Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06211988 - IO.4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 21, 1988 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Schroder ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Acme Fill Issues The Board received the attached report dated June 13 , 1988 from the Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson) relative to the County entering a public-private partnership for the purpose of expansion of current dump sites. After discussion by Board members, IT IS ORDERED that the following actions are APPROVED: 1. DETERMINED to support Acme Fill' s expansion proposal in preference to a public-private partnership with one or another of the disposal site operators; 2. REFERRED the issue to the Solid Waste Commission; and 3. REQUESTED Community Development staff to report on the feasibility of moving the Central Sanitary District outfall pipe and realigning Waterbird Way to provide space for expansion of Acme Fill. CC: Community Development Solid Waste Commission, via CDD County Administrator 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of BE' �3 F©n taken and entered on the minutes of the L'o and of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: PHIL BACHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By c.G... , Deputy ?n. • ' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I. 0. 4 ray' FROM: Contra a INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa DATE: June 13 , 1988 lit. ^ SUBJECT: Public-Private Partnership with Acme Fill SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) a BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION• Favor the 60 ft. -75 ft. height extension at Acme as was done by the Board on June 14, 1988 and support the 24-acre expansion at Acme Fill in preference to a public-private partnership with one or another of the disposal site operators in view of the potential liability involved for the County. BACKGROUND: On May 9, 1988 our Committee asked County Counsel for information on how and where the County could enter into a public-private partnership with the owners of the Acme and/or GBF dump sites to acquire additional adjacent land by eminent domain for expansion of the dump sites. County Counsel reported to our Committee on June 13 that while it is possible to condemn land through eminent domain procedures in order to expand the dump sites, the County exposes itself to substantial liability by doing so. County Counsel notes that the County would generally assume the same liability that a private owner of a landfill would have. The County would also be liable for any dangerous condition at the site. In view of County Counsel ' s opinion, a copy of which is attached, we believe that private expansion of the Acme site is preferable to a public-private partnership in this particular instance and should be supported consistent with the Board' s actions of June 14, 1988. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE _ OTHER _ SIGNATURE St' (Zimnin W. McPeak �} Tom Torlakson ION OF BOARD ON June 21 , 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 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 BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: O UPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Administrator ATTESTED Director, Community Development PHIL BATC OR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Counsel SUPERVISORS A COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DUTY M382/7-83 Contra Costa County COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date: May 23, 1988 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA MAY 2 .11988 Office of To: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator County Ad•miniStrafor Attn: C.L. Van Marter, Assistant lAdministrator From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Lillian T. Fujii, Deputy County Counsel Re: Public-private partnership with Acme or GBF Pursuant to your 5/16/88 memorandum, we will be prepared to generally discuss the possibility of a public-private partnership with the owners of the Acme Fill and GBF landfills. Pending the committee meeting, you may wish to provide the I.O. Committee members with copies of the attached 9/4/87 memorandum in which we respond to several specific questions concerning the possibility of a public-private partnership with garbage haulers. LTF/jh attachment cc: Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development Attn: Dave Okita, Assistant Director COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ' Dare: September 4 , 1987 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA To: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel �T� By: Lillian T. Fujii , Deputy County Counsel Re: public-private partnership with current garbage haulers To respond to Supervisor Nancy Fanden ' s request that the County Administrator explore the possibility of a private-public partnership with current garbage haulers , nine questions were prepared for response by either the County Counsel ' s office or the Community Development Department. This responds to those questions which are appropriately addressed by the County Counsel ' s office (Questions 3 through 7 , inclusive) . Question No. 3 . Can we generate revenue by way of a tipping fee over and above the current fee imposed? a. What is the maximum amount that can be currently charged with private ownership? b. What is . the maximum amount that can be currently charged with County ownership? Answer: The County is authorized to collect fees for the costs of its solid waste enforcement program (Govt.C. § 66796. 20 ) and for the preparation, maintenance and administration of the solid waste management plan (§ . 66784 . 3 ) . Both statutes prohibit the amount of the fees collected from exceeding the reasonable costs of the program for which the fees are authorized. Thus , under the current private ownership of landfills , the County may not increase these fees to landfill operators unless the costs of its programs increase and such increase is reasonable. If the County owns the landfill , we know of no statute or other law which would prohibit the County from generating revenue (above its costs ) in operating the landfill in such proprietary capacity. Government Code§ 25823, attached, strongly indicates that the County may operate a landfill in a revenue-generating fashion. (See Anaheim City School Dist. v. County of Orange [ 1985] 164 Cal.App. 3d 697 , 699-700 , 210 Cal .Rptr . 722 . ) There have been several statutes adopted within the past several years (Govt .Code §§ 54985 , 5499C ) prohibiting the County from imposing fees in excess of the reasonable cost of providing a Phil Batchelor, County Administrator September 4 , 1987 service. We have reviewed these provisions , and are of the opinion that they probably would not cover a tipping fee charged by the County as the owner and operator of a public disposal site. Question No. 4: What liability would the County assume as a co-owner of a landfill site? Answer No. 4: The County would generally assume the same liability that a private owner of a landfill would have. The County_ would also be liable for any dangerous condition at the site. The County could attempt to shield itself by obtaining insurance coverage or by entering agreements requiring a private contractor to assume responsibility for the site. However, a hold harmless agreement is generally only as good as the private contractor is financially sound and/or has adequate insurance. Insurance coverage for many types of liability (e.g. , claims based in inverse condemnation, civil rights violations , antitrust violations, etc. ) may be prohibitively expensive to obtain. In responding to this question it is assumed that if the County ultimately decides to -become involved with the owning and operating of a landfill, it will proceed to do so in a legal manner which will not subject it to antitrust liability by private proponents of landfill sites. Question No. 5 : What authority does the County have to control the operation of a landfill site: a. Under private ownership? b. Under County ownership? Answer No. 5 : As to a privately owned landfill in the unincorporated area of the County, the County' s authority over the operation of the landfill would be limited to its land use and general governmental powers. Specifically, the County would have some ability to control the operation of a landfill pursuant to land use entitlement conditions, and the ability to require compliance with general governmental regulations pursuant to its authority to enforce laws on minimum requirements on the operation of landfills. Attached hereto is a copy of County Counsel opinion no. 85-64 , which contains a general discussion on the County' s ability to regulate operations at a landfill pursuant to its land use powers . If a landfill is owned by the County, the County would have complete control (pursuant to its police power, and as property owner ) over its operation subject only to state and federal laws . -2- ' Phil Batchelor , County Administrator September 4 , 1987 Question No. 6 : What authority does the County have under its eminent domain powers to condemn land for a publicly held site or a privately held site? Answer No. 6 : The County has authority under the eminent domain laws to condemn property for a public use (a public site) , but not for a private site. Thus, there could be legal problems if a public-private partnership proposed a County eminent domain aquisition of property for private ownership. Question No. 7 : What authority does the County have to control the destination of the waste stream? Answer No. 7 : The County Counsel ' s Office has in the past provided opinions concerning waste stream control. In opinion no. 84-93, copy attached, . the issue of controlling the waste stream through a County solid waste management plan was discussed. It was generally concluded that although a County plan would be an appropriate forum for controlling the waste stream, a change in state policy should be made. In opinion no. 85-64 , another waste stream control issue was addressed. In that opinion (pages 8 through 10 ) , the same conclusion was generally reached. Currently, and in practice, franchising cities and districts have the ability to direct the waste stream, subject to contrary provisions in the various franchise agreements . The County would similarly have the ability to contractually direct the waste stream as to the unincorporated areas where it has the authority and elects to franchise garbage collection service. (See Answer to Question No. 2 . ) LTF:df -3-