No . 97-17 are based upon an assumed dollar amount (i .e.
$50, 000) to be collected over a 1-year period as described
in the Staff Report provided as Exhibit C to Resolution No.
97-17 . However, the Surcharge would continue to be collected
until all necessary approvals have been obtained and all
costs paid. The Authority would (1) establish the Surcharge
rate and receive the funds collected via said Surcharge, (2)
pay costs incurred by the Authority and Member Cities, costs
associated with securing Union Bank consent, and costs
associated with obtaining CIWMB approval, and (3 ) provide a
full accounting of the amounts received and the amounts
paid. Any excess amounts would be rebated to County Area
ratepayers through a reduction in IRRF Rates .
The County would be afforded the opportunity to abandon the
implementation effort in which case all work would be halted
and the surcharge terminated after all costs have been paid
and no unpaid costs remain. .
A -4
EXHIBIT A
TO RESOLUTION NO.97-17
PRINCIPLES FOR FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
8. Member Agencies of the Authority would be afforded a maximum
of 1-year after the Authority Board refers the matter to the
Member Agencies to complete action with respect the
arrangements under which the County would become a full
Member of the Authority. During this 1-year period,
Authority Member Agencies would need to consider
(a)conceptual approval of the arrangements prior to
preparation of necessary document(s) and (b) approval of and
authorization to execute document(s) necessary to
implementation of arrangements. At the conclusion of the 1-
year period, all document(s) would be fully executed by all
Member Agencies and the County.
This principle provides certainty with respect to the time
frame for action and is intended to avoid protracted delay
in resolving the matter. However, if sufficient conceptual
approvals are obtained, but delays arise during document
preparation due to actions by Union Bank or the California
Integrated Waste Management Board or other matters beyond
the control of the Member Agencies, such delays should not
preclude continued favorable implementation action by all
parties .
A:110res9717
A- 5
EXHIBIT B
TO RESOLUTION NO. 97 - 17
COUNTY AREA IRRF SURCHARGE RATES
The following amounts are approved for collection and
expenditure in accordance with the provisions of Authority Board
of Directors Resolution No. 97-17 :
County Area IRRF Surcharge Rate $4 .42 Per Ton of Solid Waste
from County Area
County IRRF Related Collection Rates
Associated With County Area IRRF Surcharge
Can Service $0 . 30 Per Month per 32-Gallon
Can Equivalent
Bin Service $0 . 21 Per Cubic Yard
Box Service $4 . 42 Per Ton
A:109res9717
B - 1
EXHIBIT C
TO RESOLUTION NO. 97-17
WEST CONTRA COSTA
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
STAFF REPORT
FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
November 5, 1997
CONTENTS
Paae
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Current Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Prior Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . C-1
County Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2
CountyProposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2
Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2
Implementation of Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3
Authority - County Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3
Overview . i .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3
Landfill Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4
Contract Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4
Additional Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4
Covenant by County and Authority . . . . . . . . . . C-5
Host Mitigation Fee Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5
Amendment of Joint Powers Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5
Union Bank Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6
California Integrated Waste Management Board Approval . . . . C-6
Collection Franchise Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7
County Financial Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7
Revenue Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . C-7
County Financial Contribution . . . . . . . . C-9
County Area IRRF Surcharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-9
Costs to Implement County Proposal . . . . . . . . . . C-9
County Area IRRF Surcharge . . . . . . . . . . . . C-10
List of Tables
Paae
Table 1, Revenue Contributions to Authority Prior To
Start of IRRF Operations on January 1, 1996 . . . . C-8
Table 2, Calculation of County Area Surcharge Amount . . . C-12
Attachment
Letter dated August 27, 1997,, from Mr. Val Alexeeff, Director,
Contra Cost GMEDA to Mr. Bill Davis, WCCIWMA.
WEST CONTRA COSTA
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
STAFF REPORT
FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY •
November 13, 1997
County staff, at the direction of the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors and by letter dated August 27, 1997,
(Attachment No. 1) , requested that the matter of the County
becoming a voting member of the Board of Directors of the West
Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (Authority) be
placed before the Board of Directors at its meeting on October 9,
1997 . The Authority Board of Directors, at its meeting on October
9, 1997, considered the matter and directed Authority Staff to
develop and submit to the Authority Board recommendations
regarding terms and conditions for County Voting membership on
the Authority ,Board.
BACKGROUND
Current Arrangements . Since the formation of the Authority
in 1991, the County has been represented on the Authority Board
of Directors by a member of the County Board of Supervisors who
serves as an ex officio non-voting member of the Authority Board.
This provision for County representation was included in the
Joint Powers Agreement at the time the Authority was formed and
continues to be in the Joint Powers Agreement. While a non-voting
member, the County representative is afforded full opportunity to
otherwise participate in Authority Board meetings . The Authority
Board of Directors, at its meeting on October 9, 1997, directed
that the vote of the County representative be recorded but not
included in the tally of votes by the Board.
Prior Activities . At the time of formation of the Authority
in April 1991, the West County Wastewater District was the solid
waste franchising agency for the County Area and a voting member
of the Authority. Subsequently, the District elected not to
enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Contra Costa County
to continue the District' s role as the franchising agency for the
County Area and as a result the District withdrew from membership
in the Authority effective October 31, 1991 .
Proposed arrangements for County membership in the Authority
were submitted to Contra Costa County in early November 1991 .
These arrangements provided that Contra Costa County would become
a voting member of the Authority by assuming the seat vacated by
the District and assume all obligations of Authority membership
on the same basis as other parties to the Joint Powers Agreement.
STAFF REPORT
FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
In December 1992, the County Board of Supervisors considered
the alternatives of (a) full voting membership in the Authority
and (b) a separate contractual arrangement with the Authority.
The Board of Supervisors, in April 1993, directed County staff to
meet with Authority staff to resolve outstanding issues related
to the County entering into a separate contractual arrangement
with the Authority and in May 1993 declared the County' s intent
to enter into a contractual arrangement and approved execution of
the Authority - County Contract dated May 25, 1993.
County Area. The geographical area involved consists of the
unincorporated portion of West Contra Costa County served by
Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. (RSS) under the exclusive
collection franchise agreement entered into by the County and RSS
and dated October 12, 1993 (County Area) . The County Area
consists of those areas called El Sobrante, Tara Hills,
Bayview/Montalvan, East Richmond Heights, Rollingwood, North
Richmond and three unincorporated Census Tracts .
Total reported population for the County Area from the 1990
Census was 28, 709 persons . Approximately 34% of the total
reported County Area population resided in El Sobrante, 17% in
Tara Hills, 14% in Bayview/Montalvan, 11% in East Richmond
Heights, 8% in Rollingwood, 8% in North Richmond and 8% in the
unincorporated Census Tracts . Total 1990 population for the
County Area is about 14% greater than the City of San Pablo and
about 330 of the City of Richmond.
Based upon IRRF data for Calendar Year 1997 through
September 1997, the County Area contributes approximately 9% of
the total waste required to be delivered to the IRRF (i . e . the
amount from all five Member Cities and the County .Area) . Total
solid waste from the County Area is about the same as El Cerrito
or Pinole.
COUNTY PROPOSAL
Proposal . As evidenced in the County letter provided in
Attachment No. 1 to this report, the County:
(1) Proposes to make no other changes except to obtain voting
membership on the Authority Board of Directors,
(2) Recognizes that the County would be expected to pay any
costs of modifications of currently existing documents, and
West Contra Costa November S, 1997
Integrated Waste Management Authority C - 2 A:I09County
STAFF REPORT
FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
(3) Recognizes that the boundaries of the Regional AB 939 area
may need to be changed with the approval of the California
Integrated Waste Management Board. ,
Implementation of Proposal . In order to implement the
County Proposal it will be necessary to:
(a) Amend the currently existing Joint Powers Agreement to
provide for County Voting membership on the Authority Board
of Directors and to incorporate, without substantive change,
the provisions of the existing Authority - County Contract,
(b) Secure the approval of the amended Joint Powers Agreement
by:
(1) Union Bank, the issuer of the letter of credit securing
repayment of the IRRF Bonds issued by the California
Pollution Control Financing Authority,
(2) A sufficient number of the currently existing Authority
Members (Cities of E1 Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole,
Richmond and San Pablo) necessary to amend the Joint
Powers Agreement and the approval of Contra Costa
County, and
(3) The California Integrated Waste Management Board
(CIWMB) .
(c) Provide that the collection franchise agreement between
Contra Costa County and Richmond Sanitary Service contains
identical language as was included in the Member City
franchise. agreements at the time of the IRRF financing in
January 1994 .
Additionally, if the currently existing Regional AB 939 Plan is
not satisfactory with respect to the County Area, it may be
necessary to prepare and submit an amended Regional AB 939 Plan
to the CIWMB for approval .
AUTHORITY - COUNTY CONTRACT
Overview. The Authority - County Contract provides that (1)
regulation of IRRF Rates is by the Authority and not the County
Board of Supervisors and the County maintains land use and police
power authority, (2) that there will not be a franchise agreement
for the IRRF, (3) specific requirements and procedures governing
West Contra Costa November S, 1997
Integrated Waste Management Authority C - 3 A:109County
STAFF REPORT
FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
the establishment of Host Mitigation Fees, (4) specifies the
amounts to be included in IRRF Rates for County solid waste
program fees, (5) the Authority determines what services are to
be provided at the IRRF, (6) the Authority is to select the most
cost effective landfill, whether inside or outside of Contra
Costa County, for disposal of waste, and (7) the rates set by the
Authority must be the same for Member Cities and the County Area.
Landfill Selection. With respect to selection of the
landfill for disposal of waste, the Authority - County Contract
provides that:
(a) Contracts for landfill disposal service executed by the
Authority must provide the Authority with the sole
discretion to terminate said contracts every five (5) years,
(b) If total costs for use of landfill disposal service outside
of Contra Costa County is 950 or more of the total costs for
use of in-County landfill (s) , the in-County landfill (s) shall
be afforded adequate opportunity to match or better the
proposal by out-of-County landfill (s) .
(c) The Authority is to make the necessary determinations,
including Item (b) preceding, and select the most cost
effective landfill not less than 90-days prior to the
expiration of each 5-year period.
Contract Termination. The Authority - County Contract
specifically provides that the Contract is to automatically
terminate upon the County' s becoming a voting member of the
Authority. In the absence of the Authority - County Contract,
the provisions of the County' s Land Use Permit would govern and
the result would be that the Authority would have no
responsibility for the IRRF. However, the Contract specifically
provides that the Contract shall not be terminated if such
termination would conflict with or violate the terms and
conditions of IRRF Bonds or related documentation including
letter of credit or loan agreements .
If the County does not become a voting member of the
Authority, the Authority - County Contract remains in force.
Additional Contracts, The Authority - County Contract also
provides that the Authority and the County may enter into
additional contracts regarding other matters . The currently
existing contract for services by the County Mobile Household
West Contra Costa November S, 1997
Integrated Waste Management Authority C - 4 A:109County
STAFF REPORT
FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
Hazardous Waste Collection Program is one such example of an
.additional contract.
Covenant by County and Authority. At the time of IRRF
financing in January 1994, both the County and the Authority have
covenanted to Union Bank that both parties would abide by the
terms of the Authority - County Contract.
Host Mitigation Fee Maximum, The Authority - County Contract
caps the amount of Host Mitigation Fees at $2 .00 per ton of waste
received at the IRRF annually adjusted by the change in the
Consumer Price Index from July 1992 . For the 1998 IRRF Budget,
the maximum Host Mitigation Fee rate is $2 .26 per ton of waste
received at the IRRF. Since nearly all waste is direct hauled to
West County Landfill and will not be received at the IRRF until
start of IRRF waste transfer, Host Mitigation Fee Revenue has not
been substantial . However, when waste transfer operations start
in 1999, all waste will be received at the IRRF and the maximum
Host Mitigation Fee Revenue amount is estimated to be about
$300, 000 per year in 1999 assuming start of waste transfer
operations on January 1, 1999.
It should be noted that the Authority - County Contract
provides that first priority for use of 500 of Host Mitigation
Fee_ Revenue shall be given to use .for mitigation of impacts
occurring in the unincorporated area.
AMENDMENT OF THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
Section 19 . 1 of the Joint Powers Agreement provides that the
Agreement may only be amended by "a written instrument approved
by a majority of the member agencies representing a majority of
the [voting] Director' s seats . " Consequently, in order to
implement the County Proposal, the amended Joint Powers Agreement
must be submitted to each Member City for approval.
The amended Joint Powers Agreement must also be submitted to
Contra Costa County for approval by the Board of Supervisors
since Contra Costa County has not heretofore approved the
Agreement.
There are currently five Member Cities and seven voting
Directors with the City of Richmond having three voting Directors
and all other Member Cities having one voting Director each.
Accordingly, the approval of either (a) the City of Richmond and
two other Member Cities or (b) all Member Cities except, the City
West Contra Costa November S, 1997
Integrated Waste Management Authority C - 5 A:109County
STAFF REPORT
FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
of Richmond is required in order to amend the Joint Powers
Agreement .
UNION BANK APPROVAL ,
Tax exempt bonds to finance the IRRF (IRRF Bonds) were
issued by the California Pollution Control Financing Authority in
January 1994 . Union Bank, as part of the financing, has provided
a letter of credit which secures repayment of the IRRF Bonds.
Under the terms of the Consent and Agreement of the
Authority executed in connection with the IRRF financing in
January 1994, the Authority has covenanted to Union Bank that,
among other things, the Authority shall:
(1) Preserve and maintain its legal existence, rights, powers,
franchises and privileges, and
(2) Not permit any "amendment, modification, cancellation or
termination" of the Authority - County Contract or Joint
Powers Agreement or agree to "any deviations from the terms
thereof" or "give any waiver with respect thereto" which
would impair the ability of the Authority to perform its
obligations under the Authority - County Contract, Joint
Powers Agreement or IRRF Service Agreement without the prior
written consent of Union Bank.
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD APPROVAL
The Joint Powers Agreement was approved by the California
Integrated Waste Management Board- (CIWMB) in December 1995,
thereby establishing the Authority as a Regional AB 939 Agency
for the area within the five Member Cities . The Regional
Integrated Waste Management Plan and Regional Education & Public
Information Program (Regional Plan) was also approved by the
CIWMB in December 1995.
Section 11 .5 (c) of the Joint Powers Agreement incorporates
the Regional Plan in the Joint Powers Agreement by reference and
authorizes the Authority Board of Directors to make amendments to
the Regional Plan. This provision was included in order to
comply with State law related to formation of Regional AB 939
Agencies .
Under the County Proposal, the County. Area would become a
part of the Regional AB 939 Area and would be subject to the
West Contra Costa November S, 1997
Integrated Waste Management Authority C - 6 A:109County
STAFF REPORT
FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
Regional Plan. While it is not clear that merely providing the
County with voting membership on the Authority Board of Directors
will require major revisions to the Regional Plan, it is clear
that the amended Joint Powers Agreement, and any Regional Plan
revisions arising from incorporation of the County Area, would be
subject to the approval of CIWMB. It should be noted that while
the County Area is not currently subject to the Regional Plan,
the Authority provides the same services to residents of the
County Area as it provides to residents within Member Cities .
COLLECTION FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS
The Authority - County Contract provides that collection
franchise agreements entered into by the County for the County
Area shall include provisions which materially conform to the
provisions contained in Exhibit A to the Authority-County
Contract.
The provisions set forth in Exhibit A to the Authority -
County Contract were developed nearly a year prior to the date
that amendments to collection franchise agreements were developed
for the Member City franchise agreements. While it has previously
been determined that the provisions of the currently existing
collection franchise agreement between the County and Richmond
Sanitary Service, Inc. (RSS) were satisfactory for purposes of
the IRRF financing, the Member City franchise agreement
amendments executed in connection with the IRRF financing are not
identical to the currently existing franchise agreement between
the County and RSS .
COUNTY FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION
Revenue Contributions . Prior to start of operation of the
IRRF on January 1, 1996, revenue to fund the activities of the
Authority were obtained from (a) Member Agency Contributions, (b)
a one-time contribution by Contra Costa County at the time of
execution of the Authority-County Contract in May 1993, and (c)
Transition Surcharge Revenues . Table 1 is a listing of the
amounts received for each revenue type and has been prepared from
Authority financial records maintained by the Authority
Treasurer.
Exhibit A to the Joint Powers Agreement was a part of the
Joint Powers Agreement forming the Authority in April 1991 .
Exhibit A specifies that each voting Member was to contribute
$25, 000 per voting Director seat. The amount contributed by the
West Contra Costa November S, 1997
Integrated Waste Management Authority C - 7 A:109County
0 LO It a) co 'Ir 0
LQ rl-L Ct Ct Iq C\t
m O 60)co co 69 V co LO ih C\j Do
C\j 4 (D 4 C\j 00) (1)
6�1
609, 69 6113to 64 cc a)
U)
44 U)
0 1
L)
co r T
T IC) 0 0
go
rn 0
<
N
0
C\j
0 0
(D L)
C)
10 LO
U) a) co
to
to 2 LQ
cc
E
Z o ILO C:) O OLO c-
0
6F. C%j C\ :3 x
! <
0 in
z cli CD co0 C\l co
Z
2 Gm
0 LO 0 0 0 r- w
0 0 8
CO 0 r- Ga U) (n
CF) b
E V) N N N .0
0) r N C) m m E
win
2 60, 4) 0)
E 6
cm
0 c
LL cz0 0 X)
0 LO CM 0 CD 0 to) 0 0 0
C> N! t7 C7 N > >
LE C 0 V) E
cu c- cm fD
-1.) 3" 69 69 N2 CL
o
0
0 LO 0 0 0 LO E
0 N0 W3, CJ C\j cu
LU 2? q N! Ct GOJ CM
N (D to co cr
(D 69 (A 69 N w a) 00
ui 0 < 0
1— T O Nat
0) u
cc 0 U'j 0 0 0 0
0'- E
0 0 Oj 69 0 0 to 2-1
0 -V5 0 =
C\!
N
C\l Ln 'Ir -Ir
a) cli (D (D (D
U.) V9� (.9 cn b
CL CC —
< C:
T0,Cc.0
CO (D-
0
20 <
E 6 :3 'o 2t.
HN
D z m
0) co 'o a, o
O 0
0 O¢
B a) Ul)
-6 !� 0 fro:>
z CL CD La
cu " --m c E
0 t 0 0 2 C'D"o :3 4)
0 e T >- 0 r
(D 0 0
P E c
co E 0 0 c
E
0
4-- 0--- 0
< -6
>
0.0 >
z 72 2 0 -0 < 0
0 5: 0 & FL
x 0 CL 0. 2: 2 ID cu C CO
< 0. c — 2E
< :3
us 0 .2 sa 00 2 (D
c 2 — E b
4) *E E .5 a C- 5 —0 0-,
Z > M ca co 0
w (D Z :03 = m 0 D 0
X E2 12 U) M 0 CD U)
> 0 oc 16<Z M
= - — covioc
ul a. d- c a. E ct$ < Q) — o
2 —j 4--
B c c A. a
m C 0 CD 0 .0
0 0 0 0 0 c 0— c cr
(D *= = - c o- -r-
x = =$ = 0) — — 1 2
UJ .0 .0 0 r- o a-
a (D 5
C 'E CD a 0 (70 co
0 — CD
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c X C CD
LU
c
c
0
E
E2
0
>
0
ID
lA
E
> > o Er< o, — . (D
0 IM
2 0 <
2 0
c c c U)
0Cl) CD w w E
6
< 0
E¢ ro
> > 2
0 0 1J G7
0 0 0 o E
Z o E E NNE
E E E E c a 76 E < < <
(D (D 0 a) 0) 2 B
STAFF REPORT
FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
West County Wastewater District upon its withdrawal from
membership in the Authority in October 1991 is listed in the
County Area column in Table 1 .
Member Agency contributions in subsequent year were made in
accordance Authority Board of Directors resolutions and Authority
Budgets approved by the Authority Board of Directors .
The amounts shown in Table 1 as Transition Surcharge Revenue
resulted from the levying of such Surcharge at a rate of
$2 . 02/can per month during the period June 1, 1995 to January 1,
1996.
County Financial Contribution. Section 9 of the Joint
Powers Agreement provides that revenue contributions to the
Authority prior to start of IRRF operation are to be an equal
amount per voting Director seat to a maximum of $64, 000 per
voting Director seat per year. Applying this principle to the
total revenue contributions made over the 4-3/4 years since the
formation of the Authority ($1, 625, 549) results in $203, 194 per
voting Director seat if there are 8 voting Director seats .
Subtraction of the total revenue contribution from the
County Area ($104, 974) from $203, 194 leaves $98, 220 as the
financial contribution that would have been made by the County
had the County been a voting Member of the Authority from the
beginning (i . e April 1991) .
COUNTY AREA IRRF SURCHARGE
Costs to Implement County Proposal . In view of the number
of parties involved and the involvement of Union Bank and the
California Integrated Waste Management Board, it is not possible
to forecast with accuracy the matters that may be raised during
the course of implementation of the County Proposal .
In an effort to be responsive to the County' s request for
information regarding costs associated with implementation of the
County Proposal, cost estimates were requested from Member Cities
and the Authority General Counsel using the assumptions that:
(1) The Authority General Counsel will incorporate the Authority
- County Contract into the Third Amendment and Restatement
of the Joint Powers Agreement and distribute one review
draft to Authority Staff, County Staff and each Member City
Attorney for review,
West Contra Costa November 5, 1997
Integrated Waste Management Authority C - 9 A:109County
STAFF REPORT
FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
(2) The review by Authority Staff, County Staff, and Member City
Attorneys will not involve any negotiation of any new terms
and conditions but will only be for the purpose o£ ensuring
clarity and adherence to existing documents, and
(3) The Authority General Counsel will prepare a revised final
draft based upon comments received and transmit the revised
final draft to Union Bank for the purpose of obtaining the
written consent of Union Bank.
As can be seen from the preceding assumptions, the request
cost estimates do not include any costs resulting from Union Bank
review nor any costs associated with securing the necessary
approvals of the documents. Such costs will be in addition to
those identified in the estimates as will any costs which may
arise in the event that issues are raised which involve re-
negotiation of previously settled matters .
The Authority General Counsel estimates, subject to the
above stated assumptions, costs on the order. of $2, 500 - $3, 000.
The City of Hercules has advised that it estimates costs on the
order of $750 as does the City of Pinole. No other Member Agency
has provided a cost estimate.
Authority Staff, by letter dated September 4, 1997, also
requested Union Bank to (1) identify any issue, matter or
condition which Union Bank may have with respect to
implementation of the County Proposal and (2) provide an estimate
of the costs that Union Bank expects to incur in providing the
required written consent. No response has been received from
Union Bank.
West County Resource Recovery, Inc. , the IRRF Operator
reports that Union Bank costs associated with the Agreement
Regarding Recyclables and Project Revenue Disbursement Agreement
amendment were about $20, 000. Inasmuch as the Joint Powers
Agreement is a fundamental document to the IRRF financing, it is
reasonable to be that amendment of the Agreement will be
closely scrutinized by Union Bank to be certain that nothing
occurs which weakens the rights of the Authority and Union Bank.
County Area IRRF Surcharge. In view of the uncertainty
regarding the total costs associated with implementation of the
County Proposal, use of an IRRF Surcharge on waste from the
County Area would provide funding for payment of costs, avoid
West Contra Costa November S, 1997
Integrated Waste Management Authority C - 10 A:109County
STAFF REPORT
FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY
further financial demands on the County and result in costs being
paid by the ratepayers directly affected.
Based upon previous experience with Union Bank and in view
of the above described cost estimates, it is believed reasonable
to establish the subject IRRF Surcharge based upon $50, 000 to be
recovered over a 12-month period.
Using the same solid waste quantity as used for the 1998
IRRF Budget results in a County Area IRRF Surcharge amount of
$4 . 42 per ton of solid waste. In terms of IRRF-Related
Collection Rates, the County Area IRRF Surcharge would add $0 . 30
per month per 32-gallon can equivalent to the County Area can
rate, $0 .21 per cubic yard to the County Area bin rate and $4 . 42
per ton to the County Area Box Rate. Table 2 sets forth the
calculation of the County Area IRRF Surcharge and the impact of
the Surcharge on County Area collection rates .
It should be noted that while the County Area Surcharge is
based upon recovery of an assumed dollar amount over an assumed
12-month period, the Surcharge would need to continue to be
collected until all approvals are obtained and all costs have
been recovered. The Authority would (1) receive the funds
collected via the IRRF Surcharge, (2) pay costs incurred by the
Authority and the Member Agencies, costs associated with securing
Union Bank approval and costs associated with obtaining CIWMB
approval and (3) provide a full accounting of the amounts
received and amounts paid. Any excess funds would be rebated to
County Area ratepayers through a reduction in IRRF Rates.
The County should be afforded the opportunity to abandon the
implementation effort in which case work would be halted and the
surcharge terminated after all costs have been paid.
West Contra Costa November S, 1997
Integrated Waste Management Authority C - 11 A:109County
2
� k
$
�
. k
. • . �
� 5 .
& '00
jD \ k %
� A a
. « ° k
y tales k � ƒ co-
� 0 � \ \
. � kkf� & \ � k
4
$
� 5 \ f
� f \ $
� 4 3 �
cc f
4 % to % \
ul $
g / CID
� o a
t ? % i
4 % a 7 � � •
» 3 \
ƒ
k f kk f
� \ y
Growth Management and Contra
Economic Development Agency FILE G Costa
ValentinAlexeeff, Director County
August 27, 1997
'? SEPZb
Bill Davis, Executive Director G J
West CC Integrated Waste Management Authority L. J �.
One Alvarado Square ,a0
San Pablo CA 94806 � �` Attachment #1
Dear Bill:
At the request of unincorporated County residents served by the West County IRRF, the Board
of Supervisors has requested that the question of the County becoming a voting member of the
Authority Board be presented to the Authority Board at it's next meeting. The purpose is to
determine the level of acceptance of the cities prior to their making a complete proposal for
membership.
Our Board members have indicated they feel the Authority Board is doing an excellent job in
providing direction and oversight of the IRRF development and operation, but they have
expressed a desire to play a more active role in the decision making process. The Board of
Supervisors is interested in obtaining a voting membership on the Authority Board with no other
operational or procedural changes proposed.
The Board of Supervisors would like to have one member of the Board of Supervisors as a voting
member, with another Board of Supervisor member serving as an alternate. The Board
recognizes that numerous consequences could arise as a result of changes in membership. It is
the intent of the Board to avoid any changes in procedure or operation of the Authority. They
understand that modification of the Regional boundaries may need to be changed with the
approval of the California Integrated Waste Management Board and that the bank must approve
the modification to the Joint Powers Agreement and may require modifications to the IRRF
financing documents.
We anticipate that the County would be expected to cover any costs related to the requested
modifications. We would appreciate any projections of costs that you or the bank could provide.
S' ce ly,
Val Alex eff, Director
v,=r
651 Pine Street, No. Wing, Second Floor, Martinez, California 94553-1213
Telephone: (510) 646-1620 FAX: (510) 646-1599
i
I
I
I
CONSIDERWO-
West Contra Costa Integrated
®RAFT
Waste Management Authority
Board of Directors Preliminary Meeting Minutes
October 9, 1997
REGULAR AGENDA
8.0 County Voting Membership on Authority Board of
Directors
Mr. Davis summarized the staff report. Mr. Davis said that he has
requested costs estimates from the Authority General Counsel, the
attorney of each member city, and from Union Bank. Mr. Davis
reported that he had received the following estimates : Authority
General Counsel - between $2, 500 and $3, 000, Cities of Hercules
and Pinole - $750 each. Mr. Davis said that he has not yet
received responses from the Cities of E1 Cerrito, Richmond or San
Pablo however he would expect they would be along the same order
of magnitude or not much more than $1, 000.
Mr. Davis said that he had received no response from Union Bank
and reported that Union Bank costs of $20, 000 were charged when
the Agreement Regarding Recyclables and the agreement for an
early share of the recycling revenues were prepared. Mr. Davis
said it is possible that the charges may be higher since the
joint powers agreement is a very fundamental document to Union
Bank. Mr. Davis said that concludes the staff report.
Director Corbin asked with the added county voting member seat
would the quorum and the majority vote be increased to five and
also asked if the County has indicated that they will pay their
fair share of the costs and operating expenses. Mr. Davis said
that was correct. Mr. Davis said the costs that he was speaking
of were costs to change the documents .
Director Corbin said that in reading the letter from the County
it was not clear whether or not they are willing to pay their
fair share of our budget. Mr. Davis said that already occurs. The
same services are provided to the rate payers in the
unincorporated areas that are serviced by RSS and as is provided
to every member city and a portion of those costs are paid
through the IRRF rates. Director Corbin said that she thought
originally that it was not arranged that way. Mr. Davis said that
since the IRRF rates have been established the costs have been
payed in this manner.
Chair Alegria read the names of members of the Public who
requested to speak before the Board. These people were: Mr. Bill
11
West Contra Costa integrated DRAFT
Waste Management Authority
Board of Directors Preliminary Meeting Minutes
October 9, 1997
Kassell of E1 Sobrante, Mr. William Shea of San Pablo, Mr. Rick
Gulledge of E1 Sobrante, and Ms. Kathleen Nimir representing
Supervisor Jim Roger' s office.
Chair Alegria called the first speaker, Mr. Bill Kassell .
Mr. Kassell said he is a member of the E1 Sobrante Municipal
Advisory Council on Garbage. Mr. Kassell that there are 30, 000
people in the unincorporated section: of the County that do not
have representation on the Authority Board. Mr. Kassell says that
his group has been successful in convincing the Board of
Supervisors to send the letter asking for consideration of a
voting member. Mr. Kassell said that this would certainly be in
the best interest of the people in this County and he urges the
Board to pass a motion giving a voting seat on this Board to the
unrepresented areas of the County.
Chair Alegria called the next speaker Mr. William Shea.
Mr. Shea said that he is a resident of Bayview Park, a portion of
the unincorporated area of West County. Mr. Shea said that there
are approximately 200, 000 residents of West County who are
dependent of Richmond Sanitary Service. Thirty thousand of these
residents live in unincorporated areas which is 15% of the
pertinent population. Mr. Shea said that these individuals have
no voice in any conclusion arrived by the Authority, yet are
bound by all decisions it makes. Mr. Shea referenced an event
from 220 years ago where non-representation was the root problem
in this country.
Director Corbin said that when the Authority was first formed the
County was strongly encouraged to be a part of the agency. The
.County made a decision to not share in the costs thereby
relinquishing their opportunity to have a voting seat on this
Board. Director Corbin said that there was a long history of
creating this organization without any financial contribution
from the County. Director Corbin said that it was not the
decision of the Authority to exclude participation from the
County.
Director Paras asked about the organization of the unincorporated
areas specifically which jurisdiction or body would be involved
with the Authority if the County were to become a voting member.
12
West Contra Costa Integrated DRAFT
Waste Management Authority
Board of Directors Preliminary Meeting Minutes
October 9, 1997
Mr. Davis said that as he understands the County proposal, it
would simply change the seat that Director Uilkema has now from
non-voting to voting status. The Board of Supervisors would make
the appointment to the seat along with the appointment of an
alternate to the seat.
Chair Alegria called Mr. Rick Gulledge to the podium.
Mr. Gulledge, Vice Chair of the E1 Sobrante MAC urged the
Authority Board to vote yes on this item which would allow
assistance from an additional voting member in evaluating
information that is presented to the Board for its review.
Mr. Gulledge said that he also has concerns about the tipping fee
and tonnage charges that are occurring between West County
Resource Recovery and the Landfill . Mr. Gulledge said that from
his interpretation of the numbers it appears that Richmond
Sanitary Service and its affiliates receive more revenue by
diverting more trash to the landfill than to the IRRF. He feels
that it is important to develop a contract situation that
represents an incentive to the hauler and the collector to divert
more and more away from the landfill each year.
Director Corbin said that diversion includes three main themes,
first to reduce, reuse, then recycle. Director Corbin said that
she has always placed emphasis on source reduction first so as to
keep as much out of the waste stream as possible.
Chair Alegria called Kathleen Nimir representing Supervisor Jim
Rogers to the podium.
Ms . Nimir said that Supervisor Jim Rogers would like to urge the
Board to recommend to their respective cities to support the
County becoming a voting member in this joint powers agency. Ms .
Nimir said that she disagrees with the County staff letter that
this change may cause numerous consequences. Ms. Nimir said that
by the current contract terminating upon the County becoming a
voting member, that this may allow the Board to review certain
provisions to determine if the same provisions should be
maintained or perhaps if some alternatives should be considered.
Director Gomes said that he would like to substantiate the
comment that Director Corbin made previously. Director Gomes
stated that the County did have an opportunity to be a full-
fledged member of the Authority, but chose not at the time.
13
DRAFT
West Contra Costa Integrated
Waste Management Authority
Board of Directors Preliminary Meeting Minutes
October 9, 1997
Director Gomes said that Wastewater District was also a member at
one time and then later decided not to be. Director Gomes said
that an opportunity has now presented itself to take a different
course of action and it is time to act on it.
Director Evans said that since he has served on this Board and
since the time Director Uilkema has represented the County, he
believes that she has had an affect on the outcome of the actions
of this Board. Director Evans said that during the time he served
on the Board with Supervisor Rogers, Supervisor Rogers attended
zero meetings . Director Evans asked the speaker, Ms . Nimir, if
the inability to vote was the reason Supervisor Rogers didn' t
choose to attend the Board meetings. Ms . Nimir said that she
couldn' t speak for Supervisor Rogers on that issue. Ms . Nimir
said she felt the important issue is that the unrepresented
people in the community have a voting member.
Director Evans said that again although representation is
enhanced by a vote, the County did have representation but its
representative prior Director Uilkema chose not to attend the
meetings. Director Evans said that although the issue of a being
able to convene a quorum may seem to be minor, the Board would
not be able to conduct any business in the absence of a quorum.
Director Evans said he is concerned that if the County
representative should choose not to attend the meetings, this
would have serious effect on the ability of this Board to conduct
business. Director Evans said that he finds it a little
disingenuous of Supervisor Rogers to request for representation
after choosing to not come and represent the County. Director
Evans said that he feels there is an issue of equity since the
member cities have borne the cost to create this organization. He
said that before he could vote to approve this item either here
or as a Richmond City Council member, he would require some
knowledge of what the County has or has not paid, and to consider
the recouping of those costs . Director Evans said he cannot
support approving this issue tonight.,
Director Corbin said that she would like to work out a way to
include County as a voting member, however, the attitude, the
refusal to participate, and the refusal to help fund the
formation of the agency have been real issues. Director Corbin
said that she feels there is an appropriate, not a punitive,
buy-in in figure that would reimburse the other members who have
already invested to achieve the present level . Director Corbin
14
r
DRAFT
West Contra Costa Integrated
Waste Management Authority
Board of Directors Preliminary Meeting Minutes
October 9, 1997
said the quorum would be raised, and that Director Uilkema has
been the only Supervisor that has attended the meetings, the
three previous supervisors Director Corbin recalls did not .
Director Corbin said that if County Representative should choose
not to attend the meeting that it could present a hardship for
the Board. Director Corbin proposed that Authority Staff provide
and present a recommendation that includes an appropriate buy-in
amount that would reimburse the member cities for the investments
they made in this agency during the time the County refused to
participate.
Chair Alegria asked Director Corbin if that was her motion.
Director Corbin said that is her motion.
Chair Alegria asked for a second to the motion. Director Gomes
seconded the motion.
MOTION by Director Corbin directing Authority
Staff to return at the next regular meeting with
a recommendation that includes a buy in amount
for County Voting Membership on the Authority
Board of Directors. SECONDED by Director Gomes .
Chair Alegria asked for any discussion on the motion.
Director Corbin stated that she would like a staff recommendation
on an appropriate buy-in amount to be placed on the next agenda.
Director Corbin said she is prepared to support the issue of the
County becoming a voting member however she feels that there
should be some sort of acknowledgment of the part of the County
for their refusal to participate and invest their fair share. She
said the other member cities should receive .some sort of payback
on the investment they have paid into.
Supervisor Uilkema said that whether or not the County is given a
vote, she will continue to come to the meetings. Director Uilkema
said she takes her responsibility very seriously. She believes
the constituents deserve representation and they deserve direct
accountability therefore the people in the unincorporated areas
should be represented by a vote.
15
_ t
West Contra Costa Integrated DRAFT '
Waste Management Authority '
Board of Directors Preliminary Meeting Minutes
October 9, 1997
Director Gomes said that he appreciates what Supervisor Uilkema
has said and that unincorporated areas of West County should have
been represented from the very start but it was refused at that
time by the Board of Supervisors. Director Gomes said that he
does support the County becoming a voting member of the Authority
however the County must take full financial responsibility for
the costs of joining at this late date so that this Authority
would not have to bear any of these costs.
Chair Alegria asked if arrangements can be made for a "buy-in",
could arrangements be made for "buy-out" . Mr. Davis said that
there are specific provisions within the joint powers agreement
for severing membership in the Authority. Director Evans said
that there is a requirement for financial responsibility when a
member agency leaves the Authority.
Director Gomes stated that Board members would still need to go
back to their respective City Council and present this issue.
Chair Alegria asked if there is any further comments or
discussion. Mr. Bill Kassell from the E1 Sobrante MAC asked to be
recognized.
Mr. Kassell asked if El Sobrante became a city and wanted to
become part of the Authority, would :it be able to become a member
at no cost? Director Corbin said that is correct.
Mr. Kassell said it concerns him that a new city would be allowed
to join the Authority at no cost, however there is discussion on
a buy in amount for the County to have a voting seat . Mr. Kassell
said that he felt other people in the community would have
difficulty understanding this concept also. Director Corbin said
that she would have trouble understanding the concept also.
However, this is not what the Board .is intending to convey.
Director Evans said that during the formation of the Authority
the Cities of E1 Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond and San
Pablo contributed money collected from the people who live in
those areas. Director Evans said he doesn' t feel that he could go
back to the 93, 000 people of Richmond and justify the addition of
a vote to 30, 000 more people who do not havg,�o share in any of
the start up costs . Director Evans said takaeg from the
perspective of those voters, ratepayers, and taxpayers it would
not be fair to allow another agency to join at no cost when they
16
West Contra Costa Integrated DRAFT
Waste Management Authority
Board of Directors Preliminary Meeting Minutes
October 9, 1997
have financed the agency from the beginning. Director Evans said
that he has heard very positive responses from Board Members on
this issue. However, he is not able to support it today without
some understanding of what the costs have been to the people he
has been elected to represent and some indication of a fair buy
in amount for the County.
Mr . Kassell said that he has grave concern that the buy in amount
will result in such a large figure that the County will decide
that it is not affordable. Mr. Kassell said that if this happens,
then again there are those who will be left without
representation.
Chair Alegria called for a vote on the motion made by Director
Corbin.
Supervisor Uilkema asked for a restatement of the motion. Mr.
Davis said that there was a motion by Director Corbin that staff
return at the next meeting with a recommendation that includes a
buy in amount for this item and for this item to appear on the
agenda again.
Directors Evans offered an amendment to the motion asking that
the County Representative be allowed to cast a vote that would be
recorded, but not counted, until which time an agreement is
reached that the vote is to be counted. Director Evans said that
this would allow the County' s position to be heard and recorded
whether or not the actions this Board approves are in accord with
the views of the County' s representative.
Director Corbin said that she is agreeable to the amendment to
. the motion. Director Gomes, the seconder of the motion, also
agreed to the amendment, where upon:
MOTION by Director Corbin to direct Authority Staff
to return at the next regular meeting with a
recommendation that includes a buy in amount for
County Voting Membership on the Authority Board of
Directors, and until a time County voting membership is
approved, the County Representative or Alternate will
be allowed to cast a vote that is to be recorded, but
not to be tallied.SECOND by Director Gomes .
MOTION carried unanimously. C�
a,-v^ �` t 1 17
DRAFT
West Contra Costa Integrated ,
Waste Management Authority
Board of Directors Preliminary Meeting Minutes
October 9, 1997
RESOLUTIONS
9.0 USED OIL OPPORTUNITY GRANT APPLICATION
Mr. Devine summarized the staff report.
Chair Alegria called for any questions of staff from the Board.
Director Uilkema asked as a follow up to a discussion from a
previous meeting, whether or not auto wrecking yards have become
collection sites for recycling of used motor oil . Mr. Devine said
that yes, a relationship has been established with Pick-n-Pull
Auto Parts . They have assisted in the distribution of several
hundred used motor oil recycling containers .
MOTION by Director Evans to approve
Resolution No. 97-15 authorizing the
Executive Director to formulate and submit
an application and to implement and carry
out the purposes of an application for the
Local Government Used Oil Opportunity Grant
Fourth Cycle. SECOND by Director Gomes .
MOTION carried unanimously.
Chair Alegria directed that the County Representative' s "aye" be
recorded but not tallied.
18
West Contra Costa Integrated DRAFT
Waste Management Authority
Board of Directors Preliminary Meeting Minutes
October 9, 1997
ORAL CON24 NICATIONS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none .
BOARD MMER AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Davis said that he has a comment to make regarding Agenda
Item 8 . Mr. Davis said that there was a contribution by the
County at the time of contract signing that was geared towards
the development of the IRRF. Mr. Davis said that he will research
the exact dollar amount. Mr. Davis he wanted to make it clear
that there was some monetary contribution made by the County.
Director Corbin said that this may result in a reduction of the
Authority staff recommended buy in amount.
Director Evans also suggested that staff may choose to include
some of the contribution made by the Waste Water District since a
portion of the area they were paying for was in the
unincorporated area. Director Evans said this may reduce even
further the net sum.
Director Corbin said that the Waste Water District was a garbage
franchiser when the Authority was first formed and it held a
seat. The County rescinded the Waste Water District' s franchising
ability, and then the Waste Water District left the Board.
Director Corbin confirmed that the Waste Water District
contributed financially.
19
West Contra Costa Integrated
DRAFT
Waste Management Authority
Board of Directors Preliminary Meeting Minutes
October 9, 1997
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Alegria with the concurrence of all other Board Members,
adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m.
*****ATTACHMENTS*****
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct statement
of the Official Minutes of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste
Management Authority Board Meeting held October 9, 1997
Bill Davis, Executive Director
20
D.6
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA
Date: December 16, 1997
To: Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
By: Lillian T. Fujii, Deputy County Counsel
Re: December 16, 1997 Agenda Item#D-6
Pursuant to your December 15, 1997 request, the following are this office's preliminary
responses to issues and questions raised in Milt Ketter's December 11, 1997 memorandum to
Supervisor Rogers, with copy to Supervisor Uilkema. (Copies attached.)
Question No. 1: Will the County have the authority to regulate rates at the West County
Integrated Resource Recovery Facility("IRRF") upon termination of the contract between the County
and the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority ("WCCIWMA")?
Response No. 1: Technically, yes. Upon termination of the County/WCCIWMA contract,
the operators of the IRRF are required to obtain a franchise from or enter a contract with the County,
which may include rate-regulation. It should be noted however, that due to outstanding long term bond
funding and other obligations, the County's (and the WCCIWMA's) ability to scrutinize the
reasonableness of components of the IRRF rates is severely limited.
Question No. 2: Mr. Ketter states: "[I]t is said by WCCIWMA that it should cost $98,000
and more for the County to attain a voting seat. However, on page 12, section 7.4(a), of the Contract
between WCCIWMA and Contra Costa County, it states that the County's maximum fair share is set at
$80,000.00.7 Is this correct?
Response No. 2: Section 7.4 of the County/WCCIWMA contract reads in part as follows:
7.4 Except as provided in this Section 7.4 and section 7.5,
IRRF rates established by the Authority to be uniform for all
sections of the area within the boundary of the Authority and the
unincorporated area encompassed by District.
(a) The Authority may set differential rates for the
unincorporated area encompassed by the District to collect
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema
December 16, 1997
Page 2
County's fair share of the Authority's costs incurred in
development and implementation of the IRRF from Solid Waste
delivered to the IRRF from the District area to the extent that
County's fair share of such costs is not paid by the financial
contribution received from County pursuant to Section 19 of this
Contract. County's fair share of such costs shall be ten percent
(10%) of the total costs incurred by Authority in development and
implementation of the IRRF to a maximum of Eighty Thousand
Dollars($80,000).
Thus, it appears that $80,000.00 is the bargained for maximum amount that could be
included in the IRRF rates and paid by the County's ratepayers for the County's share of Authority
costs incurred in development and implementation of the IRRF. Section 7.4 does not obligate the
WCCIWMA to allow the County to join the WCCIWMA at this time for$80,000.00.
Question No. 3: If the County/WCCIWMA contract states that a maximum fair share is set
at $80,000.00, how can WCCIWMA ask for sums exceeding that amount to become a voting member?
Response No. 3: See answer to Question No. 2, above.
Question No. 4: "Request County legal staff to review all documents relating to a County
voting seat, concentrating on how we may reasonably obtain a voting seat or, alternatively, resign from
the WCCIWMA."
Response No. 4: The "short answer"to this question is in section 3.1 and 3.2 of the
County/WCCIWMA contract, which provides:
SECTION 3. TERM AND TERMINATION.
3.1 The term of this Contract shall begin on the date first
written above and continue until terminated by the County
becoming a voting member of the Authority,by mutual consent of
the parties or by either party providing the other 60 days' written
notice of termination. However, this Contract shall not be
terminated by either party: 1) during the first twelve months after
the date first written on page one of this Contract and 2)provided
Authority issues Revenue Bonds during said twelve months, shall
not be terminated without the written consent of the trustee, lender
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema
December 16, 1997
Page 3
or letter of credit bank until all indebtedness on account of the
Revenue Bonds have been retired.
3.2 It is understood that in no event shall this Contract be
terminated if its termination would conflict with or violate the
terms or conditions of any Revenue Bonds or related
documentation including, without limitation, indentures,
resolutions, letter of credit or loan agreements.
Staff notes in the July 8, 1997 report to the Board that several legal documents must be
revised to enable the County to become a voting member of the WCCIWMA, and Union Bank must
approve any revised agreement or alternative arrangement. Based upon the above language in section
3.1 and 3.2, we would be surprised if staff's assessment is incorrect. If the Board requests, this office
will undertake a more thorough review of the background documents. However, it is unlikely that
changes can be made to the County/WCCIWMA contract without Union Bank approval, and any such
approval will not be forthcoming without similar assurance to protect Union Bank's investment.
I
Question No. 5: Mr. Ketter comments that under the Franchise Agreement between the
County and Richmond Sanitary Service (section 7,page 7), the County has the authority to review
WCCIWMA/IRRF finances. Is this correct?
Response No. 5: Under section 7 of the Franchise Agreement between the County and RSS,
the County has the ability to review RSS's books, records and financial statements pertaining to
operations not regulated by the County as may be reasonably required for the sole purpose of gathering
information necessary to ascertain whether income, expenses, assets and liabilities are reasonably and
consistently allocated among operations regulated by the County and those not regulated by the
County. Initially, it appears that the IRRF is not a part of RSS's operations subject to limited review,
to determine equitable allocation of costs. Even if the IRRF is a part of RSS's operations, under the
terms of the Franchise, the reasonableness of IRRF expenses is not subject to County review. The
Franchise Agreement between the County and RSS cannot give the County authority to review
WCCIWMA finances.
Attach.
cc: Board of Supervisors
County Administrator
Community Development Director
HALFUMDOCS\CDD-S W\WC 121597.W PD
DEC715-1997 10:46 SUPU. GAYLE B. UILKEMA 510 335 1076 P.01i02
GAYLE B. UILKEMA
f COUNTYADMINISCUATIUN BLDG.
- ,i•
j 651 PINE STREET,iWOm WRA
_ use CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARTINEZ,CA 96553-1293
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 2
(510)335-1046—VAX(S10)3351076
-v
MEMO
DATE: December 15, 1997
TO: Vic Westman, County Counsel
Dean Lucas, Deputy County Administrator
FROM: Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema
By: Suzanne Strisower
SUBJECT: December 16, 1997 Agenda Item #DWS
Supervisor Uilkema would like a written response to the questions relative to the issues
in the attached memo. These matters need to be addressed prior to tomorrow's
meeting.
Thank you for your assistance_
DEC-15-1997 10:46 SUPU. GAYLE B. UILKEMA 510 335 1076 P.02i02
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
To: Supervisor Gayle Uilkema Time:08:12:06
From : Date: 12/19/97
Pages (including cover): 1
Dec. 11 1997
1
TO: Jim Rogers, District I Supervisor
CC: Gayle Uilkema, County Ex-Officio Representative toWCCIWMA
FROM: Milt Ketter, Chair ESMAC AD HOC Garbage Committee
RE: County Voting member on WCCIWMA (JPA)
NewPoint Audit Report and the IRFF
Two important issues concern our committee in connection with our proposal for a county voting
member on the WCCIWMA.
First, involves legal aspects. Ever since the Board of Supervisor's Ad Hoc Committee on Solid
Waste agreed with us, all parties to the subject have received numerous pages of opinions,
predictions, explanations, and document copies. Unfortunately, we do not have access to all the
legal papers involved with theWCCIWMA/WCRR/ IRRF. However, from the information that is
available to us from WCCIWMA, none mention that the County will be permitted to regulate IRRF
rates upon termination of th contract between the County/WCCIWMA (as setforth in the Board of
supervisor's July 8, 1997 meeting: Agenda item D_12)
What we do have leads us to a conclusion that these agreements must be reviewed, in total , by
the legal staff, to arrive at what the county's status in this situation is. For example, it is
said that by WCCIWMA that is should cost $98,000 and more to attain a voting seat for the county.
However, on page 12, section 7.4 (a), of the Contract between WCCIWMA and Contra Costa County, it
states that the county's maximum fair share is set at $80,000.
Our Committee has several legal questions that we are asking both Supervisor Rogers and Uilkema
who represents the County ex-officio on the JPA to ask County legal counsel to look into:
1. If the contract states a maximum fair share is set at $80,000, how can WCCIWMA legally ask for
sums exceeding the contracted share to become a voting member?
2 Request county legal staff to review all documents relating to a County voting seat and
concentrating on how we may reasonably obtain a voting seat, or, alternatively, resign from the
WCCIWMA.
The second large issue of concern to our Committee is the county's refusal to look into the
finances and operations of the WCCIWMA(IRRF). Under the Franchise agreement with RSS (Section
7, p7), the County has the authority to review those finances and operations_
We were told by the NewPoint representatives at a recent meeting on their Phase I final report
that when these NewPoint people visited the IRRF facility, "red flags"were raised in their minds
regarding staffing at the IRRF, as well as visible capital investment, and overall financing of
the new facility. Since one 4hird of the ratepayers garbage bill is a result of the IRRF's pass
through of costs, payroll, interest and financing and since the NewPoint Phase I audit failed to
scrutinize any of the WCCIWMANVCRR's (IRRF)finances and operations, the ESMAC Ad Hoc Garbage
Committee is officially urging that the Board of Supervisor's not accept the Phase I report as
final until that is part of the record or put before that Board a proposal to fund a Phase II
audit to include the above and make the findings public.
TOTAL P.02
' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: December 16, 1997
TO: Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema
FROM: Linda Moulton
Solid Waste Planner, Community Development
SUBJECT: December 16, 1997 Board Agenda Items D.5 and D.6
This memo is in response to Supervisor Uilkema's request of December 15, asking the Community
Development Department to respond to the issues raised by Milt Ketter, Chair of ESMAC Ad Hoc
Garbage Committee, in his letter of December 11th. The issues raised concern agenda item D.5
concerning the County requesting to be a voting member of WCCIWAA and item D.6A, the
acceptance of the consultant's report on Richmond Sanitary Service (RSS).
Item D.5 Proposal for the County to have a voting member on WCCIWMA.
Question one(paragraph 2): The Board of Supervisor's Ad Hoc Committee on Solid Waste referred
the proposal for a County voting member on WCCIWMA to the full Board and did not make a
recommendation. The County has been a contractor rather than a voting member of WCCIWMA
and has never had the authority to regulate rates or negotiate the agreements.
Termination of the contract with the IRRF would only be a step in the County becoming a voting
member of the authority. The County has indicated to the Board of WCCIWMA that they do not
want to make changes in the operating procedures and responsibilities of the authority.
Question two (paragraph 3). The cost mentioned in the contract between WCCIWMA and the
County in section 7.4(a)(page 12)were for the"costs incurred in development and implementation
of the IRRF from Solid Waste delivered to the IRRF from the District area". The County's fair share
of such costs was 10% of the total cost incurred by the authority in the development and
implementation of the IRRF to a maximum of$80,000. The County paid $28,794 to the joint
operating fund at the time of the contract. An additional $64,000 was paid as a transition surcharge.
Table 1 (Exhibit 1) shown in the Board Order on page C-8 shows all sources of revenue contributions
from the member agencies and the County. All of the agencies paid the $64,000 as a transitional
surcharge except Richmond which paid $192,000 and El Cerrito which contributed $64,000 during
Fiscal year 95/96. However in addition, the member agencies paid similar funds in the fiscal year of
93/94 and at the time of the adoption of Resolution No. 92-12. In total the County, including funds
from the Sanitary district, paid $104,974 while the cities of El Cerrito,Hercules, Pinole and San Pablo
paid $217,225 and Richmond paid $651,675. The average paid per voting member was $203,194.
This $203,194 less the $104,974 paid by the County is $98,220. The eighty thousand dollars
discussed in the contract does not refer to the full cost involved in establishing the IRRF.
� C
Questions three and four: In paragraph 4, these two questions appear to be legal questions that can
best be addressed by County Counsel.
Item D.6A.
Question five(in paragraph 5): The RFP which was issued concerning the study of RSS directed the
consultant, NewPoint Group, to do a focused review to (1) review and modify the Barakat and
Chamberlain rate setting methodology to reflect current solid waste industry standards; (2)using the
modified and approved methodology, review RSS's audited financial statements for 1994-1996,
analyzing the annual expenses/cost and revenues; and (3) submit a final report giving summaries and
conclusions. NewPoint Group did analyze the IRRF rates as they contribute to the overall collection
rates of RSS. However the tasks did not include an audit of the IRRF.
The Franchise agreement with RSS (Section 7, p.7 as noted in Mr. Ketter's letter and attached as
exhibit 2)does allow the County to examine the records of RSS. A copy of this section is attached.
However, this is an agreement with RSS and not the IRRF. While the records of the IRRF are
available to the public, the scope of the study did not include a full review of IRRF rates. The local
review authority for rate setting for the MRF is WCCIWMA. While the County could fund a review
of the IRRF,it would seem to be a duplication of the authority of WCCIWMA at additional cost to
the rate payers and the County would not have the authority to make any changes to the IRRF's rate
structure.
Mr. Ketter's last paragraph urges the Board to fund Phase II which was called the comprehensive
review in the RFP. The Board voted to fund Phase I and consider Phase II pending the results of the
Phase I study. However, the tasks in Phase II did not include a review of the IRRF and the letter
from the ESMAC Ad Hoc Garbage Committee dated February 26, 1997 did not request that the
IRRF be specifically included. Staff incorporated the request from ESMAC into the focused review
and into the comprehensive review.
NewPoint Group did bring the methodology up to date to reflect current standards in the industry,
did look at the composition of the costs within the current rate structure, and made recommendations
to modify the methodology so that it can be used in a rate review in the near future. NewPoint Group
discussed the proposed changes with RSS, the County and the ESMAC Ad Hoc Garbage Committee
in separate meetings. Staff would work with RSS to modify the language in the methodology and
the Franchise Agreement,.where necessary, to implement the changes.
cc Members, Board of Supervisors
R LM 1:a:\mem\12-16d5&.6
(a) A person or entity generates Solid Waste, including recyclable
materials, and personally collects, removes and disposes or recycles such in a
clean and sanitary manner in conformance with all applicable laws and
regulations, including mandatory subscription ordinances. This exception shall
not apply to a person who incurs a net cost of collection to a third person in the
above described activities; or
(b) A`person or entity contracts with a third person for the removal
and disposal or recycling of inorganic refuse or garden waste (a "Non-
Franchised Contractor") and such removal and disposal or recycling is solely
incidental to work such as remodeling or gardening occasionally performed by
or for the customer. This exception shall not apply if the Non-Franchised
Contractor incurs a net cost of collection to any third person in connection with
its collection and/or disposal of said Solid Waste.
7. CONTRACTOR'S DUTY.TO MAINTAIN RECORDS; COUNTY'S
RIGHT TO EXAMINE RECORDS.
Contractor shall maintain a proper set of books and records in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles, accurately reflecting the business
done by it under this Agreement.
Contractor shall further maintain and make available to County, upon its
request, records as to number of Customers, total and by type, route maps,
service records and other materials and operating statistics in such manner and
with such detail as County may require. County shall treat the information
required by this paragraph that affects the competitive position of the company
as confidential information to the extent permitted by law.
County may at any time during the term of this Agreement, have the
books and records of the Contractor examined by a County Agent or Agents
appointed for that purpose by the County. County shall give thirty (30) days'
written notice to the Contractor of such examination date. County expenses
incurred under this section shall be paid by Contractor subject to their recovery
through the rates allowed by the County hereunder.
The information required by this section shall pertain to Contractor's
operations covered and regulated by this Agreement, and nothing contained
herein shall require the Contractor to provide the County with information
pertaining to the Contractor's operations which are not regulated by the
County, except in conformance with this section.
...Xh.►►-Aw.nss Franchise Agreement
9130/93 RSS, Inc. & Contra Costa County
6 October 12, 1993
County's Agents may examine Contractor's books, records and financial
statements pertaining to operations not regulated by the County as may be
reasonably required for the sole purpose of gathering information necessary to
/ allow the Agents to ascertain whether income, expenses, assets and liabilities
are reasonably and consistently allocated among operations regulated by
County and those not regulated by the County. Contractor shall obtain
County's written approval of its method of segregating its financial records
between County-regulated and non-County regulated operations. County shall
not unreasonably withhold such approval.
Information gained from examination of records pertaining to operations
not regulated by the County shall be treated by County and its agents as
.confidential information.
For the review of books and other financial records necessary to verify
the Contractor's income, expenses, assets and liabilities, "County Agent" shall
mean an independent Certified Public Accountant or public accountancy firm.
For all other information or records, including the results of financial verification,
"County Agent" shall mean any consultant designated by the County or County
employees.
Nothing in this section will prevent County from allowing public access
to County records as provided for under the California Government Code, and
in the event any dispute arises as to public access to information provided by
Contractor under the terms of this Agreement, the County shall in its discretion
provide public access to said information according to law or tender the defense
of any claims made against the County concerning said information to
Contractor. Prior to releasing any information pursuant to this paragraph,
County shall make a good faith effort to notify Contractor of the intended
release.
8. RATE REGULATION IN GENERAL. The County shall regulate rates
for residential Solid Waste collection. Rate regulation includes three steps:
financial disclosure, a rate regulation methodology and the setting of rates. The
County shall establish a rate setting Methodology within ninety days of the
execution hereof. If the County does not establish a rate setting methodology
within 90 days, the County shall utilize the Barakat and Chamberlin Rate
Setting Methodology used by the Cities of Richmond and San Pablo Franchise
Agreements, as reasonably adapted to this Agreement by County. The rate
setting methodology utilized shall: (a) provide for rate reviews accompanied by
annual audited financial statements covering the entire period since the last
audited rate application; (b) annual CPI 'adjustments between audited rate
m\Har+-AWASs Franchise Agreement
9/30/93 RSS, Inc. & Contra Costa County
7 October 12, 1993
Ul
§ °' °
a
CD co ao oa'm .-
. O 40 N (0 N 69
1.7 4444
L
O Cl)
m O g R «.
_ h as p C
C N t0 ep�
69
QQ r
6 a
QQ G G QQ G U"LO CD 8 Q
r O OIq
CY
Ln
O
Q O
� r o
r
aN
!n a E
Z C CY
N W i0 m
O m60 CY
60 !0
Z C
LO 0 ina
60 69
Q � En Cc,,, oNi �n D °
W o
CL E0 cm
o
V, M a O 8 8 C
c
Q m N O C N > >
¢ _ `%'
c �
o � r r cj
QQ
Q w m N O $ O O N La
m
*. V N
44
W N � m c69 9 N g
m O 0) 00
Q O O O O O O V
C
QN ` N t0 O ip
a '� N muNio1II
� Q v cr
cm
O 'c z
am m z m m
rn Eaa z U a cED
t~n m m ? °�' m3 m>a
OZ a CL
0 Q
` r
C _
3 r
.. _
W
� L o 3077.5 p < � m
W ' a RL Nr 12
cc Go to
5 .1s{ 7 � > p rJ � y O.•gyp
LL! = .0 � • C r >a 7 a
0 m s - m � g m
c . > .. w
m ao ° � M
v+ rn W as a � • a � � � _��Q
05
S ul Zoo
_ A E - m
Request to Speak Form p,
( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place It in the box near the speakers' rostrum
before addressing the Board
Name: 6 I 1 ) 4 SS -e) !hone•
C�K
1 am speaking for myself_or organization: 5 A e
Esme of oraantzatio 0
CHKCC ONE
I wish to on Agenda Item #-L.6 Dat =- =
My comments will be: general _fora0nst`______-
_ 1 wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board
to consider:
Request to Speak Form 0
n
( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place It in the box near the speakers' rostrum
before addressing the Board.
Name; 141/L`7— )C r�i�� phone: 2 Z -3 _ 7 6, 1
Address;'V �L �' 1« F c/� l2 TJ Cfty.6 -L ,SU,J ,?AlII-r
1 am speaking for myselfor organization: C�L Sol /''1/1-C.
dame of Ong Vat!--%
CHECK ONE:
wish to speak on Agenda Item #= Date: l 2.11
My oomnmus will be: general iJor._a 0nsi ,_.
I wish to speak on the sub}ed of
1 do not wish to speak but leave these oomrnents for the Board
to consider:
• - Request to Speak Form �.
( THREE (3) M1 N UTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum
before addressing the Board.
Name: 2 V A A re--A Phone;
Arddress: City: c'1 �o��.•�-�-
1 am speaking for myself`or organization:14
*MM of w1w-'V2&w
CHECK ONE
I Wbh to speilC an Agenda Item #�� date:
My comments will be: grenerW _fbr�agairw .
I wish to speilC on the u bject
i do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board
to consider.