The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05231989 - 2.5 „ r 4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon Cwtra Director of Community Development Costa DATE: May 23 , 1989 CO ��{�/ SUBJECT: Additional Review of Acme Fill Costs �/�/�'� ��1 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Accept report from Community Development Director and County Administrator on the cost for additional work to review historical users and operating costs at Acme Landfill. 2 . If the Board desires additional work, authorize the Community Development Department to negotiate a contract amendment for the additional work, and return the contract for execution to the Board on June 6, 1989. Also authorize the Community Development Department and the County Administrator to secure funding from Acme Fill Corporation to pay for additional costs. FINANCIAL IMPACT No direct County cost, it is anticipated that Acme Fill will provide funding as was done for the review of closure and post- closure costs. However, we have not requested funding from Acme Fill pending a Board decision on the scope of the work. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND At the May 16 , 1989 meeting of the Board of supervisors, the Board requested County staff to report back to the Board on May 23 , 1989 on the scope of additional increments to the Touche- Ross study, including review of previous Acme customers and base rates at the landfill. With direction from County staff, Touche-Ross has identified five areas that may require further analysis. The five areas and the costs associated with doing the work are as follows: Analysis 1. Identify historical users of the Acme Landfill. Identify users by communities and estimate how much waste was contributed by each jurisdiction. Estimated Cost; $9,200 CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTL X YES SIGNATU RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REC TION O B RD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON y 23 , 1969 n X APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER _ APPROVED Recommendation No. 1 as presented ; approved Recommendation No . 2 to amend contract to include Analysis No . and Analysis No . 3a with the Community Development Director and County Administrator authorized to secure funding for additional costs from Acme Fill Corporation. The County Administrator and County Counsel were requested to review legal aspects of County regulation of rates based on results of the additional studies . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: ommunit Development (Orig. Dept . ) ATTESTED May 23 , 1989 County Aydmi ni strator -- ---County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY �[.�� / & ,DEPUTY M382/7-83 J Analysis 2. Identify the components (closure and post-closure costs, operating costs, profits) of the $47 per ton tipping fee charged by Acme Fill. Estimated Cost: $2, 990 Analysis 3a. Review the major components of the $47 per ton tipping fee to determine if the cost components are reasonable. Estimated Cost: $20,010 Analysis 3b. Conduct a detailed review of the $47 per ton tipping fee to determine if the cost components are reasonable. Estimated Cost: $41,860 Comment: If Analysis 3b is selected, Analysis 3a does not need to be done. Analysis 4a. Examine the historical operating profits of Acme Landfill and analyze the company' s estimate of the impact of closure on taxes. Determine whether the 1983 $2. 6 million closure and post-closure estimate could have reasonably been provided for through profits. Estimated Cost: $15 ,295 Comment: This Analysis was not specifically asked to be reviewed by the Board, however, if the consultants are going to review the operating costs of Acme Landfill, answering questions identified in the earlier closure and post-closure study concerning the $2. 6 million may be appropriate. Analysis 4b. As an alternative to the Analysis in 4a, Touche- Ross will determine the reasonableness of the company' s treatment of taxes as they relate to closure and post-closure costs and recommend alternatives if appropriate. Determine whether the 1983 $2 . 6 million closure and post-closure estimate could have reasonably been provided for through profits. Cost estimate: $23 ,920 Comment: The analysis of Acme' s closure and post-closure costs led to a question regarding the company' s assumptions regarding the tax treatment of closure costs and revenues. ' If- the Board desires a review of Acme' s operating costs, this information may be -useful. Analysis 5. Evaluate the reasonableness of the interest rate Acme earned on funds collected for closure and post-closure. Cost estimate: $4,140 Comment: This task was not specifically requested by the Board for review. However, if Touche-Ross is to review the operating costs of the landfill this information may be useful in determining the appropriateness of the interest rate earned by Acme Fill on closure funds. This was a question raised in the initial analysis of closure and post-closure costs. If the Board determines that additional work should be done by Touche-Ross, County staff should be given the authority to negotiate a contract amendment with Touche-Ross to further refine the cost and scope of work identified in this Board Order. Additionally, funding should be sought from Acme Fill as was the case for the review of closure and post-closure costs and the establishment of a rate regulation program for the Acme transfer station. Staff has not contacted Acme to determine if they are willing to fund these analyses pending a Board decision on the scope of the additional work. All work, except Analysis 3b (the detailed operating cost rate review) can be completed within 30 days of execution of a contract. -2- 3.V aq THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 23 , 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Correspondence Agenda Item 3. 1 Letter dated April 19, 1989 from Barbara Thompson, Chair, Housing Committee of the Advisory Council on Aging, 143 Maricopa Court, Pleasant Hill 94523 , commenting on housing needs for senior citizens and on a survey proposed for the Pleasant Hill and Richmond areas on this issue. ***REFERRED TO INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 3 . 2 Letter dated May 10 , 1989 from Joe Goglio, Chair, Human Services Advisory Commission, expressing concern with the continuing erosion of mental health resources available to the County, and offering to hold a series of forums to develop strategies to maximize existing mental health resources. ***REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 3 . 3 Letter dated May 9, 1989 from John T. Bouey, Vice President, Infra-Structure Division, Bryan & Murphy Associates, Inc. , P.O. Box 287, Walnut Creek 94597, requesting that they be allowed to become part of the County' s consultant team for the East County Corridor Study. ***REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 3 . 4 Letter dated May 9, 1989 from Kay Woodson, City Clerk, City of Hercules, 111 Civic Drive, Hercules 94547 , transmitting resolution adopted by the Hercules City Council on April 26, 1989 opposing a peripheral canal or any other isolated Delta water transfer facility. ***REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 3 . 5 Letter dated May 10, 1989 from Diane Longshore, Chair, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) , transmitting LAFCO' s budget for Fiscal Year 1989-1990 . ***REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Continued on Page 2 Board Order Page 2 Correspondence Agenda Item 3 . 6 Letter dated May 5, 1989 from Susan McNulty Rainey, President, Board of Directors, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez 94553 , requesting the County to expand the "Scope of Services" for landfill operation to include development of alternative methods for closure and post-closure maintenance funds placed in a publicly controlled trust; and that the audit being conducted disclose the history over the past ten years of assets and dividends of Acme. ***REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 3 .7 Letter dated May 17, 1989 from J. S. Smyth, Chairman, Alhambra Valley Specific Plan Committee, requesting the Board to oppose the destruction of "The Pear Orchard" and its replacement with a retention basin for a development in the Alhambra Valley area of Martinez. ***REFERRED TO PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD ON JUNE 6, 1989 3. 8 - Separate Board Order - 3 . 9 Letter dated May 1, 1989 from Ronald A. Tsugita, Secretary to the Board of Directors, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, 2500 Pittsburg-Antioch Highway, Antioch 94509, transmitting Resolution No. 7/89 changing the legal name of Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 7-A to Delta Diablo Sanitation District. ***ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid actions as noted (***) are APPROVED. cc: Correspondents Internal Operations Committee Claude Van Marter, CAO I hereby certify thal, this is a true and correct copy of County Administrator an action taken end entered on the minutes of the Community Development Director Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Public Works Director ATTESTED: —2a /98� PHIL BATC OR, 1_�lerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Ax.L .Deputy