Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02231999 - D6 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa QCounty FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: February 23, 1999 SUBJECT: CONSIDER PROPOSAL FOR VOTING MEMBERSHIP ON THE WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION BECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends OPTION I below. OPTION I 1. Accept the staff report review of the background; and 2. Request the WCCIWMA Board of Directors to allow the Board to defer the decision on obtaining a voting membership until after the County has implemented its state mandated programs and has evaluated its compliance with AB 939 goals; and 3. Direct staff to present the request to the Authority for their consideration. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTb -Y YES SIGNATURE I RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMIU I TEE .m APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES : ACTION OF BOARD ON . February 23. 1999 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER — VOTE THER _VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. C®ntactr. Linda Moulton 925 335-1238 ATTESTED cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATtAELOR-, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR y BY s � =s , DEPUTY 0�, STAn REPORT MU COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AMMOR N 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 what 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 RS. COUNTY FIRMCI.AL CONTRIBUTION Revenue CcntrJbutJons. 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 Nowmbtr 36.199? Integrated Waste ManagemtntAuthortty C-7 A 109County d vx ui u � o ult 15 Q ti ll, zCL a .2 � 442 law 112 CL CL ...................... ........................................................ ..................................................._. ......... ....................... ......... ......................... ... ..... ........................................ ................................................... .................................................... ............................................................ ..................................................................................... ................................................................... STAFF REPORT ESL COUMY 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 11 1995 to January It 1995. Gan y. Tina al rontribut on, Section 9 of the Joint Bowers 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 $64, 000 per voting Director seat per year. Applying this principle to the total revenue contributions made over the 4. 3/4 years since the formation of the Authority ($lt625, 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 $205, 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 `= ent c2uI�1!=asal. in view of the number of parties involved and the involvement of anion 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.Stafft County' Staff and each Member City Attorney for reviewt West Contra Costa November 5,1997 Integrated Waste tL onagmtntAuthortty C-9 .l:Il}9County t STA"REPORT PtTLL COUNTY MEMBERSH M IN THE AUTHORn"Y (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 of 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 casts 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 Q, 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 casts 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 bglieve 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. Courier a TRRF 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 Con"Casts Na�tmbtr Se 1997 Inugratad Wasu Mwwgement Authorlty C- 10 At1OX6unty STAFFREPORT FULL COLTN`,'t'Y M MBP: HW IN TM AtrMORPI'Y 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 cast 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 Ratest the County Area IRRF Surcharge would add $0.30 per month per 32-gallon can equivalent to the County Area can rate, $0.22 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 (2) 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. r Kist Contra Costa Jv'ovembcr 5,1947 Integrated 0 aste Management Authority C- 11 A;1 o9County hJ CD V <!7 e C w8 � w let w w � Y �y w v � tL �n r� a %aUl III d mmc Development AgencyCOPY . . .. .. Costa Vwenti ldex9eft, Direr Countl August 2'7, 1991 �p�►T� ���:�� ,•'.�%''�' �. t «►-f%-M till E APO , SEP — >� Bill Davis,Executive Director Wast CC Integrated Waste Management Authority One Alvarado Square ,.�`� ��r�7 Attachment 1 San Pablo CA 94806 # Dear Bill. At the request of unincorporated County residents served by the West County TRRF,the Beard 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 TFT` 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 M—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 TRRF 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. Si ,ly Val Alex f , Director ver 651 Pine Street,No.Wing, 5ecand FWr, Martinez,California "553•1213 Telephone: (sic) 646-1820 • FAX ($10) 645.15x9 EXHIBIT 3 West Contra Costa y Ia Integrated Waste Management Authority we One Alvarado Square San Pablo, California 94806 TE �Py 'y)� p. ♦{'�}�y �` .��r�t ii /��( EL- (510,)4 1 i 25 # i a( 10)2 & 66.6 t ...., ...,..... The Honorable Board of Supervisors November 12, 1998 Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 945531229 SL,TBJECT: RESPONSE TO YOUR,PROPOSAL FOR COUNTY VOTING MEMBERSHIP ON AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS Dear Chair Rogers and Members, Your proposed arrangements for providing County voting membership on the Authority Beard of Directors were considered by our Board at its 'meeting on November 12, 1998,and the Authority Board of Directors has concluded that acceptance of your proposal would not be fair to ratepayers within the Cities of El Cerrito, Hercules,Pinole,Richmond and San Pablo since the County would not pay its fait share of the costs incurred by the Authority prior to the start of IRRF operation, Consequently,acceptance of your proposal would mean that our ratepayers would bear the financial burden that the County avoided by rejecting our offer in November 1991 that the County accept the voting seat vacated by the'West County Wastewater District. The Authority remains willing to recommend that the current one non-voting seat for the County be provided voting status under arrangements which are fair to all ratepayers. To this end, the Authority Board has recognized that the County (had it accepted the November 1991 offer) would not incur new costs for modification of existing documents and obtaining the consent of Union Bank and the California Integrated"haste Management Board. Accordingly,the Authority is prepared to recommend that its Member Agencies approve arrangements for County voting membership which provide for a buy-in amount of$98,220 with the new costs of document modification and third party approvals being paid from this amount. We look forward to the continued participation and valuable contribution of your representative in the meetings of the Authority Board and a continuation of the co-operative relationship between our respective agencies. Sincerely, coco C Y Chair of the Board cc: Authority Board of Directors to El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council A:1081ettcM EXHIBIT 4 Proposal to WCCIWMA Principles for Coun!y Voting Membership in WCCIWMA 1. The County reaffirms its proposal to make no other changes to the currently existing arrangements and circumstances other than to provide the County with a voting seat on the WCCIWMA Board of Directors. The County understands that this proposal will require that the existing WCCIWMA - Authority Contract be incorporated into the WCCIWMA joint powers agreement without substantive changes or re-negotiation of previously settled matter. 2. The area represented by the County consists of the area covered by the exclusive collection franchise agreement between the County and RSS (the "County Area"). This is the area covered by the existing WCCIWMA - County Contract and waste and recyclable materials collected from this area is required to be delivered to the IRRF. The County would occupy one (1) seat as a voting member of WCCIWMA. The existing ex-officio non-voting seat would be converted to a voting seat. . The County agrees to the"buy-in amount" of$98,220 which includes the new costs actually incurred to provide the County a voting seat at this time and the "buy-in amount" should be paid by an up front expenditure for changing documents and for third party approvals. The balance would be paid over a 4.5 year time period. If the County had accepted the November 1991 offer to assume the one (1) voting seat vacated by the West County Wastewater District, the County would have contributed an additional $98,220 to the funding of WCCIWMA during the period beginning April 2, 1991 and ending January 1, 1995, a period of approximately 4.5 years. If such had been the case, the County would not now incur the new cost associated with the County's acquiring a voting seat at this time. Inasmuch as the Member Agencies of WCCIWMA paid their obligations over a 4.5 year period and not in a lump sum, and Member Agency payments followed execution of the Joint Powers Agreement, the County would pay the buy-in amount over a 4.5 year period following conceptual approval of the sufficient numbers of member agencies necessary to the amendment of the Joint Powers Agreement. 4. The County acknowledges that it is reasonable that the costs associated with the County obtaining a voting seat should not be paid by the ratepayers within the currently existing Member Agencies of WCCIWMA. The County also recognizes that WCCIWMA is not able to reliably predict these costs because of the involvement of Union Bank, the issuer of the letter of credit for the IRRF financing and the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 5. The County recognizes that the IRRF Service Agreement and IRRF Financing are constraints which may only be changed with the mutual consent of all signatory parties and Union Bank. The County recognizes that these arrangements were subject to full public disclosure prior to their adoption, as is the case with IRRF rate setting by WCIWMA and, therefore, believes that the scarce resources of WCCIWMA and the County can best be expended by working together on WCCIWMA Board of Directors rather than by seeking changes in past decisions. The County has, however, received requests from ratepayers within the unincorporated areas that the County audit the IRRF. Rather than undertaking a duplication of the work of WCCIWMA, the recognized public entity responsible for oversight of the IRRF, the County will refer these ratepayers to WCCIWMA and request that WCCiWMA give due considertion to the comments provided. EXHIBIT 4(contd) Proposal to WCCIWMA Principles for Count y Voting Membership in WCCIWMA 6. The County believes that the currently existing Regional AB 939 Plan is largely adequate for the unincorporated area to be included within WCCIWMA boundaries and proposes that, modifications be developed by County staff and WCCIWMA staff and submitted at the time that the revised Joint Powers Agreement is submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for approval. 7. The County understands the need to have identical language in the collection franchise agreements of gfl WCCIWMA Member Agencies and agrees to Principle No. 6 in Exhibit A to WCCIWMA Board of Directors Resolution No. 97-17. Presumably RSS as the other signatory party to the county collection franchse agreement, is agreeable since it has agreed to the same language in the collection franchise agreements for Hercules, Pinole, Richmond and San Palbo. If RSS is not agreeable, the County does not have the unilateral right to modify the existing collection franchise agreement. 8. The County concurs in the desire of WCCIWMA to avoid protracted delay and accordingly agrees with Principle No. 8 in Exhibit A to WCCIWMA Board of Directors Resolution No. 97- 17, Wary/con sarv/boardord/l-1 2-99.bo Voting Membership on the WCCIWMA Board February 23, 1999 Page 2 OPTION 11 1, Accept the staff report review of background; and 2. Accept the attached Principles for County Voting Membership in the Authority which reflect the following modifications to the Principles approved by the WCCIWMA. a) agree to a "buy-in" cost of $98,220, thereby matching the investment of the other member jurisdictions; and b) 66buy-in" cost to include the new cost to be incurred in providing for the additional voting seat for the County (document review and modification, etc.); and c) up-front payment of costs for changing documents and payment of balance over a period of 4.5 years to allow the same time period for the County as provided to the other member jurisdictions; and d) payment of the "buy-in" cost to be accomplished through expenditure of funds from the "Study Fund" (20% of franchise fee received monthly from RSS). 3. Direct staff to present the proposal to the Authority for their consideration. FISCAL IMPACT Under OPTION 1, there would be no cost at this time. Under OPTION 11, the cost of obtaining membership would be $98,220 to be paid by expenditure of funds from the Study Fund. Twenty percent of franchise fees from RSS are put into the study fund. Currently there is approximately $23,000 in this fund. The up-front cost of preparing documents would be paid immediately on completion of work and the balance paid over a 4.5 year period. BACI<OROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The County provides for solid waste services in the West County areas served by RSS through two separate mechanisms. The County has entered into a Franchise Agreement with RSS to provide for collection of solid waste in the residential and commercial areas of the unincorporated county. The County has also entered into an Agreement with the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA) to provide for the disposal of the solid waste. The Authority has been responsible for providing for financing and guiding the development of a transfer station (IRRF) which will provide a method of consolidating and transporting solid waste from the West County area to an out-of-county landfill after the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill reaches capacity. The Authority Beard of Directors sets rates for the IRRF and IRRF-Related Collection Rates which represents the cost of processing of recyclable materials and solid waste disposal. The rates set by the WCCIWMA Board are passed through to ratepayers, The County sets rates for RSS collection services. The rate set by the County and the IRRF-Related Collection Rate set by the Authority are combined to determine the total residential and commercial solid waste rates. California Assembly Bill 939 requires that the County reduce the amount of waste disposed by 50% between 1990 and the year 2000. If the County does not accomplish this goal and/or does not implement the programs described in the Source Reduction and Recycling Element; it is subject to fines of up to $10,000 per day. Staff from the California Integrated Waste Management Board has brought to County staff's attention the fact that membership in the WCCIWMA would increase our exposure to these fines. However, a news release from the California Environmental Protection Agency on December 15, 1998 announced that the jurisdictions served by WCCIWMA exceeded the state requirements to reduce waste to landfills in 1995 and 1996 and had made significant progress toward reaching the goal of 50% reduction in the year 2000 (Exhibit 1). Although the County could potentially be exposed to AB 938 fines for the portion of the unincorporated area that would be within the WCCIWMA boundaries, staff: does not see that this would be a likely occurrence. Voting Membership on the WCCIWMA Board February 23, 1999 Page 3 A voting membership in WCCIWMA will mean that achievement of the 50% mandate would be measured for the entire area within the boundaries of the WCCIWMA and not for each city and the unincorporated area. WCCIWMA would handle the State reporting requirements. Additionally, the AB 935 services needed for the unincorporated area that would be within WCCIWMA closely parallel the AB 939 services needed for balance of the WCCIWMA area. WCCIWMA has developed and the State has approved a Regional AB 939 Plan. County staff has reviewed this plan and believes that it can readily be adapted to the unincorporated area. The Authority appears to be committed to snaking good faith efforts to implementing the programs it has committed to in the Regional AB 939 Plan. 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 1997 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 of Directors is attached (Exhibit 2). On December 18, 1997 the Board of Supervisors reviewed the Authority's proposal and expressed concern regarding the cost of membership and how it would be paid. The Board of Supervisors directedstaff to further review possible funding sources and the possibility of negotiating a reduction on the proposed cost of membership and to further review the documents that would require modification. Staff completed its review and recommended a counter proposal on June 9; 1998 that would reduce the total additional cost of the County to $98,220 which would bring the County contribution to the same level as the other member jurisdictions. With this proposal the approximately then estimated $50,000 cost for document review and modification would be included in the total $98,220. Staff also recommended that the cost of obtaining membership be paid over a period of 4.5 years which was the time frame that the other jurisdictions had in which to pay their share. A further recommendation was that the cost would be paid by the rate payers by adding approximately$.13 per 32 gal. can per month, by increasing bin service by $.09 per cubic yard and by increasing box service by $1.96 per ton for a four and one half year period. At the June 9, 1998 Board meeting, due to concerns expressed by residents from the El Sobrante area and representatives of the El Sobrante MAC, the Board determined that the best action would be to form a subcommittee which consisted of two Board of Supervisors members and two Authority Board members which would then meet with residents of the unincorporated county area served by the WCCIWMA to determine what their concerns are and to determine how best to satisfy those concerns. The Board of Supervisors' counter proposal was then heard at the Authority Board meeting on June 11, 1998. The Authority Board concurred with the subcommittee concept and named Alex Evans and Nat Bates as the Authority representatives. On June 23, 1998 the Board of Supervisors appointed Supervisors Uilkema and Rogers as the County representatives. The Subcommittee met with the interested residents on two occasions. The two primary issues discussed were the total amount that the County would be willing to pay to the Authority for the ability to have a voting seat on the Authority Board and possible source or sources of funds. The Subcommittee determined that it should be the responsibility of the County to pay any costs accrued by the Authority in modifying documents and attorney reviews that will be necessary to accomplish the change in membership. The Committee set a maximum of$55,000 for those costs. They requested that the Authority Executive Director attempt to get an estimate of costs from the various entities that will require review and/ or modification of documents. The committee recommended that there should not be a "buy-in" cost over and above this actual cost. Membership on the WCCIWMA Board February 23, 1999 Page 4 The Subcommittee requested that staff return to the full Board for approval of a new counter proposal to the WCCIWMA. The proposal was that the County would pay the full cost incurred by the Authority as a result of the County gaining a full voting membership up to the amount of $55,000 and that these costs would be paid by the County as incurred and not over a period of time as previously proposed. Funding would be provided from the "Study Fund" portion of the Franchise Fees which would have to obligate those fees for up to 2 years. Other options discussed included a pass through to residents or utilization of a portion of the Franchise Fee or some combination of the two. The County representatives, in considering the amount of payment that the County would be willing to make to gain a vote in the future; took into consideration the fact that the County (or the West County Wastewater District on behalf of the County) contributed $104,974 toward the creation and development of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority. The County did not choose to take the opportunity to join the Authority in 1991. The County, therefore, has paid less than the full voting member agencies, and as a result the County has not had a vote on any of the actions and budgets under consideration by the Authority Board. At the September 15, 1998 meeting, the Board directed staff to forward the counter proposal to WCCIWMA for consideration. The WCCIWMA Board at their meeting on November 12, 1998, concluded that acceptance of the County's proposal would not be fair to rate payers within the cities of EI Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo as the County did not pay its fair share of the costs incurred by the Authority prior to the start of IRRF operations. The Authority is prepared to recommend that its member agencies approve a buy-in amount of$98,220 with new costs of document modification and third party approvals being paid from this amount. A letter to the Board of Supervisors was sent on November 12, 1998. A copy is attached (Exhibit 3). Staff has drafted two recommendations for the Board to consider. Both options could lead to the County having a voting membership on WCCIWMA Board of Directors. There has been a great deal of effort put into investigating the possibility and options for the County obtaining a voting membership, both from the WCCIWMA Board of Directors and its staff and from the County Supervisors. One option (OPTION ) would be to agree to the buy-in at this time. Staff has re-drafted the counter proposal to WCCIWMA which was originally presented to the Board of Supervisors on June 9, 1998. This is labeled Exhibit 4. This proposal to WCCIWMA addresses the issues which were originally raised by WCCIWMA's Resolution No. 97-17 and the "Principles for Full County Membership in the Authority" dated November 13, 1997. The buy-in cost of $98,220 would be made in two steps: (1) the up front costs incurred such as legal and other fens in changing documents needed to effect the new membership; and (2) the balance to be paid over a 4.5 year period. The monies would be paid from the portion of the franchise fees received from RSS that are in the "Study Fund". The other option (OPTION 1)would be for the Board to request the WCCIWMA Board of Directors to postpone the membership decision until the County has evaluated its compliance with the State mandated AB 939 goals. While acknowledging and thanking the WCCIWMA Board of Directors for the opportunity to have a voting membership, the Board could request a deferral on the decision. There are several reasons that staff is recommending the postponement of the decision. The Board is currently faced with two goals. one is to obtain a voting membership in WCCIWMA; and the other is to be in compliance with and meet the State mandated AB 939 waste reduction goals. On the issue of meeting the AB 939 goals, the Board is responsible for all of the unincorporated county. Of the approximate 175,000 persons living in the unincorporated area; approximately 27,000 persons live in west county and have solid waste service under the contract between the Membership on the WCCIWMA Board February 23, 1999 Page 5 County and WCCIWMA. Thus 15% of the residents living in the unincorporated County live in the area served under the WCCIWMA agreement The Board must consider solid waste reduction goals for the whole unincorporated County. In order to be in compliance with the County's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), the County needs to implement additional programs by the year 2000. The Board of Supervisors may need to direct additional funds toward such programs. Committing the franchise fees to pay for the membership in the WCCIWMA at this time would reduce the Board's ability to commit additional funds toward program development. However, once the mandated programs are implemented, the franchise fees could be available for other purposes. In the unlikely case of County noncompliance, additional programs may need to be put in place to compensate for any potential shortfall. The timing of becoming a voting member in the WCCIWMA would be better once the County has implemented all of the programs required in the County's SRRE and when the County is able to evaluate its compliance with the AB 939 goals. Having a voting representative on the WCCIWMA Board would be beneficial in that the County could participate in decisions which affect residents in unincorporated west county and residents of El Sobrante have expressed their desire to have a voting representative on the WCCIWMA Board. While many decisions have been already made during the years between 1991 and the present time when the County has not been able to vote, many years of decision making lie ahead. The County and its residents in the unincorporated County stand to benefit from future decisions. Current population in the combined unincorporated communities in the Authority area makes the County the second largest jurisdiction. This is a fairly large population (larger than El Cerritos, San Pablo's, Hercules' or Pinole's populations). This population deserves to have a voting representative on the Authority's Board. Staff's main concern is whether the timing of the membership and the committing of the funds will hinder the implementation of SRRE mandated programs and meeting the AB 939 goals for the entire unincorporated County. Staff recommends the Board request the WCCIWMA Board of Directors to allow the Board to defer the decision on obtaining a voting membership until the County can fulfill its mandated programs and evaluate its compliance with State AB 939 goals. Linda's Disk:2-23-99.bo DEC-17-1996 15:07 H.161 California Environmental Protect < EXHIBIT k%%%�%JNEWS RELEA %**1 Integrated Wa a men ­044V a DEC 2 1 199 Aon. E'nylrcnrnant � � � _ { , , EMAJ For Immediate Release Ib Ctsrrt �" :3 ►tit � December 16, 1998 Eric Lamoureux 98.148 . ' ° ° (916)255-2296 e opaQclwmb.ca.gov STATE ANNOUNCES FIVE CONTRA COSTACITIES EXCEEDED GARBAGE-CUTTING MANDATE TWO SANTA CLARA CITIES RECOGNIZED FOR GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TOWARD MEETING MANDATE SACRAMENTO---The Callfomla Integrated Waste Management Beard--the stator's primary recycling agency o--announced today that the West Contra Costa Waste Management Authority,which comprises the cities of iii Cerrito, Hercules, Pinois, Richmond, and San Pablo, exceeded the state requirement to reduce the amount of garbage In landfills,and have helped the State keep 1010 million tons of waste out of landfills since 1994, The Waste Board today formally determined the 1995 and 1996 recycling rates for the Contra Costa Authority. It determined that In 1995 the jurisdictions within the authority were recycling 37 percent of their waste and in 1996-were keeping 33 percent of their waste out of landfills. Also at Its meeting today, the Waste Board agreed to approve the recycling rates for the Santa Clare County cities of Gilroy and Los Altos, although their recycling rates fell below rewired rates In either 1995, 1996,or in both years. In 1996 the cities had rates of 20 and 12 percent respectively. For 1995, rates were determined to be 17 percent for Gilroy and 39 percent for Los Altos. The Board agreed that although the Gilroy and Los Altos 1995 rates were lour.the rifts had shown a good faith effort in Implementation of programs necessary to keep waste out of landfills, It also directed Its staff to monitor the cities'future progress, as well as work with them to determine If therm are additional reason for the low recycling rate. If needed,the Board will provide technical assistance for the cities. "California is leading the nation today with a 32 percent recycling rate and our success is due In large part to the recycling efforts of communities like these we recognize today,*said Waste Board Chairman Daniel G. Pennington. "it Is with sincere gratitude that we thank these Bay Area cities for their efforts to help California reach its first recycling milestone, not to mention their contributions In helping the state keep 100 million tons of waste out of landfills since 1990. "As for those jurisdictions that have fallen short of the goal,are acknowledge the hard work you've put In thus far and remind you that this recognition 'should not signal an end to your hare!work. In order for your cities to reach the ambitious 501 percent goal set for 2000, It will require an earnest and sustained effort,"Pennington added. These Contra Costa and Santa Clara County jurisdictions join five other cities in Contra Costa County and 13 Santa Clara County cities and Santa Clara County that have had their 1995 and 1996 recycling rates approved by the Beard this year. The 1995 and 20030 recycling requirements were established in 1989 with the passage of the Integrated Waste Management Act. Cities and counties are required to implement recycling programs to (more) Say Area Recycling 2-2-2-2-2 meet these requirements. Since the Act was implemented in 1990, state residents have recycled at an average rate of 1-ton every three seconds, equaling the 100 million tons of waste kept out of landfills-- enough to fill 84,_j yramids the size of the Creat Pyramid at Giza. Today's announcement came as part of a Board Biennial Review of jurisdictions' Implementation of recycling and other waste diversion programs and their recycling rates. Since May,when the reviews began,the Board has determined the 1995 and 1996 diversion rates for 247 cities and counties. Of those, 63 have already.trret or surpassed the 50 percent recycling mark far 2000.The Board expects to complete the reviews of neap all 531:cities and counties statewide by early 1999. The Waste Board is required to conduct Its review every two years as an evaluation of a jurisdiction's progress In Implementing programs it had previously outlined to the Beard. Because the annual recycling figures do not have to be reported until August of the following year, the Board's staff was unable to begin examining the combined 1995 and 1996 data until last fall. Once the Biennial Review Is complete,the Board either finds the city or county in compliance, or puts it on a compliance schedule to assist it in meeting the goal. Failure to meet the compliance schedule can mean the city or county could face fines of up to$10,000 per day. Many of the communities lauded today have found that a combination of waste prevention, recycling, and composting programs are the most effective means of reducing the amount of garbage going to landfills. Some of the recycling programs Include purchasing recycled-content products;drop-off and buy-back centers and curbside programs for recyclables collection; and regional composting programs and community education events on how to compost yard wastes. In audition, many cities and counties have implemented waste reduction programs in the schools, as well as provided teaching materials and curricula to K-12 teachers. Waste audits for businesses, and brochures, public service announcements, and newsletters have also become papular methods of educating residents about waste reduction techniques and the importance of conserving landfill space and natural resources. The six-member Integrated Waste Management Board is responsible for protecting the public's health and safety and the environment through management of the 62 million toms of solid waste generated in California each year. The Board's mandate is to work In partnership with local government, Industry, and the public to achieve a 50 percent reduction In waste disposed by the year 2000,while ensuring environmentally safe landfill disposal capacity. Currently. California's diversion rate Is at an all- time high of 32 percent, exceeding the national average. The Waste Board Is one of six boards and departments within the California Environmental Protection Agency(Cal/EPA). #0 Visit the Waste Board on the Internet at www,ciwmb.ca.s Tr-T01 P ram EXHIBIT 2 1 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 COU'NT'Y VOTING MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY 5 AND AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF A COUN'T'Y AREA TRR.F 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; 9 WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLLMON 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 Muting 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 is 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 IR.RF Surcharge in the amounts specified in Exhibit B hereto subject to all 2 WEST CON"MA COSTA II GRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DMECTORS RESOUMON NO.97.17 I of the following conditions- 2 (a) The IRRF Operator shall convey all amounts collected as a result 3 of the County Area Ute`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 1 (b) The IRRF Operator and Richmond Sanitary Service,Inc. shall 6 begin collection of the County Area UW 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 r WEST CONTRA COSTA V I"IEGRATED WASTE MANAGEIVOI T AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRBCrORS RESOLUTION NO.97-17 I authorize the Executive Director to provide written notification to the IRRF Operator and 2 Richmond unitary Service,Inc. to cease collection of the County Area IRRF Surcharge either 3 (l)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 Arca 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 I I 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. 1 (e) Any amount collected by the Authority, HW 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 UZRF Related Collection Rates beginning 16 the next January 1st, (i.e. the next ensuing IItR,F Rate adjustment) following termination of 17 collection of the County Area 1RRF Surcharge. I8 (f) The Executive Director shall periodically report to the Authority 19 Board the amounts collected via the County Area HW Surcharge and costs paid from funds 20 collected via said Surcharge. 4 WEST CONTRA COSTA IN''TEGRAT WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHOR I Y BOARD OF DMECT'ORS RESOU MON NO,97-I 7 I 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(l)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 S for approval in concept. 9 Section 6. This Resolution shall be immediately effective upon adoption by the 10 Board of Directors. I I .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.,EI Sobrante 14 Municipal Advisory Council and other interested parties. is AMST: CHAIR OF THE BOARD Ma Ale is Di Bill Davis,Executive Director n at P 5 WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OR 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: Ale ria, Evans Gomes , Jei 1-4 EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION 97-17 PRINCIPLES FOR F't7LL 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 it the area covered by the Authority .. County Contract (County Area) and waste from this area is required to be delivered to the XPRr. 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 IRR ' operation and paid by Member Agency contributions. Prior to the start of operation of the IRR ` 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. Vection 9 of the Joint Powers Agreement provides that revenue contributions to the Authority prior to start of IRRP 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,S49)result>s 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 2RRr Service Agreement and YRRF 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 Authors ty 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 ............ ........................................................................... ..........._.........................................................................._..................... _.... ......... ......... ........... ..... ..... ......... ......... ......... .........._......_.... _ .... ......... ......... ......... .......... .......... .. ...... ........... ...... .. . ....... . .............................. .............................................................I............................ ............................ EXHIIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO.97-17 PRINCIPLES POP,FULL.COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AMORITY 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 Mate-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 t6 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 Californias 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 Services, Inc. (RSS) completed work on a final collection franchise agreement in October 1993 during the final :stages of completion of the IMM financing. This franchise agreement was prepared against the requirements sect 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 franchises 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 E)CIIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO,97-17 PRINCIPLES FOR Ft3LL 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 IRRY Rates for the County Arses as specified in Authority Board. of Directors Resolution No. 97-1.7 to pay the costs associated with irpl.smentation 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 isnot 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 zxhibit 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, (z) pay costs incurred by the Authority and Member Cities, costs associated with securing Union Bank consent, and costs associated with obtaining CI:WMB 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 I+RRF 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 ............................. ................................................................................. ............................................................................................_.. ......... ......... ......... ... ....... ......_. ........ ....... ......._..... ..... ......... ......... ......... .. .... ... ........ ................................................................................ ........................................................................................ . . ....... . EIT A TO MSOLUTION NO.97-17 PRNCIPLES FOR P=COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY 8. Member Agencies of the Authority would be afforded a maximum of 1-year after the Authority ward 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 doc=ont(s) necessary to implementation of arrangements. At the conclusion of the 1> year period, all document(a) 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, A3110resr9717 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 Rats $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 $ - 1 " rtrtg+C TO RESOLUTION NO. 97-17 WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY STAFF REPORT FULL COUNTY MMBERBHIP IN THE AUTHORITY November St 1997 CONTENTS Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 Current Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 Prior Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 County Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . C-2 CountyProposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . + C-2 Proposal • • + . r • . + . v C-2 Implementation of Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3 Authority -- County Contract . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • C-3 overview . . . . + + . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . C-3 Landfill Selection . . . • . + . . . . . . . . . . . o • C-4 Contract Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4 Additional Contracts : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-q 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 Table 11 Revenue Contributions to Authority Prior To C-6 Start of 1RRF operations on January 1, 1996 . + Table 21 Calculation of County Area Surcharge Amount + . C-12 Attachment Letter dated August 27, 1997, from Mr. Val Alexeeff, Director, Contra Cost GMEDP. to Mr. Bill Davis, WCCIWY-h. .................... .................................................................... ....................................................................................._ ......... ......... ........... . ...... ...... ...... ......... .......... . .............._..... ..... ....................... ......... ......... ..._..... ...... ... ......... ........................................ ......._.. ...................................................................................__.. . ................. ......_....... . WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE Mr'1NAGEMENT AUTHORITY STA REPORT FM,L COUNTY M HBERSHIP 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 isrranaements 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. Zx:ior Activities. At the time of formation of the Authority in April 1.991, the West County Wastewater District was the solid waste franchising agency for the County Area and a venting member of the Authority. Subsequently, the District elected not to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Contra Costa County to continue the D'istrict' 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 ML COUN Y MEMBERSHIP IK 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. Q ,ty rea. 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, 1.7% 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 33% 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 pro2os 1,,...,. As evidenced in the County letter provided in Attachment No. 1 to this report, the County: (1) Proposes to nake thenAuthoritchanges Board ofcDprectorst to obtain voting membership o Y. (2) Recognizes of would be expected to pay any costmodifications ofycurrently existing documents, and Wise Contra Costa Nowmbtr 5.1997 Integrated Waste Management.4uthortty C-2 A:109County STAFF REPORT MC L Cbt7N N MEMBERSHM ri TSE AM0RM (3) Recognizes that the boundaries of the Regiolial AB 939 area may need to be changed with the approval of the California ,Integrated Waste Management Board. 1= wentati!Qn_, of ro osa . In order to implement the County Proposal it will be necessary for (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: (2) Union Bank, the issuer of the letter of credit securing repayment of the IRR,F Bonds issued by the California Pollution Cartrol Financing Authority, (2) , A sufficient number of the currently existing Authority Members (Cities of El 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 IR.RF financing in January 2994 . Additionally, if the currently existing Regional AB 939 Flan 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 CISH for approval.. ALTTEOP-TTY COUNTY CONTRACT cyvervigw. The Authority County Contract provides that (1) regulation of IRR ' 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 Costs - - NowmberS, 19,97 Integrated Waste Management Authority C-3 A.1 d9County 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„ Selecti2n. 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 95% 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 ($) . (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. Co tract Ta=inatjon . 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. Addition s! 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 Wast Contra Costa �+lavtmber S, 1'99y Integrated Waste ManagementAudwrtty C-4 ,q.109Counry STAFF REPORT Fi3J L COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE Ari ORI Y Hazardous Waste Collection Program is one such example of an additional. contract. Covenant y County,end �utbor;t At the time of !RRF 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...Mitgat n Ege MaXiM=. The Authority _ County Contract caps the amount of Bost 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 2998 IRRF Budget, the maximum Host Mitigation Fee rate is $2.28 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 2999 assuming start of waste transfer operations on January It 1999. It should be noted that the Authority - County Contract provides that first priority for use of 50% of Host Mitigation Fee Revenue shall be giver to use for mitigation of impacts occurring in the unincorporated area. At�NDNT OF THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Section 1.9.1 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 o 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 Centra 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 Comm Costa Novembrr 5. 1997 Integrated Waste Management Authority C-5 A:109Counry 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 19941 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 a 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 Cona TdowmberS, 1997 Integrated Wxte Management Authority C-6 A:109Counry