Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05141991 - 2.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS umtra FROM: Sara Hoffman Solid Waste Manager DATE: May 14 1991 ''x' ` arty a •��`' r^ t, uh SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance on Solid Waste Collection, Disposal and Recycling SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS (S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS DIRECT staff to modify the proposed ordinance on solid waste collection, disposal and' 'recycling to establish the option of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the sanitary districts for franchising and AB 939 compliance as outlined in the staff report regarding scope of the MOU's and indemnification and to return the ordinance to the Board for adoption. INDICATE the preference of the Board of Supervisors to exercise the ordinance option of entering into an MOU with the franchising sanitary districts where. conditions are appropriate. CONSIDER action on other ordinance issues outlined in the staff report.' FISCAL IMPACT The incremental program cost of working with the sanitary districts is unknown at this time. AB 939 authorizes the County to recover its AB 939 implementation costs and each Source Reduction Recycling Element (SRRE) must identify funding sources for each of the components of the SRRE. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On April 2, 1991, the Board of Supervisors held a hearing on the proposed ordinance on solid waste collection, disposal and recycling. Fifteen representatives of cities, sanitary districts, collection haulers, labor and the general public urged the Board of Supervisors to work cooperatively with the sanitary districts to implement the County's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) through the adoption of MOU's, rather than direct franchising of solid waste collection, disposal and recycling. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: � b� 4 4---- RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON May14, 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X & Other OTHER APPROVED recommendations and DIRECTED staff to prepare revised ordinance for Board consideration on June 4, 1991 VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT II ) 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 /�/, ./4'9/ PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR h17:swcolord.bos BY , DEPUTY The Board then discussed the speakers' comments and expressed their desire to work cooperatively with the haulers and the districts in such a manner as to meet the County's concerns for AB 939 implementation and public control of the wastestream. The Board further discussed the need to determine the feasibility of the participating districts holding the County. harmless from fines. The Board then directed staff to return with a report and action plan. Logistically, staff believes that it would be possible to delegate implementation of the County SRRE to the franchising sanitary districts provided that all sanitary districts agree to a high level of cooperation and coordination among themselves and with the County, including a common methodology for SRRE program monitoring, reporting and data collection. County Counsel is currently investigating the legal issue of indemnification. Legal indemnification is a critical aspect of incorporating the MOU option into the ordinance. The Ordinance could be modified to identify the MOU as the preferred alternative by the Board of Supervisors for achieving its AB 939 goals and to further set forth the Board's standards for the scope and term of the MOU's and for indemnification. Scope of MOU's Generally, the MOU's would permit and obligate the sanitary districts to implement the County's SRRE. Specific conditions should include: • coordinating council participation by all sanitary districts and the County; • adoption of common implementation monitoring, reporting and data collection methodologies; • agreement on district/County responsibility ' on individual SRRE components; • dissemination of information to individual customers (such as bill stuffers) at the County's direction; • pass through of County costs in the rates; • agreement to design and modify programs/rate structures as necessary to meet overall program goals; and • direction of wastestream/recyclables retained by Board of Supervisors. The County's SRRE encompasses various geographically distinct subareas, all of which do not have the same potential for meeting the recycling goals by individual component. For example, the potential for composting yard waste is probably higher in central county, due to larger lots, than in west county. Consequently, it would not be feasible for each district to achieve the same reductions. Rather, there will need to be a high level of coordination to ensure meeting the overall targets. At the hearing, the Board expressed concern that it control wastestream and disposition of recyclables. This is consistent with a 1985 position of the Board of Supervisors, at which time the Board urged all public agencies to obtain control of the wastestream. Some of the sanitary districts control wastestream and curbside recyclables; others do not. (See attached table) Districts which do not currently control wastestream/recyclables would need concurrence from their local hauler to delegate it to the County. Since all the local haulers urged the Board of Supervisors to continue to allow the sanitary districts to franchise them, such designation by the local haulers would be a good indication of their commitment to the MOU approach. The Board of Supervisors can capture wastestream/recyclable control within five years if they choose to directly franchise. 2 Indemnification Section 41823 of AB 939 allows for the County to enter into an MOU with a sanitary district for implementation of its SRRE. Subsequent sections (41825 and 42850) clearly hold the County's responsible for successful implementation of the SRRE. Consequently, even if the County delegates implementation responsibilities to the sanitary districts, it could be liable for the fines of up to $10, 000 per day. County Counsel is currently investigating whether or not the sanitary districts can legally indemnify the County against such fines. Several points are at issue, including gift of public funds. The draft MOU between Central Sanitary District and four cities provides that the district is responsible for any fines imposed by the state provided that the city fully carries out its responsibilities set forth in the MOU agreement. However, it is staff's understanding that the Central Sanitary District has not investigated the legal implications of the gift of public fund issue. Term of MOU The County wants to meet its waste diversion goals, not just to avoid potential fines but also to contribute towards increasing the life of our landfills and conserving natural resources. Consequently, staff is very concerned that the County only enter into an MOU that allows it to withdraw when and if it is obvious that the diversion goals cannot/are not being met, or if the costs of such coordination efforts put an undue burden on the rate payers. Section 41825 of AB 939 provides that the California Integrated Waste Management Board shall review the status of the County's SRRE not less frequently than every two years. Anticipating a final adoption of our SRRE no later than January 1, 1992 , this would mean an initial review on January 1, 1994. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors review the efficacy of the MOU approach one year following the implementation date of the SRRE, with" subsequent yearly reviews. Both the Board and the sanitary districts should have the right to terminate the agreement. The draft agreement between the Central Sanitary Districts and cities allows for city termination with or without cause following 90 day notice, if terminated prior to its expiration date of 1996 (when their franchises expire) . Staff recommends the same 90 day notice provision for our MOU's. Other Ordinance Issues 1. Franchising in . Currently Unfranchised Unincorporated Areas The proposed ordinance also provides that no entities shall provide solid waste collection, disposal or recycling services in currently unfranchised unincorporated areas of the County without a franchise and requires that any provider of such services approach the County with a request for franchise. Staff believes it is important that all solid waste collection, disposal and recycling in the incorporated areas are franchised, whether it be by sanitary districts or the County itself and recommends no change on this issue in the ordinance. The Board may want to consider whether or not it wishes to adopt a policy that would allow a sanitary district to assume responsibility for franchising from the County following annexation. Oakley Sanitary District has informed staff that it would like to expand its franchise area as it annexes new territory. 2 . Term of Existing Hauler Franchises The haulers recommended that the ordinance be modified to guarantee continuation of the haulers franchises by the County through the existing term. Staff had recommended that the Board declare its intent to do so, but not include it in the ordinance since the Board would want certain changes in the franchises, such as County wastestream control. If the Board would like to provide reassurance to the haulers on the term issue, then staff recommends that it be conditioned to the haulers agreeing to the conditions of the County franchises for West Pittsburg and Discovery Bay. 3 Timing/Action Plan The Board also requested staff to develop a timeline for preparation and review of the MOU's: May 28, 1991 Board adopts ordinance. May 31, 1991 Ordinance sent to all franchising districts. June, 1991 Staff prepares draft standard MOU. July - October Franchising districts and staff finalize MOU's. October - Nov. Board/Districts adopt MOU. The November completion date for the MOU's is compatible with our need to begin implementation of the County's SRRE upon adoption by the Board and approval by the State (anticipated prior to January 1, 1992) . 4 y CONTROL OF WASTESTREAM AND CURBSIDE RECYCLABLES Curbside District Franchise Expiration* Wastestream Control Recycling Control Crockett Valona 1997 Yes Yes Central San 1996 to transfer station Yes to landfill owned by hauler Oakley 2014 No No Rodeo 2001 Unclear (probably no) No West County 2011 No, except to waste/energy ? facility Kensington 2009 No No Mt. View 2010 No No *Does not include District renewal options; includes hauler renewal options. h 17:wstrm.cht