HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04161991 - 2.7 f
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Sara Hoffman « Contra�
CostaSolid Waste Manager
DATE: April 16, 1991 �;C' .y o CD
i�r
,Jt r�c UiiNSI
SUBJECT: Mitigation Fees at Altamont Landfill for Contra Costa Solid Waste
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS (S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
ACCEPT the status report on .the effort to reduce the rate impact of Alameda
County Measure D on Contra Costa waste received at Altamont Landfill.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 19, 1991, the Board of Supervisors considered the tipping fee
increase at Acme Transfer Station. This increase is due to the possible
imposition of a $6. 00/ton surcharge of waste received at Altamont Landfill
from Contra Costa County.
The Board requested staff to report back on the status of the request to
Alameda County to waive the $6. 00/ton surcharge. The Alameda County Board of
Supervisors has directed their staff to review the request. We are working
with Alameda County staff on the issue. Several alternatives are being
examined, including reimbursement of the surcharge for Contra Costa recycling
programs and credit toward the existing mitigation. These approaches may
require action by the Alameda Recycling Board or amendment of the use permit.
Of course, the simplest solution would be waiver.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE•
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF ARD
COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
OTHER ACTION OF BOARD ON Apr i 1 16, 19911 1 16, 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development
County Administrator ATTESTED
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
h17/rtechng.bos BY , DEPUTY
Currently, Contra Costa is paying about $5.50/ton for mitigation, including
the $623 , 150 initial payment for roadway impacts and $3 . 09/ton for other
mitigation for a two year contract for disposal of up to 580., 000 tons. The
City of San Francisco is paying less, about $3 .50/ton for a 50 year contract
for disposal of up to 10 million tons. The Alameda County Board of
Supervisors recently waived imposition of the $6/ton surcharge for San
Francisco, based upon language contained in its contract with Alameda County.
Measure D would increase Contra Costa's mitigation fees by more than 100%.
The Board of Supervisors has requested waiver of the surcharge or, failing
waivers, credit of the $6/ton towards the $3 . 09/ton fee. Other approaches
may be possible, including reimbursement of the surcharge to Contra Costa for
use for our recycling programs.
In addition, the Board suggested that staff report on the feasibility of
informing the public (by garbage bills or flyers) of the various components
of the local collection rate. Since the cities and sanitary districts
franchise local collection, any public notification would require direction
from them to the local haulers. Bills are usually sent quarterly. Billing
formats vary from hauler to hauler and so would need to be compatible with
individual formats. Another consideration is the timing of integration of
transfer station ratesinto collection rates. Some franchisers allow for a
hauler balancing account, while others permit yearly rate increases only.
Consequently, it may be difficult to time a bill stuffer that would reflect
current transfer station rates for all local collection bills.