Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03221988 - 2.14 2. 14 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 22, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, and Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Report on analysis of closure costs on future garbage rates and costs of using new local landfills in West and Central County, and report listing the proposals for public private development of landfill sites. The Board on March 8 , 1988 requested the Community Development Department to report on the potential future cost increase to rate payers due to closure costs of existing landfills, and to develop cost estimates on the use of future landfills located in West and Central County assuming no transfer stations were used. The Director of Community Development presented the report attached hereto as Exhibit A. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED receipt of the attached report is hereby ACKNOWLEDGED. Supervisor Powers requested that the March 1.8, 1988 report from the Director of Community Development, listing the proposals for public private development of landfill sites, attached hereto as Exhibit B, be made available to the public. ! ""::mby certily that this is a tMe and coriectcopy of Care action Oaken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Su faervbors on the elate seam m. ATTESTED: Zola PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk ref tite€ carr; of Supervisors and County Admjnlstralor cc: Community Development County Administrator County Counsel. CONTRA.COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervi ors DATE: March 18, 1988 FILE: R-25H FROM: Harvey E. Bra d , Director of C e m t SUBJECT: Analysis of osnre Co is 4 Future Garbage Rates and Costs of Using New Local Landfills in West and Central County At the March 8, 1988, meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board requested the Community Development Department to report on two issues. The first issue concerns the potential future cost increase to rate payers due to closure costs of existing landfills. The second issue concerns cost estimates of the use of future landfills located in West and Central County assuming no transfer sta- tions were used. Closure Costs In November of 1984, the State Water Resources Control Board made major changes in the regulations concerning disposal of waste to land. One component of these changes was to increase requirements for sanitary landfill closure. The most significant closure changes were an increase in the final soil cap of the land- fill, additional monitoring requirements, post-closure maintenance requirements, and pre-funding of closure and post-closure costs. The pre-funding aspect had major cost implications to landfills in Contra Costa County. Since our land- fills have short remaining lives (two to four years) , the entire cost of the new regulations must be collected over this short time frame. Since most landfill operators did not have significant sums of. money put aside for ultimate closure, almost all the closure costs and post-closure maintenance costs needed to be collected. Landfills are required to submit new closure plans meeting the new requirements to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill has submitted a closure plan, but the plan has not been fully approved. Acme Fill and the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill will be submitting their closure plans shortly. Although these plans are not approved, landfill opera- tors were urged to start collecting estimated closure costs immediately, since their capacities are so limited. Costs to dispose at landfills in Contra Costa County have increased dramatically in the last few years in response to closure requirements. Roughly, the costs have gone from $10 a ton to about $18 a ton. Landfill operators have assumed that these costs would be passed through to waste generators because these were costs required by new State regulations. However, some jurisdictions have balked at paying all or part of these increases (e.g. El Cerrito and Walnut Creek) . The owners of the landfill are liable for all closure and post-closure costs regardless of whether or not public agencies allow them to include them in their rate base. 0 �7 [n! ` ^ . - 3, - Costs for closure and post-closure ^ f existing landfills is not expected to impact future costs of new landfills in the County. The only way costo of future landfills could be impacted by the closure of existing landfills is if inadequate amounts of closure funds are collected for closure of an existing landfill, and the owners of the new landfill allow the rates for the new laud- till to include coats for closure of old landfills. If the old and new landfill ` owners are the same, it is more possible that this scenario could occur. Public ageonieo which will have rate review authority over new landfills, and public agencies that have existing rate review authority over solid waste collection companies, will have to determine whether this is a fair allocation of past costs. Closure costs for a new landfill is not likely to be a significant part of the disposal fee. New landfills will have the luxury of collecting closure costs from the first day of operation, thereby accumulating a fund for the life of the landfill for ultimate closure. The longer period to collect closure and post- closure funds lessens the overall impact of these ooats. The increase in existing landfill costs for closure of $8 ger too is approxi- mately equal to 87 cents per household per month increase in garbage rates. The monthly increase would be higher for commercial and industrial accounts because the coot of disposal makes a greater portion of the total ouot for these types of waste. Central and West County Sites Without Transfer Stations The Board's intent was to have staff estimate the cost of potential new land- fills that may aazne West and Central County without the use of transfer sta- tiooa. For this analysis, we have assumed that the West County landfill will be the Cummings Skyway site (I-Z) , and the Central County site is the formerly proposed Bay Pointe Landfill in West Pittsburg. In order for the Board to com- pare these costs with costs of other alternatives, we have used the same format as included in the March _2, 1988, memorandum which analyzed totoze scenario landfill costs based on the CazoI]o report provided to Supervisor Toclakmoo' The attached table shows the two new scenarios in the context of the previously obuwo scenarios. The assumption that no transfer stations will be required is a significant assumption. Economics may not dictate the need for the transfer station, but traffic mitigation may require transfer stations in many oaseo. For example, the previously proposed Central Landfill (located near Bailey Road) is near to the Bay Pointe Landfill. Staff had recommended transfer stations be required for use of the Central Landfill. Since the Bay Pointe Landfill was never formally proposed, a staff recommendation regarding the need for a transfer station for Bay Pointe Landfill was not made. If the Cummings Skyway and Bay Pointe sites were proposed, a more detailed analysis of factors such as traffic would have to be performed to determine if a transfer station, or a mini-transfer station, would be required. However, for the purpose of this analysis, we have assumed no transfer stations in these two scenarios. For West County wastes to use the Cummings Skyway Landfill adds approximately an additional 15 miles (round trip) . It is assumed for comparison purposes that ~ 3. the disposal fee at Cummings Skyway, will be the same as the existing disposal fee at the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. Therefore, the only difference is the increased transportation cost. The cost for a residential collection vehicle is $11.41 per hour (1989 costs) . Assuming a speed of 35 miles per hour gives a per-ton increase of $4.89 per ton. This is equivalent to 53 cents per household per month. For Central County use of the Bay Pointe site, an additional 8 miles round trip is assumed. Using the same speed and cost as in the Cummings Skyway analysis gives a monthly household increase of 28 cents per ton. These two costs are significantly lower than the other costs identified in the March 2, 1988, report. The main cost difference is the cost of a transfer sta- tion (approximately $1.08 per household per month) . The assumption that the disposal costs are the same as those in the March 2, 1988, letter may not be accurate. The March 2, 1988, report assumed that there would only be one landfill used in the County. If there are multiple landfills, the per-ton cost for disposal at the multiple landfills will be higher than if there was only one landfill due economies of scales. Previous rough analysis have shown that the potential increase in tipping fee costs for multiple land- fill scenarios generally offset transportation cost savings. If you have any questions, please contact David Okita at 646-2071. DBO:jn 139:bos3.mem attachment CCCCDD 3/2/88 Comparison of Carollo Report Estimates and Staff Estimates of Future Cost Increases Due to Increased Transportation and Disposal Carollo * County Sta�f Scenario Estimates Estimates Acme waste to Altamont $1.75 $2.43 Acme waste to East Contra Costa $1.53 $2.00 Acme waste to Kirker Pass $1.50 $1.94 Acme waste to Marsh Creek $2.02 $2.56 Acme waste to Bay Pointe $1.32 $1.79 West County waste to Altamont $2.08 $2.85 West County waste to East Contra Costa $1.86 $2.54 West County waste to Kirker Pass $1.78 $2.43 West County waste to Marsh Creek $2.43 $3.00 West County waste to Bay Pointe $1.49 $2. 16 Acme waste to Bay Pointe (no transfer station) $0.28 West County waste to Cummings Skyway $0.53 (no transfer station) *Dollars per household per month increase from existing costs. NOTE: See text of memo for assumptions used. This does not include any increases in collection costs or cost increase for recycling programs. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: March 18, 1988 ILE: R-25I FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Cc n' 4ev SUBJECT: Proposals for Public/Private Development of Landfill Sites At the March 15, 1988, meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board requested staff to review proposals received from potential landfill developers for pub- lic/private partnerships in development of a future sanitary landfill in Contra Costa County. The proposals were all received before the October 9, 1987, dead- line. Pursuant to the Board of Supervisors' direction, the proposals were not opened until the Board action on March 15, 1988. Responses to the request were received from five parties: the Delta-Diablo Sanitation District, Browning-Ferris Industries, Acme Fill Corporation, S & J Investments and Land Waste Management. The following is a summary of each proposal. The Community Development Department has copies of proposals which can be made available to Board members. The Kirker Pass Waste Management pro- posal requested full confidentiality of the proposal as- was allowed for in the request for proposal. Delta-Diablo Sanitation District Delta-Diablo proposes formation of a Joint Powers Authority which would include Antioch, Pittsburg, the District, Concord, Clayton and the County to oversee the financing, development and operation of a landfill. The proposal does not iden- tify a specific landfill site for development, but includes in an appendix con- _ taining information Delta-Diablo has developed on various southeast county landfill sites, including the Marsh Creek site. The District notes that it has capital reserves in excess of $13 million which could be used to finance this project. The District would provide project management for the landfill project. -Browning-Ferris Industries BFI' s proposal is a one-page letter which states that they are negotiating for the purchase of property in the County for sanitary landfill. As soon as the terms are arranged for final acquisition of the property, BFI will submit a more detailed proposal. Subsequent to the submittal of the proposal, BFI announced that the property they were seeking to acquire was the Bay Pointe landfill near West Pittsburg. BFI has now stated they are no longer pursuing that property because they could not acquire property rights. BFI's letter did not discuss a public/private partnership with the County. E,z�j�I�NY 3 2. Acme Fill Corporation The Acme Fill Corporation stated that they have concluded that the request for proposal does not embrace the development and operation of Acme' s transfer station, and on that basis Acme elects not to respond, but expressly reserves its right to respond to a request for proposal .for encompassing a waste transfer station. S & J Investments The proposal from S & J Investments involves the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. They note that the landfill is already in the permitting process and that they would be open to direct financial involvement on the part of the Coun- ty in the project. Options include partial ownership of the landfill if the County is willing to assume an appropriate amount of the liability. They have no objection with the County having rate review authority. They also suggest that the County may share in the revenue of the landfill through a franchise fee. Attached to the proposal is. a letter from Richmond Sanitary Service stat- ing their support of the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill and states their intent in participating with' the developers of the project. Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill In accordance with the procedures in the request for proposals, Land Waste Man- agement requests that all the information contained in the proposal be consid- ered confidential. The proposal involves the Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill. Via separate confidential memorandum, our department will summarize this proposal in more detail. If you have any questions, please contact David Okita at 646-2071- or Paul- Kilkenny at 646-4194. DBO:jn 139:bos.mem cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Vic Westman, County Counsel